Whether the petitioner was denied due process by lack of notice of the federal prosecutors' interpretation of a state campaign finance statute and an objective legal standard to judge his conduct

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Petitioner was denied due process by the “lack of notice” of (1) the federal prosecutors’ hindsight interpretation of the phrase “unrelated to the campaign or the holding of public office” contained in the State Campaign Finance statute and (2) an objective and consistent legal standard to adjudge his conduct. 2. Whether when federal mail or wire fraud charges concern conduct in an area heavily regulated by state law, evidence concerning the custom and practice under applicable state law may be excluded on the ground that the charges are federal. 3. Whether a twenty-year (1994-2014) criminal forfeiture under Title 28 U.S.C. §2461(c) and §981: (a) should be limited to the time period after the 2005 amendments to 28 U.S.C. §2461(c) (USA Patriot Act) because there was no statutory basis for a criminal forfeiture for the mail and wire fraud charged in the Indictment or alternatively (b) the forfeiture should be limited by the five-year statute of limitations applicable to the underlying wire and mail fraud counts. ii PARTIES AND