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 above- mentioned, no proper warrant, no pre-extradi-
tion 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 anon-
Convi cted pv\s.oner or one awaiting pre-trial when these intentional
violations occurred ogiainst him, then how does the PLRA Apply
to bim ?

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