1. MICH4SAM C£SA5ANt?J0K ©F TRIALS JIMt&MENT KitT^MT OlSTfttiC.T C3?* £.mOO!/£R ®f AMY eH&ft&E a&Ky HI£H.£ITIZ£US OF COLfSfiriaf PKOtl&% RIGim^F JW .4TR, INTTIJl m * FftaimiOHS. AAXlMst STATE ARBlTR- arv FRQSecuTfvaws 3\S WEilL. AS PfcT8T!0iM6tL 3»

2. B>10 RECORDER ANfci CIR. £T* UtK SUBJECT MATTEL B. ^filMStSKT!OU WIMatrr DISTRICT COURT BKMfcOtfEft OF ANY CHAftCoE. ?

3. IS A RADICAL SmUttlOTAN DEFECT m CRIME PROCEDURE a RIGMT NStT TO SE WtlLftb tttrO COURT AT ALL UPON. PeLON V CAiAR6ES ?%e

4. H* B& PETiriONE-R. MAVEL A RI&UT TO BE FREE OF A fe^U-TT PL£A Ttf 2.R® ROM OFFENSE Pft6S£CUTtfiM MRERg.RO PRIOR COi4V kIC7't OR £*IST VALlOf

5. IS A PFRS0W BEFRlveu STKArwr 75>OF LtSFarT IRA &T«Cffi PRLSOU WITHOUT HUEPROCESS OF lam »L4.6&ALi_y |R£6. IS A TRIAL•3TJ0EMENT ABSOLUTELY t/ecH WITHOUT ©«e PROCESSSUBJECT MATTER TUftlSOtCTlOW OBTAlWReMr f

Whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to bindover any charge against the petitioner, depriving the petitioner of due process rights and protections against arbitrary prosecutions