Ezra C. Foster v. Stephen Reynolds, Warden

QUESTION 1 THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THEY COULD NOT WRITE A CODE OF PROCEDURE TO THE PAROLE REVOCATION HEARING PROCESS; THAT IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH STATE; MOST STATES HAVE DONE SO BY LEGISLATION OTHERS BY JUDICIAL DECISION USUALLY ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS; THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ALTER, ADD TOO, OR IMPROVE THE PROVISIONS OF A STATE’S ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TO MEET A SITUATION NOT PROVIDED FOR TO ADJUDICATE ITS FINDINGS WHERE THAT STATE DECIDED TO WRITE ITS CODE OF PROCEDURE THROUGH A LEGISLATIVE DECISION AND NOT BY A JUDICIAL DECISION; HAS DUE PROCESS BEEN AFFECTED IF THE COURT ALTERS THE STATES CODE OF PROCEDURE? QUESTION 2 IN ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ADJUDICATING THAT A PAROLE VIOLATOR’S AVAILABILITY NO LONGER OCCURS WHEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY DOES IT AFFECT DUE PROCESS TO A REASONABLE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO PROVIDE AN ADVERSARAL HEARING PROCESS WHERE IT CAN NO LONGER BE HELD THAT THE FUNCTIONAL DESIGNATION FOR THE LOSS OF LIBERTY AS A PAROLE VIOLATOR NO LONGER OCCURS WHEN THE PAROLEE IS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY? QUESTION 3 THIS COURT TURN TO THE NATURE OF THE PROCESS THAT WAS DUE TO THE PAROLE REVOCATION PROCESS ANALYZING THAT THERE WERE TWO IMPORTANT STAGES TO THE PROCESS; THE FIRST STAGE IS THAT OF ARREST AND A PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THE SECOND STAGE IS THAT OF THE REVOCATION HEARING TO WHICH NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED OF BOTH STAGES; WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PROCESS IF BOTH STAGES ARE PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED AND NOTIFICATION IS NOT GIVEN?