FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED. Should the Brady Rule versus a self-decided Judicial ethical issue by a
seriously conflicted Federal Judge and involving the same disclosure rule as prosecutors' under Brady,
also apply to a presiding Federal Judge who also suppresses exculpatory and damaging material from a
Pro Se litigant's civil rights lawsuit that has the unconstitutional potential for bias and denied this Pro Se
Petitioner's Constitutional Due Process right to know of this exculpatory information and also his
Constitutional Due Process right to receive a fair Federal Civil Court Proceeding?

SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED. For the public good and in the interest of equal justice, should the
United States Supreme Court now consider setting a new precedent, similar to the Brady Rule, for all
presiding Federal Judges to require them not only ethically but legally, as a matter of written law, to self
reveal any prejudicially damaging or serious conflict of interest issues that is material to the fairness and
outcome of any Pro Se litigant's Federal Civil Court proceeding?

THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED For the public good and in the interest of equal justice, should the United
States Supreme Court now consider setting a new precedent in order to prevent or deter Brady like
Judicial abuse and to also provide a legal recourse, like Brady, against any presiding Federal Judge who
also suppresses exculpatory evidence that they know or should have known was material to the fairness
and outcome of their civil rights lawsuit as happened to this Pro Se Petitioner in his Section 1983 civil
rights lawsuit, Valentin v City of Rochester and Monroe County et a I, WDNY 2011?

FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED. Is the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution violated when the
presiding Judge's adverse WDNY Summary Judgment Decision (Docket 157) was Judicially inconsistent
with this Pro Se Petitioner's grant of a 2011 WDNY Habeas Corpus Grant (Valentin v Mazzuca) where the
Habeas Judge also expunged this Pro Se Petitioner's convictions for egregious prosecutorial misconduct
and ruled his NYS trial was a "House of Cards" as opposed to the WDNY Summary Judgment decision
that not only impugned the other Judge's previous Habeas decision but also failed to take into
consideration that this Pro Se Petitioner's Due Process civil rights were already ruled by the WDNY to
have been violated?

FIFTH QUESTION PRESENTED. Is the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution violated when a
presiding WDNY Federal Judge fails to inform a Pro Se Plaintiff in a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit
that he fired his then Victim Witness Assistant for reporting his Brady violation against a defendant he
was prosecuting when he was a former NYS prosecutor and was also was identified as "Subject A" in her
WDNY civil rights lawsuit which also included Brady violations issues from the same office where they
both worked under then District Attorney Howard Relin who was named as a defendants in this Pro Se
Petitioner's Section 1983 civil rights Federal lawsuit?

SIXTH QUESTION PRESENTED. Is the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution violated when a
presiding Federal Judge who was named as the hidden and unnamed "Subject A" in his Victim Witness
Assistant's Federal civil rights lawsuit (Frank v Relin) 2nd Circuit 1993, when this civil rights decision was
included by this Pro Se Petitioner in his Amende

Should the Brady Rule apply to a presiding Federal Judge who suppresses exculpatory and damaging material from a Pro Se litigant's civil rights lawsuit?