Whether a person is precluded from doing what the law plainly allows them to do, as the government pursues a course of action to penalize a person's reliance on their legal rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; 1. Whether, under this Court's decision in — : Borderkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 358-59 (1978); North Carolina _v.Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 738 (1969); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973); and United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 oo, (1969), a person is precluded to do what the law : ; plainly allows him to do, as for the government . to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person's reliance of his legal rights? 2. Whether, under this (Court's decisions in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops NW, 441 U.S. 211 : (1979) and United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 (1983), a person is precluded from having access to grand jury material even after having met every prong in each of the above tests? . .