Jacob Christine v. Michael Clark, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Albion, et al.

, is if this court’s ruling in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011), bars a rehearing re Brady material that was. unavailable in the St. Ct. where-the ABA Pled the 5th, and access to the ADA file was denied, because Janes v. Bagley, 696 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) ftnote 4, ref. at 486, states Brady is an exceptiorr-to "Pinholster,” but other huge questions of significant public importance that are as of yet unprecedented have also been presented:

1. REGARDING WHEN A C.O.A. IS 10 BE ISSUED, HAVE THIS OOURT'S HOLDINGS IN Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), AND Miller v. Coekerll, 537 U.S. 332 (2003) BEEN OVERRULED, OR HAS THE U.S. COURT OF APEALS JO? THE 3rd Or. ERRED IN FAILING 10 ISSUE A C.O.A. OR KEARGUMENT IN THE INSTANT MATTER?

2. ARE PCRA’s FILED BY THE DECLARANT AND COUNSEL, AND TESTOENY FRCM HIS COUNSEL REVEALING A BRADY VIOLATION AND TRIAL PERJURY, A HEARSAY EXCEFITCN WHEN THE DECLARANT IS UNAVAILABLE? WHEN THE ADA PLEATS THE 5th IN RESPONSE TO THE A0SUSATICN OF A BRADY VIOAUCN, DOES IT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VAT I IE .AS AN AIKISSICN IN THE CIVIL SETTING OF A PCRA HEARING? WHEN THE PCRA DECLARANT SUBSEQUENTLY BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ISSUES AFFIDAVITS AEMOTING THE BRADY VIOLAllCN, IS A REHEARING BARRED BY "PINHOLSTER," 563 U.S. 170 (2011), WHEN ACCESS TO THE ADA FILE WAS DENIED AT FIRST HEARING, AND "BflGET,” C96 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) footnote 4, ref. at 486, STATES BRADY MATERIAL IS A BRIQG LINE EXCEFITCN TO "PM2SIER."

3. WHERE THE JURY RETURNED FRCM MJBERA31CNS REQUESTING THE SELF-DEFENSE INSMJCIICN BE REPEATED AND WEREiERRCNEDUSLY INSTRUCTED DEFENDANT HAD A DUIY TO RETREAT FROM HIS * ’TWELLING," : THE DEFENDANTS DUE PROCESS RIGGS VIOLATED WHERE THE DIST. DISPOSED OF THE CLAIM BY ADOPTING A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE ST. CT. THE DUIY WAS NOT EXCUSED FRCM A "IWELLING" UNEER THE STATUE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, WEN IT WAS (5th and 14th Amendment U.S. Const. Due process), AND DOES A PRISONER HAVE A RIGG TO STAND HIS GROUND IN HIS ASSIGNED CELL?

4. WHERE THE JURY RETURNED FRCM DELIBERATIONS REQUESTING THE SELF-DEFENSE INSIKUCTICN BE REPEATED AND WERE ERRONEOUSLY INSTRUCTED IF THE DEFENDANT AOdDENTALLY" INJURED THE VICTIM IN SE1FDEFENSE, HE "CCMHTIED THE CRIME" AND THE JURY "NEED NOT CONSIDER JUSITFICAITCN," KID THIS MISINSIRUCTLCN INFECT THE ENURE TRIAL WITH UNFAIRNESS WHERE UNEER STATE LAW, SELF-DEFENSE AND AG3EDENIAL INJURY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE UNEER Childs, 142 A.3d 823 (2016), AND WAS IT OONSmUIICNAL EO? THE DISTRICT TO CLAIM THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A "SCRIVNER ERROR"?

5. IS PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTING A DEFENDANT FOR FAILURE TO RELTITGATE A FULLY EXHAUSTED DIRECT APPEAL CLAIM CN PCRA UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE LEGAL THEORY OR ALLEGATION CN AN "EX-FCSTFACIO" VKLATKN OCNSTTIUIILCm.WHEN THE STATE ECRA ACT EXPRESSLY FCREH6 SAID RELmGAIICN UNDER 42 Pa. C.S. § 9544(a)(2), see Collins, 888 A.2d 564 (2005) Headnote 3, and 586 Pa. 56, AND, IS THE DIST. PERMITTED TO LEAVE CLAIFB AND DISPUTED MATTER UNADDRESSED?