1) In the State of Texas, County exhumed without first necessary third judicial to confirm hundreds Identity?

Proved by his SWAT testimony and Sworn Affidavit, Squarely pitted his Identity a live dispute when the Florida foreclosure WARRANT Contained ALL unconnected fleet to is including with/without identity filially Social Security a/um his previous addresses/in Am INCORRECT flight, Appeal family to MATTER/Sole m£ other. Mam this Redtteaent/fa 0<At mZoSlL ib&ziiQ See Appendix.

2) Did the U.S. District Court S.L Texas; deviate from this Honorable Court holding in Philipany V. Omrm 139 US.292 1 Z9o, 99 S.CF. S3D. ggr 58 L . id Sit A Cove! eo/usideawy Release in Habeas Corpus run do NOaiope Mam decide (a) whether the Axlaadd/u/J hoco/neats 6oi them face wees ttJ oadeR, (ty uhether Me peflbi/v&z ijjs ehvayed bj/M a ctttflje. jjv the deaoaA/dtA/J stalep (*) ml elite the pett/awee /s teamed iri the Request Foe Bxhndt/oN, awd (d) uhellee the peltllm/ee is e fogitlvd)? [fl~6*As ZChlOSH , ttfl^ZFdJ See Appendix 1-WJ.

3) Did the LhSv Ftfth X/AcudFoun t erf Appealauscodsfeee the Fooeth Att)£Atd/>j£//t a/vdth£ A/lead/l/M Clai/sF of the HauledStates CoA&hiu'iutJ whet/ Jt dewed tils pkfd/ea/eA h/spaotecledF/yhl to dwlk^qt the /NCMAAed FxtaAd/fo/j Ddcom &v/s that waae AfOT 1 a OAd£A t pufiSto*! h lAldtya*/ v. boA/tAf staled alo/£ f [ft'0A 10-1051/, 27q) §u AppmJxJL.

4) Did the Ur St Fifth iittcud (poet of Appeal Overlook thataddA/s fetll/OA/ee HAVE r waived his fRchcted A/pll to cla/l&vifs £xleadd/iw } ualJU'e flejntj \JfiO ns( theia Suppdttwg ease of Sletyt v. £ Juju ad i su F. 2A 4S&S6Q (sfi CttL. 14 7&) used to deny fletitio/vftU MM ai For leave to pmcetdia fpktofi fiwp-£Als?'ljl.O.A. 20-205/ I.ASZ] See Appendix JL.

Whether the State of Texas can grant extended bail without first meeting the burden of proving the petitioner's identity?