Did the court err by failing to inquire, explore, and/or avoid potential conflicts of interest by creating a scenario equivalent to collusion or counsel at a critical stage in the proceedings?

No question identified. : : | Levi Gackefilee PSH No: 1747138 all o 2 Highland Ave, No. 76 Patton af Me 4 email: LeviRocketellere gmail, Co all avi Ko aie OC, ) < preme Alo Plaintiff, ) ° —= rat Petitioner al. ereme No. a all Vv. _ Super, No. BA42R70b : | Defendent,: ) ' ie) —Respandents g 3G. § 1257 (8) Al @ a ONS PAESERN : wll Question Dnet with no Califernis aw de (Sl compare Q Angele pertor Cour dee aig Ri 2 er onknow al e250 0 consider United States OHitr Fob 648 ic 9284) making accep on for_Colebei awyec 1 nragos whe Thinvesti ated or mail fraud charges along wi his €0-Conspiretor sllattee ichael Avenatti and ithdrew on Rockefeller’ hedulecs ial ial date e Co [mposeo erages's own private ec al ig ig pe epre fi a Gerages’s motion to vithd au) to also After the brea » court forced a changed oles A 2¢ £ locviously discussed. tn chart, failing fo comply with Cronigy | Ime ¢ ine Kocke ler vi@o a obre Me noah CO VESTAO 6 P | cit e. 3 plea idea 3 evige 20 be A at if ate Gl on eCoroa “z Know wha ou) ant 2 ol am of Qoing to Jive YE at Yo u a il Dig 2 o) (rar 3 0 inva 2, 9 low Gp 34@}icfie at a Critica age. | e oro ceding? b by imposing . 3) n imu a Lon or CNaTN af ore 2 preod la) to 0. ene VYO ? __l | | a . . | —— Questio ‘uot _With ne Califerma case law to _ Bllee are 06 Angeles Su) or Cour ge, Craiq Richman . al Washi nate 460 U5. @6%, 6972 C1984) makin acception af re | lien ts nsidert 5 fet invites review. — | ith his clien {, Mack Geragos And his motion te : ISllusithd raws : . ee Did the court ecror (a) by failin vids duty fo | inguice, explore, andfor_aynid potential monhck? ial by Thigpen creating 6 senerio equivelant to collusion or al stage in the proceeding as discussed — lhe strictland, hoewreve _not without Gest infcinging on the — —lhnehee Lh__and Six Amendment rights violations discussed 25 ||. . Al