1. Is a Petitoner who files a Post-Conviction Petition asserting Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (hereinafter, IAC), of trial, and appellate counsel who supports his grounds with arguments in show of the required prejudice prong, barred by res judicata doctrine? atfter discovery of new evidence, from ¥osin$ similar arguments in his Grim. R, 33 motion which are otherwise unknown outside the facts of the new evidence?

2. when a state law which prevents newly discoovered evidence obtained by Ohio's Revised Code 149,43 fzom being used to support new ferial requests in Post-Conviction Petitions, and Crim. R. 33 motions, is overruled, and Petitoner obtains newly discovered evidence by ORC 149.43, under the new law, is his right to due process, and equal protection of law pursuant the 5fch, and 14feh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution violated when the state Court's decision denies evidence to be new, prevents resolution of Brady! violations, false testimony, and 4th Amendment violations which had a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of his trial, or to undermine confidence in the verdict?

3. ISbes tiie state of Ohio's failure to file and journalize "Ex* 01" ara3/or failure to disclose such to trial counsel after request by him pursuant to Crim. r. 16, regardless of good, or bad faith violate U.S. Supreme Court precedence in Brady v, Maryland, 373 U.S, 83?

4. Is "Ex. 01", (Oat. Pigman's subpoena, with no affidavit) newly discovered, undisclosed, material evidence within the requirement of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83?

5. oid the Ohio, Montgomery County, Court of Contnon Pleas failure to address Peti toner's actual innocence claim, and the newly discovered/presented evidence in support of such claim violate his due process right pursuant the 5th, and 14th Amendment of the U.S Constitution to a fair trial, where such affected the decision of the jury, and could have reasonably changed the outcome of the trial?

6. 2&as trial, and appellate counsel violate the duty owed their client when they purposely, and knowingly fail to argue a clear Brady violation, which prevents lodging of a maritorious 4th Amendment claim?

Whether a petitioner who files a post-conviction petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel is barred by res judicata from raising similar arguments in a Crim. R. 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence