Whether state law interferes with and conflicts with the Federal Bank Robbery Act and Federal Statute 18 USCS § 2113

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether state law that interferes with and conflicts with the Federal Bank . ; Robbery Act and Federal State 18 USCS § 2113, that was intended to : , comprehensively state offenses committed against a National or Federal bank, 2. Does the State of Wisconsin possess criminal jurisdiction of bank robbery of ; Guaranty Bank which is a Federal Savings Bank, and is not amongst the | financial institutions defined pursuant to Wis. Stat. 5043.80 (2) for crimes under §943.81-943.90 or any other felony committed against a financial | ; institution to include robbery of a financial institution pursuant to . Wisconsin State Statue 943.87? : ' 8. Does the State of Wisconsin have to adhere to and yield to ihe laws of the . . _ United States and the United States constitution whereas the Bank ; | 4. Robbery Act and Federal Statue 18 Ll § 2113 comprehensively gives ; jurisdiction of National and Federal T to the United States? 5. Since the State of Wisconsin laws interfere, and are in conflict of paramount 1. federal law, would the State of Wisconsin be preempted to prosecute and c: avict for a crime of bank robbery against a federal bank. 6. I: the laws of the United States are the Supreme law of the land pursuant t: the Supremacy Clause of the United States Const. Art. VI Cl. 2; by what a tthority does the State of Wisconsin have preemptive power over the L. ws of the United States in regards tb bank robberies of a Federal bank ; 7. (ana defendant be convicted upon a permitted withdrawn Alford Plea in é yy state or federal court against the defendants desires to reinstate the \ ithdrawn plea 8. Does the cotiviction by a jurisdiction whom lacks legal jurisdiction violate the defendants due process rights within the meaning of the 14th amendment of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution 9. Is it a violation of the 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment for a conviction of one which they’re both substantively and procedurally innocent 10. Would a conviction pronounced by a court that lacks legal authority but assumes jurisdiction by want of jurisdiction be void ad ihito iii ;