Whether Lewis has a constitutional right to petition the courts under the double precedent of 'California Motor Transp. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972)'

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . (‘Lewis was “Completely Seclsed” Thaugh Fede eter G Il Sanction = F/om init ating, Ad Action ad his Federal Habeas Corpus CASe without a nseeesing Mechanism Te determine whether Any Motion Filed By Lewis was UG iyolous BY Yeratiaus, the Distier Lourk ordered The Magistyate Audge 4p strike ANY motion Filed BY Lewis From Whe fecord vortnout preparing fA Looutk Add Cecommentantions, CRuestionsisoes Lewis have A “tonstitutional Light” Jo Perition The Counts Under This Doudls precedent oF “BAI FONIA Motor Tetnsp, CBVA TRueking UlLimtted, Yo4 LIS. 508 (17 73) ¢ (A)Leutis pled gailty te ti Countst(t) USC: BU3 @iG) and O7@ BUS 200d 24 Bl Aisthaca ig A Filekim During *« ffime Be VinleNte, Leosis pled guilty +o The [Tus & GA4(0) Lonviction Halder This Bounks “PinkerTon VU-S. 3a8 U5: (1948) Conspiracy Aeory OF Liab lity. Gat Lewis tid Not"plead auilty “To K “Conspiracy Conviction, ko : : F Questiols pees A dered dansk have To be Copwieted pe K "Conspiracy Conviction" eu A “Praxeator! Vi US, BAK US. (1440) ConspivaAcy Theory BF Te be Liable Und cf , “Torche Leni Did Met plead gail Te Liabilit “ or K “Sub sfantive FFEHS es, Sink @ Leos & ; 3 a“ wepirney C,avietion 5 Leosis Actually Lrdocedt” oF I USE F2AG) Unde’ oO o he “Pinkerton Lonspiracy Ther oF Lixbility ¢ . FA q oF 1S