Is a court's refusal to allow an accused person any opportunity to be heard by themself and counsel a substantive violation of due-process, common-law-right, sixth-amendment, justice, first-amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is a court's refusal to allow an accused person any opportunity to be heard by themself and counsel a substantive violation of due process, common law right, Sixth Amendment, justice, and/or the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress? Supra, pp. 5&6. 2. Is the "right to be heard by himself and counsel", or “invested : with a right which he is always free to assert", an inherent common law right affirmed by 1 Stat. 92, ch.xx, §35 and embodied within the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Supra p. 5, Valdez v United States, 244 US 432,453, 61 LED 1242 (1917). . "3, Is the imposition of counsel’ to "represent" violative of ‘the Constitutional right to the “Assistance of Counsel"? Supra, p./, par.2. 4. Is the refusal of a court to allow an accused to dispense with : counsel violative of "considerations that go to the substance of an accused's position befor the law"? Adams v United States, 317 US 269, 279 (1943). : _ “5, Is éssential fairness lacking, of the ability to put one's case in | | a _eourt _by_refusal-to _permit—the accused to be —__ heard? If so, is the court enjoined "by the law"? Supra; p.5, Dynes . v Hoover, 20 How 65, 80, 81, 15 LED 838; Weliness Int'l Network, Ltd. v Sharrif, 191 L Ed 2d 911, 935 (2015). 6. Is failure/refusal by a court to consider a non-disruptive party's : pleading a usurpation of power or violation of Oath or Duty? , , 7. Does refusal to allow a party to manage or plead their own cause violate their right to opportunity to defend or statute (1 Stat. 92 ch. 20, §35)? , . 8, Does the privilege of presence include the right to be heard? ; PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS —COLE v UNITED STATES ; . . . oo, . : Case: 15-10459, 08/01/2018, ID: 10963054, DktEntry: 109-2, Page 18 of 69 :