(1) Whether Petitioner is situated in a position, whereupon, "circumstances
exist that render such process (State Court Exhaustion) ineffective to
protect the rights of applicanjt". 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(l)(B)(ii).

(2) Whether Petitioner's position in State Court on pending Habeas Petition
will provide a full, fair, adequate adjudication on the merits of his
Constitutional violations contentions in Habeas proceedings, in light
of ongoing conspiracies to deprive him of numerous Constitutional Rights,
both State and Federal. "Ineffective".

(3) Whether a prima facie' (or higher burden)" showing exists of an ongoing
conspiracy to deprive and violate Petitioner's State and Federal Consti
tutional rights, resulting in a 'continual' miscarriage of justice.

(4) Whether this 'continual' "miscarriage of justice" (conspiracy) amounts
to "exceptional circumstances" warranting the exercise of U.S. Supreme
Court's discretionary powers (Rule 20.4(a)) on an Original Habeas Corpus
Petition. 28 U.S.C. /12241(a).

(5) Whether this conspiracy of constitutional violations (continuous), by fraud
- deciet and misrepresentations (Cal. Gov. Code §822.2) , amounted to I.A.C.
and an illegal contract (plea) (Gov Code §814) , resulted in Human Traff
icking (P.C. §236.1 (a) & (h)), and False Impriosnment by 'abuse of process'
and 'coercion' . In a civil and criminal conspiracy. (Fact Finding Request-t r*
ed)

(6) Whether the Judicially Noticeable facts of "conspiracy " to falsely
Imprison/Human Traffic^Petitioner (NA049324), has the 'Asylum's'
;Claim ' burden "Reasonable Showing" of persecution/torture (medical),
and a reasonable nexus to: Political; Religious; and Racial basis for
such, compromising various ;Branches. Entities . Agencies of both State
and Federal Governments, a prima facie showing (burden), by either
direct or circumstantial evidence, that: "Adequate relief cannot be had
in any other (State or Federal) Court, warranting review by the High
Court", in an Original Habeas Petition. 28 U.S.C. §2241(a) .

(7) Whether Petitioner's maximum exposure (punishment) upon a just, fair
and proper legal relief on pending Habeas Petitions and ameliorative
resentencing laws, places Petitioner 4 or 9 years overdue for release
(mid-termipresumptive , /4) years with nickel prior ,jT>'years without) ,
or calculating the Low-Term based on P.C. §1170(b)(6) mitigating factors
meaning either 7 or 12 years overdue for release, depending on Nickel Prior
imposed. This "Overdue" for release on current conviction (banks) amounts
a substantial right of Petitioner, being violated, within the meaning
of: 28 U.S.C. S2254(b)(lV

Whether circumstances exist that render state court exhaustion ineffective to protect the applicant's rights, and whether ongoing constitutional violations amount to exceptional circumstances warranting Supreme Court review