Whether the lower courts' rulings directly conflict with the holdings in (1) McQuiggin v. Perkins; (2) Cronic v. United States, and (3) Cuyler v. Sullivan

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (a) WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS RULINGS’ DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH THE HOLDINGS IN (1) McQUIGGIN V. PERKINS; (2) CRONIC V. UNITED STATES, AND (3) CUYLER V. SULLIVAN IN THAT THE COURTS HAVE TIME BARRED A CLAIM OF INTERNTIONAL COUNSEL ABANDONMENT, WITHOUT A RULING ON THE MERITS, ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THIS PRO SE LITIGANT DISCOVERED THE BASIS OF THE ISSUE TOO LATE TO AVAIL HIMSELF BY HABEAS CORPUS? (b) WHETHER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT’S MANDATE FOR “ASSISTANCE” BY COUNSEL “FOR THE DEFENCE” OF THE ACCUSED SPEAKS TO THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ENTER A VALID JUDGMENT, AND WHETHER SUCH “ASSISTANCE” IS SUFFICIENTLY FUNDAMENTAL AND ESSENTIAL TO SECURING A FAIR TRIAL, THAT A SIGNIFICANT DEPRIVATION OF THIS RIGHT WOULD CONSTITUTE A UNIQUE TYPE OF HABEAS CLAIM EXEMPT FROM THE AEDPA’s STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? (c) WHETHER THE AEDPA’s TIME LIMITATION DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS A PROTECTED CLASS OF INMATES UNABLE TO HIRE POST CONVICTION COUNSEL, AND WHETHER ENFORCING THE LIMITATIONS UPON THE UNDEREDUCATED PRO SE LITIGANT BECAUSE OF HIS COGNITIVE RESTRICTIONS CONSTITUES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS? (d) WHETHER MR. COXE IS ENTITLED TO EQUITABLE TOLLING ON THE GROUNDS OF HIS DILIGENT EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE WITHOUT ACCESS TO THE DISCOVERY, AND AFTER HAVING BEEN DEFRAUDED FOR HIS LIFE SAVINGS BY A LAWYER WORKING INCOLLUSION WITH AN OVER-ZEALOUS PROSECUTOR? ¢ / : (2) AList of All