IS THERE HIELP FOR A LONE PETITIONER AND DTHERS SIMI-
LARLY SITUATED;
DENIED" THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DUE TO
NO FAULT OF HIS OWN, ABANDONED BY A DC LAW FIRM WITHI A
PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF SELLING OUT THE INTEREST OF CLIENTS
WHICH HAS COST THE DC BAR #SOO,OOO.
WHERE THE LOWER
COURT "MISCALCULATES THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS", NOT ONLY
in
REFUSING TO CORRECT IT'S ERROR , REFUSING TO GRANT PETITION-
ER RELIEF SOUGHT, ONLY TO BE GRANTED IN A CASE OTHER THAN
HIS OWN.
THE APPEALS CDURT HAS SANCTIONED SUCH A DEPARTURE,
CONSISTENTLY REFERRING APPEALS TO A (2OI2) PETITION. (I.E.
THE CURRENT CERTIORARI BEFORE THIS COURT IS BROUGHT FROM
A (2OI7FILING).
THE PER CURIAM OPINION (APPENDIX A)
IS ADDRESSED TO A (2OI2) FILING AS BEING "SUCCESSIVE".

2).
PETITIONERS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRAIL.COUNSEL
CLAIM IS AN INITIAL-REVIEW CLAIM.
THIS MAY JUSTIFY AN
EXCEPTION TO THE COMSTITUTIONAL RULE THAT THERE IS NO
RIGHIT COUNSEL IN COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS.
. Is THIS THE
CASE TO RESOLVE WHETHER THIAT EXCEPTION EXIST AS A CON-
STITUTIONAL MATTER

3).
WITH NO INTENTION OF OPENING A ILOODGATE OR PLACING A SIGNIFICANT STRAIN ON STATE RESOURCES, PETITIONER

Whether a petitioner and others similarly situated should be granted habeas corpus relief despite being denied due to no fault of their own, abandoned by a law firm with a proven track record of selling out client interests