1. Whether appointment of counsel on counsel in detracting from the intended issues raised in the Certificate of Appealability(misconstrued by the Ninth Circuit when drafting the certified issue) may have been deliberate, in violation of Petitioners due process right, or due to incompetence?

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit abused it's discretion allowing counsel on appeal to brief certified issue it misconstrued in reading the Certificate of Appealability, diverting the Courts attention from the real issue of the state-impediment to filing the writ, in this pre-AEDPA homicide case, by trying to suggest/ argue the PC 1170.95 motion reopened the case for tolling purposes, where he informed the Court by motion for reconsideration of it's error-unresponded to todate?

3. Whether "fraud on the court" by the state, claiming no records exist, afterappeal for briefing, and the actions of prison staff's loss or destruction of Petitioners legal property in the years following the AEDPA's passage, was an impediment to filing habeas petition, within the meaning of 28 USC § 2244(d)(1)(B), constituting an "extraentitling Petitioner to equitable tolling, in this ordinary circumstance" pre-AEDPA case involving a conflict, wherein the prosecutor shared familial relations with the victim, he intended to challenge, among other claims?

Whether appointment of counsel on appeal for briefing, and the actions of counsel in detracting from the intended issues raised in the Certificate of Appealability (as misconstrued by the Ninth Circuit when drafting the certified issue) may have been deliberate, in violation of Petitioner's due process right, or due to incompetence?