Issues being raised

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED This case before the Honorable Court through its Materiality of (5) years of impermissible Inordinate Delays presents important issues in the Interest of justice, U.S. Public Concern, and especially concerns of the U.S. Citizens immediately affected through the collateral Liberty Interests Violations disregarded ; through either Judicial Neglect, Manifest Mistakes, prejudice of the subject matter, or Partiality that eroded Federal Rights of Due Process-Equal Protection of Law in a 3rd Circuit Judicial System that failed to exercise its Jurisdiction under Statute 28 U.S.C §2254.; and its Statutory obligations of de nova review in adjudicating appellant's cognizable Law claims contrary to: "[]t is the birth right of every American citizen when charged with a crime, to be tried, in accordance to law...and if ineffectual, there is immunity from punishment...," Ex Parte Milligan, Infra; "Habeas Corpus relief to redress due process violations regardless of the heinousness of the crime, [and], apparent guilt of the offender," Irvin, Infra; “There is no higher duty of a court, under our Constitutional system, then to _ carefully process and adjudication of petitioners for Writ of Habeas Corpus, for it is in such proceedings that a person in custody charges error, neglect, or evil purpose has resulted in unlawful confinement : and he is deprived of freedom contrary to law," Harris, Infra. The gross Neglect to exercise 28.U.S.C_ §2254. Jurisdiction that dismissed appellant's First 2254. Writ Petition; without certificate of : appealability is a serious matter risking injury to critical human liberty interests that arises substantial “questions of the Intergrity of the Thrid Circuit Judicial system? Mr. Begnoche presents the following ' questions: ~ vets . " 1). Did the Panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decree its Order denying appellant's Good Cause Motion for Federal Rule App. P.5-4(a)(5)(A)(ii) Extension of Time, to file contrary to the Spririt and , _ Language of previous order; and District Court "Covid Standing Order 2020-19" and United States Supreme Court "Covid List"? a " 2), Did the Panel of the Third Circuit Lack Juridiction to rule on the merits of the Habeas Corpus Petition © : when it sidestepped the appropriate process which denied appellant his Due Process Rights under §2253. to make his substantial showing of his L.A.R. 22.3 Statement of Reasons for Application of . . “Certificate of Appealablity? : ; : : . . 3). Did the Third Circuit Middle District Court's Abuse of Discretion denying (8) Motions for Court , _ Appointed Counssel interfere with the Normal Operations of the Third Circuit Judiciary System, deny ~ appellant his Rights to Access to-The Courts to adequately develope his non-frivolous claims, and satify ; . his Burden of high legal standards to show entitlement to an evidentiary Hearing and Habeas Corpus . relief contrary to 18 U.S.C.§3006a and 28 u.s.c. §1915(d) and §2241(C)? i Exparte Milligan, 71 (wall) 2, 118-120 (1886) Irvin v. Down, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961) Harris v Nelson, © 7 -@) i Se . | DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE OR FINANCIAL INTERESTED PERSONS | ' Pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.6, ‘appellant Paul J. Begnoche presents for the Record the following Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure: ; 1). Mr. Begnoche is not a subsidiary or affiliate of a public owned company; 2). All respondent interest parties are listed in the cover caption as Superintendent of PA DOC SCI MERCER; Pennsylvania Attorney General or the Office of Attorney General; all respresented by attorney of Notice: | Deputy D.A. Ryan H. Lysaght, Esq; further concerned parties of Service . shall be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of Pennsylvania; | Ly and the Middle District Court of the Third Circuit of Pennsylvania; as all parties in direct interest of the outcome of this case. . | : , . CASES IN RELATION TO THIS CASE . Timely filed Satute 28 U.S.C §2254. Writ of Habeas Corpus Petit