Should the Brady Rule apply to a presiding Federal Judge who suppresses exculpatory and damaging material from a Pro Se litigant's civil rights lawsuit?

QUESTION PRESENTED. Should the Brady Rule versus a self-decided Judicial ethical issue by a seriously conflicted Federal Judge and involving the same disclosure rule as prosecutors’ under Brady, also apply to a presiding Federal Judge who also suppresses exculpatory and damaging material from a Pro Se litigant’s civil rights lawsuit that has the unconstitutional potential for bias and denied this Pro Se Petitioner's Constitutional Due Process right to know of this exculpatory information and also his : Constitutional Due Process right to receive a fair Federal Civil Court Proceeding? SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED. For the public good and in the interest of equal justice, should the United States Supreme Court now consider setting a new precedent, similar to the Brady Rule, for all presiding Federal Judges to require them not only ethically but legally, as a matter of written law, to self| reveal any prejudicially damaging or serious conflict of interest issues that is material to the fairness and outcome of any Pro Se litigant’s Federal Civil Court proceeding? : THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED For the public good and in the interest of equal justice, should the United States Supreme Court now consider setting a new precedent in order to prevent or deter Brady like | Judicial abuse and to also provide a legal recourse, like Brady, against any presiding Federal Judge who | also suppresses exculpatory evidence that they know or should have known was material to the fairness and outcome of their civil rights lawsuit as happened to this Pro Se Petitioner in his Section 1983 civil , rights lawsuit, Valentin v City of Rochester and Monroe County et al, WONY 2011? FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED. Is the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution violated when the | presiding Judge’s adverse WDNY Summary Judgment Decision (Docket 157) was Judicially inconsistent with this Pro Se Petitioner’s grant of a 2011 WDNY Habeas Corpus Grant (Valentin v Mazzuca) where the Habeas Judge also expunged this Pro Se Petitioner’s convictions for egregious prosecutorial misconduct and ruled his NYS trial was a “House of Cards” as opposed to the WDNY Summary Judgment decision that not only impugned the other Judge’s previous Habeas decision but also failed to take into 1 consideration that this Pro Se Petitioner’s Due Process civil rights were already ruled by the WDNY to ; have been violated? FIFTH QUESTION PRESENTED. Is the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution violated when a presiding WODNY Federal Judge fails to inform a Pro Se Plaintiff in a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit that he fired his then Victim Witness Assistant for reporting his Brady violation against a defendant he was prosecuting when he was a former NYS prosecutor and was also was identified as “Subject A” in her WDNY civil rights lawsuit which also included Brady violations issues from the same office where they both worked under then District Attorney Howard Relin who was named as a defendants in this Pro Se Petitioner’s Section 1983 civil rights Federal lawsuit? SIXTH QUESTION PRESENTED. Is the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution violated when a presiding Federal Judge who was named as the hidden and unnamed “Subject A” in his Victim Witness Assistant's Federal civil rights lawsuit (Frank v Relin) 2™ Circuit 1993, when this civil rights decision was included by this Pro Se Petitioner in his Amended Complaint (Docket 139) as a major Monel claim against his former superior DA Howard Relin on the grounds that he failed to trained his employees on their Supreme Court mandated Brady obligations? SEVENTH QUESTION PRESENTED. Is the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution violated when a presiding Federal Judge who is now made a fact witness to this Pro Se Petitioner’s lawsuit when he informs the presiding WDNY Judge and his Court in an earlier 2014 Docket filing (Docket 67, Exhibit A) that he intended to call Ms. Frank, his former Victim Witness Assistant, as a future trial witness at