Is it true that the Colorado Constitution specifies that the General Assembly of the State of Colorado? Colo. Const. art.V.8 18.

Is the Colorado Court of Appeals correct inexplainining that the eracting clause as published in the Session Laws of Colorado satisfies this mandate, or in error? People v. Wasting torL,969 P.2d 788,190(Colo.App.1998).

The omission of the enacting cLause from the Colorado Revised Statutes does it or not render the statutes urconstitutional?PeopLe v.Washington,969 P.2d 788,T90 (CoLo.App. 1998).

Courtsin otherstates, construing similar state constitur tional provisions, have ruled that the precise form of the commonly called"enanting clause" is mandatory in the official publication of the Laws, would this be an importart federal question in regard to Due Process of Law(the charging instrument) conflicting with the decision of another state court? see Supr eme Court Rule 10(band (e),and Fifthand Fourteenth Amertdments. See PaLmer v. ArKansas, 137 ArK. 160, 208 S.W.436 (1919) Sjoberg v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n, 73 Minu.203, 75 N.W. 1116 (1898).

When a states "Bill of Rights", calls for the prosecution of felonies *only by indictment whether prosecution by any other method conforms with the states Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Whether a Government Officers "discretion" can abolish the substantial constitutional safeguard of a grand jury indictment, to one portion of citizens charge with felonies, but leave it in effect to another portion of citizens who are charged with felonies?

An indictment confers competent subject-matter jurisdiction on the district court. An indictment is also the culmination of the probable cause screening process of the Grand Jury and that procedure functions as a "constitutionally adequate" substitute for a preliminary hearing whether a petitioner can be deprived of an indictment and a preliminary hearing and be awarded a fair trial. (Note: Defendant made no waiver of these protections)

Whether the substantial - due process safeguards to the accused provided by the requirement that such an offense be prosecuted by indictment can be eradicated on the theory that noncompliance is a mere technical departure from the rules? (Note: Se, Hagner vs. United States, 2.85 U.S. 427, also see, Williams vs. United States, 341 U.S. 97) [**997]

When a Grand Jury Indictment. is incorporated in a States Bill of Rights, and when a state Habeas applicant makes a Prima Facie showing that he was prosecuted for a felony, without an indictment. Whether a state judge can dismiss the Habeas as having no merit? (Note: This arbitrary action violates the due process protections of the National and State Constitution)

When the sentencing courts mittimus is absolutely void for want of jurisdiction, whether a 2254 Habeas applicant can be required to exhaust remedies before his writ is issued? Whether state statues can be applied in a manner that creates ex post facto laws, by altering the necessary criminal rules of procedure (e.g. indictment for a felony) and by requiring that different or

Whether the Colorado Constitution's requirement that all laws be enacted by the General Assembly is satisfied by the omission of the enacting clause from the Colorado Revised Statutes