In my case I timely submitted my original post-conviction application and the trial Judge along with the state's attorney unreasonably created an impediment contrary to the procedural rules:
RULE 5.2 APPEAL FROM FINAL JUDGEMENT
(A.) Final Judgment on Post-Conviction Application. The appeal to this Court under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act constitutes an appeal from the issues raised, the record, and findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the District Court in non-capital cases. See Yingst v. State. 480 p.2d 276,277 (Okla. Cr.1971).
To state that the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals had not affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, (See Appendix 3)(Trial Judge's egregious error)), is an erroneous finding of factual predicate; defined by 22 O.S. § 1080 as ... "to use as a basis or ground of an action, defense or argument and it has taken years to remove their obstructions caused by improper custody battle, improper jurisdiction, violation of treaty rule, ineffective assistance of appellant counsel and actual innocence being ignored.
The OCCA affirmed the conviction on August 8th 2012 prior to my original submission of a post-conviction application; see Appendix 2 (OCCA Denial of Direct Appeal Propositions of Error).
DNA has no color. It is neither darkness nor whiteness.
It is human and as the descendant of the first inhabitants of these plains we have a treaty made in Washington D.C., in the year of 1866. The Murphy Act of 1901 further establishes Congress's direct intent signed into law in 1863 and protected by the Supremacy Clause provided by the Bill of Rights; specifically the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The fiduciary members of Oklahoma's Supreme Court have agreed that the time bar created in legislation by Governor Skitt is unconstitutional and has revived my case;(see Appendix 12)(PC-2024-385)), but not in its entirety, see Appendix 3(Trial Judge's egregious error). Each party involved in obstructing this pursuit of justice has done everything to ignore the fact that I am not in the proper custody, that I was not brought before the proper magistrate nor tried in the proper courthouse and that this is my First attempt to attack this wrongful conviction and false imprisonment collaterally in opposition to the OCCA findings and order to deny relief disguising it as an affirmation to deny a second application. Their concoction exhibits that the review deserved cannot be fairly held in their court and the Treaty at Washington D.C., of 1866 forbids certain men from this practice against me.
The state had to correct itself, see Appendix 4; (State's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Object), when declaring my application as a subsequent application because I have yet to have a court review my first and only application for post-conviction relief. Now I am challenged with this new task to remove the impediment created by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma Criminal Appeals having now given an unconstitutional order without administering the due process of law afforded to an accused by way of the Fifth Amendment utilizing the enforceable powers of the Fourteenth Amendment in assuring my rights are protected and guaranteed especially in these "Surplus Lands " of Oklahoma and the Murphy Allotment Act.

1. Is there a collusion to commit fraud by elected officials in the State of Oklahoma against fiduciary contracts and its sovereign People and has this abuse of discretion become

Whether the trial judge and state's attorney improperly created an impediment to a timely post-conviction application appeal