In the Montana Constitution it clearly states that the Writ of
Habeas Corpus shall never be suspended; the Convention Notes of
the Great Writ shall the Delegates determinations support that
always be available for persons to challenge his or her unlawful
detention. However, the Montana State Legislature has set forth
in §46-22-101 (2) , MCA, that the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be
utilized by a person who has exhausted the remedy of appeal. The
State Supreme Court has held that this State Statute is unconsti
tutional, stating so, for example, in State v Lott and State v
Jackson.
1. Is it lawful for the Montana Supreme Court to deny me Due
Process of Law by denying me the right to utilize habeas
corpus to challenge my unlawful detention caused by an
unlawful conviction when such a denial disregards the
intent OF THE Framers of the State Constitution as-well-as
disregards the Doctrine of Stare Decisis?
2. Was it a violation of my right to Due Process of Law when
the Montana Supreme Court recharacterized my issue relating
to the intent of the State Constitutional Delegates, where
in those delegates held that prior to a judge granting leave
to file an information document as the isntrument of indict
ment either a Preliminary Examination or a hearing compar
able to such examination must be held?
3. Was it unlawful and contrary to justice for the Montana
Supreme Court to disregard the intent of the Delegates,
the very foundation of State Law, by suspending the writ
of habeas corpus after having declared §46-22-101 MCA unconstitu
tional, thus failing to uphold State Law in violation of
Supreme Court of the United States precedent holdings
requiring a state to adhere to its own laws?
4. Was it a violation of my rights under Amendment 14—due
process of law and equal protection of the law--for the
justices of the Montana Supreme Court to 'overlook' the
fact that a structural error occurred when the trial judge
failed to recuse after acting in the accusatory information
stage of the case the State brought against me and didn't
the Montana Supreme Court's failure in its decision violate
Supreme Court of the United States precedent determinations?
Whether the Montana Supreme Court violated the petitioner's due process rights by denying the right to habeas corpus to challenge an unlawful conviction, disregarding the intent of the state constitution framers and the doctrine of stare decisis