Whether appointment of counsel on appeal for briefing, and the actions of counsel in detracting from the intended issues raised in the Certificate of Appealability (as misconstrued by the Ninth Circuit when drafting the certified issue) may have been deliberate, in violation of Petitioner's due process right, or due to incompetence?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED “fh Whether appointment of counsel on appeal for briefing, and the actions of counsel in detracting from the intended issues raised in the Certificate of ; by the Ninth Circuit when drafting the certified issue) may have been deliberate, in violation of Petitioners due process right, or due to incompetence?’ 2. Whéther the Ninth Circuit abused it's discretion allowing counsel on appeal to brief certified issue it misconstrued in reading the Certificate of Appealability, diverting the Courts attention from the real issue of the stateimpediment to filing the writ, in this pre-AEDPA homicide case, by trying to suggest/ argue the PC 1170.95 motion reopened the case for tolling purposes, where hé informed the Court by motion for reconsideration of it's errorunresponded to todate? ‘ 3. Whether "fraud on the court" by the state, claiming no records exist, after prison staff's loss or destruction of Petitioners legal property in the years following the AEDPA's passage, was an impediment to filing habeas petition, within the meaning of 28 USC § 2244(d)(1)(B), constituting an "extraordinary circumstance", entitling Petitioner to equitable tolling, in this pre-AEDPA case involving a conflict, wherein the prosecutor shared familial relations with thevictim, he intended to challenge, among other claims?