Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. GIVEN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE ORIGINAL SEARCH WARRANT FILED HEREIN ADMITTEDLY CONTAINED OUTRIGHT LIES REGARDING THE SOLE EVIDENCE THAT NEXUSED MONTEL WESTLEY TO THE RESIDENCE SEARCHED (LE., CERTAIN HOSPITAL DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPOSEDLY HAD BEEN MAILED TO HIM AT THAT ADDRESS), SO POSTURED COULD THE COURTS (BELOW WITH IMPUNITY), REFUSE TO RECKON WITH THE FACT OF THE ADMITTED PERJURY (INVOLVED AND SO) DESPITE THE FACT IT ALONE NEXUSED THE ACCUSED TO THE HOME AND DO THIS WITH IMPUNITY. 2. GIVEN THE FACT THAT OUR PETITIONER HERE WAS ARRESTED IN THE HALLWAY OF HIS HOTEL, INDEED AFTER HE HAD EXITED THE ROOM (TO SURRENDER), WHICH OCCURRED AFTER HIS BEING TOLD THEY HAD A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST: CAN THE OFFICERS NONETHELESS THEN CONDUCT A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WITH IMPUNITY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 3. GIVEN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT (FOR THE RESIDENCE SEARCHED), WHICH CENTRALIZES CERTAIN DOCUMENTS SUPPOSEDLY MAILED TO OUR PETITIONER AT THAT, WHICH DOCUMENTS ALONE NEXUSED, OR CONNECTED, THE ACCUSED TO THE PREMISES AND DO THIS WITH IMPUNITY. 4. GIVEN THE FURTHER FACT THAT THE ACCUSED HAD ONCE-UPON-ATIME ONLY BEEN SEEN IN THE VICINITY OF A PARTICULAR HOME AND, AFTERWARDS BE SEEN ENGAGING IN A SINGLE (INDEED ONE AND ONLY) SALE OF A VERY MINOR DRUG SALE: CAN THAT ACCUSED’S CHALLENGE TO BOTH THE ENTRY AND THE SEARCH (AS HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED IN AN UNCONNECTED MATTER), BE SUMMARILY REJECTED, AS IT WAS HERE, DESPITE THE AFFIANT’S ADMISSION HE LIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT? 5. WHERE, THE COURT, IN REVIEWING THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT, PROPERLY EXCISES THE SINGLE MOST CRITICAL AVERMENT THEREIN, WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY A FALSE (IN FACT, AN OUTRIGHT LIE): CAN THE COURT DO THIS WITH IMPUNITY AS WAS DONE HERE? 6. IF, AS WAS DONE HERE, A DIFFERENT AFFIANT, INDEED ON THE ARREST WARRANT, WHICH INCLUDED IN ITS AFFIDAVIT STATEMENTS THAT WERE OUTRIGHT LIES: CAN THE REVIEWING COURT SIMPLY EXCISE THE OFFENDING ALLEGATIONS AND PRESUME THE ISSUING COURT WOULD HAVE NONETHELESS ISSUED THE SEARCH WARRANT ANYWAY AS WAS EXPRESSLY DONE BY THIS COURT? i 7. WHERE, IN DEFENDING A FEDERAL ARREST WARRANT AND A FEDERAL SEARCH WARRANT, THE GOVERNMENT WAS COMPELLED TO ADMIT THE CENTRAL AVERMENTS IN THOSE WARRANTS WERE OUTRIGHT LIES TOLD TO THE AFFIANT BY A LOCAL DUTY SHERIFF: VAN THE DISTRICT COURT IGNORE THOSE LIES WITH IMPUNITY -AS WAS DONE HERE? 8. GIVEN THE VARIOUS RESPONSES RENDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO OUR VARIOUS ASSAILMENTS PRETRIAL OF THE GOVERNMENTS VERSIONS OF THE CRITICAL FACTS, WHICH WAS PUNCTUATED AS IT WAS BY THE GOVERNMENTS TRIAL BRIEF (DOC # 48, P.303), AND GIVEN THE CONTENT OF THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE HOTEL WAS SEARCHED, COUNSEL NONETHELESS BE FAULTED FOR FAILING TO FILE ANOTHER MOTION TO SUPPRESS ONCE IT WAS REVEALED BY THE AFFIANT HE HAD OUTRIGHT LIED IN HIS ORIGINAL SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT, WHICH WARRANT PRECIPITATED, AND INDEED RESULTED IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE CRITICAL ARREST WARRANT (IN THIS CASE). 9. GIVEN NO MENTION WAS MADE IN THE GOVERNMENT?’S TRIAL BRIEF, INDEED NONE AT ALL OF ANY CONTENTION THAT “A PROTECTIVE SWEEP” HAD BEEN PERFORMED, OR HAD EVEN OCCURRED AND THAT IN ITS WAKE ITEMS WERE SEEN THAT JUSTIFIED THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT. 10. GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT WAS FIRST CONTENDED DURING THE TRIAL THAT ITEMS WAS CONVICTED OF POSSESSING WERE THE PRODUCT OF A PROTECTIVE SWEEP, BECAUSE OF THE ACCUSED FAILURE TO SEEK SUPPORT FOR THAT REASON. 11. CAN THE COURT SUMMARILY DENY A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL (RULE 29) AND FOR A JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL, (RULE 29) AND DO SO WITHOUT STATING THE BASIS FOR ITS RULINGS. 12. CAN THE COURT DESPITE THE CONTRARY INDICATION IN ITS “TRIAL BRIEF” ARGUE (AND IN DOING SO) ARTICULATE A CONCEPT THAT SEEMS CLEARLY TO HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. ii