Whether the writ of certiorari should be granted in favor of the Petitioner James E. Nottingham for false arrest, perjury, fraud, void warrant, ineffective counsel, and lack of jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED oo, t Shall_the wit of of the Pentioner James E.NOTINGHAN. for false arrest ? Sussested answer: Yes 2, Shalt the Writ of certiorari be granted in favor of the Petitioner for dhe acts of Periury and fraud by the Resrondents ? 3,18 the warrant of arrest and the Search warrant void for net bein’ ascertained by law in moaisterial district number 29-3-03, the honorable Jon &. KEM? ¢. 4 Shall the complaint be ruled under 42 u.$.6.8 2254 as the | oridinal File challenging the convictions and sentences? ; 5,14 tt mandatory and Jurisdictional for the arresting officer : to appear at the Preliminary hearing and trial? — -&. Wag Counsel inthe State Proceedings constitutionally effective? 7, Ts there an alternative“ ENTRY af APPEARANCE ar fg this a Wholix favelous fabricated court document? | 8, \Nas the case(s) being Presented Pull and fair ? G. Should this case be investigated? — 10. Does the State have Jurisdiction aver James Nottingham f a EIST OF PARTIES [ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [x] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all