whether-the-court-should-intervene-to-bring-lower-state-courts-in-line-with-established-us-constitutional-laws

QUESTIONS PRESENTED f The following questions are presented: 1) Although unpublished, because. the Court of Appeal’s ' opinion departed from a long line of well-established and ; , published opinions of both this Court and lower federal courts, this Court should intervene and exercise its jurisdiction over the lower state courts in order bring them back in line with established U.S. constitutional laws | 2) The State Court of Appeal’s opinion provides an adequate vehicle to present important issues of law for this Court to resolve. 3) After being denied access to the courts (extrinsic fraud), : was the Petitioner denied his right to a fair trial in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to the United States Constitution, thereby nullifying the notion of prima facie guilt, and thereby nullifying the binding requirement : of providing evidence of extrinsic fraud, and hence, evidence of innocence, in a petition for writ of error coram nobis? 4) Because the conviction of the Petitioner was entirely based upon inferences, and not on direct and positive evidence, is the Petitioner prima facie guilty of perjury, and therefore, required to produce evidence of extrinsic fraud to surmount the judgment of conviction? 5.) Because the Petitioner was denied access to the Maguire Jail Law Library for several months, after already i , having secured In Propria Persona status while in State custody, as evidenced from the criminal record, did not this said denial constitute extrinsic fraud due to the fact that the Petitioner was denied access to the courts, in clear ; violation of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S: 806, 812-836. 6) Because perjury is intrinsic fraud, is the Petitioner ; prima facie guilty of perjury after he lost as a Defendant, a non-litigant, in the civil restraining order hearing of July : 20, 1993 and gained nothing from his statements made in civil court, as evidenced by both his Notice of Appeal appealing the injunction order of July 20, 1993 (aliunde external to the criminal record) and by a letter from the Inspector for the District Attorney luring the Petitioner to : an interrogation room (Exhibit A of the criminal record)? 7) Having been illegally committed due to a complaint that lacked probable cause, but which illegally initiated the | criminal process without jurisdiction, in violation of both Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 486 and Aguilar uv. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 115-116, as well as Jaben v. United ‘ States, 381 U.S. 214, 224-225, did the lower State Court of Appeal have the jurisdiction to affirm the San Mateo : County Superior Court’s denial of the Petitioner’s application for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, which was used as a vehicle to attack the void on its face judgment? : ; . 8) Because the criminal complaint is void on its face for lack of in personam jurisdiction owing to the fact that it lacked both a declaration of material facts (no probable | cause; failure to state a public offense; & failure to give notice) and the subscription of a natural person, asclearly iii reflected on the face of the criminal record, in violation of 4 Giordenello; Aguilar; & Russell v. U.S., and because the judgment is void on its face for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, due to the notice of appeal, as clearly reflected on the face of the civil record (aliunde) from which the criminal action was derived, in violation of Sharon v. Hill, 26 F. 337, 346 (9th Cir., Cal. 1885), could the trial court ~ : and the Court of Appeal still impose the doctrine of laches and res judicata for the Petitioner’s failure to both appeal : and file a motion for a new trial, as well as impose the additional condition of providing evidence of extrinsic fraud to defeat his bid for post-conviction relief, in violation of Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84; & Harris v. Hardeman, 14 How. 337, 14 L.Ed. 444? :