1. Petitioner ask this Court for consideration on the narrow issue of jurisdiction relevant to two
major points in this case.
The initial proceedings related to Interstate Agreement on
Detainers Act, see question #5 below; andI.
The district and appellate courts failure to declare
Certificate of Appeal-ability (COA).II.

2. Where it is shown that violation of 18 USCS c 3182, Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act,
and Uniform Criminal Extradition Act by state and local authorities giving cause of action
under 42 USCS c 1983 provides the edifice for liable party to maintain vested interest in the
accused extradition/conviction, and where evidence exist that the states involved established
barriers which negate that arrest, extradition, and subsequent conviction from being challenged,
is it lawful to allow such continued denial of ones liberty?

3. Where state and federal law allows for right to writ of habeas corpus as it relates to Uniform
Criminal Extradition Act and that right is purposefully denied in direct violation of said act,
though the act is a summary process by nature, does the violation thereof amount to the
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus being suspended as it relates to Art. I § 9 cl. 2 of the
U.S. Constitution?

4. Is it lawful that interstate comity as it relates to 18 USCS c 3182, Interstate Agreement on
Detainers Act, and Uniform Criminal Extradition Act allows that sister states rule on the actions
of one another in terms of questions relevant to violations of the statutes associated with the
state laws as defined and enacted by party states when the one subject to unlawful extradition
has only the option of seeking redress in the state where he is illegally detained though the
agencies and courts responsible for said violations are no longer accessible due the very acts for
which relief is to be sought?

5. Absent an arrest report and where Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of
probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following a warrant-less arrest is
the accused required to provide "details " of the arrest so as to purport quasi probable cause
determination given a silent record and the Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination?

6. Does a person arrested and held without bond on an out of state warrant have a right to a
judicial determination of jurisdiction as a threshold matter in terms of subject matter and
personal jurisdiction where the offense is alleged to have occurred on Indian land in the state of
Oklahoma and involving trible members?

7. Where one is held without bond pending interstate extradition proceedings as a result of
unlawful intrastate transfer of custody is it lawful to extradite the accused with out the issuance
of an executive warrant or otherwise lawful arrest regarding the hold?

8. Where after arrest on misdemeanor charges in Ecter county Texas local authorities being aware
of out of state warrants place holds in accordance wherewith though violate state and federal
laws of extradition by neglecting to ensure that the accused received the procedural protections
of the protocols associated with said laws by transferring the accused in what amounts to willful
violation of said laws together with conspiratorial acts to violate the civil rights of the accused
and where Ecter Co. continues to maintain a want related to the above mentioned misdemeanor
charge is it fair, proper

Whether the violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act by state and local authorities provides a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and whether the denial of the right to habeas corpus in such cases amounts to a suspension of the writ under the U.S. Constitution