In Re Carla Davis, et al.

U.S. Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction and Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction

1. Will the United States Supreme Court and its individual justices use it’s rare and discretionary ex parte original jurisdiction, under section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Exparte Yerger, 75 U.S. 85 (1868), and 28 U.S.C. 2441 (c) (2), to review and directly hear in the first instance Carla and Jalen’s original writ of habeas corpus petition and attached evidence documents under the following exceptional circumstances: a. When President George W. Bush, his Executive Branch, in business contract with the State of Kansas and United States corporations, put the personal liberty and life of Carla and Jalen under restraint using the U.S.A. Patriot Act of 2001 Section 215 to seize their medical records, acting as Original Classification Authority to classify Carla and Jalen’s personal health information (PHI) at a “Confidential” level, and indefinitely denying Carla and Jalen access and use of their PHI in medical records for any fundamental purpose as a human being since January 23, 2003, at present, and into the future; b. When Carla and Jalen have physical document threshold evidence of executive restraint on their personal liberty and life in the form of exhibit medical documents attached to this petition with “Confidential Not For Re-Release “and “Denied Disclosure” classified markings; c. When Carla and Jalen are indefinitely denied access and use of their PHI while having private pay health insurance benefits on January 23, 2003, d. When the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is not a neutral tribunal due to its: contractual, business, and financial, involvement in the matter, fiduciary loyalties, false allegations of Carla, and attempted abduction of Jalen? 2. Will the U.S. Supreme Court use assistance of its trusted friend the American Medical Association (AMA), and AMA Code of Ethics 3.3.1-Management of Medical Records as a tool to assess the “in custody” or “liberty restraint” requirement to determine the seriousness of limiting important freedoms such as: present and future health care needs, insurance, employment, and other purposes, lost by Carla and Jalen due to their inability to access and use their PHI in medical records, and to determine the seriousness of classifying and indefinitely denying Carla and Jalen access and use of their personal health information?

2. Can Carla and Jalen experience physical sufferings, emotional suffering, and even death due to a lack of knowledge of their diagnostic PHI to seek timely medical treatment?

3. Do Carla and Jalen’s loss of control over their personal liberty and fife violate the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting ownership of human beings as property?

4. Did President George W. Bush and his executive branch violate Carla and Jalen’s privacy linked to their inability to control, access, and use their PHI when their PHI was seized, indefinitely classified on a “Confidential” level as owned and under the control of the United States government, and Carla and Jalen indefinitely denied access and use without judicial review, when under the Fourth Amendment Carla and Jalen have a penumbral right to privacy linked to having control over their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures? Privilege to the Writ Under legislative powers of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except during times of rebellion or invasion when public safety requires it; putting a limit on congress authority to restrain liberty.