Whether the Extradition Clause and UCEA procedural safeguards protect an individual from extradition by a private company without proper state proceedings or warrant

Under-the Extradition Clause of the Constitution Art. TV, §2, cl, 2 and 13 tkS.L §3182 providing procedural safeguards of UCEA does not Subjects a person be removed from Asylum to Demanding State by a private, extradition company of idiom demanding State officials were members while employed by Ebe demanding state agency without arty Siate proceeding whatsoever in the asylum or demanding state's , for which, purported Only by Ci Corruptly, and fraudulently warrant to be detained and arrested from a departmental letterhead document, then token against his will. Accordiny to the abovementioned, no proper warrant, no pre-extradition heaving.^ from Sending or demanding States, but directly confined without a Court Conviction or a"Board Viacrant^ preserving parole revocation hearing that no, nor any Court of Georgia would address tine issues or merits , but Met'fin !e the case, oronly deny or dismiss ^UJitkout prejudice" pursuant to"PlRfi" towards Cases filed while he was incarcerated from Us \3&& Conviction before he paroled in 2DH? and no io designate h\m as a "three-striker "to evade addressing the complete ttoncompliaricE criminal act's and malicious use of process by state officials A^ut caused an Illegal confinement from kidnapping, by imitating U.S. official clothing — aprivate extradition Company, Sunder L1EEA are" mandatory language" and petitioner anonConvi cted pv\s.oner or one awaiting pre-trial when these intentional violations occurred ogiainst him, then how does the PLRA Apply to bim ?