Where petitioner was denied Court appointed counsel

Questions Presented: 1. Where petitioner was denied Court appointed counsel by the District Court of Oregon, where such petitioner denied his Due Process of law, 1. where petitioner have language barrier filed at least Six different motions for appointment of counsel letting the courts know that under his circumstances appointment of counsel was necessary to prevent due process violations. The District Court was aware of petitioner's language barrier, he does not speak, read or writ English, does not have any legal knowledge and does not have a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and coherently his contentions. 2. Where petitioner was denied his Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-determination and was denied motion to suppress, the statements he made to the detectives, where such petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, (1) where trial counsel failed to properly litigate motion to suppress. (2) Where the detectives used threats and fear to induce petitioner to make statements. Petitioner's statements were harmful. The state used them to convict him of serious felonies. Under the totality of the circumstances, the state failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner's statements to the detectives were voluntarily under the Fifth and fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 3. Should petitioner had been granted court appoint counsel and allowed the evidentiary hearing . he requested of the District court on this habeas proceeding for the purpose of attempting to determined whether petitioner's statements to Detective Kirlin were made voluntarily or was the product of duress, coercion, express or implied. (4) Should petitioner have been allowed the evidentiary hearing he requested of the District court on this habeas proceeding for the purpose of attempting to determined whether an effectively litigated motion to suppress could have affected the outcome of the case, and whether petitioner's trial testimony is tainted by the erroneously admitted pretrial statements. Did the state prove that defendant's subsequent statements were voluntary when questioning officer first read defendant's Miranda rights, told defendant that he _ believed the victim, stated that the victim might harm herself if defendant didn’t confess, and stated that the prosecutor would be “angry” if defendant continued to deny the allegations? }