Whether the retroactive application of Oklahoma's two-stage parole hearing process violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED * Come now, Wilbert Lee Nubine, request petition for writ of certiorari to The Court of Criminal . Appeals. Petitioner is under Oklahoma’s Mandated Statutory Laws that govern a one (1) stage . . parole review hearing system; which survive the legislative Repeal laws that created an Ex Post Facto Clause violation, by being in direct conflict with “ Well Establish United States Supreme Court Laws” Oklahoma Abolish the 1 stage parole review system, brought in the two stage parole hearing process, uses their defer to eliminate most violent convicted prisoners from ever getting to the second stage of the 2 stage parole process. See (App1-A) The second stage hearing is where prisoner’s female and male with a violent crime conviction stand a chance to get a majority favorable vote for parole by the parole board members (The Board). It is forbidding by Oklahoma : Repeal law to allow prisoners with violent crimes conviction to appear before the board at the first stage hearing of the 2-stage parole process. Petitioner has a legitimate expectation for Oklahoma 1 stage parole hearing system and has an entitlement of protection under the United States Constitution. This court most intervene and demand a declaratory Judgment against the respondent declaring that the retroactive application of 57 §§ 332.7 (D) (1 and 2) and 355 (supp 1997) and the pardon and parole board policy and procedures. 004.LB.1.a. et seg (2000) to petitioner violates the United States Constitution’s prohibition against the passing of Ex Post Facto. law. (1) Whether a public interest is at stake with Petitioner’s Ex Post Facto Clause violation issue of Oklahoma by Repeal law forbid female and male prisoners with violent crime convictions v to have their Oklahoma One (1) stage parole Review hearing, because their law abolishes the 1 . | stage parole review system. As well as, forbid by law violent convicted crimes who came in on or after July 1, 1998 to appear duly at the first stage hearing of the two-stage parole hearing process in conflict with well establish United States Supreme Court law in Greenholtz y. Nebraska penal ~ and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 199 S.Ct. 2100, 2108, 60 L.Ed. 2d 668 MR. v. Moore, 610 P.2d 811,814 and Ex Parte Custer 200 P.2d 781 their action should be declared Unconstitutional. (2) Whether a public interest is at stake, by Petitioner showing the mandated statutory law of the forgotten man act 57 O.S. § 332.7 (1971) and The Oklahoma one stage parole viewing system : survives the Repeal Amended legislative law of 57 O.S. § 332.7 (1998) and the two-stage parole hearing process, which has caused an Ex Post Facto Clause violation under Article 2. O.S. §15 of Oklahoma Constitution and Article 1§10 of The United States Constitution construed under Garner y. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 120 S.Ct 1362, 146 L.Ed. 2d 236. Durant v. United States, 410 F.2d 689 Kelly v. The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board 637 P. 24 858 MR. v. Moore, 610 P. 2d 811, 814. | (3) Whether a public interest is at stake by petitioner showing that the District Court of Oklahoma county abuse its discretion of not providing a corrective process for petitioner post-conviction without given a requested fact finding and conclusion of the law based on the merits of the petitioner’s Ex Post Facto violation as construed in Richardson y. Miller, 716 F. Supp. 1246, Hammon v. State, 504 P.3d 486 Stevens y. State, 232 P.2d 949, 959 and Wilson v. State, 552 P.2d 1402. tr .