Whether circumstances exist that render state court exhaustion ineffective to protect the applicant's rights, and whether ongoing constitutional violations amount to exceptional circumstances warranting Supreme Court review

(1) Whether Petitioner is situated in a position, whereupon, "circumstances exist that render such process (State Court Exhaustion) ineffective to protect the rights of applicanjt". 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(l)(B)(ii). (2) Whether Petitioner's position in State Court on pending Habeas Petition will provide a full, fair, adequate adjudication on the merits of his Constitutional violations contentions in Habeas proceedings, in light of ongoing conspiracies to deprive him of numerous Constitutional Rights, both State and Federal. "Ineffective". prima facie' (or higher burden)" showing exists of an ongoing conspiracy to deprive and violate Petitioner's State and Federal Consti tutional rights, resulting in a 'continual' miscarriage of justice.(3) Whether a (4) Whether this 'continual' "miscarriage of justice" (conspiracy) amounts to "exceptional circumstances" warranting the exercise of U.S. Supreme Court's discretionary powers (Rule 20.4(a)) on an Original Habeas Corpus Petition. 28 U.S.C. /12241(a). (5) Whether this conspiracy of constitutional violations (continuous), by fraud deciet and misrepresentations (Cal. Gov. Code §822.2) , amounted to I.A.C. and an illegal contract (plea) (Gov Code §814) , resulted in Human Traff icking (P.C. §236.1 (a) & (h)), and False Impriosnment by 'abuse of process' In a civil and criminal conspiracy. (Fact Finding Request-t r* and 'coercion' . ed) 2 QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether the Judicially Noticeable facts of "conspiracy ” to falsely Imprison/Human Traffic^Petitioner (NA049324), has the 'Asylum's' ;Claim ’ burden "Reasonable Showing" of persecution/torture (medical), and a reasonable nexus to: Political; Religious; and Racial basis for such, compromising various ;Branches. Entities . Agencies of both State and Federal Governments, a prima facie showing (burden), by either(6) * • • direct or circumstantial evidence, that: "Adequate relief cannot be had in any other (State or Federal) Court, warranting review by the High Court", in an Original Habeas Petition. 28 U.S.C. §2241(a) . (7) Whether Petitioner's maximum exposure (punishment) upon a just, fair and proper legal relief on pending Habeas Petitions and ameliorative resentencing laws, places Petitioner 4 or 9 years overdue for release , /4) years with nickel prior ,jT>'years without) , or calculating the Low-Term based on P.C. §1170(b)(6) mitigating factors meaning either 7 or 12 years overdue for release, depending on Nickel Prior imposed. This "Overdue" for release on current conviction (banks) amounts a substantial right of Petitioner, being violated, within the meaning of: 28 U.S.C. S2254(b)(lV(B)(iiV. (8) Whether Petitioner's "Application For Successive Petition" (28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(2)) and underlying "PEtition For Habeas Corpus" (28 U.S.C. §2254) denial was proper or abuse of discretion or the Standard of Review for such Denials, as the narrow exception to Successive Petitions shown: New Evidence 1 'Hypogylcemia," established Legal Innocence : P.C. §26(4), not raised in trial. 9th Cir. #23-1006 .was 3