1. Did the CSC deny class member Bruce Koklich his First Amendment Right to Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (DIR) when he was part of the class of thousands of California inmates that had their contract and liberty interest rights violated when the Defendants failed to enforce the provisions of the law and unlawfully took his earned Good Time Credits without a notice or a hearing. (See Apendix C, Pages 11:6 I § 31(d)?)

2. Did the CSC justices lose their immunity when they failed to follow the Legislative Declaration in Pen. Code § 1170(a)(1) and issue a merits opinion on the DIR (See: Appendix C) in violation of USSC and CSC authority (See: Cal. Gov. Code § 815.6 Cf. Appendix B at Pg.l:18 - Pg.3:12 and Cal. Const. Art. VI § 14; Cf. Stats 1977 Ch.165 § 15)?

3. Did the CSC abuse it's discretion when it ignored the indisputable fact that the California Legislature had repealed the States Indeterminate Sentencing Law (ISL) and Replaced it with the Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL) knowing that Legislative Policy is not subject to the initiative process and in order to reenact the ISL the Voters would have had to reenact the repealed ISL along with its purpose and policy and this never happened. Does this fact entirely and completely eliminate the Judicial branches jurisdiction to sentence one to uncertain terms of punishment for the offense. (See: Cal. Const. Art. IV § 9 Cf. Appendix C, Pages 8:12 - Page 11:6)?

4. Did the CSC abandon and ignore State and Federal authority as well as the Rule of Law when they knew that State Legislator Briggs could not lawfully use the initiative process via Proposition Seven (Prop. 7) to circumvent DSL Legislative Policy (passed as an urgency measure) which mandated the Repeal of the ISL and the codification of the DSL for all crimes, and are Plaintiff's entitled to a Jury Trial to establish a lack of jurisdiction based on federal law, (See Appendix C, at Pg.l5:9 - Pg.17:12)?

5. Did the CSC misconduct establish its abuse of discretion when it acted with a lack of jurisdiction, violated the Rule of Law, and ignored, controlling USSC and CSC precedent which forbids the use of an Executive Branch Ministerial Agency to fix or extend inmate prison terms after there term fixing and extending power and jurisdiction were repealed in violation of the Ei^ith and Fourteenth Amendments as well as Alleyne, Apprendi, Ring, Specht & Olivas (See: Appendix C, at Pg.17:12 - Pg.l8:22)?

6. Did the CSC violate both the California Constitution (See: Cal. Const. Art I § 28(b)(8) & Art. VI § 14) and USSC controlling authority See: Appendix C at Pg.17:1212 - Pg.l8:22,) when the CSC refused to issue a decision on the merits knowing there was a lack of jurisdiction over Minimum to Maximum ISL sentencing which continues to be in direct conflict with the Purpose and Policy of the Determinate Sentencing Law (See: Appendix C at Appendix

Did the CSC deny class member Bruce Koklich his First Amendment right to petition for declaratory and injunctive relief?