Whether the willful disobedience or adoption of a deliberate policy in open defiance of the federal rules has allowed U.S. Supreme Court Case Analyst Mr. Clayton R. Higgins, Jr., and Sixth Circuit Clerk Ms. Deborah S. Hunt to become the judge, jury and executioner of Harris' protected constitutional rights

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 U.S. Supreme Court Case Analyst Mr. Clayton R. Higgins, Jr., and Sixth Circuit Clerk Ms. Deborah S. 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) \s it clear and indisputable that, U.S. Sixth Circuit Appeal Court Clerk Deborah S. Hunt acted in ultra vires in her unpublished COA merits review, when she denied Harris’ | constitutional claims, in light of federal statutory policy? See §2253(c)(1)(c}(2) in | comparison to Cir. R. 45. Duties of Clerk-Procedural Orders. | (2) \s it clear and indisputable that, U.S. Supreme Court Case Analyst Mr. Higgins, and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Clerk Ms. Hunt, went beyond professional norms | and violated Harris’ 1% and 14" U.S. Const. Amend. freedom of speech to file grievance | against the government to get redress and equal protection of law? (3) |s it clear and indisputable that, the issuance of the writ is appropriate in this case because exceptional circumstances from the respondents have amounted to a judicial “usurpation of power,” or a “clear abuse of discretion,” justifying the invocation of this extraordinary remedy? (4) Is 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? Page ii of 7