whether-a-manifest-miscarriage-of-justice-occurred

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Question 1: Whether a manifest miscarriage of justice occurred on the face of Count One's conspiracy indictment to commit bank fraud in violation of the Grand Jury Clause, the Indictment Clause, and | the Due Process Clause of equal protection of the laws of the *.Fifth Amendment guaranteed requirement of a valid indictment by a grand jury, and the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment guaran: teed right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against him? Question 2: Whether Count One conspiracy to commit bank fraud . ; failed to comply with the statutory jurisdictional prerequisite requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 was a failure of the indictment to confer and/or invoke subject matter jurisdiction upon the District Court? : Question 3: Whether the Government's admission that.it failed to prove the underlying bank fraud conspiracy scheme and the requirement of the FDIC-insured status was a clear and obvious failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction and a usurpation of the : District Court's inherent power? . Question 4: Whether the District Court's conduct amounted to a "manifest abuse of discretion and its inherent power to find want of subject matter jurisdiction through the Commerce Clause contained in Article I in order to circumvent the court's subject matter jurisdiction power contained in Article III? Question 5: Whether it was a manifest miscarriage of justice and | manifest abuse of discretion by the District Court's constructive : amendment of the indictment in Count One conspiracy through the jury instructions in order to circumvent the court's subject matter jurisdiction limitations by redacting the essential elements and jurisdictional prerequisite of the indictment's underlying bank fraud conspiracy scheme in violation of: Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to a valid indictment as charged by a grand jury, his Due Process right to a fair notice of charges, and his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the indictment? Question 6: Whether a manifest miscarriage of justice occurred on the face of the manufactured barebones tax fraud indictment in Counts One and Three for failing to state an offense in violation of the Grand Jury Clause, the Indictment Clause, and the Due Process Clause of equal protection of the laws of the Fifth Amend. ment guaranteed requirement of a valid indictment by a grand jury and the Notice Clause of the Sixth Amendment guaranteed right to be informed of charges? t . i , Question 7: Whether pro-se litigants are afforded the very identical liberty protection by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause which guarantees every person equal protection of the law as litigants who are priviledged to be represented by counsel throughout post-conviction proceedings? If so, whether the panel violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights by intentionally treating Petitioner differently from other similarly situated litigants without any rational basis in a wrongful ‘ denial of Petitioner's jurisdictional defect and insufficiency of the evidence claims? ii r | SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION THRESHOLD QUESTION oo : Prior to réviewing each of the Questions Presented. for Re, wiew and before considering or. addressing the merits of this Writ, ; ‘Petitioner would first point out that he is claiming, challenging, and questioning whether the face of Count One underlying conspi7 racy to commit bank fraud indictment (See Appx. P. 6) and tax _ fraud indictment (See Appx. P. 28) failed to confer and/or invoke : subject matter jurisdiction upon the District Court? : ; This Writ has been filed because both the District and Ap: ' pellate Courts have continually acted in the clear absence of all subject matter jurisdiction, disregarding long established Supreme . , oo, ' Court and Fifth Circuit precedent, that matters involving FDIC. insured financial institutions trump the general rules govern