Whether both the trial court and the State's Public Defender''s Office invited error and erroneously denied the Petitioner his 6th Amendment rights to assistance of counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I) Whether both the trial court and the State's Public Defender’'s Office invited error and erroneously denied the Petitioner his 6th Amendment rights to assistance of counsel; after the State Pubic Defender's Office confirmed that the Petitioner had properly filled out his application for assistance of counsel and qualified for assistance at state expense and after the trial court had ratified the entry of appearance, in permitting the Public Defender's Office to withdraw its representation of the Petitioner after the Public Defender's Office later alleged that the application for assistance of counsel was incomplete? II) Whether; when the Petitioner's choice, intentional and/or implied, to represent himself and proceed without the assistance of counsel completely breaks down, countervailing considerations mandate that a trial court appoint, sua sponte, the appointment of counsel to protect the rights of an accused? III) Whether an objection; made by the Petitioner who was proceeding in a pro se capacity in a criminal trial, in regards to the complete failure of the prosecution to establish the unavailability of a witness whose deposed testimony was later introduced at trial, can be reasonably construed to be an objection as to a violation of the Petitioner's 6th Amendment rights to Confrontation whose provisions, by themselves, does not permit the admittance of such testimony absent an affirmative showing of a firmly rooted exception? ii