1. WHETHER THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRED IN APPLYING CLAIM PRECLUSION
TO BAR PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CLAIM
WHEN THE ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION DID NOT EXIST AND COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED AT THHETIME OF EARLIER LAWSUIT?

2. WHETHER THE DENIAL OF A PAROLE CONSULTATION HEARING,WHICH
DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARS AND RESPOND TO
EVIDENCE CONCERNING PAROLE SUITABILITY,VIOLATEDNHIS RIGHTS UNDER
THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

3.WHETHER THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S RULING DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH
ITS OWN PRECEDENTS THOSE OF THE SUPREME COURT JREGARDINGEEXCEPTIONf
TO CLAIM PRECLUSION,INCLUDING THOSE FOUND IN THE RESTATEMENT(SECOND)
OF JUDGMENT ^e(l)(c)?

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in applying claim preclusion to bar a First Amendment freedom of expression claim and whether the denial of a parole consultation hearing violated constitutional rights