Whether a federal employee may challenge through habeas corpus and replevin actions the legality of civil forfeiture and alleged false imprisonment by state National Guard officials acting under unclear or potentially unauthorized authority from state and federal commanders

No question identified. : MARTIN AKERMAN, THE PETITIONER, PRO SE The Petitioner is the tenured Chief Data Officer of the National Guard Bureau of the United States of America, see Attachment A, NO FEES DUE AT THIS TIME As per the Supreme Court letter on October 12, 2023, and in accordance with Rule 39, the Pro per petitioner will seek leave to file the forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari, without prepayment of costs, by asserting rights under 20 CFR 1002.19, by way of a signed affidavit, to include all elements as outlined under 20 CFR 1002.23(a)(3) (5), where “No fees or court costs may be charged...,” 20 CFR 1002.310. Fees are not due to the Supreme Court of the United States at this time, see Attachment B. BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT (BLUF) Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, Petitioner Martin Akerman, Pro Se, respectfully requests a 24-day extension of the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, up to and including November 22, 2023. Absent an extension, a petition for certiorari would be due on October 30, 2023. This Application is timely because it has been filed more than ten days before the date on which the petition is otherwise due, S. Ct. R. 13.5, The petition for writ of habeas corpus and replevin to which the remittitur applies primarily centers around the actions of Brigadier General Garduno of the Nevada Air National Guard. Significant concerns arise over whether General Garduno was operating under the authority of the Governor of Nevada, the Department of the Air Force, or possibly under misleading directions from civilian members of the Department of Defense during a period of my Civil Forfeiture and False Imprisonment. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code § 1257. 20F7 Attachment C. ORDER ON APPRAL The Nevada Supreme Court issued a dispositional order on a Petition for questions, as detailed in Attachment D1. Specification in its order on July 12, 2023, which is the original dispositional order. This order is provided in Attachment D2. A petition for en banc reconsideration of the July 12, 2023 order was filed on July 20, 2023, as shown in Attachment D3, The Nevada Supreme Court issued a denial for the en bane rehearing on August 1, 2028, in direct response to the July 12, 2023 dispositional order. This denial is documented in Attachment D4, | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case #: 0:23-ag-02046, which pertains to a review of a Habeas Corpus petition in the administrative state. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Case #: 0:22-cv.us-02066, lead Case consolidating 0:22-ev.us-02147 and 0:22-cv.us-02154, RULE 21 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The questions to be presented before the Court touch upon pivotal unchecked, might create unprecedented legal 8aps, potentially resulting in serious constitutional Violations without redress. Lastly, the very essence of habeas corpus—a bedrock of our justice system—requires unambiguous, consistent application. If state entities are indeed deemed the monumental] Constitutional, Jurisdictional, and procedural implications System. 40F7 TO: THE HONORABLE ELENA KAGAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Familiar with the foundations of our Republic, we find ourselves revisiting principles that resonated deeply with our forebears, Alexander Hamilton, a visionary of his time, astutely noted in Federalist 84 the liberties the Constitution sought to shield. Hamilton acknowledged the paramountcy of the writ of habeas corpus and the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, opining they might offer even stronger safeguards to liberty than other elements of our Constitution. Drawing from Blackstone, Hamilton portrayed the peril of unchecked authority that might deny life or property without due process, and more insidiously, the use of secretive imprisonments, which operate as more covert and hence more menacing tools of oppression. In Federalist 84, Hamilton remarked on the vital nature of liberties that