Is it clear and indisputable that clerk Hunt acted in ultra vires in denying Harris' COA, that jurists could disagree with the district court's resolution of his claims, that exceptional circumstances justify the writ, and that the Sixth Circuit should be compelled to issue a COA

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Harris’ case presents exceptional circumstances that warrant exercise of this Court’s discretionary power. Because of the willful disobedience or adoption of a deliberate policy in open defiance of the federal rules handed down by this court, has allowed clerk Hunt to become the judge, jury, and executioner of Harris’ protected constitutional rights to get proper redress in federal court pursuant to and 2241(c)(3), which has had a detrimental effect on Harris’ | meritorious constitutional Brady-Chambers due process claims, leaving no other remedy but mandamus for the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. (1) Is it clear and indisputable that, U.S. Sixth Circuit Appeal Court ; clerk Deborah S. Hunt acted in ultra vires in her unpublished COA : denial in light of the full factual or legal basis adduced in support of Harris’ constitutional claims? | (2) Is it clear and indisputable that, jurists of reason could | ; disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional | claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are | adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further? | (3) Is it clear and indisputable that, the issuance of the writ is appropriate in this case because exceptional circumstances have | amounted to a judicial “usurpation of power,” or a “clear abuse of discretion,” justifying the invocation of this extraordinary . remedy? (4) ts it clear and indisputable that, it is agreeable to principles | and usages of law, to compel the performance of a ministerial act, under the U.S. Sixth Circuit Appeal Court’s jurisdiction for a de novo certificate of appealability of Harris’ claims, in light of | the facts and law presented in this action? | Hl