WHETHER THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT DETAINERS ACT (IAD) 18 U.S.C. App § 2 PROVIDES
AN EXCEPTION CLAUSE UNDER V(g) PROVIDING DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS FOR PETITIONER
WHO WAS AWAITING TRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN A SENDING STATE THAT DID NOT ADOPT THE
IAD, CAUSING THE UNITED STATES TO VIOLATE IAD AND PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS?

1. Whether V(g) of the Interstate Agreement Detainers Act IAD, 18 U.S.C.
§ App is an exception clause for all Non-Party States , which provides
Due Process Protections for a Petitioner who is awaiting trial
proceedings in the Non-Party State. As the United States is bound by
the IAD in its entirety, including V(g), would the United States have
subsequently violated the IAD and the Petitioner's Due Process

2.If the Federal Government can only use U.S.C. 2241(c)(5) for temp,
purposes with Louisiana does it trigger IAD Art V(g) and must follow
its provision or should it wait until Louisiana completes its
first, and if not, what was its extraordinary circumstances? Did it
violate the Petitioner's Due Process by not sending the Petitioner
back prior to its disposition and sentencing?process

3.If Louisiana can be a Sending State to the U.S. Government, who is a
party to the IAD, does that mean V(g) is applicable?

4. Was Louisiana considered as a"Sending State" for the purpose of IAD
Art. V(g)?

5. Does the failure to Louisiana to adopt the IAD allow the Federal
Government to be able to use its discretion to issue "the Writ of
Habeas Corpus" under extraordinary circumstances with it should not
be exercised otherwise except for a Petitioner 's special showing ...
; Under IAD temporary custody is it the same as 2241(c)(5) when used
by the U.S. according to "Mauro"?

Whether the Interstate Agreement Detainers Act (IAD) provides an exception clause under V(g) for due process protections for a petitioner awaiting trial in a non-party state