Was Petitioner denied his constitutional right of access to the courts where the federal defender refused to file or assist in the filing of a Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court of the denial of his direct appeal?

Was Petitioner denied his constitutional right of access to the courts where the federal defender refused to file or assist in the filing of a Petition ’■ for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court of the denial of his direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court?1. Was petitioner denied his constitutional right of access to the Courts where the Federal Medical Center does not have a law library^that has any legal books or authorities, nor provide petitioner with assistance of someone trained in the lav? to assist with help to prepare and file a petition to file certiorari to the United States Supreme Cort?2. 1 .Petitioner was clearly denied his constitutional right of access to the Courts v/here the federal defender refused to file a Petition for writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court raising the issue of whether the Petitioner was denied his right under the United States Constitution to face his accuser at anytime during the trial court proceedings? At no time ’ was the informant ever produced to testify at any stage of the trial court proceedings. This was required to identify Petitioner as being the person who had sold drugs to her. While the lead detective had testified at pre-trial hearings, the informant had not testified at any stage of the proceed ings, which denied Jackson his Constitutional right to face his accuser. See U.S. Const, amend.VI. The ensures that ”[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be conronted with the witnesses against him. ” Admitting out-of-court that are "offered to establish the truth of the matter asserted" violates this.clause unless "(1) the declarant is unavailable and (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examin the declarant." Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004)). A declarant's statement is testimonial if "a reasonable person in the declarants position would anticipate his statement being used against the accused in investigating and prosecuting the crime. -1 / Where the government failed to establish by any testimony that Jackson was the seller of drugs to the informant, and the informant was the only person who would have been able to identify Jackson as the person she purchased drugs from that she turned over to police. Because she was not brought forth to in fact identify Jackson, his Constitutional right to confrontation was denied him and the conviction should be reversed by the granting of the writ of haneas corpus. Jackson was denied his constitutional right of access to the Courts 2. where the Federal Medical Center at Rochester Minnesota failed to provide him with adequate law library services or assitance to prepare timely a Fetition for writ of Certiorari for the United States Supreme Court. To date the Federal Medical Center (FMC) Rochester fails to comply with providing inmates with the proper and adequate lav T library or library services, with persons trained in the law to assist prisoners. As a result, Petitioner, as most others navigate their way through the system without the knowledge, help or assistance from anyone knowledgeable of the law to assist with petitioning the courts and they are blocked from further litigating their cases, as was this Petitioner. Because the FMC-Rochester has violated Petitioner's constitutionally secured right of access to the courts, this Court should grant the writ of habeas corpus to examine the intentional violatings of the Eureau of Prisons, simply so in mates cannot litigate, which cannot continue. -2