Whether the order promulgating the 1992 amendments to Rule 32 constituted violations of guarantees against ex post facto law and due process under the U.S. Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Nine years ago, the State of Arizona in reaction to its becoming aware of an unrelated investigation of petitioner Giuseppe Viola, involving his automobile coach building operations, among those within his San Francisco holding company, where he had been resident for over two decades, began its prosecution of him, under an indictment it had issued twenty years earlier, in N°. CR 1990-010323, alleging events occurring between 1987 and 1989, for a distinct and distinguishable ; individual, with the same common Italian surname, who was also bald and bearded. The petitioner self-represented at trial, but was precluded from doing so on direct appeal, notwithstanding the state constitutional guarantee of appeal in all cases, under Art. 2 § 24, and two state supreme court decisions that fully recognized the right.to self-represent on appeal, particularly for those who had also done so at trial. . Following a petition for review to the Supreme Court of Arizona; certiorari to this court on direct appeal; habeas of the state cause; a § 2255 motion in the derivative federal action in San Francisco; and of extensive litigation in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding used to seize all assets; a collateral review to address a number of significant issues, ignored by appointed appellate counsel, was attempted under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. : However, under its Order 171 Ariz. XLIV, the Supreme Court of Arizona amended Rule 32 on September 24, 1992, effective September 30, 1992, to impose a number of | restrictions and procedural filing time limits, except for those who had been sentenced prior to the effective date, rather than providing exception for those with offenses alleged to have occurred prior to that date. The state thereby foreclosed effective review on direct appeal in its denial to self-represent, and again on collateral review, by not recognizing the ancient provenance of its indictment. The Arizona charges were then used to attribute all actions in the federal action and bankruptcy proceedings under the name on its indictment, to the great. prejudicial effect that has since frustrated all attempts at relief. 1. Did the order promulgating the 1992 amendments to Rule 32 constitute violations of guarantees against ex post facto law, and due process, afforded under the Constitution of the United States? : 2. Upon a finding in the affirmative as to the above questions, will this court direct a review of the issues of law thus far deprived, and at a minimum, oo provide an opportunity to restore the productive enterprises on which clients ; and customers relied? re — a ; ; i