Sean Weisner v. Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
1) Does the Classification made by this Court in Coley d. Sattald Jan 8.64. 3134 constitute the Circuit Court as being contrary to Clearly established Federal law as well as in violation of statutory rules such as 28 U.S.C. 115 when federal Habeas was timely filed and not barred because of the 5th Circuit court made up rule?
2B) Does a trial lawyer, (better objective assistance, when he fails to do all he can in VS Yas) violate the Constitution?
A) Is the client suffering from a present serious mental illness?
Q) Is the client suicidal and tries to commit suicide during trial proceeding?
Q) Did Trial Counsel fail to advance of trial his client needed more Medical Help and probe again by Dr. Tedoed (Expert) during trial proceeding?
2) Because State Court of Criminal Appeals is without jurisdiction to entertain an application for 1201 until issuance of mandate on cert appeal, but the 5th Circuit Court start the time limitation check for PHY regardless of when Mandate issues, did they violate Petitioner's due process rights under 28 U.S.C. 5 3rd and 4th?
3) Whether the unresolved conflict amongst Interests of reason within 5th Circuit Court and other Sister Circuit Courts about 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2244 is denying Petitioner's due process 5 and 4 amendments?
5) Whether it would be an issue debatable amongst any Reasonable Juris for Correct Procedure fine Section Constitutional merits where trial Counsel failed to conceal his violation of the 5th Amendment under Pike v. Robinson 365.4, £36,642 and Drope v. Missouri 95. S.Ct. 6 as well as 6th Amendment under Strickland v. Washington?
6) Whether Petitioner's lessened was indeed entitled to Equitable Tolling for all the time that Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held his application for Mandate December 14?
Whether the classification made by the Fifth Circuit Court in Colley v. Sattizahn, 130 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1997) constitutes a violation of clearly established federal law, as well as a violation of petitioner's due process rights under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), when federal habeas was timely filed but later barred due to the Fifth Circuit's made-up rule