When pro-se litigant's 4th amendment consent search claim is misunderstood and misstated, can Stone v. Powell standard be applied to consent search issues in conflict with Schneckloth v. Bustamonte?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED When pro-se litigant’s 4"" amendment consent search claim is misunderstood and misstated, can Stone v. Powell 428 U.S. 465,494 (1976) standard of illegal evidence be applied to consent search issues in conflict with supreme court of the United States rule “that consent be voluntary “ Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 412 U.S. 218,248-249 (1973) ? When pro-se litigants upon properly restating claim, that is not squarely foreclosed : by statue, rule, authoritative court decision, or lacking any factual basis in the record, be denied Habeas Corpus Relief, certificate of appealability, or rehearing en banc in conflict with the standard set forth in Barefoot v Estelle 463 U.S. 880,893 n.4 894 (1983)? Will pro se litigants lacking legal counsel and legal know how, be held in violation : of the constitution for misunderstanding and misstating 4" amendment consent search claims. Causing the claims to be barred by the standard of Stone v. Powell 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976). Instead of the voluntary consent standard as set forth in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 412 U.S. 218, 248-249 (1973)? Are 4" amendment claims of consent search barred by the rule Stone v. Powell 428 U.S. 465,494 (1976), or an affirmative defense to a illegal search claim under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 412 U.S. 218,248-249 (1973)?