Does it constitute 'bad faith conduct' or 'abuse of discretion' when a judge denies a defendant's numerous pre-trial requests for 'stand-by' counsel

Questions Presented | 1. Does it constitute “bad faith conduct” of “abuse of discretion” when a judge denies a defendant’s numerous pre-trial requests for “stand-by” counsel, in which, the denials later becomes the result of a mistrial when a defendant | invokes his constitutional “right to counsel” during trial (especially if there are other alternatives available other than declaring a mistrial)? | 2. If an indigent “pro se” defendant invokes his right to counsel after a jury | is sworn in and impaneled, can a judge or prosecutor initiate crucial | confrontation with a defendant (to obtain consent for a mistrial), outside the | presence of an attorney? | | 3. Cana layman, pro se defendant legally consent to a mistrial without a court first “laying a record” inquiry to demonstrate that consent was unequivocally, intelligently and voluntarily made? 4. Is a defendant federally protected by his double jeopardy rights when a state ‘ trial court or plaintiff (the State) fails to demonstrate a manifest injustice or legal consent adequately on the record before a declaration of a mistrial? 5. Is a defendant federally protected when a state court violates his state and federal constitutional rights, such as a double jeopardy violation, and does this constitutional violation create irreparable harm, or departs from the | essential requirements of law? | 6. Can a State district court of appeals dismiss or deny a defendant access of justice by dismissing a claim of irreparable harm in a writ of prohibition, and are there sanctions or incentives for them to comply swiftly? 7. Does a State court have jurisdiction to proceed on a case that is federally , prohibited by a double jeopardy prohibition bar? 8. Can claims of irreparable harm be remedied on direct appeal? If a state district court of appeals dismisses a petitioner's “writ of prohibition” after claims and an adequate showing of a double jeopardy violation, and are those claims federally protected? 9. Is a defendant required to exhaust all state remedies just to receive protection from a federal double jeopardy prohibition bar? | | | I | 10. What immediate relief is a defendant entitled to (specifically a defendant | who cannot afford an attorney and his court appointed attorney has refused to address those issues, and a defendant that may not be intelligent in expert | capacity to adequately provide notice to a court)? 11, Can a federal court provide a remedy to make it easy for pro se, layman defendants to present these issues by filling out a “ready-made” “qualifying” paper document (form) to address these issues without it being stricken as “hybrid representation” Uf a defendant is deprived of life, liberty, or property because he is denied a federally protected constitutional right --such as a double jeopardy violation)? | | 12.When adequate and immediate relief cannot be obtained swiftly in any form or by any other state court-under what circumstances does a defendant’s | double jeopardy rights become invoked, what automatic, prompt, or legal } vehicle/remedy is available for a defendant, and can a defendant adequately . discharge himself from a case upon a clear and adequate showing of a | federally protected constitutional right such as a double jeopardy violation? | What is the proper immediate vehicle available to obtain prompt relief of a | violated constitutional right? 13. Will it constitute “abuse of discretion” to deny a petitioner's meritorious and | valid writ when there is no other available remedy to relieve irreparable | . harm in violation of a constitutional right (In both federal and State law)? . 14. If a defendant is deprived of life, liberty, or property because he is denied valid double jeopardy protection, Will this deprivation essentially also violate his due process rights? | 15,Can a State Supreme Court make a ruling that dramatically contradicts its | prior opinions, rulings, and State Constitution; does their contradictory | rulings violate federal