Does a defendant who has previously requested and later revoked pro se representation have the right under the Sixth Amendment to later go pro se after renewing the request and meeting Faretta guidelines?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Mr. Watson alleges that the District State Court failed to follow the requirements in which Watson made a clear and unequivocal request for The district deemed Watson’s request was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and he had been unwavering in his request, however they still denied it. The trial court has attempted to create a new precedent outside the rule of law already established and codified by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Watson was forced to proceed to trial with counsel he did not have any confidence in, due to the past issues that had mounted over time. “ From placing funds on his account if he took a life sentence, to supporting with a television and money while he was locked up”. In finding no violation the Tenth Circuit relied upon the state court opinion on direct appeal, also significantly following mental health evaluations used to make determinations by the court that took place a year before Watson was prescribed the medication at issue. This case presents the ; following question. : Does a defendant who has previously requested and later revoked that right him/herself, after being granted, have the right under the Six Amendment to later go pro-se provided he/she has successfully renewed his/her request and met the guidelines under USSC, and Feretta v. California 422 U.S.806. Did the Tenth Circuit err in deferring to the state court finding that Mr. Watson was attempting to manipulate and delay the trial,” The trial was still several months off at this time”. It was the trial court’s opinion that Mr. Watson had satisfied the requirements set forth in the United States Supreme Court and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, for requesting and he had informed the court he was ready to proceed to trial on the trial date set, he was not asking for any continuance, investigators or ADC. Watson made no request for any concessions attached to ag his The trial court did not find that Watson had made an equivocal request,the trial court of 5/28/15 ten days after Watson had made the unequivocal request, the trial court while acknowledging that Watson's request was clear and unequivocal, they believed they did not have to follow those Supreme Court of the United States guidelines and thus found this Six Amendment right to not be determinative, the court made no mention that Watson's request was not knowing, intelligent of voluntary. The jury : had not been impaneled and trial was still several months out. There was sufficient evidence to show that the trial courts opinion was based on misleading and inaccurate information. See: R. ‘fe. 5/18/15 and 5/28/15 p39 20-23. The lower courts have completely dismissed Watsons clear and unequivocal request as if it didn't exsist but the facts still remains that Watson had . met the qualification needed to go pro-se. The hearings On 5/18/15 and 5428/15 supports that claim, therefore should be reviewed. According to the dictates of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 and the USC the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. has entered a decision which is in conflict with the Supreme Court of the United States, and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 along with other Circuit Courts of the United States. Bedrock principles that have been set by the Supreme Court of the United States. ; I + LIST. OF’ PARTIES “ " [ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. bet All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all