Whether law enforcement violated due process rights through improper arrest, seizure, detention, and failure to Mirandize, thereby rendering convictions unsustainable

1. Given the absence of probable cause to arrest here, and/or the right to seize, and/or the right to shackle here (and detain and the like, as was done here) and given the fact of a lack of probable cause: can it be said, as it was (with impunity) that: the basis for the seizures, the arrest, the confinement, the illegal search, and to detain arguably was not violated here, indeed with impunity. 2. Whether g iven the extreme vacillation , by the Government , on the e xistence of probable cause to Arrest and to Seize here, coupled with the indisputable failure to Mirandize issue s, and given these findings (that probable cause to arrest and/or seize were said not to exist here) and given our contention, the State also failed to show its presence in any of the respects it was required to prove its existence, the fact of their non -presence must be validated. 3. Given, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 ( 1966) , was , in our judgement, ignored, with impunity, it follows here any assumption that could be done with impunity (as it was here) – as it was by these Courts , violated Due Process. 4. Whether, given the arrest , the seizures and the detention s (shown to have occurred here) were indeed condemnable as we say : one thing is clear . It is beyond dispute that various rights related to Boyer -Letlow's (our Petitioner) w ere egregiously violated. And, given that reality is, and was so, it inexorably follows; none of these convictions can survive meanin gful scrutiny . For sure then, and so post ured, this case should be reviewed. Indeed, it is beyond dispute that these men were clearly stopped, seized and arrested, indeed by Federal Agents who were clearly acting on their own authority. And, with that being so, ii they victimized this individual – indeed egregiously so. Now it is up to this Court to step up to the plate. We ask that that be done for this individual. Indeed, the quest now is augmented by the fact that this Trial Judge seemed clearly not to understand, what we said elsewhere, and this we did because it is our belief, as we have said before (and elsewhere), that the rights of the very best amongst us are only as secure as the rights of the vilest amongst us are protected. And, because this is so, we are offended these Judges think otherwise. Surely then this Court will correct this flawed belief, so postured, we ask that it be done – in the interest of Justice. STATEMENT OF