Whether the AEDPA's § 2244(b)(3)(E) prohibits seeking rehearing en banc after a court of appeals' denial of a second federal habeas application, and whether transfer to the district court for an evidentiary hearing is warranted in a life-without-parole case where substantial innocence claims have been unaddressed

Mr. Wycoff s habeas petition presents exceptional circumstances that have sharply divided the courts below. Since Mr. Wycoff s 1976 murder conviction, without (Brady) materials evidence has come to light exposing the prosecution acted in bad faith, violated petitioner's right of confrontation, and knowingly allowed pequred statements to stand uncorrected. In addition, newly discovered evidence reveals that both of petitioner's trial attorneys operated under an actual conflict of interest in choosing to represent potential state witnesses interest over their client-petitioner and^ withheld from client, trial court, and jury documented proof of the state prosecutor's false statements made during closing arguments and six new witnesses have come < forth to offer reliable testimony tending to show that blood and mustard spillage (i.e., the sole 5 evidence upon which this conviction has been upheld for the last 3 5-years) occurred when the victim's body was removed and thereafter petitioner was escorted along and through the exact same extraction path accounting for small spots of blood and mustard to be on his shoes. Despite substantial new evidence of his .innocence, no court, state or federal,, has ever held a hearing to assess the half-dozen new witnesses that show Mr. Wycoff is innocent. The questions presented are: 1. Whether upon.a court of appeals' denial of leave to file a second federal habeas application AEDPA's § 2244(b) (3) (E) prohibits any party from seeking rehearing en banc? . . 2. Whether transfer to the district court for a hearing pursuant to this Court's original habeas jurisdiction is warranted in the unusual life without possibility of parole case where .the petitioner has raised a substantial case of innocence, the lower federal courts refused to address his innocence in his second federal habeas petition and no state or federal court has held an evidentiary hearing to examine his new evidence? 3. When considered pursuantto the .core requirements of due process right to be heard and to rebut the state court decisions on post-conviction petitioner were summary denials, assigning . . no reasons, and the court cif appeals'.denial favored petitioner wifh.no reasoninjg, analysis, findings of fact, or legal basis for deiiying a second federal habeas application, where (and/or what process) is the avenue for seeking relief if petitioner's hew claim did meet the AEDPA's §§ ’2244(b)(2(B)(i) and 22^4(b)(2)(B)(ii) requirements? ; ' 4. Whether and to what extent the AEDPA applies to original habeas petitions and if remand is granted pursuant to an original habeas what requirements of the AEDPA (and to what extent) >’are applicable below? e 5. Where does the onus fall when, the prosecution and trial counsel absent mutual knowledge to withhold, both denied Petitioner and all the judiciary to date the ssole document that would have established that Petitioner ’s original trial counsel functioned under an actual prejudicial conflict of interest and false testimonial statements during final rebuttal closing arguments by the prosecution? ii