1. AS CONSISTENT WITH THE ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF ONE INDIVISIBLE NATION, TO WIT: THE HIGHER-SELF PARDONING OF THIS PETITIONER'S DEIFIC LIFE-RIGHT TO "THE COUNSEL" THE CLASS-45 SERV-ICE MARK TITLE "GOD", AND PROCLAIMED FREE NATIONAL NAME "ALLAH", DEBT OR DUTY, ECCLESIASTICAL OR TEMPORAL IN HIS LEGALLY APPROPRIATED ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATE NAME: "THE FATHER GOD ALLAH", IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 800940876, DOES 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE RESPONDENT, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS CONVEYING TO THEM PROTECTION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE AS INVOKED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE OATHS AND AS IS NECESSARY TO THE ACCOMMODATION AND VINDICATION OF THIS PETITIONER'S "PRO SE APPEARANCE" IN THE CRIMINAL ADVERSARIAL TESTING PROCESS AS TO RENDER THE SAME "COMPETENT" ("KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT")?

2. IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DOES THE APRIL 16, 2002 thru FEBRUARY 6, 2018 "PSYCHOLOGY EVIDENCE" RENDERING THIS PETITIONER'S CIVIL RIGHT TO DEIFIC LIFE IN THE QURANIC LITERARY WORK "ALLAH" A "SCHIZOPHRENIC" "MENTAL DEFECT" WARRANTING 18 U.S.C. § 4245 CIVIL COMMITMENT TO THE CUSTODY OF THE RESPONDENT, AND "PSYCHIATRIC JUSTIFICATION" TO RENDER THIS PETITIONER "COMPETENT FOR TRIAL", INDEFINITELY RENDER THIS PETITIONER'S WAIVER OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL A PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT, AND LIKEWISE PREVENT THE CONTRACT PERFORMANCE OF A FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 35(b) PARDON OFFERED TO THIS PETITIONER ON APRIL 26, 2000 BY THE CRIMINAL CASE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AS THE LAST WILL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SUPPLEMENTED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S "REHABILITATION RECOMMENDATION" RESPECTIVE TO THE RIGHT OF SELF-REPRESENTATION SUPREMACY?

Does 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a) confer jurisdiction on the respondent, the United States District Court, and the United States Court of Appeals conveying to them protection of divine providence as invoked in their respective oaths and as is necessary to the accommodation and vindication of this petitioner's 'pro se appearance' in the criminal adversarial testing process?