QUESTION I: Isn't it true, that, under the "recusal standard " addressed in 28 U.S.C.S. §455(a);
"what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance, and quite simply and quite
universally, recusal is required whenever impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Justice
must satisfy the appearance of justice. The very purpose of §455(a) is to promote confidence in
the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible. "

QUESTION II: Was it a violation of Brady and of "Due Process " for the state to withhold
evidence from the defense that clearly preserved a second instance of previous testimony, by the
alleged victim, given under oath, that was in complete contradiction to her present testimony
given during the defendant 's criminal proceedings?

QUESTION III : Was the defendant denied effective assistance of Counsel, by Counsel 's
incompetence and multiple failures to represent the defendant through; failure to perform any
type of investigation, failure to issue subpoenas to known witnesses and transcripts, failure to
preserve issues through objection and failure to actively participate in the questioning of the state
witness /alleged victim to determine competency.

QUESTION IV; Is it proper for an Attorney, to attempt to serve as a criminal trial lawyer,
which is a manner inconsistent with Counsel 's actual skills, abilities, knowledge and experience
or was there a duty of self-recusal by the counselor to conduct himself in a manner consistent
with ethical, professional criteria?

Question not identified