1. Has the California Supreme* Court (CSCC) prejudicially abused its dis
cretion by repudiating United States Supreme Court (USSC) controlling
authority and the will of State Voters by changing and disregarding
Senate Bill 42 (1976) and its "Seven Category Sentencing Structure" and
Assembly Bill 476 (1977) Legislative Declaration declaring that punish
ment for crime is determined by the Legislature and imposed to a final
ity by a court of law as Determinate Terms , and then unlawfully trans
formed the "punishment for the crime itself", into uncertain terms;
against the will of the voters, its own precedent and this Court's
authority in violation of Article IV § 9 of the State Constitution and
the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution?

2. Based on the facts presented in this case, has the CSC and the Attor--
ney General abused their discretion by repudiating and ignoring the
mandatory provisions of the State Constitution and USSC controlling
precedent when they knew, a State Legislator unlawfully used the initia
tive process to defeat Legislative Policy that he could not do by
Referendum in exchange for Quid Pro Quo contrabutions from the Prison
Guards' Union and special interest groups whose goal was to recreate
uncertain and disproportionate punishment to Petitoner and thousands of
the mostly Black and Hispanic prisoners wrongfully sentenced?

3. Has the CSC prejudicially abused its discretion by ignoring its govern
ing authority and USSC controlling precedent by allowing a Executive
Branch Ministerial Agency (without legislative and/or judicial Art. Ill
powers) to arbitrarily and capriciously exercise these exclusive powers
to extend Petitioner's term beyond his credit earning date and to
misuse the judicial power to determine who is and who is not a threat
to public safety; without a trial providing uncertain punishment on
whether or not Petitioner is a public safety risk and extending his
term for a crime yet to be committed?

Whether the California Supreme Court prejudicially abused its discretion and acted in excess of jurisdiction when it refused to issue a decision on the merits