Whether a pro se petitioner who is unable to afford professional legal representation can be denied the right to self-representation and have unwanted counsel forced upon him in a habeas corpus proceeding

No question identified. : law, is unable to afford professional legal representation and ask the court to liberally construe his unprofessional filing. . " kri¢kson v. Pardus 551 US 89,94 CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT THIS COURT'S EXERCISE OF IT' JURISDICTION IN HABEAS CORPUS DIRECTLY. This court has jurisdiction by Habeas Corpus directly, pursuant to Rule 20; 28 USC 1651 (a) and 28 USC 2241. In EX Parte Hull,312 us 546,547-48 (1941), discussing denying "Pro Se" habeas petitioner access to court as forcibly preventing petitioner from pursuing . his appeal was denial of equal protection of the laws. "The state : may not abridge or impair prisoners' efforts to petition a federal court for vindication of federal rights " id. at 549. INTRODUCTION In this unusual case movant was denied the ist, 5th and 6th amendment constitutional rights during 2255 proceeding. March 17, 1999, movant filed a letter to the court raising various meritorious constitution violations that occurred during trial. Many of the claims prepared by movant (depicted reprehensible prosecutor misconduct) to procure a wrongful conviction. The District Court, prosecution with court appointed counsel acted collaboratively to prevent these habeas issues inter alia from being heard or fairly adjudicated on movant initial 2255 proceedings (as was his right). See AEDPA of 1996 (Congress intended each defendant following conviction one full, fair unobstructed shot at 2255 apple. In seeking to challenge the integrity of the conviction on collateral review). [FN.1, in US v. Berger, 295 US 78, 88 (1935)(held that a prosecutor duty is not merely to secure conviction but see justice be done)]. In order to secure/maintain a wrongful conviction, movant was prevented from appealing / accessing the 2255 remedy by structural error. First: the District Court denied movant both the (sixth amendment) right to self-representation and the statutory right to prepare/manage his own cause pursuant to 28 USC 1654. See US v. — (E.D. Pa), April 5, 2000 hearing transcripe — the court: I'm not going to permit you ‘to file your own habeas corpus motion). But see Rodriguez v. US, 395 US 327 (1969), (that appellant's seeking habeas relief under 2255 must be permitted to prepare their own motion Pro Se). More recently, in McCoy v. Louisiana (2018), this court admonished that such right must be honored and infringing the right was structural error. The Third Circuit followed just as adamantly stating that the right to self-representation is either respected or denied. : Although its denial is not harmless. Cf US v. Peppers, 302 F.3d 120 (3d 2002) Second: the District Court forced appointment of counsel upon habeas movant. Despite movant explicit requests to dispense with appointed counsels involvement in his 2255. See Us v. Williams, no.95-407-02, April 5, 2000 hearing transcript (Exhibit; the court: so you don't want Mr. Levant-Defendant: No), see also April 5, 2000 written Court order (Exhibit-2)(id.4, Defendants motion to immediately withdraw court appointed counsel from any assistance with Petitioner's Pro Se 2255 is denied. 5, Defendant's motion also to compel withdrawal of attorney Levant is denied). But see 28 USC 1654; Adams v. Ex.RelMcCann, 317 US 269,279 (1942)(a court may not force unwanted counsel on defendant). see also Idaho v. Garza, 203 L.ed 77(2019)(there is no right to counsel in a habeas proceedings). The Court then adding further affront to 28 USC 1654. And 6th Amendment supra, authorizing officious counsel to be master of electing whatever issues to be pleaded in the 2255. See US v. Williams, No.95-407-02 (E.D.PA), April 5, 2000 hearing transcript the court: that's my final ruling. I'm not going to change my mind. Defendant: Excuse me your honor. The Court: You're going to talk to your lawyer. I don't want to hear anything you have to say), (id.Nt.201, Mr. Levant: Your Honor, just to inquiry with the court. shall I -what I'll ask Mr. Williams to do. I beleive, is to file issues h