1. If a State Post-Conviction proceeding is conducted in a manner that does not afford an
Applicant a full & fair hearing —Due Process —leaving the Court's judgement Constitution
ally infirm, should that State Court still be entitled to give such a judgement preclus
ive effect to be used to bar the Applicant from relitigating his cause .

2. Pursuant to the McCleskey Abuse of Writ Doctrine, should the Cause & Prejudice Carrier
standard be made applicable to State Court proceedings, modified to allow subsequent
State applications.

3. Pursuant to the Carrier standard, should this standard be sufficient to prevent a State
from refusing to consider subsequent applications.

4. Pursuant to the Carrier standard, should State &/or Judicial misconduct that rises to
the level of depriving an applicant of Due Process of Law during a habeas corpus hearing,
constitute Causa.

5. Pursuant to the Carrier standard, should any conduct during a habeas corpus hearing that
deprives an applicant of Due Process of Law Constitute Cause.

6. Should whatever remedy this Court permits be made retroactive to the States.

7. Where there is no appeal, nor an opportunity available for further consideration of the
issues on the merits, should the principles of Res Judicata apply to the State Court's
judgement .

8. Where there is no federal remedy to a Constitutionally infirm State Court judgement
decided after the federal Court has lost its jurisdiction, pretaining to a federal
Constitutional law, what remedy is available for the applicant.

Whether a state court judgment that is constitutionally infirm due to lack of a full and fair hearing should be given preclusive effect