Whether the Circuit Court of Will County erroneously deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during his criminal proceedings

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW "This case presents an important issue concerning the proper application of Hlinois Criminal Procedures and the Sixth Amendment Right to Effective Counsel, coupled with the original right to Petition (according to Lord Coke), as well as the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, which is undoubtedly the Right to Defend Oneself. DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WILL COUNTY ERRONEOUSLY DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF HIS SIXTH AMEDNMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING HIS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS? Since this High Court’s decision in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), stating that, the Fourth Amendment places a right to a defendant, to a Probable Cause Hearing before a neutral Magistrate, the Illinois Criminal Procedures have consistently failed to uphold to the standard of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel laid out in Gerstein and echoed in Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), “[a] criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a magistrate judge, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Attachment does not also require that a prosecutor (as distinct from a police officer) be aware of that initial proceeding or involved in its conduct. Pp. 5-20.” | Unlike in Rothgery v. Gillespie County, which defines an adversarial proceeding, simply . as, “{a] criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a magistrate judge, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction”, Illinois unconstitutionally misapplies : Gerstein v. Pugh, as almost a boilerplate statement, and safe word, that if invoked, mutes, and buttresses an individual’s Sixth Amendment Right to effective Assistance of Counsel (emphasis at “effective”. Currently, Illinois applies the Sixth Amendment as follows: “The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution provides defendant with the right to counsel or appointed counsel. U.S. Const., amend VI. This right attaches at or after the initiation of adversarial proceedings. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-89 (1972); People v. Garrett, 179 Ill. 2d 239, 247 (1997). To determine whether the court infringed on defendant’ s right to counsel, : ii we must first decide if the proceeding at issue was adversarial, and thus entitled defendant to . representation.” Instead. of pointing to this High Courts Authority as laid out in Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), which agreed with Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625, 629, Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 398-399, and McNeil v. Wisconsin, which all noted the Sixth | ; ‘Amendment Right to Assistance of Counsel (emphasis on uppercase “Assistance of Counsel”), applies at “an initial appearance following a charge, and this signifies a sufficient commitment | to prosecute regardless of a prosecutor’s participation, indictment, information, or what the | County calls a “formal” complaint”, Illinois utilizes Gerstein v. Pugh, while ignoring Rothgery v. Gillespie County, to initiate an arraignment, whereby they can sidestep the Sixth Amendment | Right to Counsel, by including in that “arraignment”, a probable cause/Gerstein Hearing, and | . ; therefore labeling the proceeding as “not a critical stage”, citing incorrectly Gerstein, 420 U.S. | at 133, The Sixth Amendment states verbatim: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ‘the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shail have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” Throughout the entirety of the language of the Sixth Amendment, in can be noted that there are only fo