WHETHER:

A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY WHERE THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS IN CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL DEPARTURE OF FEDERAL v. LEIS AND CIRCUIT PRECEDENT AS EXTENDED TO THE 1963 APPEAL PROCESS IN DOUGLAS v. CALIFORNIA AND ACCORD BENSON — AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, A SUBJECT WAS DEPRIVED OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS UNDER ANTONIO AKEL'S RELIANCE UPON THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE ACTUAL ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNITED STATES v. CRONIC, U.S. [?], WITH NOTICE, BUT THAT SAME COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT ANY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN APPELLANTS ON FIRST TIER DIRECT REVIEW.

SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE ACTUAL ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING THE BRIEFING STAGE OF THE APPELLATE PROCESS IS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE AMOUNTING TO A JUSTICIABLE JUSTIFICATION.

WHETHER A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY WHERE THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' DEPARTURE FROM A REGULAR APPEAL PROCESS IS CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL.

Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to compel the court to provide the petitioner with counsel during the direct appeal process, in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel