Whether petitioner's constitutional rights were violated

No question identified. : ek honey raising: equ Rowh Creoit ont! mn eveering for OVErAMeAES Satisfaction in tm ely and wen yerisdAi ction appeal for — ener toa shbotional niguts Being violated. Pe bhid tr Nes appeal magistrate de vision Denied oail and detaining Petition For Unconshtutiens{ . an For Petitioner being Violated of & Aurendarent. Petitioner € district creed refected anne le ns . ae j Vodges. at ‘ ont petitjonee pre Se tings. Giecuit Court was hreilin jedgulent and Ai dup explain the details of Cincom stances From p: fitioner Side and Moon's, Petitioner Counsel aqreedf wi qovernmen fon. Motion petitioner Nevin gave consent fo File This Nas Caused. Nehru lt and actval Pee joAice as a reSvid of the alleged Wolatior # Federal tawand Mtelocutory ovdee’s 2k USES£1H04 (s) and > | Ld USCS § (292 (s) Which is « appes | righ + Enter locutery Wa reqht renshlvhon Guens fer Jvstice Tbecty courts ave +o ophetd the ee ‘were. act mr fer gproteerve ov de of Citizem'’s if the ? Pretec we the ComShtutron seam UNow techy oF tne people Pue are +e people Part Mme +o Cansi dew tHe Nam of Petiki one constr tional ciquts i vay Wola ted wittia the oat of erg hts ond He (Am Amendmen + wit ESP IW a finde menida/ This is a hadeas Corpus torit governiay. Cuses Criswold ¥. Connect on, a4 / ant of Colembsa v Hellec 554 Us. 570 , Fitts v Me bhee, 172 LS lee 1 Bivens v Six Unkaswn Agenk %3U.¢ 38a ,Moire Ape 7305