Antonio Franklin v. Tim Shoop, Warden
1. Though completely forsaken by the protections of the Sixth Amendment by the time
ive at the federal appellate courts, does either the Eighth or state appellate inmates arrive
the Fourteenth Amendments "protect " said inmates from being subjected to
apparently faulty appellate process due (in part) to ultra-egregious, ineffectivean
counselors?
2. Is it cruel and unusual punishment to have a magistrate judge "exercising 'plenary
power " render absurd, yet binding oxymoronic decisions (that undoubtedly impedes a
petitioner 's path towards justice) to which the Sixth Circuit refuses to acknowledge
and/or overturn?
3. Are "continual, " blatant violations against an a
ppellant 's Eight and Fourteenth
Amendment Constitutional Rights severe enough violations to justify deviation from
the "final judgment rule" of 28 U.S.C. §1291 in the Federal Courts?
4. Are the Eight Amendment Rights (against cruel and unusual punishment) and the
Fourteenth Amendment Rights (for due process and equal protection) constitutionally
sound enough to guard against an indigent inmate having the entirety of his federal
appellate process rendered useless — notwithstanding the fact that said indigent inmate
had vigorously endeavored to avoid such a dire predicament?
5. If it's proven beyond a reason of a doubt that assigned counsel is derelict; the magistrate
judge "exercising plenary power, " and as such having "final authority ' in his case, has
been grossly "judicial derelict " throughout the handling of Petitioner 's appellate
process; and the two entities (whether working together or not) had a synergistic, yet
detrimental effect on Petitioner 's entire federal appeals to the result of "an aborted
appellate process "; yet, the Sixth Circuit observed "all," but did "nothing " to effect
justice and provide balance and equity; does these violations of Petitioner 's Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment Rights entitle him to appeals anew?
Whether the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments protect inmates from an allegedly faulty appellate process due to ineffective counsel