Whether a state court violates due process and appellate review rights by dismissing an appeal without obtaining the full record and by proceeding with contempt hearings based on potentially void jurisdictional orders

No question identified. : Petitioner Wade Reeves respectfully applies for an immediate stay of all proceedings in the District Court of Oklahoma, including a newly issued Order Setting Contempt Hearing, pending disposition of his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. This application is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a). 1. Grounds for Emergency Relief Petitioner, Mr. Reeves formally raised a jurisdiction challenge in the Oklahoma district court and expressly requested adjudication. The court refused to hear the challenge, denied the motion without a hearing, and issued no findings resolving jurisdiction. This violated due process and left Petitioner subject to enforcement based on an order whose validity was never adjudicated. Petitioner appealed this denial, along with related void orders, in a consolidated appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed the appeal even though sixteen (16) designated record items were never transmitted by the trial court. This dismissal directly conflicts with this Court’s mandate in Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. ___ (2024), which requires courts to obtain and review the full record before adjudicating an appeal. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s refusal to obtain the record or comply with Glossip forced Petitioner to seek review in this Court. Now, the Oklahoma district court has issued a new contempt order based on the very orders whose appeal was unlawfully dismissed. The contempt proceeding therefore obstructs Petitioner's right to appellate review and threatens to moot or impair this Court’s jurisdiction. The underlying California judgment is void because it was modified bya commissioner acting without constitutional authority under Article VI, Section 21 of the California Constitution. California dismissed contempt. Oklahoma nevertheless seeks to enforce an altered version of the judgment in violation of due process and the governing California contract. 2. Irreparable Harm Petitioner faces imminent loss of liberty, coercive contempt sanctions, and constitutional injury. If contempt proceeds, the resulting incarceration or penalties would cause harm no later decision from this Court can remedy. This Court has repeatedly held that wrongful contempt constitutes irreparable harm justifying a stay. The contempt proceeding also poses imminent harm by threatening to undermine or moot Petitioner’s certiorari petition. 3. Likelihood of Certiorari and Success on the Merits Petitioner presents substantial federal questions involving: * — structural due process violations, * adjudication by officers lacking constitutional authority, * enforcement of void judgments, ° conflicting interstate enforcement of a California-governed contract, ° violation of this Court’s mandate in Glossip. Void judgments cannot support contempt, and denial of jurisdictional adjudication violates fundamental due-process rights. 4. Requested Relief Petitioner respectfully requests: 1, An immediate administrative stay of all Oklahoma contempt proceedings; 2. Astay of all related enforcement actions pending disposition of the certiorari petition; 3. Any further relief necessary to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, ke LAB Petitioner, Pro Se P.O. Box 1573 Glenpool, Oklahoma 74033 Email: DECLARATION OF WADE REEVES REGARDING IRREPARABLE HARM I, Wade Reeves, declare as follows: 1. 2 8. I am the Petitioner in this matter, proceeding pro se. On December 2, 2025, the District Court of Oklahoma issued an Order Setting Contempt Hearing against me. This contempt proceeding arises from orders issued without jurisdiction and from a consolidated appeal that was dismissed without the full and complete record as designated, contrary to Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. _ (2025). I formally challenged the court’s jurisdiction; however, the trial court denied adjudication, refused to hold a hearing, and issued no findings of jurisdiction. If the contempt