1.) WIETHER THE UNDISPUTED AND CLEAR VIOLATION OF AN APPELLANTS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL .ON DIRECT APPEAL IS AN EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY "INJUSTICE CONTEMPLATED BY THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 41-1(6) 11th Ci.R.41-1( ),WHICH NOT ONLY JUSTIFIES BUT ALSO REQUIRES RECALLING THE MANDATE TO PREVENT INOJUSTICE

2.) DO THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITS FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES SOMEHOW TRUMP AND THUS SUPERCEDE SUPREME COURT BINDING RULE OF LAW ON U.S. CONST.AMEND.VI VIOLATIONS TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON DIRECT APPEAL FOUND IN PENSON V.OHIO,H8SU.S.TS CIG88); AND JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 30H U.S.458,463 (1938)?

5) PROVIDED THAT BINDING PRECEDENTS DOUGLASV.CALIFORNIA 835.C+ 814 (1963 PENSONv. 0HI0.1095.Ct346(1988)and JOHNSONv.2ERBST 58S.CT 1OI9 (I438) ARE STILL GOOD LAW, AND THAT FAIR MINDED AND REASONABLE JURIST KNOW THAT A COURT VIOLATES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT IF IT ALLOWS ADEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A VALID WAIVER OF COUNSEL, HAS NOT THE COURT BELOW GIVEN THE APPEARANCE OF USURPATION AND "JUDICIAL ANARCHY "AS DEFINED BY THIS COURT IN HUTTO V. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370,375; RODRIGUEZ DEQUIAS.V. SHEARSON AMERICAN EXPRESSINC. 490 U.S.477.484, AND A RIGHTLY DIMINISHED VIEW OF OUR COURTS... ONLY BECAUSE [THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT WAS] UNWILLING TO CORRECT [THEIRI OWN OBVIOUS MISTAKES AS ELUCIDATED BY THE HONORABLE JUSTICE GORSUCH IN HICKS V UNITED STATES.U.S.S.CT NO.16-780b (JUNE Z6thZOM)?

) IF THE RIGHT TOTHE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER IOWAV.TOVAR, SHIU.S.T7,88: FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 4224.S. 806,821, BREWER V. WILLIAMS 430 U.S. 387, 404, WHY HAS THE ELEVENTH CIRCUET GIVEN THE APPEARANCE TO HAVE WHITEWASHED THE ACTUAL DENIAL OF COUNSEL IN US V. AKEL#OS-13TTI-BB, WHERE THE CRITICAL FACTS AND LEGAL ANALYSIS ARE ON ALL FOURS"WITH PENSONV.OHIO 1O9 S.Ct 346 (I988), AND IN LIGHT OF THIS FACT WILL THIS SUPREME COURT EXERCISE ITS SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY TO PRESERVE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARIES ABILITY TO AFFORD FAIR AND HONORABLE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, BY REINFORCING TO THE COURT BELOW THAT:

Whether the undisputed and clear violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel on direct appeal results in an exceptional and extraordinary 'injustice' contemplated by the Eleventh Circuit Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and 28 U.S.C. 2255(b) that not only justifies but also requires recalling the mandate to prevent injustice