Whether the District and Appellate Courts violated Petitioner's Constitutional rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | . This Writ has been filed because both the District and Appellate Courts have continually . disregarded long established Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent. In order to champion the notion that Petitioner's guilty verdict was validly obtained even though both indictments were void and failed to confer jurisdiction upon either court, 7 : In the initial indictment, Petitioner was charged, convicted and sentenced for Conspiracy to commit Bank and Wire Fraud pursuant to §1349 and §1344. (See Appx. E). After filing a 2255 Motion, the Government conceded that it had failed to produce any evidence that the wires were used or a FDIC-insured bank was either a victim or a target of the conspiracy (See Appx. . G). Further, the Government has tacitly acknowledged that the conspiratorial agreement alleged ; . in the Bank Fraud indictment "to defraud one or more federally insured institutions" failed to identify a single victim or target of the co-conspirators that was an FDIC-insured bank. Asa result of these post-conviction Government acknowledgments, it is patently obvious that the . District Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and there was insufficient evidence to convict ; Petitioner for any of the crimes related to the scheme to defraud a FDICinsured financial : institution. See U.S. v. Feola, 420 US 671 (1975) and U.S. v. Platenburg, 657 F.2d 797 (Sth Cir. 1981). . | | : Regarding the second indictment for Aiding in the Preparation of a False Tax Return pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7206(2), the Government intentionally misled both the grand jury and the District Court into believing they had territorial jurisdiction to indict and try Petitioner for the : alleged Tax Fraud crime (See Appx. F). The deception is clear on the face of the indictment because the Government, through the Grand Jury, alleges the criminal acts occurred in the Western District of Texas and the District of Utah, but neither identify one single act committed by the Petitioner that construed the alleged crime. Further, after ihe Government presented its i . case on this indictment, it was obvious that no evidence was introduced linking Petitioner to committing any Tax Fraud crime in the Wester District of Texas or the District of Utah. Asa result, this indictment should have been dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. US. v. , Cores, 356 U.S. 405, 407 (1958) and US. v. Cessa, 856 F.3d 370, 372 (Sth Cir. 2017). Remarkably, the Government tries to claim Petitioner waived venue prior to issuance of the indictment when it gave him the option of either being tried in San Antonio or Austin, which are both located in the Western District of Texas, Worse, at the time the option was given to . Petitioner, the Government had not revealed it had no evidence of the Tax Fraud crime being committed in the Western District of Texas. — These incontrovertible jurisdictional truths and the District and Appellate Courts' refusal to adhere to Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent has led to the following questions for your consideration: . Question 1: Whether the Supreme Court is obliged to address and determine whether the District and Appellate Courts violated Petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment Constitutional rights of Due Process by acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction where _ looking at the face of the conspiracy indictment clearly failed to state the essential elements . and jurisdictional prerequisite of the offense in compliance with the provisions in Title 18 §3231 and §1344 to confer subject matter jurisdiction to the District Court. Or was there a complete usurpation of the District Court's power by the Government's admission that it failed to prove the underlying conspiracy scheme to commit bank fraud? Question 2: Whether the Appellate Court's abuse of discretion violates Petitioner's Constitutional rights to Due Process for failing to conduct a de novo review and correct the jurisdictional error for the Grand J