Whether the authorities of the Municipal Government of the City of Omaha failed to properly train their officials and employees

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED This case is here by upon writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. Honoring the life, liberty and property of CORPORATION ex-rel [ALPHONSO VERNELL FRAZIER IT] and “natural” person Alphonso Vernell Frazier H. The question is jurisdiction and deprivation of due process of law denied equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Obstruction of justice of the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure rights protected under the U.S. Constitution “Bill of Rights.” Secured rights that were interrupted by Omaha Police Officers and other government agents who operated “under the color of law” ina conspiracy of the “meeting of the minds” with:private actors. The question is whether the authorities of the Municipal Government of the City of Omaha failed to properly train their officials and employees. Who operated outside their jurisdiction in-a “willful” act of and seizure without a search ‘warrant. Taking personal property froin:my home:without good cause. That.Jed to.mé being unlawfully: incarcerated twice for the:same fabricated criminal charges. ‘A double jeopardy case of involuntary servitude that maliciously deprived:me of my. freedom. Corruption executed by the defendant's: who “knowingly” targeted mié-in a premeditated conspiracy of extortion. Allowing me:thé right to sué for:smonétary damages under the federal Jaw of Section 1983.-Against unreasonable search and seizure. The fourth amendment of the Constitution protects American citizens: from police officers or other.government agents from.searching your home, car or other personal property without good.cause.. Without a'search warrant they do not-have consent to infringe:tijpon my _ personal property, The fifth and the fourteenth amendments of the. every-citizen. from being treated differently by the federal-ot state’governments due to aspects of their person they: cannot change. The government can-not discriminate, or-treat you differently, based on the factors of tage, gender or nationality, The. purpose: of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendments is {6 seoure every person within the State's jurisdiction. against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents. In regards to interitional inflection by state officials. Jurisdiction is the power to exercise authority:over persons and things within a territory. The jurisdiction of a legal case‘depénds on both personal jurisdiction :and subject matter jurisdiction. A court must have both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over.the matter to hear'a case. Therefore it is no doubt the enforcement of this case lies in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court'of the United States. Questioning the elements behind the. dilemma.of the massive ctimes committed in this case: 1.The-question is jurisdiction and deprivation of due process of law denied equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment? 2.Did defendants violate obstruction of justice of the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure rights protected under the U.S. Constitution “Bill of Rights” Secured rights that were interrupted? 3.Did Omaha Police Officers and other government agents operate “under the color of law” ina conspiracy of the “meeting of the minds” with private actors? (i) 4.Did the authorities of the Municipal Government of the City of Omaha fail to properly train their officials and employees? 5.Did Omaha Police Officers and government agents operate outside their jurisdiction in a “willful” act of unreasonable search and seizure without a search warrant.? 6.Why did Omaha Police Officers take personal property from my home without good cause? 7.Why was J unlawfully incarcerated twice for the same fabricated criminal charges? 8.Is this not to be considered a double jeopardy case of involuntary servit