Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when a trial court freezes assets, appoints counsel over a defendant's objection, restricts hiring of private counsel, and forces a defendant to trial with unwanted appointed counsel

I Has the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel been met w hen a trial court freezes and takes control of the Defendant’s assets, appoints counsel over the Defendant’s objection, prohibits the jailed Defendant from attempting to hire his own counsel unless the prospective lawyer first comes before the court to be interviewed by the judge without the Defendant’s presence or participation, and then tells the lawyer s who come that she intends to use part of the Defendant’s funds to pay for appointed counsel and costs and is vague about how much of Ahmed ’s money w ill be left for counsel ’s fees, the Defendant never gains access to his funds and is forced to trial with appointed counsel he does not want and is convicted and sentenced to death? Specifically, did the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court’s precedent when it denied Mr. Ahmed a CO A? II Has the Defendant ’ right to Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law been observed when his pro se presentation of his claim that his Sixth Amendment right to hire counsel was denied is deemed not to have been presented to the state courts by his pros se efforts even though his appointed lawyers failed repeatedly to raise the issue in the state courts and the federal courts misapplied a state prohibition against hybrid representation ? Specifically, did the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court’s precedent when it denied Mr. Ahmed a CO A by recognizing this as a default without analysis .