Can the lower court's lack of jurisdiction and failure to properly arraign the defendant warrant immediate release?

No question identified. : rt | oo 4, [Basts FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION | A, Under our US. Constitution ArTicle TI Gebtion2) thedubc Power shall extend to all cases; BUSG E1251, | DB. Under 23 US.Cs SALEL@ Peterson's weit will be in aid of this Court’s cppellacte, jurisdiction. ©). Excestiona ciroumstancos {So ARRATGNMENT™, and NO PLEA | Structural errors jurisdictiond) defect sl NOWEXESTENT OURESDICT ION] by the lower courts warrwits eyercise af the Courts powens under 23 US.C.§2.244 (3), D), Person has exhausted all his legal remediess dnd, no adequate. relief ECMNEDIATE RELEASE?) — Can be obtafned in any other form from any other court, | _i), Based on the lower court’s nonexistert duvisdiet one * Peterson has a clear legal it Mandamus relief, The lower court has o clear lega| aly to follow the law held in CRAIN V,UNETED STATES 462 51625 (41967), E). The lower court’s judgment is in divest vidlction of oup US, Constitution hmendet 02018, 43, ond Li 9 by ‘he way of the lower’ cour cones Uy depen efersah 0 i (Amend eat A) — ialyt to be \ loria reme tore Sake) nat be doped of ersons ie with art due \ bees ‘ ' rene b ee Rid +p actain Trial, and, a frie Sudge, in Violation of “TUMEY V.OHEO 273 US. B40 (1927) Page 4 | ; I ET" a a a Tee + Amerdmest 3) — right to be free at the cruel and unusual] Punishmenhy of a Court, retising to correct an illega| Sentence tor lack of jurisdiction when that courl Concedes e docket ind} in jai} on the 6 ie ie ise feat tS Pst in Jail on he de | (slot 43)—vigtt to be free of NEGRO SUFFRAGE. Tt feels like Telenor is bein “lynched” by He gon (Amendment 4) — right to equal protection ot the law announced in GARLAND V. WASHINGTON. 232 U.S, O42 (494i): THE STATE CANNOT PASS NO_LAW PROVEDINGFOR TRIAL WETHOAT ND ARGENT AND No PLEA.” The lower court did nal have, javisdiet ion to sates Rison! Based on the nonexistent jurisdiction by the lower Quast i Peterson has a clear legal rift to [EMERGENCY IMMEDIATE RELEASE” ] from this “ileytl imprisonment, This Court his clear legal duty to issue Mandamus To [NULL AND VorD3} correct ‘this illegal sentence ees. Mandamus heltef is proper to emtorce, the lovter court TO comply with laws Page 2 BY SRELIEF SouGHT Petitioner moves this Honorable Court To issue Mandamus] tothe lower court forthwith = nde the U5; Const rit nh Pong hn) —Uraer the lowar cous to tollow the law Set forth by CRAIN 4 Ibid, WHERE RECORD SHOW NO ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA ‘s Set forth by GARLAND) Ibid, @ THE NO LAW ee 0 LEA) _ of ARRAIGNMENT {5 to inform Peterson ots qe iii ARE THE CHARGES 2 — vier PUK?) Peterson did nor pie Peterson was abseyits ; —=They held his—CReterson’s) — ARRATONMENT withoal foaclam oresait in pen court © Gebnenty A? he docker indica Di) : ' n Fie of Cte ReREEAMBICE Rokul ty dbedga oF Te “Exceptional cinoumstances are demonstrated rvs This fod Stow wate xe court's nomex at Jurisica! — Feherson moves this Couptto issue orderto the lower court ‘ellmmediogly” Ei Novag his tlkegel sine age On date Novinbor 3,2022, Mares Antone: Peterson tiled ot FlaR.CrimP, Rule BQO) MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF AN TLEGAL SENTENCE alleging © JURISDICTIONAL DEFECIYS —The lack of jurisdicton was noted by the lower courts docket indicates Defendant was present in jell onthe date | oFhis” ARRALGNMENT t Mori U20530 There ts no question Peterson was absent never preset van (How illegal ‘can that be ¢) wathe, matter did not have “to ge y further’? The lower Court lacked jurisdiction andthe only thing har court ald do yas EENILL. AND WOE THES TUES SeNTEMe], due to its nonexistent jurisdiction. (See