Whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to bindover any charge against the petitioner, depriving the petitioner of due process rights and protections against arbitrary prosecutions

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED a ih. BG MIE GAN COA SANCTION OF TRIALS DHDGMENT WITHANT DISTRACT CF. BINDOVER oF ANY CHARGE DENT MICH CITIZENS OF CONSTDUE PROCESS RIGUD OF STE ETH. WYTH AM . PROTECTIONS AGMINGT STATE. AQBITR; ARY FROSECUTYONS AS WELL AS PETITIONER P Ze BID RECORDER AND CIR. Ve LACK SUBJECT MATTER EHRISDICTION Tear BISTRECT COURT BIShOVER QF ANY CHARGE 2? Be ISA RADICAL TURISDICTION DEFECT ik CRIME PROCEDURE A RIGHT NOY TO BE HEdm@h Td COURT aT ALL : UPON FELONY CHARGES 2 \ HY. DOPETIFIQNER HAVE A RIGHT T4 BE EREE OF A GMLTY PLEA TA 2ND HABTTGAL Hen GEFENSE PROSE — | CUTION BHERE NO PRiOR CONVICFION EXIST VALIOP ; \ 5. 1S 4 PeRsen DEPRIVED oF LIBERTY INA ST&TE PRIsoW WITHOUT BUE PROEESS OF LAW BLEESALLY IRE STRAINT 7 &. AS AvRIAL JH06MENY ABSOLUTELY Verh WITHO”IY DUE PROCESS SUaecr asTER TURISOICTION OBTAINMENT 2 . : ? . + ca : . *