Whether Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction in Indian territory due to its status as a state being void, whether Oklahoma's prosecution of the petitioner was an arbitrary act in violation of the 14th Amendment, whether the petitioner's conviction is void due to bills of attainder, whether the petitioner's 14th Amendment right to an impartial judge was violated, whether the petitioner was held to a higher standard of the legal art than members of the legal profession, whether the case presents issues of first impression

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. OKLAHOMA LACKS JURISDICTION IN INDIAN TERRITORY DUE TO ITS STATUS AS A STATE OF THE UNION BEING VOID AS RESULT OF ITS FORMATION, CREATION, AND ADMISSION INTO THE UNION BEING IN VIOLATION OF ART. IV, §. 3, CL. 1 OF U.S. CONSTITUTION. 2. OKLAHOMA’S PROSECUTION OF PETITIONER WAS AN ARBITRARY ACT IN VIOLATION OF 14™ AMENDMENT DUE TO FACT ART. 1, §. 3 OF OK. CONST. | PROHIBITS IT FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION ON FEDERAL PUBLIC AND INDIAN OWNED LANDS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES. 3. PETITIONER’S CONVICTION IS VOID AS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS DUE TO , BEING A DIRECT PRODUCT OF BILLS OF ATTAINDER IMPOSED BY U.S. CONGRESS AGAINST CREEK NATION INDIAN TRIBE ET AL. 4. PETITIONER’S 14™ AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ADJUDICATION BY AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE WAS VIOLATED BECAUSE “ALL” OKLAHOMA STATE JUDGES HAVE A DIRECT, PERSONAL, SUBSTANTIAL PECUNIARY INTEREST IN REACHING A CONCLUSION AGAINST PETITIONER. 5. COURTS HAVE IN EFFECT HELD PETITIONER TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF THE LEGAL ART THAN MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, WHICH CONSTITUTES DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. 6. CASE NO. WH-2022-3 MANIFESTS THE PRESENCE OF FIVE ISSUES OF FIRST IMPRESSION.