1. DOES THE PETITIONER IN A HABEAS PROCEEDING HAVE AN INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE ENLARGED UPON HIS PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE IN THE INTEREST OF HIS WITNESSES AND A SPEEDY RESOLUTION, WHEN THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT GRANTED THE PETITIONER A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN 2001, BASED UPON ITS FINDING THAT THERE EXISTS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF CALIFORNIA CODE LAW THAT JUSTIFIED RECONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION ON THE MERITS BY UNDERMINING THE ISSUE OF TIMELINESS, AND THEREBY REVERSING THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION, AND SENTENCE OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER, FINDING THEM REVERSIBLE UNDER CHAPMAN V. CALIFORNIA (1967) 386 U.S. 18 BECAUSE OF THE 2004 TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO SUA SPONTE INSTRUCT ON CAL CRIM 3710'S HEAT OF PASSION INSTRUCTION, AS IT RELATES TO THE MISDIRECTION OF THE ELEMENT OF TAKE OFFENSE CITED, THROUGH THE NEGATION OF MULLANEY V. WILBUR (1975) 421 U.S. 684-704 AND UNITED STATES V. GOODWIN (1986) 515 U.S. 272.

2. IF THE PETITIONER'S GRANTED WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS PREDICATED UPON THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED, THEN DOES THE PETITIONER HAVE SUBSTANTIAL LIBERTY INTEREST THAT VESTS TO BE PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S SAFE GUARD AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; THROUGHOUT (1) THE STATE'S APPEAL RELEASING PETITIONER'S GRANTED WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (BECAUSE OF THE STATE'S SUPREME COURT'S PUBLISHED AND PERFORMED LACK OF CASE AUTHORITY ON THIS IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION THAT CALIFORNIA HAS KEPT OPEN FOR OVER TWELVE YEARS) AND AFTER THE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES WITHIN IN-THE MIDST OF THE PETITIONER'S ONGOING STATE HABEAS PROCEEDINGS, OPERATING UNDER THE "ACT (S)" GOVERNMENTAL OPPRESSION OF THE SORT AGAINST WHICH THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE WINS WHEN TO PROTECT A LITIGANT'S REGULATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE CONVICTION BAR ANY RECEDINGS TO DETERMINE CLOSURE WHICH.

3. DOES THE PETITIONER MEET ALL EXCEPTION TO THE ABA BEA US SEEKING HABEAS RELIEF IN THIS COURT UNDER 28 USCS § 2754 (A) (1) (D) (B) (D) (I) LACK OF STATE'S CORRECTIVE PROCESS BY LACK OF CASE AUTHORITY ON THIS UNIDENTIFIED FEDERAL QUESTION OF A HIGH DEGREE AND IMPORTANCE, SINCE THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ON DENYING TRANSFER OF THE MATTER TO THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE ITS PREVIOUS ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO ISSUE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE ENTITLED RELIEF ON THIS CLAIM

Does the petitioner in a habeas proceeding have an inherent constitutional right to be enlarged upon his personal recognizance in the interest of his witnesses and a speedy resolution?