Question not identified

questions presented in this petition and issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241(c)(3), to be unimpaired pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(g) directed to: 1. R. Ramos, Warden, Butner FCI-1, 2. Current United States Attorney General; 3. James C. Dever III, United States District Court Judge, Raleigh, N.C. Directing and commanding these respondents to immediately and unconditionally “DISMISS” the action with prejudice, District Court, Civil Action, Docket No. 5:15-he02017-D, against this Petitioner, for lack of federal jurisdiction. [Please refer to the attached declaration for additional facts, with exhibits, in support of the questions presented.] HC-4 OT Conclusion For these reasons, the Court should GRANT this petition for writ of Habeas Corpus and command respondents to immediately cause the unconditional release of this Petitioner: th Th Signed this /Y day Witnessed this |X day of Och _,2022 of @cpowee _, 2022 ow ; gun? Aelte ames Dow Vandivere Noeman & eurs I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Petition is true, correct, and documented. I have executed this Petition on _Ocds 1% 2020, _, at Butner FCI, P. O. Box 1000, Butner N.C. 27509. HC-5 No. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1. DECLARATION OF James Dow Vandivere 1, My name is James Dow Vandivere I am over 18 years of age. I reside at Butner, FCI-1, P.O. Box 1000, in Butner, N.C. 27509, a Federal Correctional Institution. I am fully competent to make this Declaration and I have personal knowledge of all the facts stated in this Declaration are true, correct, and documented; 2. I am the petitioner in this matter. I make this declaration in support of my petition for Writ of Habeas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); as provided for | : pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(g); 3. It should be noted that this petitioner is not an attorney. Petitioner had no other =” choice but to represent himself in pro se because over 400 attorneys were contacted by friends , family, my sponsor and myself with offers but all ; declined. D-1 4, Attached to this declaration as Exhibits “A” through “F” are true and correct copies of pertinent Fed.R.Civ.P rules, pertinent Supreme Court well-settled holdings and district court orders contrary to these rules and decisions. 5. In U.S. v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), this Court ruled that Congress had the authority to enact the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) under the necessary and proper Clause of the Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8, cl. 8. The Court continued: | “We do not reach or decide any claim that the statute or its application denies equal protection of the laws, procedural or substantive due process, or any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondents are free to pursue claims on remand and any other they have preserved.” [Exhibit “A”] This decision was made 12 plus years ago. Much harm has taken place since. The time is ripe for the court to re-visit the statute again to see if indee