WHETHER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SHOULD SET PRECEDENCE TO CUARIFY
AND GUIDE THE UOWER COURTS ON HOW TO PROCEED WHEN FACED WITH THE
SITUATION IN THIS CASE? (WHEN THE COURTS WILFULUY AND
INTENTIONALLY REFUSE TO PRODUCE /PROVIDE THE NECESSARY COURT
RECORDS AND PROSECUTORS DOCUMENTS NEEDED TO APPEAL! AND EXHAUST
STATE REMEDIES AS REQUIRED ®Y THE A.E.D.P.A. IN VIOUATION OF
GRIFFIN.V. IUUINOIS, 351 U.S. 12.

WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOUL'D SET PRECEDENCE AND CUARIFY THAT
LOWER COURTS ARE ALSO TO BE HEUD ACCOUNTABLE UNDER ELKINS V. |
UNITED STATES, WHEN THE TRIAU COURT'S JUDICIAL! OFFICERS WILFULLY
'AND INTENTIONALLY ERODE A DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY
TUUEGAUUY SEIZING A PERSON (REMAND) WITH THE MALICIOUS INTENT
AND GOAL! TO CAUSE INJURY AND WRONGFLR! CONVICTION.

_DID THE STATE COURTS OF MICHIGAN FAILURE TO PRODUCE RECORDS AND
TRANSCRIPTS AND FAIUURE TO COMPEL! THE WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE, WAYNE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE, AND WESTUAND POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO PRODUCE ALU PERTINENT AND REVEVANT DOCUMENTS AND
TANGIBLE ITEMS' AS IT PERTAINS TO THIS CASE VIOUATES GRIFFIN V.
_IUUINOIS, 351 U.S. 12.

WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD SET PRECEDENCE TO CLARIFY AND
GUIDE THE LOWER COURT IN. THIS CASE AS TO HOW TO PROCEED WHEN THE
STATE COURT WILIFULUY AND INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD THE NECESSARY
UEGAL! DOCUMENTS NEEDED FOR PETITIONER ROSE TO MAKE A PROVABLIE
SHOWING OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL! RIGHTS BEING VIOUATED WHICH
RESUUTED IN. HIS IUlEGAL CONFINEMENT IN VIOUATION OF U.S. V.
TUUINOIS, DID IT MAKE EXHAUSTION UNAVAILABLE AT THE STATE LEVEL,
TRUS EFFECTIVELY EXHAUSTING ALL! STATE REMEDY REQUIREMENTS OF THE
A.E.D.P.A.? MAKING EXHAUSTION AT THE FEDERAU WEVEL IMMEDIATELY
AVATUABLIE.

DID THE OISTRICT COURT AND THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS .
UNREASONABLY DENY PETITIONER RELIEF REQUESTED IN VIOLATION OF
: GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS, 351 U.S. 12, CONSIDERING THIS IS PRO SE,
THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS WAS AWARE OF
THE DENTAL AND TLLEGAL SEIZURES OF LEGAL PROPERTY FGR ENGAGING
IN PROTEC D CONDUCT OF GRIEVANCE WRITING.

DID THE STATE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTIONS OF SETTING AN EXCESSIVE
BAIL WITHOUT INVESTIGATING OR INQUIRING INTO PETITIONER'S
ABILITY TO PAY VIOLATE PETITIONER'S STATE CREATED LIS

Whether the U.S. Supreme Court should set precedence to clarify and guide the lower courts on how to proceed when faced with the situation in this case