When a petitioner makes a prima facie showing of constitutionally impermissible conduct by prosecution, must court hold a Franks hearing to investigate claims?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW : : 1) When a petitioner makes a prima facie showing of constitutionally impermissible conduct by, prosecution, must court hold a =ranks hearing to investigate claims? ; 2) ts the failure of a court to hold such hearing the type of exceptional circumstance that will warrant mandamus? 3) Do repeated denials of petitioners requests for an evidentiary hearing where petitioner presents swom statements and iffidavits violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges? 4) Does such a violation warrant the extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel courts performance? 9) Where a Judge begins “rubber stamping" Petitioners motions is he violating his Oath to "do equal right to the poor and the ich” especially when Petitioner is proceeding pro se? 7 . 3) Do such denials rise to the level of violating Petilioners 5th Amendment Rights to due process? : Pz . . Fe | . oe . RELIEF SOUGHT pm | Petitioner Charles Gary Bruce prays the Supreme Court of the United States grant a writ of mandamus directed to the court-of | appeals for the 6th circuit and to the Honorable Judges of that court directing and commanding these respondents to hold an | evidentiary hearing to investigate the claims Petitioner has attempted to present in In re: Charles Gary Bruce, No. 20-5810, (6th | cir. Nov. 3, 2020) and in Bruce v United States, No. 19-6166, (6th cir. Feb. 4, 2020), and in Bruce v United States, No. 16-5080, | (6th cir. Jul. 31, (018), and in In re: Bruce No. 12-5204, (6th cir. Dec 21 2012), and in Bruce v United States, No 14-5251, (6th | cir. Sep. 20, 2011), and to act in accordance with this courts decision in this matter, and to appoint him counsel in these matters. “Alterriately, failing these requests, Petitioner prays:this Court leave open and preserve Petitioner's privilege of bringing a | petition for certiorari, habeas corpus, or any other action as would be necessary and proper, directly in this Court, and that this | Court appoint him counsel in that matter. , : | . | UNAVAILABILITY OF RELIEF INOTHER COURTS . No other court can grant the relief sought by this petition because Petitioner does not seek certiorari in the supreme court at this time but merely the opportunity to have the evidence he is presenting duly heard and considered. The proper forum for an evidentiary hearing in a motion under 28 USC S 2255 is the district court. To authorize the filing of a second or successive notion under 28 USC $ 2255 the court of appeals must grant permission to proceed. Since the court of appeals forthe 6th Zircuit has denied this authorization to Petitioner numerous times and indeed appears to be biased and prejudiced against ?etItioners filings, to have become vexed with Petitioner and thereby unwilling to even consider his motions, Petitioners only ‘ecourse is to pray this Court will exercise it's power in a supervisory position and compel said court to give Petitioners motion jue consideration. The only court in such a position as to hold supervisory powers over the court of appeals is the Supreme Zourt, and therefore, this court is the only court able to grant petitioner relief requested. UNSUITABILITY OF ANY OTHER FORM OF RELIEF : No other form of relief will be sufficient to protect and enforce Petitioners rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United 3tates because Mandamus is the only avenue available to Petitioner to compel respondent to perform the duty owed Pefitioner inder due process. . . | . | . 7 73° * eee : ‘