Did the Court of Appeals err in ignoring a Motion to Strike the affidavit, denying an evidentiary hearing, and rubber-stamping the district court's decision despite alleged unconstitutional errors in habeas corpus proceedings?

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in ignoring a Motion to Strike the affidavit of attorney Steven Brill when that affidavit was submitted contrary to federal statutory and case law and this Court's holdings on evidence in habeas corpus proceedings, and was in no way admissible evidence which the district court also exclusively relied on to deny the habeas motion? 2. Did the Court of Appeals err in rubber-stamping the district court's total ignoring of massive evidence of unconstitutional error in Petitioner's lawyer's conduct, where this Court has specifically and clearly laid out the requirements of examining evidence in habeas matters and where the lower courts ignored these mandates? 11 3. Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the Petitioner an order for an evidentiary hearing in light of this Court's previous rulings on the requirements of same when certain conditions are clearly met, particularly when the lower courts rely on totally inadmissible evidence from one source: the Petitioner's lawyer and where it is facially clear that the lawyer's claims cannot possibly be true? Ill PARTIES INVOLVED The caption contains the entire list of all parties to this Petition and matter. Additionally, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, no