When does chronic pain treatment prescribing to addicts become illegal?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED # 1 When pain of ‘more than three months duration becomes chronic pain (Ohio oo definition) and dependence (ie. addiction) forms after three months of opiate treatment (Ohio definition) does it make all chronic pain treatment prescribing to addicts; what closes legal window for chronic pain treatment? — On first day of chronic pain the patient becomes also. addicted. : #2Is chronic pain patient a §802-Addict and chronic pain treatment prescribing to addicts and shall chronic pain treatment and prescribing to , addicts be prosecuted the same way? / " # 3°Is retroactive denial of Legitimate Medical Purpose instead of prospective . approval a cause for prosecution of physicians treating chronic pain and reason for Prettyman and Katzenbach Commissions failure? : # 4 Is chronic pain treatment a §846-Conspiracy or §1306.04 Usual Course : . 7 : of Medical [Professional] Practice; why enter illegal conspiracy when Legitimate . Practice offers authorized physician all the benefits without legal hurdle? Why would Petitioner knowingly and intentionally join conspiracy when Petitioner : could knowingly and intentionally conduct all activities he conducted based on. ; authorization coming from Ohio Medical and DEA Licenses without the risks of conspiracy? : #5 Did District Court err by not addressing Petitioner's involuntary removal 7 from. Court Room for presentation of evidence session and did Court of Appeals err , by not checking the record in de novo review, when District Court in denial of : Ground # 22 of §2255 Motion: stated that record indicates that Petitioner : was present, but did not indicate where in the record to find it? " Shall the case be remanded for new trial based on FRCrP Rule 43 violation? , # 6 Did Court of Appeals err by condoning District Court's recharacterization of 3 motions as “first" §2255 Motion and another recharacterization of actual . §2255 motion as “second, "futile", “amended" §2255 Motion (without party motion to amend), and declaring that District Court “misconstrued [Petitioner's] merger motion” and “that any error was harmless" because the District Court , “ultimately denied all claims"? . . While Clerk of Court docketed disposition of motions without indicating : recharacterization. The case became "off docket” denial of two recharacterized ; §2255 Motions. Castro v United States, 540 US 375 (2003). : Petitioner filed Motion to merge Rule 33 Motion and amended’ Motion into his §2255 as new evidence Claims coresponded with trial Grounds of §2255 Motion : _in order to avoid “already adjudicated” confusion of "new" and "old" evidence. 1