I. Does Cullen v Pikolster S53 U.S. 170, 181 (1011) bar consideration of evidence in federal habeas corpus proceedings like in a case like mine, to rebut the defense that a state prosecutor preserved false testimony at the core of the case and the truthful testimony and refused to disclose the exculpatory impeachment evidence that would prove that testimony was false?

II. Does Cullen v Pikolster relieve the State of its affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence?

III. Is Brady v offer Pikolster, still clearly established law for the purpose of Federal habeas proceedings?

IV. Is Napue v. Illinois part of the Brady line of cases authorizing knowledge of the investigating agency (including the police acting as the government's lawful agent) imputed to the prosecutor for the purpose of a Napue claim?

V. Is the knowledge of the detective imputed to the prosecutor for the purpose of a Napue claim?

VI. If the State refuses to meet its affirmative duty culpable on the Federal Court's Request for Affirmative Establishment to establish it should be Snead and Dupre Cullen?

VII. Is the State's duty to disclose and impeachment evidence Compulsory clause in Brady's proven prove to defendants innocence of the crime charged procedure?

Does Cullen v Pinholster bar consideration of new evidence in federal habeas proceedings when the prosecutor presented false testimony to rebut the defense theory and refused to disclose exculpatory evidence?