issue being raised

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1, Did the Peansylvania Supreme Court SAYERES decision provide the necessacy warrant of authority to subsume the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus AD SUBJICIENDUM Within the PCRA? . 2. Whether lack of statutory authorization in a stote court & record disable discretion, once challenged, requicing, sanction and/or detecrent foc courts to proceed, notwithstanding ? 3. Whether the right of selfrepresentation in fenasy\vania require substantive and proceducal due process protections enforceable under Acticle 1,89, of the Pennsylvania Constitution as well as the Sixth Amendment to the United Stotes Constitution? 4H. Whether where challenges to the statutory authorization to impose @ particular sentence is lacking ina State court, it has discretion te provide its own authorization ? DB. Whether Brady violations jor newly and/or of ter discovered evidence and facts, or any other discovery issue, in Pennsylvania, con be deemed Waived if discovery materials were refused pre-trial ot Trial or post tial? Ls. Did the State Violote Due Process and Equal Protection when it refused tne tight of dicect appeal and timely requested ¥cial transeri ot) by applying, O& STRICT compliance rule to their format 2 . Whether on appeal as of right the State discretion to decline or refuse to review and decide mottecs ina definitive and comprehensive analysis on the ~ mecits of the claim violate Stote ond Fedecal constitutional provisions ? & Did #ne Supecvisory powers over inferior coucts disable its discretion. vader SPECIAL allocatuc, whece the state supreme couct promulgate d “speeial and important reasons gavecning, it, Violating, constitutional avthority to refSse it? A. Did the Stote hove discretion NOT to review whethec claim satisfy the collateral order three-prong test requiring immediate oppellate review as F cight ? 10. Did the Store violote constitutional provisions when it held a deficient waiver of counsel colloquy harmless where it cefosed to mention or addcess it in an overt judicially piosed decision? : ; | Question* |, Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Couck saveres decision provide the necessary warcant of authority fo subsume tne constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus ad SUBHELENDUM Within Fre PERAL The Suggest answer Should be in fhe negative. Kecordingly, Petitioner contends hereby that, neither in the yeac 187% by the Sayeres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 2%, decision, nor since the adoption of the State and Federal Constitutions, the powers delegated to the state legislative body, regarding w0its Ff eccor, does not exist, Implicitly or otherwise, within the Peansylvania Constitution pertaining fo the Writ of Habeas Corpus. See, PA. CONST. ART. 5,3 24 UGG) Your Petitioner further contends that there can be no power delegated to the State legislature to do anything the state constitution prohibits, whieh includes Vimiting or restricting the right to the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, unless when in cases of rebellion of invasion the public safety may requice iv. Foc, natucally, any limitation or restriction whatsoever , under any interpretation to the contrary , constitutes a suspension. Further proof lies within the Bill of Rights. See, e.g-, PA. CONST. ART. | salso, U.S. CONST. ART.1,§ 4, cl. 2. Quéstion#2. Whether lack of statutory authorization ina state court of record disable diseretion, once challenged, requiring sanction andlor detercent for courts to , proceed, notwithstanding. The suggested answer shou \d be in the affirmative For , fundamentally, a court without statutory authorization cannot act sand, once a coott's Statutory authorization Is challenged >it must be proven on the record to exist bere it can move one step Larter. Your Petitioner contends hat, oceording to State supreme court precedence , Stare decisis , the State (Respondent) lacked the requisite statotory ovthorization to prosecute him. Seese-gMeyer v. Beaver County Community College y 625 Pa. 563 (2014) Pursuant to the law-of theca