Whether the courts below erred in ruling that Petitioner must seek permission to file a second and successive petition

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED No.1 -Whether or not because this case was filed pursuant to this Court's rulings in Buck v Davis, Martinez, and Trevino for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, it was error for the Courts below to rule Petitioner has to seek permission to file a 2nd and successive petition in the court below? No. 2 -Does the court belows review process comport with this Court's standards in Buck v Davis, 197 L. Ed 2d 1 and Tharp v Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 545 on Rule 60(b)(6) motions on ineffective trial counsel claims previously held defaulted as said courts refused to consider Rule 60(b)(6) as the district court's attached order verifies? No. 3 -Can a state use illegal’ trial tactics to deplete a citizen's resources as here, then ata 3rd trial appoint a trial lawyer that deliberately sabotaged the defense and even allowed the state to submit the lesser elements of a 1984 homicide crime to the jury instead of the proper 1961 crime elements, to again deny a fair trial to obtain a conviction, comport with the right to effective trial counsel and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?