Question not identified

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; 1. Is it appropriate to convict me, Daniel Thomason Smith, when I was NEVER allowed to testify for what I had knowledge of and/or did not ; have knowledge of 7? 2. Since the government has committed the Brady Violation, in Case # W 16-CR-039, why has the U.S. District Judge, Marcia A. Crone, and U.S. ! Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn completely ignored my Exculpatory Evidence ?? 3. Is it not MY Right to have the Exculpatory Evidence ORDERED for MY Right to vindication 2? : : 4. Since the government has lied about a 'Grand Jury', because there never was a Grand Jury, then how can the Indictment be 'true'?? 5. Since the original Indictment was signed by U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman, is it not a conflict of interest that he has ‘ruled’ on my case : # 6:16CV0280 after he became a U.S. District Judge ?? : ; 6. Is it not true that the case # 6:16CV0280 contains 37 Federal Questions and Answers that destruct the U.S. District Court's jurisdiction over Me ?? 7. How can the court convict me withOUT MY demonstration of MY Mens Rea ?? 8. Since it is a strict requirement of the law, to hear MY testimony, and state of mind/mens rea, how can I be convicted of a crime ?? 9. Since I NEVER INTENDED to commit,-or instruct anyone else to commit any act of fraud, how can I be convicted of any of the charges placed against me ?? 10. Will the Supreme Court Justice who is reading this document, ORDER and take Judicial Cognizance of the TWO CRITICAL Pieces of Evidence which exonerate Daniel Thomason Smith, which are the government's Exhibit . # 24 AND the ‘Coercion Tape' ?? (See Letter entitled Daniel Thomason Smith's Evidence and Motion To Order Proprietary Exculpatory Evidence). 11. Is not Justice Warren E. Burger's decision to not withhold Evidence in President Nixon's case a perfect collaboration for MY right(s) to Due Process, and thus, compel the Supreme Court Justice to take Judicial Cognizance of the text of the ‘Coercion Tape! and the Exhibit # 24 ?? ' 12. Since the Savings Clause applies to Actual Innocence,*then am I not convicted of a Non-Existent Offense, because there was NO INTENT to © commit any act of wrong doing, and NO-ONE has ever proven the contrary to thereby invoke the Savings Clause as ‘truly applicable'?? 13. How can I aid and abet when I NEVER even conspired to commit an initial act of any fraudulent scheme in the first place ?? . 14. How can ; ; : ETHICAL INQUIRY PAGE 1