The Oklahoma Supreme Court's October 26, 2020 ORDER denying his petition for writ of habeas Corpus is based upon the bare allegation that Petitioner has had three or more cases dismissed for frivolous or malicious. Should the oklahoma claim to be frivolous or malicious? And should they afford Petitioner opportunity to cure deficiency they claim?

Is the state of Oklahoma authorized to prosecute and incarcerate Petitioner for a non-existant crime for which Petitioner was not put on notice to defend against?

Does the fact that Oklahoma refuses to reconcile, or at least rule on the merits, two jurisdictional contradictions, or deficiencies ; render Petitioner's conviction and sentence unconstitutional?

Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court should provide a list of the cases they claim to be frivolous or malicious, and afford the petitioner an opportunity to cure any alleged deficiency they claim?