I. IN A CASE INVOLVING two jury trials, a habeas record with multiple forensic and medical reports, and newly discovered evidence which in light of all the evidence shows actual innocence, WHETHER pro se Petitioner's rights under the Suspension Clause and the Fifth Amendment (Due Process) were impeded or impinged and he may proceed with 28 USC §2241 where he applied for leave to file a second §2255 motion and:

He was allowed to submit nothing more than a single court of appeals supplied form (revised 1/2/01) which limits the presentation of each argument to a handful of lines and prohibits additional briefing or attachments;

The clerk of the court of appeals in charge of handling applications for successive §2255 motions specifically instructed him to not file a memorandum and to not submit evidence but only the aforementioned court form;

He timely informed the court of appeals that their clerk directed him to not file arguments and exhibits in support of his application but if allowed he will do so;

The court of appeals denied him leave because he did not expand on his arguments and submit his evidence and also stated that it did not consider some of the evidence as newly discovered within the meaning of 28 USC §2255(h);

Although the issue is actual innocence he has no avenue of review available because per 28 USC §2244(b) (3) (E) the decision is not appealable or subject to a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari and per §2244 (b) (1) he may not re-submit his claim(s) in another application.

II. IN A CASE WHERE:

the prisoner was tried twice under the same charges because the first jury hung; and

the trial court:

denied there was legal insufficiency at trials; and

six years after the trials ruled on the prisoner's §2255 motion that the habeas testimony and evidence he submitted is showing legal insufficiency and is cumulative to that presented at trials,

WHETHER the rights afforded to the prisoner under the Suspension Clause, Fifth Amndment (Due Process) and 28 USC §2255(e) enable him to seek review of the legality of his conviction through habeas corpus (2241) based on the facts that the trials court's order on his §2255 motion:

raises questions of Double Jeopardy, Due Process violation and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; and

does not represent newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive for the prisoner to proceed with a second §2255 motion.

Whether pro se petitioner's rights under the Suspension Clause and the Fifth Amendment (Due Process) were impeded or impinged and he may proceed with 28 USC §2241