Whether the government can criminalize the possession of non-obscene photographic materials depicting only an adult

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether, contrary to Supreme Court precedent lAshcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)], the government can criminalize the possession of non-obscene photographic materials that depict only an adult at the time of production, and which, therefore, are not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse and/or exploitation of children, a subject matter jurisdictional question on which multi-circuit conflict now exists. 2. Whether consistent with the Takings Clause, the government can criminalize the legally acquired possession of materials that previously enjoyed the protection of the First Amendment in violation of Supreme Court precedent. 3. Whether consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause, the government can retrospectively re-define an adult (at the time of production) to a minor (at the time of production) in order to secure a federal conviction for possession of child pornography. 4. Whether, in violation of Supreme Court precedent ([McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2018) and others], a Defendant, with unimpeachable exculpatory newly discovered evidence, confirming that false evidence was used to secure his bankruptcy fraud conviction, can have the merits of his “actual innocence” claims denied on procedural grounds, without any evidentiary hearing. 5. Whether consistent with the due process clause, a Defendant can be denied the right to even one evidentiary hearing to prove the ineffective assistance of his appointed counsel, including, counsel’s failure to raise the statute’s exculpating affirmative defense and submit its corresponding exculpating jury instruction. . 2 V 5 s 3 ?