Whether Mr. Bell is restrained of his personal liberty due to lack of jurisdiction

No question identified. : QUESTIONS TO BE PRESENTED 1. Whether or not Mr. Bell is restrained of his personal liberty by virtue of a judgment or order of a district court in which that district court had no jurisdiction to make that judgment or order? 2. Whether or not the district court below transcended its jurisdiction, and : are the proceedings below entirely void from either want of jurisdiction or | any other cause? | 3. Is the party complaining illegally deprived of his liberty? 4. Whether or not the district court had federal criminal subject matter jurisdiction under the mail fraud statute to have ordered the deportation | of Ms. Monica Hernandez and Mr. Carlos Rayas? 5. Whether or not the Federal Government has treat Mr. Bell with fundamental fairness in regards to the case in which jurisdiction is being challenged? 6. Has the failure and want-of jurisdiction clearly appeared on the face of the judgment order or record or both here? 7. Whether or not Mr. Bell has, by the United States, through one.of its courts, been wrongfully deprived of his power of unrestrained locomotion and other rights without due process of law? 8. Whether or not the imprisonment of Mr. Bell by the district court was within the scope of its judicial power and in accordance with generally recognized methods of law? 9. Whether or not Mr. Bell has been imprisoned and restrained of his personal liberty contrary to the Fifth Article of the Amendment to the United States Constitution and other constitutional principles and laws? 10. When a cause of action is dismissed, after a jury was empaneled, ina criminal case, by the prosecution for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter, what is the effect of such action? i QUESTIONS TO BE PRESENTED | 11... Whether or not issue preclusion as direct estoppel, or some other law | or legal principle, barred or estopped the re-litigation of the issue of the federal question of jurisdiction after the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction had been fully and vigorously litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment at an earlier time and phase in the very same proceeding and process? 12. Whether the district court's order in Case: 1:13-CR-00949, DKT# 350, filed on 2/1/2017 was on both the merits and federal subject matter jurisdiction? 13. Whether the question of jurisdiction in Count 3 of that indictment was, and still is the same exact question of jurisdiction found in Counts 1, 2, and 4 of that very same indictment? 14. Did the ,indictment here plainly, concisely, and definitely inform Mr. Bell which essential element was the nature and cause of federal subject matter jurisdiction under the mail fraud statute so that he would know how to properly defend his life, liberty and happiness against the powers of the Government? 15. Does the dependancy upon the use of the mail system jurisdictional element clearly and unambiguously appear in the construction of the mail fraud statute? 16. Whether or not the Federal Government has unlawfully interfered with Mr. Bell's right to personal liberty and other guaranteed protections and immunities? 17. Whether or not the want of jurisdiction on the face of the judgment and record grants Mr. Bell discharge from custody without delay and without any stipulations? ii