California instituted prosecution against the Petitioner January d6, 2014 during
a warrant/ess search and seizure without probable couse for a "welfare check?
He was charged under unconstitutional legislative acts, Cal. Penal Code (P.C. S$ 25850(a)
and 25oo)(1)and inarcerated for having exercisedhis Second Amendmentrightsin
a lawful and peaceable manner, He claimed the P.C, legislation was ex post facto law and
Violated the Second Amendment. See Appendix (Appx,) J. The state court refused to
allow the constitutional challenge, Claiming FR.liv. P. Rule 5./ has no force in astate
and that the determination asto what the lew is must be made by a jury.

1.Did the court transgress its offce to determine the law, repudiate its fiduciry
duty, or the judge violate the Ooth required by Art. VI,cl.3, U.S,Const?

2.Ae iher bohseive Ac ileandunder U.s. o Rep..

3. Was the Petitioner a public Minister,while lawfully exercising authority statutorily under
18U.s.L,3196/(10), pursuantto Art.2, c1.2,4s Const subjectofa right thereunder?

4.Is theurisdiction over the ut against the etitiner vestdby Ar,2?

5. Is a violation of 18u.sC, 3152(2) evinced by the removalof the AnswER from the court file?

8. Did this Court err in its holding in Verdugo-Urguidez, 494 us259 (1990)?

4. Was the seizure of Petitioner while in statecustody,and transpert into a foreign jurisdiction an exercise of extra territorial inter ference in violation of the first principles.
ojurisdiction, Art 2,c3 the Tenth Amendment and/or the Fifth Amendment?

10.Did the district court filtoascertain requisit facts and proceedabsent jurisdiction?

11. Was the Petitioner's entithement to the benefits of the writof habeas corpus under the
Northwest Ordinance, Art. 2, abrogoted by cireumvention of the writ ad prosequendum?

Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for a warrantless search of a person's home based on exigent circumstances when the person is not present at the time of the search