Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Hendrix can be applied retroactively, undermining habeas corpus review and potentially violating constitutional protections

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW . Whether the decision in Jones v Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857 (2023) ‘ can be applied retroactively "rescinding habeas Corpus review of , : Statutory Interpretation Claims" (that involve Statutory or Legal i ' Innocence Claims), undermine Congress's intent of the Savings Clause “ and "violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution" Article 1, . Section 9 and 10 by divesting a prisoner of the right to challenge L. unlawful detention based on a Legal or Statutory Innocence Claim ? : (W]hen Congress Amended 28 U.S.C. 2255 by enacting AEDPA in 1996, a and limiting Second or Successive Petitions to only two (2) specific categories. “Whether Congress ["through the enactment of AEDPA"] “ caused 28 U.S.C. 2255 to become "incommensurate" (un-equal) to the ee : Traditional Habeas Corpus that it was crafted to replace, and be : . "identical to in Scope", "by limiting the claims that can be raised in a Second or Successive Petition", and by doing so "inadvertantly violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution by restricting and inhibiting a right that was cognizable before enactment of AEDPA ?™ or "Was the Savings Clause left in place to preserve rights of , cognizable in habeas-and thereby cognizable in 28 U.S.C. 2255 ? aa Whether Due Process is violated when "Federal Court" imposes oe Criminal Punishment or Penalty pursuant to a Substance that the a _ Federal Statutes, and CSA (Controlled Substance Act) fail to regulate or prohibit, and fail to provide fair notice of its illegality —— '. under Federal Law ? ne