Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court violated constitutional rights by preventing a paralegal from assisting a prisoner in preparing habeas corpus documents

Did the Supreme Court of South Carolina Justifiably Disregard this Court ’s Holding in Johnson v, Avery bv Refusing to Allow Certified Paralegal Patrick L. Booker to Act as Next Friend to Prisoner Herbert McDowell in Preparing Legal Documents for Habeas Corpus Proceeding? Does the laws of South Carolina Supreme Court Regarding Unauthorized Practice of Law Conflict With or Undermine First Amendment Right of a Citizen to Receive Information and Ideas? Does the Obligation of Contracts Clause And/ or the Freedom of Association Clause Protect the Right of Patrick L. Booker to Assist His Best Friend with His Habeas Corpus Proceeding? Did the Supreme Court of South Carolina Deny and Deprive Petitioner McDowell of Equal Protection of Law in Denying the “Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus ” for Failing to Show Entitlement to Habeas Relief, Considering That Court Had Already Previously Struck and Dismissed the Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus It Was Filed by Paralegal Patrick L. Booker? Did the South Carolina Supreme Court by Ruling on the “Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus ”, Which It Had Already Previously Dismissed and Struck from the Record As Filed by a Non-Attorney, Deny and Deprive Petitioner McDowell of the Very Protection It Purports to Provide By Its Regulation of the Practice of Law in South Carolina? Did the South Carolina Supreme Court, by Finding Petitioner McDowell Failed to Show Entitlement to Habeas Relief, Correctly Conclude That It Is Not Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Resulting in a Denial of Fundamental Fairness Shocking to the Universal Sense of Justice When and Where 2 Counsel to Fail or Refuse to Make a Closing Argument For Reasonable Doubt On Behalf Criminal Defendant? II.