Whether the lower court's lack of factual predicate jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion could not be adjudicated

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; ; WHETHER oR NoT MR, AZCHARDSoWS SPECTAL PLEA To THE Low-| | | ER GourTé LACK OF FACTUAL PREDICATE TuRESDXCTKOW PuksuWT | |: To HIS UNOPPOSED Fep R. crv. P 12¢b)C42) morro Gould NoT | BE ADTUDICATED BECAUSE THe LOWER CoRTS DECIDED THAT RICHARDSow DED NOT MEET. THE SWENgs CLAUSE JuRES DICTION PuRsuAn T 7 | ro S$ 2ess(e) . a WHETHER THE: -crRCUurTS SPLET ON CowGhESsS ZNTENT PURSUANT To! TETLE 28u.5,.c § 22865Ce) Savings CLause To BE TREATED AS Turxcs | OLCTIONAL IN MATURE, THUS, EqudvalewT To THAT OF SubJecT | Mart ER Juazspre TEN OR WHETHER THE SAVENGS CLAUSE IS A CLALM | PROCESSING fluLe THAT MusT BE DECIDED APTER Awd WOT BefoRE THE | COURT ESTABLISHES} SUBTECTmaneR TubrspxreTzon : | WHETHER THE APPELLAWT CouRTS AFFIRMATIVE DECISDOW To DISMZSS MR. RicHARDSoNS HABEAS PETITIOW PREsumABLy PuksuANT To Fed Rai. | © 12Cb)(6) on THE BastS THaT HE FATLED To STATE fA CAUSE OF “AcTION Upon WHICH RELLEF CouLD BE GRANTED UNDER 8 2268Ce) | . SAVINGS CLAUSE, NOTWETHSTANDING , MR. RICHARDSoW DemovsTRATED A credible sHow2NG OF Acturnl rnnocence oF THE SyBSTANT EVE OFFEW SE | CHARGED IN CounT 2 OF Hrs INDIcrmenT vroLaTed HIS Consra Ty | | prowaL AmENDMENT ALGHTS , 7 ‘ a LISTOFPARTIES = it — [x] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. ; a .° [ ]-All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of oe .all