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 constitutional "uniformity of laws clause", and the protections of the 14th 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 subj ect-matter jurisdiction on th— e 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 adequa~e" substitute for a preliminary hearing whther a petitioner can be deprived of an indictment and a prelTminary 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: See.Hagner vs. United States . 285 U.S. 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 indictm ent . Whether a state judge can dismiss the Habeas as having no merit? (Note: This arbitrary action violates the due protections of the National and State Constitution'll

When the sentencing courts mittimus is absolutely void for want of jurisdiction , whether a 2254 Habeas applicant can be requir- ed to exhaust remedies before his writ is issued? Whether statues can be applied in a manner that creates ex post facto laws, by altering the necessary criminal rules of procedure (e*8* indictment for a felony) and by requiring that , different or ^ess testimony is needed the law requires at time oT the offense to convict the offender?427, also see, Williams vs. United process state

When a State Bill of Rights guarantees an indictment for a felony ,and when i"t was the common law practice to add any ^acts or elements that increase punishment in an indictment. Whether a prosecitor can charge a defendant of an aggravated crime when the defendant was not proceeded against by an indictment. (Note: See, Appendix vs. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000); also see, Criminal Procedure Section 82 at 51-52).

When a indictment and a preliminary hearing shields the accused from unwarranted charges. Whether defendant 's retain ed lawyer and/or public defender(C .R.S.21-1-101 ( 1)) said to have protected defendantcan be s 6th amendment right to effective assistance .of counsel, when defendant's retained lawyer or public defender did not protect defendant's constitutional rights to a preliminary hearing and indictment before proceedings and trial .

When a conviction is not merely erroneous , but is illegal and absolutely void , because the pretrial and trial court(s) did not have subject matter jurisdiction ythe~felony charge (s)and/or the parties,and when defendant's retained lawyer/or public defender was clearly ineffective , seeing the defendant was convicted in

Whether a state's 'Bill of Rights' requiring felony prosecution only by indictment is consistent with the state's 'uniformity of laws clause' and the 14th Amendment