Whether the United States Treaty 22 (1971) deprived Florida of jurisdiction when they knowingly used perjured information to compel Spain through treaty obligation to extradite petitioner then upon his return invalidated the treaty, in order, to prosecute him for charges never alleged under a theory of law not recognized, by treaty, nor considered by the country of Spain as criminal?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER THE UNITED STATES TREATY 22 (1971) DEPRIVED FLORIDA OF JURISDICTION WHEN THEY KNOWINGLY USED PERJURED INFORMATION TO COMPEL SPAIN THROUGH TREATY OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE PETITIONER THEN UPON HIS RETURN INVALIDATED THE TREATY, IN ORDER, TO PROSECUTE HIM FOR CHARGES NEVER ALLEGED UNDER A THEORY OF LAW NOT RECOGNIZED, BY TREATY, NOR CONSIDERED BY THE COUNTRY OF SPAIN AS CRIMINAL? CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED UNITED STATES TREATY 22 (1971) The President of the United States of America proclaimed and made public the treaty, to the end that it shall be observed and fulfilled with good faith. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I: No state shall enter into any treaty... make any law... impairing the obligation of contracts... UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI: ...All treaties made... under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby... UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE XIV: Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law... Florida Statute 782.04(1)(A)(1) Premeditated Murder Florida Statute 782.04(1)(A)(2) Felony Murder I. BASIS FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNITED STATES TREATY 22 (1971) Article Il (A): Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this treaty for any of the following offenses provided that these offenses are punishable by the laws of “BOTH” Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. The Doctrine of Dual Criminality is established here, and invalidated by Florida. Article XIH: A person extradited under the present treaty shall not be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting party for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted... The Doctrine of Speciality is established, here and invalidated by the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County by ruling thats t Z. _ -“The Treaty is of no importance”. Florida Statute 79.01, 2.01 : : Moreover, a decision invalidating Acts of Concerns brings before the Supreme Court not merely the constitutional questions but the entire case United States v. Locke, 105 S.Ct. 1785 (1985). | Supreme Court of Florida Case No.: Supreme Court 22-1556 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Denied on January 6th 2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Case No.: 21-13417-D Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed in part and denied in part, on October 21° 2022 United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division Case No.: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed on September 9" 2021 Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida Case No: 3D20-1637 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Per Curiam Affirmed on January 13" 2021 In The Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida Case No.: F20-5347 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed on October 5th 2020 Il. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS In the summer, of 1980, Petitioner was the middle man in a drug transaction. His reluctance to participate was overcome by a combination of factors not the least of which was the dogged persistence of the buyers who represent themselves as contract killers for a crime syndicate (R. 201). However, this last item created some concem for his own safety. Thus, unbeknownst to either the supplier or buyers he sought a back-up man in Sammy Mathis. Mathis, however, had ideas of his own to rip-off the drugs and money. This fiasco came to a head when Petitioner led the buyers to a motel parking lot where Mathis waited with the key to the motel room where the drugs were. Mathis shot the victim twice then fired another round at Petitioner’s car where he waited for the deal to be completed and take Mathis back home. However, Mathis fled with the money by hopping over a fence to the Interstate where his brother’s car was made to look disabled. (R. Petitioner, later, confronted Mathis who said the buyer we