I. Whether Court of Appeals abused its discretion en nor protecting Petitioner's Constitutional right ty net be Wearived of liberty, where petitioners' fo 50 Supplemental Brief, submitted at SUGGESTION @ appellate counsel, Claimed ahd demonstrated lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the district court in denying a Motion by Petitioner to his first supplemental brief and refused to even Consider the constitutional and jurisdictional claims in the supplemental brief. Counsel refused to raise the issues therein.

II. Whether this Court's discretion, in this case in favor of review of the constitutional and jurisdictional claims presented below, and by Petitioner, is either correct the P&M errors committed below and provide an of nien of importance to the public in litigated by the Court of Appeals or the district Court for the first f0O8€ 0% Reaching the merits herein presented, and Granted by this Court by the copy of the Supplemental Brief set out as Appendix H by this petition.

Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in not protecting Petitioner's constitutional right to not be deprived of liberty, where Petitioner's supplemental brief demonstrated lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the district court