Has the Appellant been denied Due Process of Law in that no Court has reasonably observed the actual claims raised by the Appellant?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Has the Appellant been denied Due Process of Law in that no Court has reasonably observed the actual claims raised by the Appellant ? ANSWER: _ YES. 2. Has the warrantless search, Miranda violation, and seizure of evidence violated the Appellant’s well established Constitutional Rights ? ANSWER: _ YES. 3. Has ineffective preliminary hearing Counsel (Martin) violated the Sixth Amendment Rights and Article (1), Section (9), by allowing the Elk County Courts to proceed to Trial Court, after failing to establish a prima facia case against the Appellant’s actual innocence claim ? ANSWER: _ YES. 4. Has ineffective Trial Counsel (Devecka) violated the Sixth Amendment Rights and Article (1), Section (9), for failing to appeal to the Superior Court the timely suppression, habeas corpus and actual innocence claims raised by the Appellant, before deciding without authorization to proceed to trial ? ANSWER: _ YES. (i) QUESTIONS PRESENTED (cont.) 5. Was ineffective Trial Counsel (Devecka) impaired by a brain disease called Cerebellar Degeneration, during the three (3) day jury trial, by failing to bring forth rebuttal witnesses and by failing to allow the Appellant’s witnesses to testify ? ANSWER: _ YES. 6. Was Appellant Counsel (Hindman), whom was the Counsel of Record, ineffective for not properly, promptly or timely filing a Petition For Allowance Of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to secure the Appellant’s appeal rights ? ANSWER: _ YES. (ii)