Whether the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and whether prosecutorial misconduct and judicial bias warrant reversal of the petitioner's convictions

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Petitioner prevails on his claim of want of subject matter jurisdiction on the part of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on Counts One, Two and Three of the original Indictment in Case No. 2:99-cr-00081-MR-1 due to the clearly stated Congressional Intent memorialized in THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS of the U.S. Senate Hearing on 8.1009, July 17, 1996 and the fatal flaw and lack of subject matter jurisdiction created by the absence of an implementing regulation in 26 U.S.C. supporting 26 U.S.C. § 7212A thereby exceeding the bounds of its lawful jurisdiction and wrongfully usurping the authority of Congress. . 2. Whether the Petitioner prevails on his claim that the District Court materially and wrongfully erred and exhibited prejudice and bias against the Petitioner in denying the Petitioner the exculpatory testimony of Russell Dean Landers in Case No. Case No. 2:99-cr00081-MR-1 with respect to Counts Four, Five, Six and : Seven of the Indictment and withholding the exculpatory evidence in the 8.1009 Congressional Report nullifying Counts One and Three of the Indictment from the Trial Jury in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment and on which the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense. 3. Whether the Petitioner prevails in his claim that the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Western District of North Carolina through A.U.S.A. David Brown perpetrated a : series of material, pervasive, deliberate, and knowing acts of fraud on the District Court, the Grand Jury, and the i Petitioner in Case No. 2:99-cr-00081-MR-1 and committed ; multiple acts of prosecutorial misconduct creating structural errors demanding reversal of the convictions against the Petitioner. 4. Whether the District Court materially erred, exhibited prejudice and bias against the Petitioner, and violated the protections and guarantees of the Fifth and . Sixth Amendment in repeatedly denying the Petitioner access to the court in Case No. 1:23-cv-185-MR-WCM and Petitioner’s prior filings thereby wrongfully denying a meaningful and full hearing on his claims to vindicate : his rights despite the overwhelming evidence in the ; Petitioner’s favor that no reasonable jurist would overlook. 5. Whether the Fourth Circuit panel materially erred by ratifying and condoning the District Court’s denials of access to the courts in violation of the guaranteed protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment by also denying the Petitioner’s access to the courts in Case No. 1:23-ev-185-MR-WCM and Petitioner’s prior filings thereby denying the Petitioner a meaningful and full hearing on the merits of his claims to vindicate his rights despite the overwhelming evidence in the Petitioner’s favor that no reasonable jurist would overlook. 6. Whether the Supreme Court should grant the Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition sought herein or in the alternative recognize, find and rule that there is no reasonable expectation that based on the long term incontrovertible record, neither the Fourth Circuit nor the ; District Court can be expected to afford the Petitioner a full and fair evidentiary hearing free from judicial bias and prejudice on his claims to the extent that the Supreme Court should, in the interests of justice and fair play, undertake to ORDER, ADJUDGE, and DECREE the . Petitioner prevails on his claims articulated in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment in Case No. 1:23-ev-00185-MRWCM in the U.S. District court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division and this case to the extent that the convictions in Case No. 2:99-cr-00081MR-1 should be reversed, overturned in their entirety, and his record expunged. v STATEMENT OF