if-the-congressional-command-of-federal-rule-of-appellate-procedure-24(a)(5)-requires-certain-submissions-must-be-included-with-a-motion,-is-a-pro-se-litigant-entitled-to-a-liberal-construction-of-the-submissions-that-must-be-included-to-aid-the-court-in-properly-adjudicating-his-motion?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) If the Congressional command of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure | 24(a)(5) requires that certain submissions MUST BE INCLUDED with a motion, is | a pro se litigant entitled to a liberal construction of the submissions that MUST BE INCLUDED to aid the court in properly adjudicating his motion ? | 2) Is the NECESSARY AND PROPER clause of Art. 1, sec 8, cl. 18 of the US Constitution considered in the "legitimate legislative sphere'’ for the purposes of determining the SPEECH AND DEBATE clause's absolute bar to : interference ? (as applied to the appellant) 3) Are the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings departed from if the appellant alleged Congress violated the NECESSARY AND PROPER clause of Art. 1, sec 8, cl. 18 of the US Constitution, and a district court fails to determine if Congress is acting within its "legitimate legislative sphere" ? 4) As applied to the appellant, is the definition of the "privilege" of habeas corpus, laid down by this court in Boumediene v Bush 553 US 723 HOLDINGS #3(c) apply to the appellant as a citizen of this country as it applies to aliens detained as enemy combatants 2 5) As applied to the appellant, can there be two seperate of the "privilege" of habeas corpus under one US Constitution ? 6) As applied to the appellant, did the subsections of 28 USC 2244(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B)(i)&(ii) make his opportunity for habeas a meaningless opportunity to demonstrate that he was being held pursuant to the erroneous application of relevant law by placing limitations on the erroneous applications of relevant law that could be presented on habeas ? 7) As applied to the appellant, did the subsection of 28 USC 2255(e), in which Congress did not define the "inadequate or ineffective" standard, leaving the determination of the definition up to a article 3 judge under 28 USE 2243, make his opportunity for habeas a meaningless opportunity to demonstrate that he was being held pursuant to the erroneous application of relevant law, by primarily requiring proof of a undefined congressional standard that left the I. determination up to the discretion of a article 3 judge, before the appellant could receive the "privilege" of habeas corpus ? 8) As applied to the plaintiff, is the DISCRETIONARY POWER in the statutory command of 28 USC 2243 instructing the judge to "dispose of the matter as law and justice require" the same definition of POWER in the Boumediene v Bush 553 US 723 HOLDINGS #3(c) and also. the same definition in the Black's Law Dictionary ? . 1A.