A.) The Petitioner presents the inquiry into the U.S.Ct, whether the refusal of the legftl rep
resentative (sic) of the ftetitioner durirg arraignment, motions to supers evidence, discovery, trail,
sentencing, & all related post-trial court remedies to appraise the ftetitioner of said mi reel s (sic)
conflict of interest in beirg an ^ent of the government, (&) the judges) pcesidirg over said criminal court
pxceedine^ refusal to admonish the ftetitioner of said, & either (a) obtain a waiver of the ftetitioner for
said conflict of interest car (b) aliowirg a release from the court & the government to sever the conflict •
of interest ty said legpl representative (sic) of the ftetitioner constituted, dayal of access to the courts,
denyal of fair & adiquLte due process of law, denyal of equal protection of the laws, dayal of an inpartial
adjudication, violated the ftetitioners rigfrt to conflict free legal representation, violated the ftetitioners
ri^at to be free from cruel & unusual punishment as a result of the unlawful criminal conviction & sentenoe
vhere the ftetitioner was illegally detained within the IDOC for approximately a twenty six (26) year period
of time, (&) vhere the misconduct of the jir^e(s) & officers of the courts gave rise to a criminal conspiracy
blatantly violatirg tine ftetitioners 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th 8th, 9th & 14th amendment Rignts undo: the U.S. Consti
tution warranting a verdict voidirg & unifying, the ftetitioners criminal conviction $ sentence, (&) aim ji£t-
ifyirg the ftetitioners immediate discharge from the custody of the IDOC.

B.) The caption page of this petition does not include ajj parties, as the ftetitioters state habeas
corpus petition has been transfered from judge to ju%e as a floater case, & the Petitioner is currently in-
aware of ary permanent judge pcesidirg over the ftetitioners state Maas corpus petition, revertheless, tie
ftetitioner has listed cock canty circuit court judge Arthur F. Hill in said ju%es official & individual
capacity vhich ercaicassess all judges sitting in said judges stead or superseding said judge for the purposes
of service & jurisdiction pertaining to this natter in controversy.

Whether the refusal of the legal representative of the Petitioner to disclose a conflict of interest and the judge's failure to address this issue constituted a denial of access to the courts, due process, equal protection, and the right to conflict-free counsel, in violation of the Petitioner's 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights