issues-being-raised

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. DID ‘THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying theePetitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus & Emergency Ex Parte Motion For-Bond Pending Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, when the Petitioner did show cause of action for his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801? , 2. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner an Evidentiary Hearing on the facts that was presented in the Petitioner's Petition? and was it Error to not grant that hearing pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2805? : . 3. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801, once the Petitioner raised the issue of the fact, that there was a Breach Of Plea Agreement that occurred : and thus was " PLAIN ERROR " that leaves the proceedings " VOID AND NULL " which : includes the Sentence, Judgment, Conviction and Commitment: « 4. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801, when the record shows that’ the District Court Judge had charged the Petitioner with three VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL nonexisting Offense's, Indictment's and Information that don't exist on the record, nor was put forth on the record as being apart of the Petitioner's : Contract/Plea Agreement, nor did-thePetitioner agree to be charged and plead guilty to those three " VOID AND NULL " Offense's, Indictment's & Information? 5. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801, when the record reflects that there was no acceptance on the Petitioner's guilty plea to that VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL " COUNT IV " ( ORIGINAL INFORMATION ). ‘ 6. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801, when the record réflects that the Court had.accepted the Petitioner's guilty plea on a VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL nonexisting Offense, Indictment and Information on that ™ COUNT III OF THE SECOND AMENDED INFORMATION ". 7. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801, when the record reflects that the Petitioner was never charged with a ™ COUNT V ", but the Court is on the record accepting a guilty plea to a " COUNT V ". 8. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801, when the District Court Of Sarpy County, Nebraska lost all Jurisdiction over the subject matter, had no Personal Jurisdiction over the Petitioner and had no Legal Basis to impose any sentence on those three VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL nonexisting Offense's, Indictment's and Information, once that Breach Of Plea Agreement rendered everything in the proceedings " VOID AND NULL ", which does include the Sentence, Judgment, Conviction and commitment. 9. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner © his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801, when the Commitment order that was given, was VOID and UNCONSTITIONAL because of the Judge's failure to charge the Petitioner with the Correct and only Offense's, Indictment's and Information that exist on the record, and that was put forth on the record, and to what the Petitioner had agreed to and understood that he was going to be charged with? . 10. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner his discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801, when both of the Petitioner's Trial Counsel and Direct Appeal Counsel was " Incompetent " a" Ineffective "at a" Critical Stage " in a Criminal Proceeding? 11. DID THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT R. OTTE ERROR, In denying the Petitioner's Motion For Appointment Of Counsel for his Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, when there was a need for