Is it unconstitutional for the legislature to define all Chapter 110 crimes of 18 United States Code (18 U.S.C.), in particular § 2252, and 2252A, as 'crimes of violence' as defined in 18 U.S.C § 3156(a)(4)(C) and then use that 'definition' as the sole rebuttable presumption under 18 U.S.C § 3142(e), which cannot be rebutted, to detain the defendant prior to trial?

No question identified. : QUESTIONS |. IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO DEFINE ALL CHAPTER 110 CRIMES OF 18 UNITED STATES CODE (18 U.S.C.), IN PARTICULAR § 2252, AND 2252A, AS “CRIMES OF VIOLENCE” AS DEFEINED IN 18 U.S.C § 3156(a)(4)(C)? AND THEN USE THAT “DEFINITION” AS THE SOLE REBUTABLE PRESUMPTION UNDER 18 U.S.C § 3142(e), WHICH CAN NOT BE REBUTED, TO DETAIN THE DEFENDANT PRIOR TO TRAIL? ll. IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DENY BAIL PRIOR TO TRIAL UNDER 18 U.S.C 3142(e) SOLEY ON GROUNDS OF DANGEROUSNESS? Ill. IS (T UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL TO IGNORE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3142()), WHEN EVALUATING EVIDENCE THAT IS BELOW THE LEVEL OF “CLEAR AND CONVINCING” UNDER 18 U.S.C § 3142(f)(2)(B)? IV. IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161 TO STOP THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK BECAUSE OF AN INTERLOCATORY APPEAL OF A DETENTION ORDER THAT DOES NOT RESULT IN A DELAY OF IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT? V. _ ISIT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CONFINE A PERSON UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3142 FOR OVER TWELVE MONTHS OR MORE BEFORE TRIAL INA FACILITY WHERE DETAINEES AND PRISONERS BEING PUNISHED OR AWAITING APPEAL ARE TREATED THE SAME? VI. DOES A DETENTION ORDER WHOSE CONTENTS DO NOT HAVE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND/OR A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS THAT ACURRATELY REFLECT THE INDIVIDUAL FACTORS AND DETAILS OF THE CASE, OR THAT MERELY RE-SATES PART OF 18 U.S.C § 3142(f)\(2)(B), VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE LAW UNDER 18 U.S.C § 3142(i)(1)? VII. 1S IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS OR COURT RULES TO GRANT AN APPEAL BY THE PROSECUTOR OF A RELEASE ORDER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3145, AND REVOKE A RELEASE ORDER WHEN THERE ARE NO MATERIAL CHANGES, NO NEW FACTS, NOR ANY GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, BUT DENY THE DEFENDANT’S APPEAL TO REVOKE A DETENTION ORDER, WHEN THERE ARE MATERIAL CHANGES, NEW MATERIAL FACTS NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN, AND GOOD CAUSE IS SHOWN? ; .