Should the United States District Court of Colorado have granted the Petitioner Counsel after he informed them that he had an ongoing Complaint against his retained counsel prior to her filing his habeas Corpus, and her doing so on the deadline date, and then the Court grants Counsel the opportunity to withdraw, thus leaving Petitioner without representation in such a pivotal and potentially determinative hearing?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED L Should. not the. United Stales District Court of Qloredo have qranted the Petitioner Counsel Gter he informed, them hat he had an ongoing Complaint Against his teteined counel prior -fo her Filing his habeas Corpus c/o Contec cing with im, and her doing So onthe deadline dete (Which happened, to € Ne Same L that the Supreme Court denied the wrk o& Gerturiari), Gnd then the Court 6CRts Counsel the CRforkunity © withdraw, thus leaving Petitioner Lo hepresentastion 1A Such g pivotal and poberctvcallg deteumente| hecarre 3 2 Pid the (O* circuit court o& Gppeaks err in den titi one rs opening brief ond fedrhon for a (hewn 2 wy perrioners coa/ 3. Should the io! circuit Court of Appeuls have ignored Federal Rules o& Cuidere that were vrdlated, SHeAPwally Rule becey? 4, Dees nok-tial Camel have an Abligatron and an ethizal duty adhere To the tules Ge Pikesstoral Conduct when hepresenting Q dePendgnf-? 5. Does-the pedrtioner Q United Slates Citizen ; not hawe conshtufiotal riqhts (namely the st by iyt amendments), Hat gre to be Protected and Tendon!