Was Mr.Ocasio deprived of his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . As in Mr.Qcasio's case where there was no introduction of any , defense whatsoever and the Monroe County Court, Western District Court, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied grounds’ for relief to . Mr.Ocasio stating that there is no grounds for ineffective assistance of “ counsel, rather, disagreement with tactics, trial strategy, defaulted claims, and AEDPA. | (QUESTION 1). WAS MR.OCASIO DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO : | EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HIS TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO: 1). ; | INTRODUCE ANY DEFENSE; 2). INTRODUCE EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN | BOTH WHAT WAS AND WHAT WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S; 3). CROSS-EXAMINE THE PEOPLE'S EXPERT REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF INFLICTED TRAUMA; 4). ADEQUATELY CROSS-EXAMINE THE PEOPLE'S EXPERT ON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE ACCOMMODATION SYNDROME REGARDING LITERATURE RAISING DOUBTS AS TO THE , SYNDROME; 5). CONSULT OR CALL MEDICAL EXPERT; 6). OBTAIN COPIES OF THE COLPOSCOPE SLIDES AND HAVE THEM REVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL ' EXPERT; 7). RETAINED MEDICAL EXPERT; 8). CALL FACTS WITNESSES WHEN THEY a : WERE AVAILABLE TO COOPERATE AND TESTIFY FOR THE DEFENSE ? | ; (QUESTION 2). CAN TRIAL STRATEGY AND TACTICS EXCUSE ALL THESE FAILURES | HIGHLIGHTED IN QUESTION (1): WHEN ALL (8) ARE SUBJECT TO ONE CASE ? (QUESTION 3). WAS THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN CONFLICT WITH . ESTABLISHED FEDERAL ‘LAWS IN DENYING MR.OCASIO'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY WHEN MR.OCASIO'S CLAIMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION WERE PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER MCQUIGGINS v. PERKINS, 469 U.S 383; 7m ; KRUELSKI_v. Connecticut Supreme Ct. for Jud. Dist. of Danbury, 316 F 3d | 103, 106 (2d.Cir. 2003) TO OVERCOME HIS PROCEDURAL BAR, DEFAULTED CLAIMS, AND AEDPA TO ALLOWED PETITIONER'S CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF | COUNSEL, ACTUAL INNOCENT, MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, CAUSE AND PREJUDICE, CONTRARY TO OR INVOLVED AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEAR ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW OR UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 | [a](1)(2) ? } QUESTION 4). WAS MR.OCASIO'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE. COUNSEL, AND A FAIR TRIAL VIOLATED ‘WHEN © MR.OCASIO DO NOT HAVE THE ECONOMICAL SUPPORT TO RETAINED A MEDICAL EXPERT TO INTRODUCE MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE AND WHEN REQUESTED IN POST ~ CONVICTIONS REMEDIES ..: THE INTRODUCTION OF PEDIATRIC MEDICAL EXPERT THE COURT DENIED MR.OCASIO'S REQUEST STATING THAT ANOTHER EXPERT IS NOT GOING . TO SAY ANYTHING EXCULPATORY IN NATURE, THEREFORE, ASSUMING THE POSITION OF A MEDICAL EXPERT TO DENIED MR.OCASIO'S MOTION ? _ QUESTION 5). IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THESE CASES; GERSTEN V. SENKOWSKI, 426 F. 3d 588; HOLSOMBACK V. WHITE, 133 F. 3d 1382 at 1386,1387; PAVEL V. : HOLLINS, 261 F. 3d 210; EZE V. SENKOWSKI, 321 F. 3d 110; BURCH V. MILLAS, 663 F. Supp. 2d 151; LINDSTADT V. KEANE, 239 F. 3d 191 FUNDAMENTALLY STRESSED MR.OCASIO'S CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS HIGHLIGHTED IN QUESTION (1), SO, IT WOULDN'T BE FATR TO SAY THAT ONE. ACCUSED OF A SERIOUS CRIME AS IN THIS CASE, MR.OCASIO, AND BASED IN THE ABOVE CASES WE CAN AGREE THAT MR.OCASIO WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, AND DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, THAT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAWS ? (QUESTION 6). DID THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN _ DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ERROR IN ASSESSING THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OF CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS IN A STATE COURT CRIMINAL TRIAL UNDER BOTH “SUBSTANTIAL AND INJURIOUS EFFECT" STANDARD SET BY BRECHT v. ABRAHAMSON, 507 U.S. 619, 631, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 123 L. Ed.2d 353. "HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" STANDARD SET FORTH IN CHAPMAN v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. | 18, 24, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed 2d 705 Pp.2324-2328. ?