*** CAPITAL CASE
IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TO ACCEPT, SANCTION OR MAKE
DECISIONS THAT: ALLOW STATE COURTS 110 REFUSE TO. ACCEPT MERITORIOUS ISSUES A
PERSON HAD TO FILE PRO SE BECAUSE HIS ATTORNEYS REFUSED 110 AND THE COURTS
WOULDN'T APPOINT DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS; &/OR: ALLOW THE FEDERAL.: DISTRICT COURT
110 ALSO REFUSE 110 ACCEPT NECESSARY PRO SE/HYBRID PLEADINGS AND IMPROPERLY CLAIM
THE STATE PROSE ISSUES WERE UNEXHAUSTED/BABRED INSTEAD OF ACCEPTABLE UNDER
U.S. CODES YET NOT REMAND THEN BACK TO STATE COURTS FOR EXHAUSTION 'BUT RATHER
DENY THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES THRU UNLAWFUL &/OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS SUCH
AS.: FINDING IT OKAY THE JURY CHARGE ADDED OTHER ACTORS AND A LAW OF PARTIES
SCHEME TO AN INDICIMFNT COUNT WHICH CHARGED ONLY THAT ONE PERSON AS A SOLE
ACTOR; OKAY FOR A FATAL/MATERIAL VARIANCE, OKAY FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT,
OKAY THE CAPITAL MURDER CONVICTION WAS AN UNPOLLED GENERAL VERDICT INVOLVING
"&/OR" SCENARIOSiWITH MUJZI'IPUPEOPLE.'AND INVALID ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF GUILT
NUr EQUATING TO CAPITAL MURDER, AND OKAY THE DISTRICT JUDGE ALSO THREW IN AN
UNCHARGED UNPRESENTED ELENENT - ALL TO WRONGFULLY AFFIRM THE SUFFICIENCY AND
CONVrnrlpN; THEN THEMSELVES: DIRECTLY FAIL TO APPLY PERTINENT U.S. CODES,
MISAPPLY A CIRCUIT SPLIT OF SQILUP, AND REFUSE 110 CONDUCT A JACKSON REVIEW OF
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE PERSON'S ATTORNEY - WHEREBY
ALLOWING THE PERSON TO BE EXECUTED EVEN THO HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO GET
HIS CLAIMS HEARD AND PROVE HIS INNOCENCE EVEN BEYOND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE ISSUES THAT TRIAL COUNSEL ALSO REFUSED TO ARGUE AND WHICH WARRANT
ACLUITEAL NOW ON APPEAL; &/OR DOES THIS CUMULATIVE EFFECT NOT EQUATE 110 A
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MERITING IMMEDIATE DETERMINATION IN THIS COURT BEFORE
]fl1]1NFNr EXECUTION OCCURS?

SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS FAIRLY INCLUDED THEREIN THE QUESTION - PER RULE 14.1(a)

Is it unconstitutional to execute a person when the evidence was legally
insufficient to have convicted him?

Is it violations of Notice &/or Due Process to indict a person as being
the sole or only actor of a crime but then add other actors into a jury charge
under a law of parties scheme, or must the indictment count charge that other
actors/"parties" (even unnamed) are also somehow involved in the first place?

Is it unconstitutional (&/or in violation of Chiarella &/or Dunn) for
appellate courts to add uncharged unpresented elements

Is it unconstitutional for a U.S. Court of Appeals to accept, sanction or make decisions that allow state courts to refuse to accept meritorious issues a person had to file pro se because his attorneys refused to and the courts wouldn't appoint different attorneys