Whether the district court and appellate court improperly dismissed the petitioner's habeas corpus writ under 28 U.S.C. §2241 by converting it to §2254 and §2255 in violation of constitutional protections

No question identified. : The Petitioner ’s clear constitutional legal right under the declaration of the United States Constitution and Florida constitution allows the court ’s indisputable legal duty and will justify the granting of the Petitioner ’s writ that will be in aid to the court ’s appellate jurisdiction because the petitions adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. The Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in the state court of Florida for being detainee in the judgment of acquittal of a double jeopardy conviction and sentence. The Petitioner being acquitted of the charges by the trial court and the state prosecution of the charges. The state court order imposing sanctions against the Petitioner for filing a writ without an attorney present. The Petitioner is being detained unlawfully in violation of the U.S. Constitution ’s Amendment 5th and Florida Constitution Article I, Section 9’ Florida Statute §910.11(1). The Petitioner filed in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the 28 U.S.C. §2241(3) that is present in the United States Constitution Article VI. the supremacy clause of the constitution in the declaration is in violation of the Amendment 5 of the United States Constitution when the Petitioner is being detained in the judgment of acquittal double jeopardy and conviction with unconstitutional sentence. The judge, without looking at the facts in the 2 constitution, dismissed and closed the Petitioner ’s writ of habeas corpus under Title 28 U.S.C. §2241 (3) by changing the writ to 28 U.S.C. §2254 and 2255 in violation of the Petitioner constitutional protection, Amendment 5th and 14th(1). the Petitioner filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit under Title 28 U.S.C. §2241(a)(c)(3) appealing the United States District court Southern District of Florida for closing the Petitioner ’s writ under 28 U.S.C. §2241(3) and changing the Petitioner ’s writ from 2241 to 2254: 2255, without any authority by congress because the Petitioner filed writ of habeas corpus and not writ of certiorari. The Petitioners writ of mandamus in this case is the proper remedy to compel the illegal and unconstitutional detention by the federal and state court since “the Petitioner has been found not guilty actually innocent of the crime charged in the indictment of the murder robbery and firearm wit: a machine gun in Florida Statutes §782.04. $812.13. $790.07 and $777.011 (1985) . The trial court judge acquitted the Petitioner set on count (3) of the indictment of the all charges. The court or the state prosecution or the defense counsel never told the jury before jury instruction or jury verdict of the Petitioner that was found not guilty actually innocent of the crime. 3 The writ of mandamus have clear legal right in this case by the act of congress order command under Title 28 U.S.C. §2241(a)(c)(3) to do the thing the other statutes cannot do under Article VI of the United States Constitution. The federal court judge that must show cause why he should not do if follow the congress order in the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241(a)(c)(3) when no legal principles or rule exist by the courts. Here are three tings the judges cannot do in this case change that: The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States which the Amendment 5th cannot be disputed. The federal statute may by the congress the court must also interpret statutes and supply legal principle when no rule exist 28 U.S.C. §2241(a)(c)(3) in the judgment of acquittal and double jeopardy sentence by the courts. The fact as well as law must be a decision before the court can deny this writ of mandamus which cannot be disputed. 4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Petitioner Respectfully Pray that a Writ of Mandamus Issue Opinions Below [ V ] For cases from fe