1. The Supreme Court of Ohio failed to exercise its supervisory power in
protecting/defending the 14 Amendment, which is the petitioner's
constitutional right, when they denied his Prohibition and refuse to correct

; the results of a prior Jurisdictionally unauthorized action taken against the
petitioner at the August 2016 premature parole eligibility hearing, when the
Respondent(s) amended his court/ordered valid Judgment entry when they
changed his eligibility date from 2018 to 2024.

2. The Supreme Court of Ohio failed to exercise its supervisory power in
protecting/defending the 14th Amendment, which is the petitioner's
constitutional right, when they ignored the fact that petitioner was entitled

: to a meaningful parole consideration hearing at the expiration of his minimal
sentence which was April of 2018 and the petitioner never received that court .
ordered statutorily eligibility hearing in 2018 nor any other hearing to this
present day, which they allowed a procedural due process violation of the 14th
amendment.

3. The Supreme Court of Ohio failed to exercise its supervisory power in

. protecting/defending the 14 Amendment, O.R.C. Statute, Admin. R.&

: Applicable case law and statutory/regulatory requirements as it pertains to
Petitioner case when they ruled in favor of the Respondent(s), allowing the
breach of SENATE BILL NO 2 LAW O..R.C §2967.13 (A)(1)(C). causing an
adverse legal interest, a dispute definite and concrete, not hypothetical or
abstract in the petitioner's case.

4, The Supreme Court of Ohio failed to exercise its supervisory power in

; protecting/defending the 14t Amendment, which is the petitioner's

constitutional right that is afforded to him ,when the Respondent(s) did not
correct the results of a prior jurisdictionally unauthorized action at 2016
premature parole eligibility hearing, that was not meaningful or lawful,
because Respondent Conceded in their reply brief to denying petitioner parole

: and continued his next parole hearing for 2024, which is 6 years beyond his
court ordered expiration date April 2018. See (Brief of Respondent — appellee
page.1 last paragraph 2022-0513).

Whether the government's warrantless seizure and search of a person's cell phone data violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures