Whether jurisdiction exists for presentation of grounds for relief from all custody under § 2241, challenging conditions of confinement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Just over eleven years ago, on 10 March 2010, two distinct contemporaneous disputes, arising within different operating entities of the San Francisco holding company administered by the petitioner, converged tumultuously, resulting in the catastrophic loss of assets acquired over his six previous decades, and of his liberty. He has since presented all manner of review, but only relatively recently has managed to consolidate the three principal bases upon which his custody rests. The matters presented span he spectrum of Arizona to federal criminal law, to the involuntary bankruptcy used.as a proxy to seize all assets. None were afforded substantive review, but procedurally denied. However, all shared two commonalities: all proceeded in save for the Arizona direct appeal, denied despite the state constitutional right to do so, and that all three were absent of subject matter jurisdiction, thus voiding the dispositions rendered, notwithstanding vexatious appellate opinions, however forceful they were intended to seem. Nevertheless, he has managed to terminate physical custody in the federal action, which now only consists of supervised release and restitution, upon state release. The involuntary bankruptcy has been reopened, which now can receive claims for assets, and the counterclaims filed therein on 11 October 2010. He also has shown the conflation of his identity with a distinct individual with the.same surname. Fortunately, in response to the COVID pandemic, Congress passed the CARES Act, an important provision of which affords relief through challenges to conditions of confinement mo under § 2241, which in one of its first judicial reviews, was held to also have necessarily : afforded review of “the fact...of confinement” itself. This petitioner is eligible for release. In sum, a matter of first impression exists for consideration on certiorari, to be decided . upon issues split among the circuit courts; state and federal law; and these questions: : : J) Whether jurisdiction exists for presentation of grounds for relief from all custody under . § 2241, challenging conditions of confinement, where concurrent and consecutive sentences had been imposed by courts of both a state and the Government, but where the federal physical custody has terminated, leaving only its separate term of supervised release and restitution to begin upon state release. 2) Whether the confluence of the applicable statutes arrayed under the CARES Act, “including 18 USC § 3624(c)(2) and 34 USC § 60541, as applied to those eligible inmates defined thereunder, provide as well for a challenge to “the fact. ..of confinement” itself, as a . violation of Amendment: VIII, thereby permitting presentations of actual innocence, as fully contemplated pursuant to 28 USC § 2241. .8) Whether this Court may issue the Writ directly in the full exercise of its plenary authority, provided through 28 USC §§ 1651 and 2241, in the exigent interests of justice. i: