Whether courts should be required to state reasons and indicate evidence relied upon to protect against arbitrary enforcement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Brent Edward Lovett (Prisoner in Custody of BOP, RRC) moves this Court to remand the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for the Court to explain and detail “why” the 20 pages of detailed legal arguments (concerning the drug use, disbarment and imprisonment of his Appellate Counsel) : which clearly shown that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [section 2255 motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right “and” that any jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court . was correct. in its procedural ruling" did not meet its test, and what that test was, and what issue was this test applied to. 1. Under the protections of 5" and 14° Due Process clauses, should the Courts be required to state the reasons for determinations and then indicate the evidence and record that were relied upon to protect precepts of fundamental fairness and to protect against arbitrary enforcement? 2. Is Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,484 (2000) unconstitutionally vague because the opinion is worded in a standardless way that invites arbitrary enforcement which has resulted in a “void for vagueness” standard? 3. What is a “Jurists of Reason”, what is “Debatable”? Should a “Jurists of Reason” be understood as a ‘jurists deciding reasonably,” i.e., as an inquiry into conduct, not status? If two people disagree on any topic, is that debatable? At the COA stage, the only question is whether the applicant has shown that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his 2 constitutional claims orthat jurists could conclude the issues presented are ; adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. This Court has never heard a case on the merits of any test into what is reasonable, or how to determine what is debatable. Without any kind of test, the Courts across this country have ruled inconsistently on this issue. The Courts have used this “lack of a standard test” to deny prisoners their Constitutional rights with the “blanket statement” from Slack v. McDaniel which has no possible verifiable standard, which in itself is a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment violation of the United States Constitution right to Due Process. Wouldn't any “Jurists of Reason” find it debatable whether the district court © was correct, when it ruled a counsel was not ineffective, when: 1) The counsel failed to follow 4 Appellate Court orders? 2) The counsel failed to file the Appellate Brief by the Court imposed deadlines, 8 times, over 16 months? 3) The counsel failed to meet with and communicate with his client? , 4) The counsel files a partial appellate brief without input or notice to his client, and failed to argue any of the non-frivolous issue presented by the client? 5) The counsel was a known drug addict? 6) The counsel was terminated from 14 other federal cases due to his failure to represent his clients? 7) The counsel was disbarred from practicing law? ° 8) The counsel was arrested in a drug sting, and charged with accessory to murder? 4. What is a fair test to give adequate guidance, so that the average person can determine, what a reasonable jurist would find debatable? Persons of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of [an] enactment and or ruling. Denial of due process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. 3