A. Were my conshene} wighks do the &
pr ok echion clayse Vielahed, r " aval

Rs Were ny Due Process sjahks VialakeSu wh
~ Bet enblonk by Het en A) OMISSION Were Aelibershely Indifferent, andl amplified Tok Rng
gMe a er wece\Ving lekker! s re a concern Prem
the K enyan Ambassy in Wa shin agen DOG an my
Sisker Sacaveline filing ackice © Sve them ?

3. The sppellehe cov opined theak | Was pein
~ reidh. fo ge ned ee thak | Reo w
Noy svrFyer 5 orm ov e F SEVRN ears
| Was Rekainede wrthovk fal what basi's
and, vidence Ad the cork vse B Keach
this conelvsion

A. he my TWO convjchi ons for veckless
= mans|acanker an SL ervar(skic thremk
const Kenally yaliao e

5- Does the Soctring of "STARE Decisis "
= Mean anrytning ?

6. Th NI slipreme cork Was \uet & ov" SELF DEFENSE
= th ckake \ Rodmauez 145 wed 165, 444 4. 2d i9t
(2008), am 1 rok enkikled ko 1k because of
&

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were violated by the heightened pleading standard applied to his self-defense claim