Will jurists of reason find debatable the application of a double standard of law, by the Government's arguing of two opposite interpretations of the conspiracy statute in the present and related cases, and before the same court?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED |. Will jurists of reason find debatable the application of a double standard of law, by the Government's arguing of two opposite interpretations of the conspiracy statute in the present and related cases, and before the same court? ll. | Should the United States Constitution protect Petitioners from violation of their substantial rights by the Government's proof at trial impermissibly amending the charging terms of an overly-broad indictment, which does not clearly set out a singular conspiracy in the first place? Ill. Have the Law of the Case Doctrine, a matter of judicial administration, become an insurmountable catch-22 precluding petitioners’ claims from review in detriment of the principle of Separation of Powers and Check-and-Balance of the United States Constitution? IV. Did health care fraud and mail fraud become the same offense in the present case? V. Did the Government properly establish its jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution as then Michigan’s No-Fault Act could not have been sustained under the commerce power because it instituted an individual mandate which required each "applicable individual" to have purchased Personal Protection Insurance (PIP) by maintaining "minimum essential coverage"? VI. Is a hearing warranted where petitioners have met the relatively light burden and supported their allegations with more than their own words and rather pointed at factual evidence or clear indicia on record supporting their claims? Vil. Did the Government unduly apply enhancements and impermissibly use sentencing liability to correct an offense not clearly set out in the indictment, which outlines multiple criminal agreements as a single conspiracy, and have the charge elected within such a duplicitous conspiracy count, exceeding the authority vested by Congress on the Sentencing Commission? Vill. Did the Sixth Circuit improperly deny Petitioners’ COA applications? ii