Dustin Robert Williamson v. South Carolina

QUESTION 1: DID SOUTH CAROLINA VIOLATED BOTH THE PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE UNDER THIS COURT CASE LAWS IN LANE V BROWN 372 US 477 (1963), BURNS V OHIO, 360 US 252 (1959) AND SMITH V BENNETT, 365 US 708 (1961) IN NOT ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS IN HIS STATE HABEAS CORPUS RAISING BEFORE TRIAL INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND STATE INTERFERENCE CLAIMS QUESTION 2: WHETHER SOUTH CAROLINA HYBRID REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE VIOLATES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE IN NOT ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO RAISE INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL BEFORE, DURING, AND ON DIRECT REVIEW QUESTION 3: WHETHER SOUTH CAROLINA HABEAS CORPUS AND TRIAL COURT PROCEDURES, AND ITS CASE LAWS INTERPRETEING THOSE PROCEDURES, ARE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR, AND/OR BURDENS THE PETITIONER’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, IN NOT ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO RAISE BEFORE TRIAL INEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND STATE INTERFERENCE WITH COUNSEL ON HABEAS CORPUS, OR IN THE TRIAL COURT, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE QUESTION 4: IS SOUTH CAROLINA REMEDY OF NOT ALLOWING THE PETITIONER TO RAISE BEFORE TRIAL INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND STATE INTERFERENCE WITH COUNSEL IN THE TRIAL COURT AND HABEAS CORPUS ARE INADEQUATE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DUE TO SOUTH CAROLINA CASE LAWS MANDATING THAT INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL COUNSEL CLAIMS NO MATTER WHAT MUST BE RAISED ON POST CONVICTION RELIEF ON COLLATERAL REVIEW