Whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to issue the writ of mandamus

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; WHETHER THE APPELLANT COURT ABUSED TTS DISCRETION! WHEN TT} FATLED To XSSUE THE WALT OF MANDAMUS TO THE DTSTALCT JuoGEe pzkEcCTING THE OrstAICT JooGE To VACATE Jones’? Carmznwal ConVICTIONS For Lack OF SUBJECTMATTER TURTSDECTION Because THE DrstAzcT CovaTs |ASSUMPTx ox OF JuAZSOECTZON OVER THIS Cause oF Act zon Mees THE EXCEPT DonNAL CEACUMSTANCES AMOUNTENG To A JuDrC LAL : | USURPATION OF POWER ? t ; Ls: ee ee wee i ee WHETHER THE WATT OF MANDAMUS SHOULO Tssvé To THE DTSTARCT JvDGE TO ComPer Hum To SET ASZDE JUOGMENT(S) EN Jones’ Catmaunat CASE BECause xT APPEARS Faom THE KECORD THAT THE OTSTRICT CouRT IW Tava _ Jones FAow THE Custopy OF THE STATE AUTHOAT TIES TRAWSCENDED =Ts Juarsorerxon 7 : ; . WHE THEA THE WAIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULO rssuE To THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO CoMPEL HEM TO Orsmzss JONES’ Cazmanac CASE OF MUAOER FOR LACK OF SUG JECT MATTER JunrsOTCT LON BecAvSE THE OLSTARCT SLOGE WRONGFULLY AssSumeo JoATSOTCTION oven THES THEM Pennprng SALO CASE THAT WAS ORI GIVALLY BROUGHT ZN STATE CovnT AND Because NO ACT OF ConGAEss CovtO Wave AUTHOATZE Jones” LoCAL MURDER STATE CASE TO BE TRANSFERRED FAoM THE STATE. CouAT To THE FEDERAL OxrsTAxcT COUVAT 7