Whether Oklahoma's legal existence and jurisdictional status can be challenged under U.S. Constitutional precedent as a separate and potentially invalid governmental entity

VoXV TUE To±'lT5 AKDMrT5MW W^0 ETH6 UH*™ BBxNfe RSPUONAN t TO. ART. IV, 13 of ocT CoNStxtutxoa J PURSUANT TP SUPREME COURT ' PRECEDENT THTS COURT HAS art . ul £ APT VI DUTY TO EXAMTME AS tustxcxabl E xssue p etxtxoner 5 s cp\alle A/££ to (OKLAHOMA ’S LEOAL. EXXSTEMCfEa, AvpuRSUAA/T TO SUPREME COURT " PRECEDENT COWVTCTTOfrJ UJVDE& A VOXD LAW CANNOT BE LEOAL cause c>p in\prxstvment 4 CONVXCTXOA/ TE VOID AS DENTAL ' OF due PROCESS XN THAT art . 1,§3 dp ok Const and sectxon 5 ©p OK.ENABL tA/A ACT prohibits OKLAHOMA PROM EXERCXSIMO TlRxxdiction on xndxan LAA/2) $UESTl0A/('S) PRE5 ENIBti 5. PURSUANT TO SUPREME PRECEDENT A/VD COURT CAN ACT Ip. PURSUA/V t supreme TU HT.^'hTCTXONAL ATVKZSSRD ^a/T v 7, A ED PA xs UA/COA/STITUTI pMAL AS T0 Vo^ AUT&MEMT fETXTx.0A/ER SW ^‘LLntiTLL fesb ',/il Counts have AMEM/ATTL T;RWeR WI.S l+H f! ,?»?*?, 1 fl:E6HT OP access pTpf" HIS m-rwoLous,?ocTi B 70 °KLA^MA LEGAL EXX^ te/vce °\.N\tC\YX con stitmtes , Rule 0F COA/STXTMTXP/V4L LAW THAT OFFICIALLY' CONFIRMED THAT OKLAHOMA IS LESS THAN A STATE T>Ue To A/0T BEI/VT A separate ia/kep^a/dem body PoliticCOURT lY-LL AM ea/tmeivt No wxtwar turzsdxctxoa / CourtEDEN 'S MUST fitT To 9S QUe^THOA/CS) PRES£A/TE2) ±0 iPURSUAA/T TMKTJU AVI AHT, VL CL3 0F'M.S, COhJ^J, PETTTXoRER 7S CHALLBA/9E jo Ol^LAtt-OMA 0s LEGA1 EXXST EA/CE R£(5MJE^ES THXS COURT T(7 X/VTE^faET A/VD /\PPLV ARj /VOFH.S. Co/VSTXTtnW