I.
DID THE TRIAL JUDGE VIOLATE THE PETTIONER'S DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL AND IMPARTIAL JUDCE. TO NSURE
DUE PROCESS, AND FOR THE JUDGE TO AVOID BIAS AND THE
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, SHOULD THE JUDCE HAVE
DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF FROM SITTING AS THE TRIER OF FACT
OVER THE PETITTONER'S TRIAL, WHERE HE WORKED WITH THE
PROSECUTION IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE UNTIL HIS VERY
RECENT APPOINTMENT TO THE BENCH.

I.
DID THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATE THE PETTTIONER'S CONSTTOTIONAL
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WHERE THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN
THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT RELATTONSHIP AND THE COORT FAILED TO
ALLOW SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WHEN RETAINED COUNSEL
FILED A MOTION TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PETITONER'S CASE.

DID PROSECUTION VIOLATE THE PETTIONER'S RICHTS TO DUE PROCESS
III.
AND A FAIR TRIAL UNDETERRED BY THE ADMISSIOU OF IMPROPER
EVIDENCE WITH THE TESTIMONY OF AN ALLECED HOTEL INCIDENT
WHERE THEY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

WERE THE PETITIONERS CONSTITUTTONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR
IY
TRIAL AND EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL VIOLATED WHERE
DEFENSE COUNSEL REFUSED TO INTERVIEW OR CACL ANY OF
HIS CLIENT'S FOURTEEN WITNESSES TO TESTIFY ON HIS BEHALF,
COUNSEL FALED TO ENTER PICTURES OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE
ON HIS CLIENT'S BEHALF, FALED TO IMPEACH THE COMPLAINTANT
WITH REPORTS AND TRANSCRIPTS, WHERE THE COMPLAINTANT'S
RECORD HAD TO BE WIPED CLEAN, AS WELL AS FAILED TO PROPERLY
CHALLANGE PROSECUTION'S CASE IN ANY OTHER WAY.

X.
WERE THE PETTIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RICNTS TO A FAIR TRIAL
VIOLATED WHERE THE RECORDING (S) OF ALLEGED EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM WERE ERASED, AND WHERE THE COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION BY REFUSING DEFENSE THE COMPLAINTANT'S RECORDS
OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY TO PROVE THE ORIQIN OF HER SEXUALLY
TRANSMITED DISEASE, SINCE NEITHER THE PETTIONER NOR
HIS WIFE, THE COMPLAINTANT'S MOTHER, HAVE NO HISTORY OF
SAID DISEASES.

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel were violated