A Does due process under the sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments dictate
that there is a presumption of
competence for a criminal defendant
to proceed pro se (represent one's
self such that a trial court may not
determine competence to proceed
pro se in adrance of indicia of a
lack of competence to proceed pro se.

2) Does due process under the Fifth,
sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.s. Constitution authorize a
state to establish and operate a
judicial system thut does not render
written appellate opinions so that
jurisdiction to review a lower
court's decislon that clearly does
not apply to reflect the factual
of the representation status
reality
of the
appellant,

United States Constitution provide
that a state may ignore a
criminal defendant's demand to
proceed pro se at the first
refuse to accept, docket and
consider the criminal defendant's
motion to be assigned to a
different judge based on prior
pcjud. cial statements of the
assigned judge on the basis
that the defendant had an
defendant to be subjected to
a competency hearing to proceed
prose; repetitively
delay said
competency hearing
as a pretext
to have the defendant waive
measure for procecdiny prose and
cule against the defendunt on
assigning the matter to a newjudge,
statute and relerant legalauthorit
Contrary to stare decisis.

Does due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require a presumption of competence for a criminal defendant to proceed pro se, such that a trial court may not determine incompetence to proceed pro se in advance of indicia of lack of competence to proceed pro se?