Whether the 'target' of an electronic interception, whom voice was heard in intercepted conversations have 'standing' as an 'aggrieved person' under 18 U.S.C. § 2518

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I, Whether the “target” of an electronic interception, whom voice was heard in intercepted conversations have “standing” as an “aggrieved person” under 18 US.C. § 2518. II. Whether acquiring a person’s past movements through his cell phone’s historical cell tower records using the “Specific and Articulable” facts standard, instead of acquiring “Probable Cause” is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. III. Whether an expert’s testimony that has never been scientifically validated or the product of any scientific research and fails to give an empirical link between the research and the opinion, be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. ; IV. Does a District Court have the authority to sentence the Petitioner to an egregious upward departure using factors already accounted for in the sentencing guidelines? 1