1. Did the Court of Appeals err in ignoring a Motion
to Strike the affidavit of attorney Steven Brill when
that affidavit was submitted contrary to federal
statutory and case law and this Court's holdings on
evidence in habeas corpus proceedings, and was in no
way admissible evidence which the district court also
exclusively relied on to deny the habeas motion?

2. Did the Court of Appeals err in rubber-stamping
the district court's total ignoring of massive evidence
of unconstitutional error in Petitioner's lawyer's
conduct, where this Court has specifically and clearly
laid out the requirements of examining evidence in
habeas matters and where the lower courts ignored
these mandates?

3. Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the
Petitioner an order for an evidentiary hearing in light
of this Court's previous rulings on the requirements
of same when certain conditions are clearly met,
particularly when the lower courts rely on totally
inadmissible evidence from one source: the
Petitioner's lawyer and where it is facially clear that
the lawyer's claims cannot possibly be true?

Did the Court of Appeals err in ignoring a Motion to Strike the affidavit, denying an evidentiary hearing, and rubber-stamping the district court's decision despite alleged unconstitutional errors in habeas corpus proceedings?