Was petitioner deprived of due-process, self-representation, fair-trial, confrontation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. WAS PETITIONER DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS AND HIS RIGHT OF SELF REPRESENTATION UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS BY THE TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS REVOCATION OF HIS SELF REPRESENTATION WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION WHERE THE RECORD SHOWED PETITIONER’S DILIGENT PREPARATION FOR TRIAL AS WELL AS HIS ASSURANCE TO THE COURT THAT IF HE WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL IN SIX MONTHS, HE WOULD VOLUNTARILY ALLOW HIS ADVISORY COUNSEL TO TAKE OVER. I. WAS PETITIONER DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS BY THE TRIAL COURT’S INSISTENCE THAT HE WEAR A STUN BELT THAT IMPAIRED HIS COGNITIVE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF ANY RECORD OF COURTROOM DISTURBANCE OR MISBEHAVIOR, DEPRIVED HIM OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL. I. WAS PETITIONER DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS, A FAIR TRIAL, AND HIS RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION BY THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF THE TESTIMONY OF DECEASED PROSECUTION WITNESS MAURICE LABERGE GIVEN AT A CANADIAN EXTRADITION HEARING AT WHICH THERE WAS NO INCENTIVE TO CONDUCT CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A MANNER COMPARABLE TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION AT A CALIFORNIA TRIAL.