In Re Michael Hagar

Is Petitioner in custody in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States due to judicial misconduct during the execution of his sentence — specifically, a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection of Laws — when the judges involved in the direct appeal, § 2255 motion, and certificate of appealability proceedings engaged in a course of conduct that denied Petitioner the fair and due administration of justice, rendering the § 2255 remedy by motion inadequate and ineffective to test the legalityof his detention; and would Petitioner have prevailed under his consolidated ineffective assistance of counsel claims but for that misconduct?

Is Petitioner in custody in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when his trial and appellate attorneys — James Jenkins and Marisa Serrat — failed as a unified course of conduct to^ (a) investigate the false affidavit and obtain the June 2, 2016 email with complete header information establishing that the government used false information to obtain the arrest warrant and indictment in the wrong district; (b) argue improper venue rather than jurisdiction at every stage where the label determined preservation, thereby forfeiting the venue claim and allowing the appellate court to manufacture a fact not in the trial record; (c) connect the venue defect to the Speedy Trial Act violation — under which 669 non-excluded days elapsed against a 70-day limit with waivers induced by a false premise and used as plea leverage — such that dismissal with prejudice in any proper forum was mathematically inevitable! (d) establish that Cynthia Burke is not an immediate family member of Rebecca Gentle as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 115(c)(2)(B); and (e) request a ruling on the motion to dismiss for violation of the Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment, thereby allowing the claims to be deemed abandoned on appeal and denying Petitioner any merits review of a statutory violation that exceeded the 70-day limit by 599 days? n 3. Where judicial misconduct during the execution of sentence has rendered the § 2255 remedy inadequate and ineffective — because the courts treating a new independent civil suit as a continuation of the criminal case adopted a manufactured appellate fact rather than making independent findings from the trial record — and no lower court within the circuit that produced the error can provide untainted review, does the failure to grant the writ of habeas corpus operate as a suspension of the writ in violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution, and deny Petitioner the one fair opportunity to present his federal claims that Congress guaranteed in enacting the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act?