I. Did the lower courts infringe on relator's fundamental right of
substantive due procedd by failing to treat relators Jwith fundam
ental fairness by neglecting to apply procedural rights required
by justice to preclude forfeiture of estate of a private citizen
by an "executor de son tort"?

II. Did the lower courts deny relator- civilian due process while con
ducting a process in a pre-judicial manner under the "Administra
tive Procedures Act"?

III. Does relator's claim against the HENNEPIN COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE
MUNICIPALITY for exceeding the scope of their authority create
a claim against respondents Public Hazard Bonds for "criminal
malpractice & barratry"?

IV. Did the lower courts neglect to ascertain the precise nature of
the government function involved, as well as the private interest
that has been affected by the government action without attempting
to procedurally deter relator from exercising his constitutional
right of seeking his liberty interest?

V. Did respondent's actions in the lower courts constitute an unlaw
ful conversion of case no. 27-CR-07-022594 from equity to commer
cial administrative law, or vexatious litigation for the benefit
of profit?

VI. Did the State Judiciary violate the Separation of Powers Clause
by adding, attaching any exceptions, procedures, or conditions
to Minn. Stat. § 589.01 -Habeas Corpus Remedy in order to deny
relator's right to substantive due process?

VII. Did relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus satisfy § 589.01
requirements in plain unambiguous language where his claims subm
itted alleged relator is illegally restraineddenied his liberty
interests, and that relator seeks immediate release or reduction
of his term of imprisonment?

Did the lower courts infringe on relator's fundamental right of substantive due process