Whether a district court has jurisdiction to try a defendant upon a finally dismissed indictment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a district court has jurisdiction to try a defendant upon a finally dismissed indictment that the government has never sought to reinstate, in contravention of the sole statute allowing reinstatement of an indictment, the precedent of this Court and of two circuits, and of the Grand Jury’s exclusive role under the Fifth Amendment? 2. Whether a district court can convict a defendant for conduct not proscribed at the time of its commission by unambiguous statute or by unambiguous regulation formulated pursuant to rulemaking authority and process — when the conduct in question comes to be proscribed by regulation only after the fact and such proscription is subsequently invalidated by order of a sister district court and abandoned by the government? 3. Whether a district court can transpose the burden of proving mens rea in a conspiracy from the government to a defendant by characterizing the defense of advice of counsel as an affirmative defense rather than an impediment to mens rea — while relieving the government of its burden to prove same by employing judicial notice to find mens rea, the signal issue under contention in the trial? i