Should the May 2, 1995 Order to Show Cause/Prima Facie case; The NOV 05 2018 Superior Court writ of habeas corpus/Prima facie showing of violation of autonomy, and the current prima facie alleging factual innocence and violation of autonomy, make an exception and allow the Court to hearing De Novo fain hearing and supersede allege successive on abuse of wait of habeas corpus?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Should the May 2, 1995 Order to Show Cause/Praima Facte case; The NOV 05 2018 Superior Court writ of habeas corpus/Prima facie showing of violation of autonomy, and the current prima facie alleging factual innocence and violation of autonomy, make an exception and allow the Court to hearing De Novok fain hearing and supersede allege successive on abuse of wait of habeas corpus??? Attacking the fact that procedure "California Rule of Court § 4.551. (A) (ce) (2) was eineumvented and Defendant was not allowed Counsel, that would have addressed factual innocence and exhibited Autonomy violation would that be successive on abuse?? The Prima Facie evidence that is still sufficient to establish the OSC was 1 not nebutted or contradicted by the Ex-Triak Counsel alleging He knew the “a Detectives Furr, Adain and Smith and the fact they were known for framing a People...That He knew them when he use to be a L.A.P.D. Serpant, and he { ] would show the jury and court I was innocent and someone else committed the ™“, crimes and he would also put me on the witness Stand. Counsel rest the case without doing it and going contrary to my wishs, 48 that violation of autonomy and should the court hear the case??? Was not confronted with the witness against me, was not afforded the power of compulsory process, and not nepresented effectively by competent counsel, due to conflict of interest and violation of autonomy && that a Sixth amendment violation?” ee t QUESTION(S) PRESENTED page 2 ' [Padma Facie evidence that is sufficient to establish the 0.S.C. * Ioas not rebutted on contradicted, defendant alleging that Detectives ' eure, Adain and Smitheframed Defendant and incriminated by them ‘ eounsee DEBLANC opine, he knew the Officers from working with them lghen he was a L.A.P.0. Sergeant and knew them too incriminate “innocent bLacks with false evidence and he would paoduce evidence to _ the count to show it, and did not do it...did contrary to defeng ; _dants wishs 48 this miscarniage of fusticee and violation of autonomy? “Exeulpatory evidence was never produce and the OSC exhibits prima . ‘facie case that shows autonomy,is that a second on supplemental : -: ‘petition for weit af habeas corpus? and 44 46 should it deter . 2 i dtséputing violation of autonomy? -Is petition "successive on and abuse of the writ of habeas corpus | \ | FO petition for attacking that procedure California nule of count §4.-. ‘ | — 557. (A) (4) (2) was not folLowed to appoint counsel to dispute the. laf * factuae dnnocence and violation of autonomy? / Counsel opine he would estadlish factual innocence, that there was | ll. no neasonable cause to anrest defendant, and that counsel knew the -! detectives to frame others and show evidence that someone other then defendant did the erime, however, didnot and done contrary 14 i that autonomy violation and the finst time addressed? ; “FL Ts "quintessential miscarriage of justiegmaking someone do Life i without paroke,who is entinety innocent, and not giving them the -? Hehance to show old and new evidence, that can show erroneous coni vietion of an innocent person? ???