(1) the court denied the motion for more definite pleading, (2) the court denied as moot the motion for sanctions for violations of the gag order, (3) the court denied the motion to sit outside Lancaster County, (4) the court denied [Appellant’s request to incorporate certain admissions from the federal habeas hearing, (5) the court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauper-is and to have all costs necessary for the PCRA proceeding reimbursed by the County, and (6) the court denied the motion for court appointment of defense counsel. (Id. at 24.) The court’s order limiting publicity surrounding the PCRA proceedings was appealed as a collateral order to this Court and decided in a published opinion on December 17, 1998. See Commonwealth v. Lambert, 728 A.2d 684 (Pa.Super.1998) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 18 The PCRA hearing commenced on April 30,
holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act holding that shortterm and sporadic interference with free exercise rights does not violate the first amendment holding attorneys disciplinary rule on trial publicity does not violate first amendment free speech guarantee and courts order limiting publicity was not unconstitutional or void for vagueness holding c4c factor void for vagueness unless limiting construction was given holding residual clause of acca void for vagueness