Whether a Court's knowing review of, and ruling on, a petition for writ of mandamus, that was neither authored nor delivered by the Petitioners, constitutes extraordinary circumstances requiring review and wanton disregard for inalienable human rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ') Whether a Court's knowing review of, and ruling on, a petition for weit of mandamus, that was neither authored nor delivered by the Petitioners, constitutes extraordinary Circumstances _ requicing review and wanton disregard for inalienable human 2 Whether Courts are obligated +o protect and defend aH Persons inalienable , Yuman rights when those rights are violated by Stete and Federal actors cloaked in authority Ci) . bo | AU pactiec donot npgene ia the caphian ofthe cateonthe cover | peg Als ofall gactiee tn the prcoeding inthe comet whee | & g| of Aopen Lhe. Min CE | Ret ren Cases | 2) Aovcil 20, 206 whee nmenct Ordered Pe 3l2Acizone ve Gey. Acizena Courkof Appea e #2 CA-CR Loof--6306 Pe \ Sannecy 23 oe wde ee wt Orcderech fe £13. Acizone we G pe eior Cueto Plime Comaty, Case* (R= 20g SH2 fe Gl Apeil s 2010 Chudge mask Ordered) — Rule Po StConviction Re fo 7/4, Avrizeus ve Gay. Stipeeme Court of Arizona case EOR\\-0095-PR ——-— (8) Angus+ ¥, 20 udsemernt Ordered nls. Gay ste Ryan ths. Distetet Cone foe ths Visketct ef Actzane, cag] ze] 4F 4: |2-cv—os SHU CRO, September 34,2016 CUdudgement Orderc anne, Jane Lhe p of Anpe me the Mieth Ciccult, Case ze O72.62 ecomber IY 202% doe ment Ordered 3|%._ Ga: Ryan. {AS Come* @ & Appeals Fue the Nifwth Ci 4. # 2 2l-Jeoot, February {l, 2e25 Cudge ment Or cere d) 2 > PT | a Opinians Bel ducisdiction Sete Oe ge a A Se en LO {wwe to tHe Apcewpices | Os dAcemux A