Whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court erred in ex parte denying unheard petitions for judicial notice, investigation, post-conviction relief, and presentence relief

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED The Wisconsin Supreme Court Should Not Have EX PARTE | discriminatively continued with the 2018-ongoing DENIALS OF the | UNHEARD PETITIONS FILED FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, INVESTIGATION, POSTCONVICTION RELIEF and PRESENTENCE RELIEF FILED UNDER Wis. Stats. § 901.03(1){a)(b)(4), 902.01(2)(a)(4-6), 968.26, and . 974.06/Coram Nobis for Postconviction Motioning. The Wisconsin Supreme Court Should Have issued remand for Judicial Notices, Forwarded Investigations, resentencing and/or Voided the 1995-1996 | and 2003 Wrongful Criminal Judgments’ usage and recognize the Unlawful 2008+2018 PAC .02 Arrests implemented under the ex post | facto Implied Consent and PAC .02 Laws underlying the 2018 charges | and 2005-2010 sentences. } SECTION-A: Question whether the court of appeals may deny an pled habeas petition ex parte .10-11 ! Page 2 of 17 LIST PARTIES [x] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all