1. whether the District Court Approach to 2254 petition asserting a loss of a fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to testify in his own defense. The district court 's deviation from legal mode of procedure, resulting in refusal to conduct Federal evidentiary hearing post to level of illegitimate and unconstitutional practices. See Rock v. Arkansas 483 U.S. 44, 51 (1987), United States v. Teague, 943 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992) (En Banc)

2. whether District court abused of Discretion constitute extra judicial proceeding when he (judge) refused to contemplate "where justice requires " before dismissing 2254 petition requesting leave to amend. District court judge failed to employ the courts limited discretion granted by 2254 (b), nor is equitable discretion grounded in the miscarriage of the justice exception.

3. Whether District judge refusal to follow an applicable rule of law expressly articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States amounts to judicial usurpation of power. See Espey v. Wainwright 734 F.2d 748, 750 (11th Cir. 1984)

4. Whether the 11th Circuit made a contrary ruling concerning the loss of a fundamental constitutional right to testify here by denying petitioner relief where the facts of the case are clearly evident on the face of the court record and included in a remand order from the 11th Circuit, who's statement was that the parties agree the trial court jude made a legal statement of the law that misinformed the petitioner.

whether the District Court Approach to 2254 petition asserting a loss of a fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to testify in his own defense