Whether a warrant issued by the Department of Corrections for allegedly violating a non-existent mandatory supervised release agreement violates the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause, and whether psychological detention without clear legal status constitutes a constitutional violation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Without an existing mandatory supervised release agreement between plaintiff in the Department of Corrections, is a warrant, issued by the department, for allegedly violating any terms of the non existing agreement in violation of Amendment 4, warrant clause, of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether a field agent, also known asa parole agent, who has no direct or indirect contact with plaintiff, who is confined in the Department of Corrections and not assigned to the agent to supervise in a community, request’s a warrant to be issued for allegedly violating the terms of a non existing mandatory supervised release agreement in violation of the 4th amendment, warrant clause, of the United States Constitution. 3. Whether an official who willfully and knowingly refuses to follow written procedure, authorized and backed by state law, of the Department of Corrections for prerelease procedures required for supervised release of plaintiff into a community violates due process of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 4. Whether psychological torture by the Department of Corrections equates to andEighth Amendment violation of the United States Constitution, when defendants state to plaintiff that he is not a prisoner but is not free to leave and while held is not on mandatory supervised release, not assigned to a parole agent. ii 5. Whether a warrant for arrest and seizure, for plaintiff, who was not absent, or escaped, from a facility of the Department of Corrections and still in its physical custody, deemed a general warrant and in violation of the 4th Amendment clauses of the United States constitution. 6. Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 Amendment of the United States Constitution is violated when the Department of Corrections permits some offenders and not all, like plaintiff, in its custody to be held without penological justification. ili PARTIES AND PROCEEDINGS Petitioner is Aldo Ortega who was the PlaintiffAppellant in the Seventh Circuit Court for the Untied Stated Court of Appeals. Respondents are Tanya Ford, Joseph Blaha, Joseph Plate, Enate Akpore, and Ernest Vanzant, all employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections. iv STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Petitioner is aware of no directly