Whether assigned counsel were ineffective in violation of the 6th Amendment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) WHETHER ASSIAWE CouNsEL.(s) WERE, AT AW Pout FROM INCEPTIONCONCLUSION OF CASEWCHIEF, INEFFECTIVE OF ASSISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF 6TH AMENDMENT (US. CousT.) ? 2) WHETHER ASSIGNED Course (Mm. BK OKAY) WoLATED Code OF EMICS AND pRoFessLOMB. CONDUCT — "THUS, CRERTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST — WHEN HE BEFRIENDED CompLaiNAAT (ny INSTANT CASE) AND MET AND SPOKE WKH HER OUTSIDE OF CURT, ALLOWING SUCH To EFFECT HIS PERFORMANCE IN THIS CASE REPRESENTIUG DEFENDANT, IN FURTHER VIOLATION oF b™ amevomast? 3) WRETHER M,KIRK OKIM, DEFENSE COUNSEL) WWRS INERFECIUE OF ASSISTANCE AT ANY OR EVERY PART OF TRIAL » ANID ON APPEL “To US.C+A. 5 IN VIOLITION OF GH Amentomasr ? 4) WHETHER M.KIRK KAY'S FaILURE “To CoMMUMIERTE AND ADVISE OEFENDAVT, ESpruaUN WHEN Us5.C.A. ISSUED F778 OpINions oN DEFENDANTS APPEAL b-mowTHS AGO AND He FalHD TO NOT HIM OR SupPLY HIM WITH DocumaTTS 4 ONsTrTUTRES IWEFFECTIVE OF ASSISTANCE ? 3) GOVERMENT PROVED BEYOND A RERSONBBLE DOUBT THE Knowing" STATUS, POSSESSION y JURISDICTION, FIREREM ElLEmayTS oF qaa-G-L, IN LIGHT OF THIS CourT®s (StoTUS) DECISION awd OPINION IN, REHAIF Vv. U.S, 139 3, CT. 2191 ? (2019) SERAIEN USi9 191 Si CT. ANG L) WHETHER, SENTENCING COURT GAVE IMPROPER JURY INSTRUCTIONS ? 7) WRE THER. SENTENTING CouRT’S RUUNG WAS IMPROPER To ALLOW COMPLAINANT To InVORE S™ AMEND. PRVILEGE (AGAINST SAF WOR mivATION) AND REPUSE “To TESTIFY y AND SUBSEQUENTLY , DECLARE AND ISSUE AN UNAVMLABLE WITIVESS CHARGE» IN VICLATION OF DUE Pieces AND CONFRONTATION Causes (MAND 57/4 AMENDMENTS.) ? 9) WETHER SENTENCING COURT'S RULING “To ADIMIT ITO TRIAL. THE @Il-CALL OF Com pLANNANT AS ROMISSIDLE HEARSAY y AS A PRESASTSense /ERCTED UTIERANCE EXCEPTION 9 WAS ImpRopER AND IY VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND CONFRONTATION CLAUSES — WHICH WAS “THE ONLY, “ te] WWUULDRTORY “eviMENtZ" OFFERED BY Goverment ; Q) WHETHER. SESTENCING CouRT!3 RULING NET “To ROMIT INTO TRIAL A RECORDED CALL HER STATEMENTS AND MADE BY ComPLANRAT “To U.S. RTIORWEY'S OFFICE RECANITING (RS FALSE) NS ito uO 1 WAS IMPROPER AND VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS /ConFRonTAT RLEGATIONS OF THE AIF CALL 9 P Ext EVIDENCE, ALBEIT HeresayD E55 AND INTERESTS OF justice — RS IT WAS ExCuLpaTory E \ QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ° WHETHER See TENUNG CourT WAS 1m pAopeR IN 1S QUESTIONING THE jury He vitae wo bebe tannins” Cnumes /orreNves y ALO TH US, PostTIONING IF , Ment 2 THEY COULD MAKE & FAIR AND UNBIASED yuoeWmpROpERLY 11) WHETHER SENTENUUG CoueT LERD -SWAYED THE JURY OR WITNESS 3? 12) WHETHER SENTENCING CouRT IMPROPERLY FAILED “To ComUCT HEARINGS (£.. EVioRoTRY 9 SUPPRESSION, ETC.) BEFORE OR QURNG TRIAL y OR OUTSIOE THE PhESENLE OF THE jury ? 13) WHETHER SENTENOWG COURT OR GOVERNMENT WAS IMpRopER WHEN IT DECIDED NOT To GRAST IMMUATTY “To CompLawaT AND HAVE HOR TESTIFY REGARDING THE’ QilAND SUBSEONEIST RECANTATION CALL? CAL. WH) WHETHER SENTENCING COUT WAS IMPAPER OR FAILED TO CONDUCT A DNA EVIDENTARY HERRING, (OUTSIDE PARSEKKE OF JURY ANO PeRRE AOMIMNG “To JURY OVA EVIDENCE PROVE How A DEFENDANT'S DNA GETS ON AN ITEM ——~ 56 AS NOT To ComPUSE jury? 5) WHETHER FTF AGENT®S COLLECTING DNR BUUAL SAMPLE LYON) ARREST AND Broking WAS A WOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS (E.G, DUE PRobess , SLF-intemMTIcnly ETC.) WHEN . He WWITIALLY REFUSE) “TO SUPPLY OMA Sample AND REQuESTED AN Kno BEFORE a QUESTIONING OR EVIDENCE COLLECTING seen? (ATE Aer 01D NOT HAVE ® Court CRDER Iv) WHETHER SENTENCING, CouRT IMPROPERLY CoenceD DEFENDANT “To GOTO TRIAL wrt M. KIRK OKRY » ViClaTING SereniANT'S RIGHTS ? 11) WHETHER SEUTENUNG COURT WAS WnpAOpER oR FAILED “To RULE ON DEFENDANTS fhoTenyd (E.G. MISTRAL , NEW TRIAL , JUDGMENT OF ACQUITIAL, » SupPMESSi ON, EC. ) > Wh) WETHER yury SELECTION WAS IMPROPER AT ANY POINT, ESPECIALLY WHEN funy Ws oerWITaLy AWO CLERRLY NOT OF DEFENDANT'S PEERS? 19) WHETHER SENTENCING COURT VIOLATED OEFENDAAIT'S RIGHTS FY HoWEVER BRIEFL PLY ¢ ORDER) “UT HE pRotaeD PRO-SE WITHOUT HIM INVOKING HIS 61m nmens0) AGH “To Soe ee a, AND FURTHER EXCLUDING TNE FOR MIE PURPISE PURSUANT “TO S