Whether the courts below erroneously held that Mr. Williams and his companies could be prosecuted criminally for acts his employees committed that have always been considered civil violations

question presented is: : . . . Whether the courts below erroneously held that Mr. Williams and his . companies could be prosecuted criminally, for acts his employees committed that have always been considered civil violations, (misrepresentations and deceptive tactics to collect a debt). Several! other similarly situated compa nies have done the exact same acts as the petitioners in yet none have been prosecuted criminally only civilly. Further this FDCPA argument has never been directly addressed by the lower courts. 1 QUESTION TWO: The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is ; part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. ; The exclusionary rule is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a-Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree", unless it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means. The question presented is: , . . Whether the courts below erroneously held in conflict with other circuits and | the Supreme Court that allowed the petitioner to remain imprisoned when it was Clear that the government agents never had a legitimate search warrant, let alone probable cause. The evidence clearly showed magistrate Judge Janet King never gave authorization to the FBI’s agent Timothy Brody to search the petitioners business. This argument has been presented to the lower courts with evidence, but it has never been directly addressed. QUESTION THREE: a A Substantive Crime/Offence, is a crime that does not have as an element the performance of some other crime: a crime that is not dependent on another 2 [indicted and convicted of conspiracy to attempt to enter the bank and the substantive crime of attempting to enter the bank "United States v. Clay, 495 F.2d 700 (1974)"] called also substantive offense. Here in the Petitioners case the substantive crime of “WIRE FRAUD” was never charged in the case, only one of count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The question presented is: ’ Whether the courts below erroneously held that the petitioner could be charged, convicted and imprisoned for a case that did not involve a substantive crime/offense in the case. QUESTION FOUR: . . A Predicate Crime/Offence was never charged creating a Violation of the Fifth Amendment clause of Due Process for Unconstitutional Sentence. An error in sentencing procedure can cause a clear miscarriage of justice where a party’s liberty is improperly compromised. Sentencing procedure is subject to due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Due process requires that a defendant; (1) not be sentenced based on materially false information; (2) not be sentenced based on a material misapprehension of fact; and (3) be given notice and an opportunity to contest the facts upon which the sentencing authority relied in imposing the sentence. One of several arguments in the lower courts presented by the petitioner was based on [United States v. Sutton, 13 F .3d 595, . 599 (2d Cir 1994)], there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the conduct attributable to Mr. Williams resulted in a loss of roughly 3.9 million : dollars and it involved more than 6000 victims. The petitioner later found these . arguments to be moot because the predicate offense of WIRE FRAU D, was never . 3 charged in the case. ‘The question presented is: . Whether the courts below erroneously held that the petitioner be sentenced when the predicate offense of WIRE FRAUD, was never charged in the indictment, conspiracy to