Whether there is proper Fair Notice under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)

Questions Presented 1. Under Title 18, U.S.C. § 2251(a), is there proper Fair Notice, : as set forth by this Court in Fasulo v United States, 272 U.S. 620 : (1926); that a crime of purely intrastate production of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or child pornography, was defined by Congress as a federal criminal offense? 2. Where does the trail of Interstate Commerce end, and thus Congress’ Constitutional authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."? 3. Have the Lower Courts misapplied the “Aggregate Effects" doctrine under Gonzales v Raich, 545 US 1 (2005); to 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), where intrastate challenges by Gonzales v Raich and other case law were denied relief where the statute specifically mentions intrastate activities, such as the Controlled Substances act in Gonzales v Raich? 4. Does anonymously entering into the online content of child Pornography, and the receipt and possession of images that are ; widely available for free with the click of a mouse, meet the definition of commerce: buying, selling, bartering or trading, or does it have any economic impact upon any market? : 5. Does Congress have the Constitutional authority to regulate purely intrastate activity including widely available internet content when there is no economic impact? 6. Are the Congressional Findings of the "Child Pornography Prevention Act" of 2006 accurate today as to online content freely available and anonymously, since technology has advanced, and there is no economic nexis for receipt or possession? ; if Interested Parties and Related Cases Plaintiff: , Michael Paul Martin 36887-044 ; United States Penitentiary Marion P.O. Box 1000 Marion, Illinoiks 62959 Respondent: Solicitor General of The United States Room 5614 Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Related Cases: 4:09-CR-00760-JCH-1 United States v Michael Paul Martin Criminal Case No. ii