Validity-of-indictment-with-foreman-signature-only

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I.) IS THE PRECEDENT SET IN GAITHER V. UNITED STATES, 413 F.2d 1061 ; (D.C Cir. 1969), WHEN IT WAS MADE CLEAR AFTER THAT ANY INDICTMENT WITH JUST THE FOREMAN SIGNATURE ALONE ISN'T VALID WITHOUT A OPEN ~ .COURT VOTE SHOWING ALL 12 JURORS DECIDED ON THE INDICTMENT ? II.) IS THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT RULES VOID IN 1997 WHEN IT STATES "CASES DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ( AND ITS PREDECESSORS ) PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 1971; ARE PART OF THE CASE LAW OF THE DISTRICT OF oe COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. NO DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA i COURT OF APPEALS WILL OVERRULE A PRIOR DECISION OF THAT COURT OR REFUSE TO FOLLOW A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1,1971, AND SUCH RESULT CAN \_ ONLY BE ACOMPLISHED BY THE COURT EN BANC. WHY ISN'T THE COURT OF APPEALS APPLYING THIS STANDARD? “WHERE A DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS FAIL TO ADHERE TO EARLY CONTROLING AUTHORITY, THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE EARLIER DECISION a RATHER THAN THE LATER ONE.' III.) IS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 5th AND 14th NOT APPLIED TO ME IN MY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. ? , Iv.) IS JOHNSON V. ZERBST; 304 U.S 458, 58 S.Ct 1019, 82 L.Ed 1461 (1938) NOT CLEAR FOR LOWER COURTS TO FOLLOW ONCE JURISDICTION BECOMES VOID ? oid, Vv.) IS FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE .6(B)(1) NOT APPLIED TO oo. CASES IN 1997 CRIMINAL COURTS WHICH STATES "RULE 6. THE GRAND : JURY" AND SUBDIVISION (B)(1) CHALLENGES, EITHER THE GOVERNMENT OR A DEFENDANT MAY CHALLENGE THE GRAND JURY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT LAWFULLY DRAWN, SUMMONED OR SELECTED AND MAY CHALLENGE AN INDIVIDUAL JUROR ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUROR IS NOT LEGALLY QUALIFIED, SUBDIVISION (B)(1) STATES “THAT DEFENDANTS HELD FOR ACTION OF THE GRAND JURY SHALL RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE TIME AND a. PLACE OF THE IMPANELING OF A GRAND JURY, OR THAT DEFENDANTS IN Se CUSTODY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO COURT TO ATTEND AT THE SELECTION OF Ce THE GRAND JURY. SO THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO MY CASE ? 4 WI.) IS STOLL V. GOTTLIEB; 305 U.S 165, 59 S.Ct, 134, 83 L.Ed 104(1938) NOT TO BE FOLLOWED ONCE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS IS SHOWN THAT IT WAS OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUD OR OBTAINED WITHOUT JURISDICTION, WHICH MAKES THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT VOID ? a VIL.) IS ASHCROFT V. IQBAL; 556 U.S 662, 67, 129 S.Ct. 1937,1945, 173 ; L.Ed 2d 868 CHO0S) NOT PRECEDENCE WHEN IT STATES CLEARLY " COURTS ae OBLIGATION TO EXAMINE THEIR JUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION IS TRIGGERED WHENEVER THAT JURISDICTION IS FAIRLY IN DOUBT, THAT JURISDICTION MUST THEN BE PROVEN TO PROCEED ? a ; -I: . QUESTION(S) PRESENTED VIII.) 1S UNITED STATES V. COTTON; 535 U.S 625,630,122 S.Ct 1781, 152 L.Ed 2d 860(2002) NOT PRECEDENCE WHICH STATES " DEFECTS IN SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION REQUIRE CORRECTION REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ERROR WAS RAISED IN COURT ", ONCE SHOWN THE DEFECT WHY WON'T THE CORRECTION ‘BE GRANTED.OR FOLLOWED BY LOWER COURTS ? : -I ;