Michael Tanner Lank v. Oklahoma
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Is the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Court, Rule 5.5 in conformity with the DUE PROCESS OF LAW standards of the United States Constitution?
QUESTION(s) PRESENTED 1) Mr. Lank respectfully asks: Is the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Court, Rule 5.5 in conformity with the DUE PROCESS OF LAW standards of the United States Constitution? 2) Mr. Lank Respectfully asks: ‘ Did the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals violate the Oklahoma State Constitution, Article IT, § 6 and/or the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV J and/or United States Constitution, Amendment IX 2, and/or United States Constitution, Amendment I? when it created, enacted and enforced O.C.C.A. Rule 3) My. Lank Respectfully asks: When the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals enforced O.C.C.A. Rule 5.5 was Mr. Lank’s CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATED, [42 U.S.C.A. § 1983]? 4) Mr. Lank Respectfully asks: Did the State of Oklahoma violate Article IT of the United States Constitution by depriving Mr. Lank of a Constitutionally mandated Trial by Jury? 4 ' Amendment XIV § 1: NO STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... ? Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 3 Amendment I: «+. and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 4 Article IIT, § 2, cl. 3 “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.” i