Whether a state's 'Bill of Rights' requiring felony prosecution only by indictment is consistent with the state's 'uniformity of laws clause' and the 14th Amendment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED When a states "Bill of Rights", calls for the prosecution of felonies *only by indictment whether prosecution by any other method conforms with the states constitutional "unmformity of laws clause", and the protections of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? ‘ : : Whether a Government Officers "discretion" can abolish the substantial constitutional Safeguard of a grand jury indictment, . to one portion of citizens charge with felonies, but leave it in effect to another portion of citizens who are charged with felonies? An indictment confers competent subject-matter jurisdiction on th= e district court. An indictment is also the culmination of the probable cause screening process of the Grand Jury and that procedure functions as a "constitutionally adequate" substitute for a preliminary hearing whther a petitioner can be deprived of an indictment and a preliminary hearing and be awarded a fair trial. (Note: Defendant made no waiver of these protections). Whether the. substantialdue process safeguards to the accused provided by the requirement chat such an offense be prosecuted by indictment can be eradicated on the theory that noncompliance is a mere technical departure from the rules? (Note: See,Hagner vs. United States, 285 U.S. 427, also see, Williams vs. United States, 341 U.S. 97) [**997] ~ When a Grand Jury Indictment is incorporated in a States Bill of Rights, and when a State Habeas applicant makes a Prima Facie showing that he was prosecuted for a felony,without an indictment. Whether a state judge can dismiss the Habeas as having no merit? (Note: This arbitrary action violates the due process protections of the National and State Constitution). When the sentencing courts mittimus is absolutely void for want of jurisdiction, whether a 2254 Habeas applicant can be requir— ed to exhaust remedies before his writ is issued? Whether state statues can be applied in a manner that creates ex post facto laws, by altering the necessary criminal rules of. procedure (e.g. indictment for a felony) and by requiring that,different — or less testimony is needed the law requires at time of the offense to convict the offender? When a State Bill of Rights guarantees an indictment for a Felony, and when it was the common law practice to add any facts or elements that increase punishment in an indictment. Whether a proseciittor can charge a defendant of an aggravated crime when the defendant was not proceeded against by an indictment. (Note: See,