Whether the incommunicado detention of natural custodial children

No question identified. : QuesTionis) PRESENTED 1, Whether the incommunicado detention of may natural custodial children fer ever four mouths at the behest of Bothell Police Oepoctiaet because Lowes a person of jwtecest in ibs cominal investigation and witheit | evidence te: Support a Clarm of unl parenting or other just cause, shocks the Court's couse ence Consti tutiang substantive due process coercion under the standard elaborated in Yuan v. Rivera 4% F Supp, dol 275, oth aed (90NY 1999) and Chavet v. Yortine? $36 UG WO, F43-T5, F81-82 (Concherence boy Tus tice fealln) ) 794 (Concurrence by Justices Kennedy, Stevens & Gomsberg) Iss Led do 944, 123.5 Ct 1944 (200%), where Detective Chissus ucged “Help ws clear yer name, Mont you care — -abeut vow trids % Ameads C, If. Wh Const Art, | 353,22; WA RCW 436.010, .030, 148 The Couct ot Appeals dismissed my petition as frivolous after the State concedled Wey clanus under State. procedure CRE (A) : 2. Whether T am aurtitled pursuant fo 1% USC $3143 (b) . purding disposition on certivrari and WA RCW #96,250, in consideration of extraoclinary cirewmstances under BBG (©) to release ow wy OWN Fecognizance: where tle State conceded denial of counsel of choice implementation of deamandwaiver doctrine, jnsud€tic; thoy o€ eviolence to | | convict, that T was not actually invelved in the violet crime foe which T was convivted(in light of exculpatory forensic evi dewoe), and that police failed to establish | reasonable probable cause for my arrest and arraignimeat é Armiwads 4,5 614; wi Cowst Art 1 §§ % 7,925 WHER $3); WA K ROW 46.220; WA ERS RAP GF, 1G,1S(b) gubstartive due process coutrels . ‘ 3, Whether T awe entitlel fo expiitedl reliee from ongoing 7 deprivation s of my custodra| rights prrsicant fo WARCW BED OE ANG)E(A), .#41(), where muy Sole contact witle wey chilolren rs throngh leHers restricted te raintbly and £ . am net pecmitted to know their actual address: where the (State conceded that ty of froiels wrortily removed aval retarned my children in vivlation of may ne exeat right sof custody constituting wrongful removal ava retention a iv vielatrer of the Hague Chill Abobuctror Frecty Convention? Amand 14; 19% Hague Convention, UccTEm (WA RCW Ch a 26.04, (substertive clue process couteel 5 ) concurrent to release : | A. whether Tam wfitled te oguctable rest tition according : to Yuan u Rv&rA 45 £ Supp. Lol at 24 for abuse of process , | foc which F applied pur shart to Davis v. Cox, 18% Wn.ta | 169, 292-¥, B51 PBA $61 (2015) and WA RCW 26.27 441(2) 2% , Arend 1fsubstantive due process Lo