1. Is not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court required in its Per Curiam conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that...[2] the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or is otherwise open to collateral attack, [3] that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court 'shall' vacate and set aside the judgment and shall discharge the prisoner..." even in a habeas corpus action in which the Commonwealth refused to file an official response; by filing a Letter of No Response, rather than to deny the Writ of Habeas Corpus without justifying its decisions when denying the petition, that was filed pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §721, $726, §6504 and the United States Constitution Article I Sec. 9 f2, when Petitioner had produced official documents to substantiate the merit of his unlawful prosecution, [a] based upon the victim's criminal history as "being an aggressor [as provided in Petitioner's Motion for ROR Bail and attached exhibits] and [b] the Commonwealth had failed to file its information against Petitioner prior to trial; but not until just before jury deliberations on March 31, 2006 [as noted in the Docket Entries on pages 8/9 attached herewith]?

2. When the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the Primary Respondent refused to file an official response to contest to the merit of the claims against Petitioner's unlawful prosecutions; for premeditated first-degree murder and the March 31, 2006's Amended Information [for Involuntary Manslaughter], which is required of the Commonwealth to file both prior to trial, according to a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit supporting the same decision; in order to give the jury the right to determine whether the Commonwealth had met its burden of proof, that Petitioner had committed "premeditated" first-degree murder, or if Petitioner was guilty of only involuntary manslaughter because he had acted in self-defense, should the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have granted Petitioner the relief he's entitled to as a matter of law; when there was No Return contestation to the habeas corpus being granted, when the refusal to contest to the merit of a claim by law is an admission of guilt, when the Respondent's reply to the Writ of Habeas Corpus proves Petitioner was prosecuted without the Commonwealth's Information being filed prior to trial; but only just before jury deliberations, and the Dog's institutional Record's Dept. reveals that the DOCD does not have a Sentencing Order giving the DOC statutory authority to detain Petitioner.

Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was required to vacate and set aside the judgment and discharge the prisoner when the Commonwealth refused to file an official response to contest the merits of the claims against the petitioner's unlawful prosecution