Whether a petitioner and others similarly situated should be granted habeas corpus relief despite being denied due to no fault of their own, abandoned by a law firm with a proven track record of selling out client interests

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ) Ts THeRe Herp FoR A LONE PETITIONER AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; “DENIED” THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DUE TO NO FAULT OF HIS OWN , ABANDONED BY A DE LAW FIRM WITH A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF SELLING OUT THE TNTEREST Of CLIENTS WHICH HAS COST THE DC BAR 4500,000. WHERE THE LOWER COURT “MISCALCULATES THE STATUTE OF LimiTaTIONS', NOT ONLY REFUSING TO CORRECT IT's ERROR » REFUSING TO GRANT PETIT\ON~ CR RELIEF SOUGHT , ONLY TO BE GRANTED TN & CASE OTHER THAN HIS OWN, . THE APPEALS CDORT HAS SANCTIONED SUCH A DEPARTORE, CONSISTENTLY REFERRING APPEALS TO & (2012) PeTiTION. (.2E. THE CURRENT CERTIORARI BEFORE THis COURT Ts BRoaUGHT FROM AQOIT)FILING). THE PER CURIAM oPINON (KPPENDIx A) 45 ADDRESSED TO & (2012) FILING AS BEING "Successive" 2). PETITIONERS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRAIL, COUNSEL. CLAIM LS AN INITIALS REVIEW ELAIN. THIS MAN SuUSTIFY AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE THar THERee Ls NO RIGHT COUNSEL TIN COLLATERAL PZOCEEDINGS , Is THis THe CASE TO RESOLVE WHETHER THar EXCEPT ION EXisT AS A ConSTITOTIONAL MatTrER 7 3). WITH NO INTENTION OF OPENING & TLOODGATE ve PLAC ING A SIGNIFICANT STRAIN ON STATE RESOURCES y» PETITIONER ; SEEKS DUE PRacESS » EQUAL PROTECTION AND & EAE TRAIL 2