Should, the. May 2, 1 995 0Kde.fi to Show Caute/PKlma Facie. cate; The W0I/ 05 201 8
SupeKloK CouKt WKlt of habeat coKput/PKlma facle showing of violation of
and the. cuK.Ke.nt pKlma facle. alleging factual Innocence and violmake an exception and allow the CouKt to heaKlng Ve Novol
falK heaKlng and tupeKtede allege tuccettlve ok abate of WKlt of habeat coKput???autonomy ,
atlon of autonomy,
Attacking the fact that pKoceduKe "CallfoKnla Rule of CouKt § 4.557. (A)(c) (2)
that would have wat clKcumvented and Defendant wat not allowed Countel,
addKetted factual Innocence and exhibited Autonomy violation would that be
tuccettlve ok abate??

The PKlma Facie evidence that It ttlll tufflclent to ettabllth the OSC wat
not Kebutted ok contKadlcted by the Ex-TKlal Countel alleging He knew the
Vetectlvet Fukk, AdalK and Smith and the fact they weKe known foK gaming
People .i That He knew they when he ute to be a L.A.P.P. Servant, and he
would thow the juKy and couKt X wat Innocent and tomeone elte committed the
Countel Kett the» ♦
CKlmet and he would alto put me on the wltnett ttand .
without doing It and going contKaKy to my wltht,
of autonomy and thould the couKt keaK the cate???It that violationcate

Wat not confKonted with the wltnett agalntt me, wat not affoKded the poweK
o$ compultoKy pKocett, and not KepKetented effectively by competent countel,
conflict of InteKett and violation of autonomy It that a Sixth
amendment violation?due to

Pfiima Facie, evidence that i6 sufficient to establish the O.S.C.
was not rebutted ok contradicted, defendant alleging that Detectives
PliRR, Adair and Smithrframed Defendant and incriminated, by them
counsel DE3LAMC opine, he knew the Officers from working with them
when he was a L.A.P.V. Se^tgean-f and knew them too incriminate
innocent blacks with false evidence and he would produce evidence to
the court to show it, and did not do it*..did contrary to defenf
dants wishs is this miscarriage of justice and violation of autonomy ?
Exculpatory evidence was never produce and the OSC exhibits prima
fac-ce case that shows autonomy ,is that a second or supplemental
petition for writ of habeas corpus?

Is petition "successive or and abuse of the writ of habeas corpus
petition for attacking that procedure California rule of court §4.-
551.(A)(ft

Should the May 2, 1995 Order to Show Cause/Prima Facie case; The NOV 05 2018 Superior Court writ of habeas corpus/Prima facie showing of violation of autonomy, and the current prima facie alleging factual innocence and violation of autonomy, make an exception and allow the Court to hearing De Novo fain hearing and supersede allege successive on abuse of wait of habeas corpus?