1. When prosecutors conspire with known conflicted defense counsel pre-indictment, and devise a scheme to deprive two targets in a criminal investigation of their Constitutional right to Due Process of Law and conflict free lawyers in a forthcoming criminal proceeding, then execute the scheme arranging known conflicted lawyers to represent the diverging interests of the two subjects while concealing the scheme and the conflicts from the subjects and the District Court, then further the scheme committing fraud on multiple habeas Courts to cover up their fraud on the Criminal Court in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, does this conduct fall outside the scope of the AEDPA for purposes of a Hazel Atlas claim of fraud on a habeas court requiring the District Court to review the case on its merits IN THE FIRST INSTANCE as found by the Tenth Circuit citing Gonzalez v Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125, S. Ct. 2641, 162 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2005)?

2. Does the Government's failure to admit or deny allegations set forth in a true Rule 60 motion or petition in the nature of coram nobis, when ordered by the District Court to file a reply as required by Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, constitute an admission by the Government per Rules 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(6)? And can a District Court OR the Government, hide behind the AEDPA to cover up a deprivation of Constitution rights that results in a gross miscarriage of justice by executing fraud on multiple habeas courts to cover up fraud upon a Criminal Court?

when-prosecutors-conspire-with-known-conflicted-defense-counsel