Whether the courts admitted evidence being respondent to Art. IV, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution?

Pursuant to Supreme Court precedent this court has Art. II & Art VI duty to examine as justiciable issue petitioner's challenge to Oklahoma's legal existence, and pursuant to Supreme Court precedent conviction under a void law cannot be legal cause of imprisonment.

A conviction is void as denial of due process in that Art. I, § 3 of OK Const and section 5 of OK Enabling Act prohibits Oklahoma from exercising jurisdiction on Indian lands.

Pursuant to Supreme Court precedent and court can act if pursuant to Art. IV, § 3 jurisdictional amendment.

A ED PA is unconstitutional as to void abatement.

Whether petitioner's right of access to his frivolous docket to Oklahoma legal existence, which constitutes rule of constitutional law that officially confirmed that Oklahoma is less than a state due to not being a separate independent body politic.

Pursuant to Art. VI Cl. 3 of M.S. Const, petitioner's challenge to Oklahoma's legal existence requires this court to interpret and apply Art. IV of M.S. Const.

Whether Oklahoma's legal existence and jurisdictional status can be challenged under U.S. Constitutional precedent as a separate and potentially invalid governmental entity