Christina Jay Acker v. United States, et al.
#1- SHOUZD THE ASSISTANT AHDRMLYS GLUERAL OF ARIZDWA .. i.E. MICHAEL CDTTERIED ANS KELLY MDRRISSEY BE ALADWED TO DSE CAANBE BF DENUE FROM STATE TO FELERAL CDVAT IN ORDEK HO GET A SPECEFIC DWITED SHATES DISTRICT COVRT JUDGE ... I.E. ROSZVW SILVER O DISTYISS HE CASE?
#J- SHDVLD A FEDENAL JUMBE BE ALLDWED tO KEBEFINE ESTABLISHED COWSTITDTIDNAL PROULEDUDAES IW KE GARDS D HABEAS CORPUB: VENME CDMITH, AUA LDCAL RULES OF HE D.S.BISTMET ADURT ?
H-SHOVLO PETIMOWER HAVE HHE AIGAT to A NEVTKAL FRVER OF FACT IN FLDEKAL AND Z STATE COURTS
#4- SHOULD TIE VUNTED SHATES SVPMEHE ERCISE ITIS SVPEAVISDRY POWERS CORT -X7 HASH U RESPECT FOX ALL AMMERIEAN CDVRTS, SFATE AUD TM2 -AH LRALi WHICH IS BEINE ABUSED BY JUAGES SMLVER AAN TITOHAS:
Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the federal courts failed to properly consider the petitioner's claims for habeas corpus relief