Whether review should be granted to correct a U.S. Constitution violation when inferior federal courts have failed to acknowledge a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of appointed counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . 1 (QUESTION One). 2 : ; . " ; ” 3 Yielding to a ends of justice inquire in regards to a 4 federal application for writ of habeas corpus, should review 5 be granted in the’ spirit of correcting a U.S. Constitution 6 violation in the Ist magnitude, when inferior federal courts . ; 7 have (failed) to acknowledge a claim alleging there isa , , 8 cause, and prejudice for untimely filing of 28 U.S.C.2254,do ; 9 to ineffective assist. of counsel at trial level, and (no) 10 counsel appointed as of (right), : Mt Whether remand, or recall of mandate is necessasary in a light ef New bedrock procedural rule announce in Martinez v. *8 Ryan[2012-U.S.-1; Holding; ; " Courts are now obligated to address a (I.A.C.) claim at . trial level,or NO counsel as of right (DISPITE)’ A.E.D.P.A., : 17 MEANING A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM OF THIS NATURE excuses any pro1s cedural default (noting that (NO) C.O.A. HAS BEEN ISSUED HERE 19 WHERE A CLEAR U.S. v. Cronic[1984-U.S.-} claim is present.) 20 See Dowd v. U.S. ex rel. Cook#{1951-U.S.-] U.S. Supreme 21 court (predecessor) recalling this courts mandate issued _ 22 ‘several yrs. earlier, to now allow a new appeal in . : 23 accordance to equal protection clause in U.S.CA. HL 24 | " ° . . ; or cr tC INNOCENCE FACTS ON L2G LM 2a 26 . ‘ . . 27 |b : 28 ||7 : . . . ‘ teg. } th ; (QUESTION TWO); . . In event petitioner prevails on structural error in question #1. Sihould court instead, Order a New trial on the bases that do to the states arbitrary refusal to : appoint counsel as of right, it has resulted in the , distruction of all records required to be developed by the appointed appellant counsel that was aval; at that jumture in time having either a positive,or negative impact on appeal claims. ; : Recognizing that reversal hergonly requires sufficient : facts, and trial counsel to acknowledge incompetence at. . a evid. hearing. . : . Petitioner now {cannot ) recieve a (TRUE) adequate : evid. review on counsels (clear) memory to : : . recall events in relevance to a significant amount in (pasage of time)has occured here, counsel can (NOT) : be expected to recall events occuring over 25 yrs. ago. The holding that on such claim,it is presumed unreliable (favors) remedy here,compare case Rodriquez v.U.S.11969] 395 U.S. 327, Remanded by this court 6yrs. after conviction date to resolve I.A.C. t® reinstate . . direct appeal. — ‘ 4 : i : (QUESTION THREE); ; Upon new trial remedy should order included. exclusion of evidence obtained in violation . , the U.S.Const evid. as . alleged in statement of case,an federal habeas, “1{V-. ; ; (QUESTION FOUR): Is Granting . . warranted to resolve and ESTABLISH U.S. PRECEDENT addressing whether ; RETROACTIVE application. applys to the NEW BEDROCK : : RULE announced in Martinez v. Ryan [2012-U.S.-], (EXCEPTION to address merits of certain claims DISPITE A.E.D.P.A. ; time-barr), BASED on Principles of BEDROCK PROCEDURES C Established in Gideon v. and : ; : Evitts v. Lucy [1984-U.s.-], applying under Teague v. Lane : ~. £1989~-U.S.-] (SECOND EXCEPTION), Howps-. Retroas true ~applt.. . . : “ ~pe ff ry “ ° . . . . ; 7 an ' cafien pecmits..a_sew role that implicates fondamenta) : Co. fairness, mandating, central to. accucate. detecmination of 9lt or ; innocence and APPLYS RETROACTIVELY to cases that where FINAL, .. uo soe . : oo oo 1 Based on 1a feciae' Federal courts (wea.ecr) to address allege tion._to timely filea_mofior te. Mitigale in + a oo . . . de eee . | bco:pec-(ceheving. ted. appointed habeascomzel) under . tamate nal bor cole, 5G. R,29:2,.Cs. graahag. | Ceuew ia interes? of fesraess Mhect,, to” &emany . . . ri 7 . and cexolve limekness and chi Jignificant vg le a . a Wacate Dc. habeas final ordee? é (Notug ia_pro-per, a Sfereat ovtcone will result) 2. evi! .