PETITIONER, WUUO REPRESEUTEO HIANSELF AT TRIAL AND FILED A PO-SE APPEAL TO THE OISLAHOMNA COORT OF CRIONUINAL APPEALS ON DIRTCT APPEAL, SEEKS TO FILE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPOS CORROBORATINE WITU TUE CLAINS HE PGESENTED TO TEE STATE COURTS, .ION ACCORDAGXE TO THR CORRENT BuLE OFLA. COVERNMENTAL ACTORS ION VIOLATION OF LAN CAUSED AN IAMPEDIMENT, INAPULSING TUE APPLICABIUTY OF 28 OSC = 2ZH4(d)CICB), PETITIONER SEEKS REUEF FRON THIS COURT, TO REMOUE THE IMPEDIMENT ROD RETOUL THE I-YEAR NOTION FOR COUNSEL. IN ORDER TO FILE A LAWNFUL HABEAS CORPUS PETITION. FOUR

IU STATE COSTODY, UUNDER THE PRESENT AIMBIGUONS PRECEDENT, THE ED BY GOVERNMENT ACTORS ABSENT ANN COOSTITUTIONAL DIAAENSION, 4 NATORY APPROVAL, ACTING OW BEHALE OF AN OVERREACHING ONITED STATES DISTRICT JODGE, ANRN SUGSEQOENTLY ALTER THE FACTS OF AN ORIGINAL CAUSE, WOLATINC THE ARTICLE LLI JURISDICTIONAL UNNITATIONS. FOR TUAT REASON, SHOULD NCFERLCNd V. SCOH, 5IRU.S. BHA (IGGH), BE RECOA2 SADERED

2. 1N ACCORDANCE NITH 28 OEC ZZSULO)LI(S)(I&), CONARESS WAS PRONIDED s FOR A CONLIVOIN LAW VNQUIRY MUTO THE AOSENCE OF AUAILABLE STATE CORTTECTIME PROCESS;" AND/OR "CIRCONNSTANEES ITAAT ANAYI EXIST THAT RENDER SOCH PROCESS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OE THE APPUICANT." IS IT NOT TEUE, TUAT THE PNESOIMPTION OF CORRECTNESS OF A STATE COURT DETEXANLINATIOIN, COMOINED WITH THE LIAAMTATIONS F " CERTIFICATE OF APPEALAGIUTY ", DWDER 28 USC 3 ZRS3 (C), GIUEN THE ADVERSE PARAMIETERS ASSUIAED IOU QUESTIOU NO. I ABONE; TIHOSE FEDERAL JODICIAL POWERS AAAY SERVE AS CIRCVANSTAUTEAL COWSITIONS EEFECTIOG THR QIGHTS OF TUE APPLICANT TO " ANAILABLE ST. ATE CORRECTIUE PROCESS", BY A EEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. VLOLATIOG THE PARANOUNT AND CONTRALNG DECLARATION FOUND (WN ZB OX $ ZRS4LC)

3. SHOULD A CITIZEN OF THE OINITED STATES BE OEPGIVED OF THE PRIVELEGE TO FILE AN ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE Z HAGEAS CORPUS APPEAL, BY FEDETRAL ACTORS WUHca.

SHOULD A OAITED STATES DISTRICT JODGE,

Whether the government's actions in filing a Wainwright motion for a prisoner in state custody present a constitutional dilemma, and whether such actions by the government are deceitful in acquiring state court approval, thereby altering the facts of an original criminal case