Whether the District Court was obligated to prove its jurisdiction and proper service before proceeding, whether the court was required to allow the defendant tribal counsel, whether the court properly acknowledged the defendant's tribal status, whether the non-Article III court had authority to proceed without consent, whether the court was required to honor tribal rights and judgments, whether the court was required to honor the defendant's tribal jurisdiction

No question identified. : to the Honoroble United States Supreme Court Je\lon = Montell: Hollowell, American indian , Sovereign dudsdichon: Octiele IC. couct of fecord Plantift [at lava Udrit of teviewe. |certoreir] Norman Lb, Barnett etal. Coase: a ; : Re ot [5 : . : a Writ of review [certoraeil . Questions “without prejudice” 1 need your help bo comprehend: . oo . Li: once challenged; 15 the District Court not obligated to prove it's o court created by Congress of the : onited states, proof of personal and subject moter jprisdiction as well a5 loutul proof of SECVICE prior to: proceeding any further? 1B docs the laws not require the Dishic Courk to allow an Amencan Andian Tevtoal loudfol counsel 3: did not the prosecution, and Distict Court Magistrate (Judge refuse to achnowledge ms ght to scif-idertficotion and status [imernbership] 856 nonBid. American Indian {even when presented with my Tribes governing dowments and Tribal Judicial Findings n optn curd] by prosteuting me a5 a blach cvhzen', and using this label +o call MEG “Sovereign cen’ [lahich does notexist} ; ! . ot M: was the non-Oeticle TIL District Court authorized to procesd without the consent of the accused 2 5: does the law not require the states and the courts to honor and protect the rights, treahes and status of the indigenous peoples ane their tribe! : Os 6 b: dots not the low Fequife the Distact Court; Courts +o honor tribal Judicial hearing jpdgemtnts [deenees, ina matter involving atribal natonal [membee]? oe 4: does not the low Cequite the District court to honor the yorisdiction of indion teiloes 7 8: does not the low and trecties fequire an Omericoni indian betred by las teibes and if he consents to the legal . Soutlys Codes or statues then by a yury of his peers: . . "Gi Can a court convert 6 onolienable right into acrime, and convict amon tven after odmrtHing thot the Olleged crome 180 Fight. = Lo: did the court not force this American Indian to be obligated to the legol souety, negating the treaties natural Yous and, Congressional demands = te dote 1 the Cimericon Indian have not seen any of the following.even after moltiple requests and obycHons: _ £4 warrant to search my home and Sere my property, O warrant 'ssued for my arrest. clocomented nature “and cause of the arrest. Proof ofan inyored party or his wrrHten or sworn affidavit, the inypred partys verfied Claim of harm, inyory or loss, testimony from 0 third-party vndependant witness, written prod? that the District Court 1s acourt not defined by 28 U5¢-3002 (Lo), and of personal and subject matter jurisdiction; *Fucther: because this Cimecican Indian Netonal from Toalag} Nation was tried ina nen-article TL court of record Who was requ red to answer to statutes and not natural Yow, United Stotes Consttution, Treaties or the Great Low “of Peace. 1 never entered a plea nor recieved the Distric Courts point of lav granting dothority fo enter a plea on ry behalf. Pror total, du ring Anal, now while imprisoned tm presently being denied Tribal Lowfol counsels and refused to honor or answer to my presentments entered into the Court, ; * | now respectfully ‘tequite this honorable court to review this motter to determine whether Hhe lower courts Acted Taufolly heving yorsdiction over the Omerican Indian's body, and subject matter wrisdichion hoving \awful Guthority to have reached a determmation inthe matter without proving the Stal elements F vos prodere, 4 Soy iow all herein be true and will verify 49 open coork; Cf f4p 2 | 7 Respectfully submitted, Lt [orf 2023: ; ; : JdonMortellt Hollowell, Sovereign, benchaony J , “Woalags Cheathec National ; | “withoot pejpdice " fa oe a a? oe Le Jean-Paul Govlee Distaicr covat mag strate fjvdge trustee . 1% Norman kL. Garnett prosecutor |sohator 3 Stephanie € Croboy Smith Prosecutor | sobhcrtor 4. Newssome, Grant, ToFlot kui megstrate | poses] . Felated cases fin petition} . 1: Dero v Bena, no. 88-L54b, Supreme Court of United States | decrdecl Moy 14" 1990 “