Whether the arrest was warrantless and if the arresting officers had jurisdiction to execute an arrest.[Point 1. of my §2254 habeas petition.] A Sixth Amend.U.S. Const, violation.

Whether the District Attorney withheld exculpable evidence from the Grand Jury,committing a Brady v. Maryland, 573 U.S. 83(1963), violation.[Point 4.Of my §2254 habeas petition.] See U.S. V.Bagley,S.Ct. 473 U.S. 667.

Whether the evidence presented for the CPOFI in the 2° /c [?] was legally sufficient to satisfy charges.[Point 3.of my §2254 habeas petition.]

Whether the District Attorney exceeded the maximum time it had to prosecute the case under CPL§: 30.30.[Point 2. of my §2254 habeas petition.] and consequently ,violated my Sixth Amend.Right to a speedy trial.

Whether the U.S.D.C. Southern District and the C.o.A. 2nd. Circuit :violated*the exempt from procedural default rule pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2254(a).[Pt.1&2 above].

Whether my direct appeal, from a criminal conviction presented one or more "not plainly frivolous" issues entitling me,despite my indigence,to have my appeal reviewed and determined on the merits by the Court of Appeals —particularly in the light of the standards set forth by this Court in Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, and related cases.

Whether the Court of Appeals' refusal to determine my appeal on the merits constitutes an unconstitutional(lnder the Due Process Clause) or an unlawful or an otherwise improper denial of justice or discrimination against indigent persons —particularly when the issues presented by my appeal are issues of a type which clearly would be reviewed and determined by the Court of Appeals on the merits in a comparable case presented by a nonindigent appellant.

Whether the D.J.(A.S.),by discarding the M.J.(KHP)'s R&R and denying my habeas petition violated rule 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(4) of the Rules for F.R.C.P.9.

Whether the Chief Judge ,(D.A.L.),by acknowledging that [text unclear] erxed by dismissing my habeas petition... but dismissed my judicial misconduct complaint ,abused her discretion.

Whether the D.J.(A.S.), particularly in the light of the standards set forth by this Court in Haines v.Kerner 404 U.S. 519,520-21 and related cases* was a constitutional violation.

Whether the evidence procured from the warrantless arrest should have been suppressed in violation of the Due Process Clause pursuant to the Fourthteenth. Amend.of the U.S. Const.

Whether the warrantless arrest violated due process and if arresting officers had jurisdiction, whether exculpatory evidence was withheld from the Grand Jury, whether evidence was legally sufficient for charges, whether prosecution time limits were exceeded, whether procedural default rules were violated, whether indigent appeal rights were properly reviewed