Whether, during review of the petitioner's prior application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, the petitioner was entitled to de novo review on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and whether the U.S. District Court abused its discretion and denied a fair appellate hearing that violated the petitioner's rights when the court applied the AEDPA standard of review to assess and determine the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2. Whether a post-conviction statement made by trial counsel can be used as an exception to the Supreme Court's Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 law, to excuse a prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence where a felony warrant to impeach a state witness was denied the petitioner a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, and whether the petitioner was denied a fair appellate hearing and due process under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, where the prosecution knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence and whether the petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on this claim.

3. Whether a circuit or district judge shall be required under the finality of determination statute 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(a) to entertain a second or successive application for a writ of habeas corpus where fraud upon the court, or the court's abuse of discretion exist to warrant appellate review on a second or successive application, or whether the denial of an applicant's right to due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution when a circuit or district judge refuses to examine the facts on the prior application for a writ of habeas corpus.

4. Whether it constitutes a departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that denied fair appellate review and violated the petitioner's right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, where the reviewing court of appeals denied the petitioner a fair appellate hearing.

5. Whether trial counsel denied the accused/petitioner a fair trial and entirely failed to subject the prosecutor's case to a meaningful adversarial testing, when counsel failed to present defense evidence of the petitioner's actual innocence against the prosecutor's fraudulent criminal charge of felony burglary; and whether trial counsel's failure to present evidence of the petitioner's actual innocence violated the petitioner's right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Whether, during review of the Petitioner's habeas corpus application in the United States District Court, the Petitioner was entitled to de novo review of his Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claims