1. Was I deprived of my (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of due process of a fair trial, when I pleaded with my trial attorney and the Judge Meagan Bilik-DeFazio to make my trial attorney to depend me and bring up testimony of S.A. from the preliminary hearing to show how her testimony did not corroborate to what she was saying happened? Jury Trial 08/06/14 at 255 and on pages 3 and 4 of this petition for writ of Certiorari.

2. Because S.A, E.S. and E.B.s differences in their testimony at the jury trial and preliminary hearing showing they did not corroborate each other, nor do they corroborate what they testified to what they say happened to themselves, that I have shown in the (a) Supporting facts on pages 6 through 11, why can I not impeach them under Rule 609(a)?

2. Was I deprived of my (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of due process of a fair trial, because S.A. , E.B. and E.S. were never directly questioned about their differences in their testimony from the jury trial and preliminary hearing, showing they did not corroborate each other, nor do they corroborate what they testified to what they say happened to themselves, that I have shown in the (a) supporitng facts, pages 6 through 11?

4. Was I deprived of my (6th) Sixth Amendment of effective counsel, because my trial attorney failed to cross-examine E.B., S.A. and E.S. about their differences in their testimony from the jury trial and preliminary hearing showing they do not corroborate each other, nor do they corroborate what they testified to what they say happened to themselves? Shown in the (a) Supporting facts, pages 6 through 11.

5. Did the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Report and Recommendation, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01 115, error on page 4, by stating: By the way of background, during his cross-examination of the victims, trial counsel pointed out several of the inconsistencies that Appellant refferences. When there is no such thing as cross-examining by the way of background? And then shows the only one time it was done showing how E.B,'s and S.A.'s testimony of where and when they said they discussed what they said happened to each other, was at different places and different years? And they were never questioned about the differences.

6. Did the United States District Court, Report and Recommendation, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01 115, on page 4, not realize that besides that I wanted my jury trial attorney did not question S.A. about being touched in Swissvale and the discrepancies of S.A.'s testimony between the preliminary hearing and jury trial, I also, wanted brought up S.A.'s testimony at the preliminary hearing 12/04/12, at 42? Mr. Householder: Simply because S.A. is up there stating she remembers everything clearly and everything else. Here it is, specifically says, (from the preliminary hearing 12/04/12 at 42) S.A., staring in Swissvale you testified that these incidents, that you don't think that you don't think these things happened, is that accurate? A. Yes. Q. And you answered honestly that you really don't remember those, correct? A. Yes. Jury Trial 08/06/14 at 255.

Due-process