Where there are inherent state law limits placed upon post-conviction counsel and hence indigent petitioners' ability to present his/her substantial post-conviction claims, does this warrant an extension of equitable principles and/or hence establish cause to excuse procedural default?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Through legislation, Tennessee Law makes it literally impossible for indigent non-capital petitioners to receive the effective assistance of post-conviction counsel and/or to obtain postconviction relief no matter how entitled she/he might be thereto by placing financial limitations and zero entitlement to investigative and/or expert services. A factual intensive confession by a third party establishing Petitioner’s clear-actual innocence, is blocked from consideration because this Court has not issued a decision permitting free standing claims of actual innocence in a non-capital case. A McQuiggin analysis is also avoided. This Court’s precedent, requiring a petitioner to have been actively misled by counsel for extension of equitable principles to apply, — and overwhelming record support of such occurrence, was ignored by the Sixth. Circuit as was Petitioner’s plea for equitable relief. As with the district court, so was whole record consideration. I. WHERE THERE ARE INHERENT STATE LAW LIMITS PLACED UPON POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL AND HENCE INDIGENT PETITIONERS ABILITY TO PRESENT HIS/HER SUBSTANTIAL POST-CONVICTION CLAIMS, DOES THIS WARRANT AN EXTENSION OF EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES AND/OR HENCE ESTABLISH CAUSE TO EXCUSE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT? : ; Il. WHERE THERE IS AN UNCHALLENGED, INDISPUTABLE AND CREDIBLE CONFESSION OF GUILT BY A PARTY TO AN OFFENSE OF WHICH THE PETITIONER STANDS CONVICTED, SHOULD THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HAVE RECOGNIZED AND/OR SHOULD THE SUPREME COURT FINALLY RECOGNIZE A FREE STANDING CLAIM OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE OR AT MINIMUM EXCUSED PROCEDURAL DEFAULT? lil. WHERE A PETITIONER HAS BEEN ACTIVELY MISLED BY HIS STATE COURT POST-CONVICTION ATTORNEY, THAT SHE WILL BE PURSUING HIS POST-CONVICTION CLAIMS THROUGH POST-CONVICTION HEARING AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM, YET, DOES NOT, DOES’ THIS CONSTITUTE ABANDONMENT UNDER PRECEDENT OF THIS COURT? .? x