Whether, or to what extent, appointed counsel pursuant to Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S at 194 (2009) .. REBUFFED his demands to Brief and Raise the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim (10(A)(13)), that had been procedurally defaulted; And, REBUFFED, to Brief and Raise his statutorily appointed counsel's deficient performance, due to attorneys David C. Stebbins, et al., pattern of deviations from post-conviction remedies [procedural] framework for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, where the allegations are based on facts not appearing in the record, against Jerome Henderson 9s demands; in coordination with and at the direction of the Ohio Public Defender Commission, in his Application for Executive Clemency, Stating: "BECAUSE DAVID STEBBINS IS A COLLEAGUE OF MINES!" Violated Federal Statutory Law [18 U.S.C. § 3599]? ... Or, Constituted Equal Protection Clause Violation?, U.S. Const0 Amend. XIV, § 1

Whether, or to what extent, appointed counsel pursuant to Harbison v0 Bell, 556 U.S at 194 (2009) REBUFFED his demands to Brief and Raise the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim (10(A)(13)), that had been procedurally defaulted; And, REBUFFED, to Brief and Raise his statutorily appointed counsel's deficient performance, due to attorneys David C. Stebbins, et al., pattern of deviations from Ohios' post-conviction remedies [procedural] framework for raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, where the allegations are based on facts not appearing in the record, against Jerome Henderson's demands; in coordination with and at the direction of the Ohio Public Defender Commission, in a 'subsequent' to her appointment., Id., at 185 and 188, subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings," not previously available to Jerome Henderson and a legal basis enunciated in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. at 1309 and 1315 (2012), under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 'seeking to vacate or set aside his death sentence,' Stating: "Bj THAT WAS THE LAW BACK THEN!"; And, Bizarrely ,Cited: Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (June 24, 1991) Violated Federal. Statutory Law [16 U.S.C. § 3599]? ,.. Or, Constituted Equal Protection Clause Violation?, U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1.

3) BECAUSE, THE JUDICIAL POWER SHALL EXTEND TO ALL .gASES IN LAW AND E QUITY ARISING UNDER THIS CO NSTITUTION THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TREATIES JMADE LOR WHICH SHALL B MADEL UNDER THEIR AUTHORJflj TO CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A ST OR THE CITIZENS THEREOF." U.S. Const. Art. III, § 27 [1]

Whether, or to what extent, the State of Ohios' [LEGISLATURE] deprivation of due process and equal protections rights and as well the procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial, in his initial state post-conviction remedies proceedings under that statute Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.21,

Whether appointed counsel violated federal statutory law or constituted an equal protection clause violation