Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Attorney Grievance Commission and Judicial Tenure Commission to remand the case issue to the lower court or Michigan Supreme court without delay

question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Attonery Grievance Commission and Judicial Tenure Commission to remand , the case issue to the lower court or Michigan Supreme court without delay. Court should clarify what remedy exsists that has not already been sought and expired for this added issue therefore purging the taint from the judicial holding in Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) regarding pre-trails and the 6th Ammendement that without assistance of FAIR legal representation the '“noble ideal” of “fair trails cannot be realized" Court should clarify where justice realized and tangible? where Judge Diane Rappleye violate the rules announced in Doe v. Doe, 99 Haw 1, 52 P3d 255 (Haw 2002) by filing and granting the petition against Alissa Peterson to begin | with and, Court should clarify under what circumstances could Alissa Peterson | "initiate" further legal mediation with prosecutor and Judge and thereby purge the taint from the Doe v. Doe violation of Res Judicata and Estoppel? Where legal representaions sought for divorce specifically Att Joanne Laux of South Central Legal Services in 2014 and Rebecca Kerr/ Calebs who also drafted a divorce for MS. Peterson in 2019 and Bert "Tiger" Whitehead IV who wrote the divorce finalized in 2019 violate law with no sworn affidavits of paternage ? Court should clarify where has the legal standard for fair and equal treament been satsfied by the 14th ammendment and also in regard to the best interest of the children specifically? Where Prosecution and Appointed legal counsel of Ms Peterson violate Sworn Ethical Code law ,The accused's Right to Education, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 affrimative defense and federal rules of evidence Rule 26. Duty to Disclose Depriving the accused of their right to "presumed innocence by law" aka "Innocent until proven guilty" Court should clarify the legal and judicial holding in Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963) regarding pretrails and the 6th Ammendement that without assistance of FAIR legal representation the “noble ideal” of “fair trails cannot be realized" Where MS. Peterson sought help repeatedly from South Central Legal services for multiple issues how is the noble ideal "realized" if the poor indigent accused with crime has 2 to face their accusers without a lawyer to assist them? 2. Where Prosecutors and state Attorneys both detained and appointed violate civil rights of Alissa Peterson repeatedly over the span of 10 years with evidence specifically on 4/20/14 where Miranda right were violated Court should clarify where the rule announced in Edwards V Arizona and Screws v. United States be satisfied? How was defendant to further her poor and basic legal knowledge beyond what she already knew through the internet when she wasnt even shown a proper law library or book of law until 2023 and denied access to the South Central _ , , Legal library and others? (Peterson V South #23-2814-CZ) How was legal standard of ABA Model Rule 4.1 and Model Rule 7.1 satisfied when it is court record Defendant was forced to plea no contest, no transcripts exists from this hearing, ; ; : and there was personal injury, fraud, and legal malpractice allcommited bythe _: attorneys assigned to Ms Peterson specifically Rebecca Calebs/ Kerr and Bert "Tiger" Whitehead IV who is still harassing Ms Peterson to this day (MDCR Case # 642977) with repeated tageted fraudulaent harassment defined by law after personally injuring Alissa Peterson with psychological injury and further damages suffered that first occoured in a romatic relationship with Mr. Whitehead. Further more Court should clarify under what circumstances does one prove though interactions with prosecution and attonreys discrimination when one lacks direct evidence of discrimination and under what circumstances is Screws v. United States | applicable after repeated tageted fraudulaent hqrassment aided by police defined by | law? | | | 3