1.Q) If a state conditions satisfying Strickland's first prong, on the testimony of two privately funded expert witnesses against a indigent pro se prisoner, whom cant afford the experts opinion; has the state created a custom, statute, practice or other form of economic discrimination...???

3.Q) Does Minnesota common law which holds pro se litigants to the same standard as lawyers, when accessing the reports of other prosecuting a cause or defending against another's cause, conflict with the due process principle of liberally construing pro se maneuvers and specific complaints regarding previous agents... ???

If a state conditions satisfying Strickland's first prong, on the testimony of two privately funded expert witnesses against a indigent pro se prisoner, whom can't afford the experts opinion; has the state created a custom, statute, practice or other form of economic barrier