Did the lower courts err in not granting a new trial based on contradictory witness testimony and potential due process violations in a child pornography case?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (1) Did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the District ~ Court err when the Government's case rested on Tracy Brown's . testimony that she unexpectedly found a flash drive containing child pornography in the Petitioner's house and took it to the police, when after trial, two new witnesses revealed that Brown had made statements to them that contradicted her testimony, and in a post-trial interview, Brown herself made inculpatory statements to the police that contradicted her testimony? (2) Did the lower courts err in not granting a new trial based upon the revelation of the new witness testimony and contradictory statements made by the government's main witness? . (3) Does the Petitioner meet the knowing prong of 18 U.S.C. § 2251a when it was the witness that made a copy of child pornography which was subsequently handed over to Law enforcement, and the Petitioner had destroyed the only known copy years ago? (4) Under Title 18 U.S.C. § 2251£a°, is there proper Fair Notice, as set forth by this Court in Fasulo v United States, 272 U.S. 620 (1926), that a crime of purely intrastate production of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or child pornography, was defined by Congress as a federal offense? (5) Where does the trail of Interstate Commerce end, and thus Congress' Constitutional authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the , Indian tribes" cease? . i (6) Have the lower courts misapplied the "aggregate Effects" doctrine under Gonzales v Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) to 18 U.S.c. _ . § 2251(a),° where intrastate challenges were denied relief . where the statutes do not mention intrastate activities? (7) Does Congress have the Constitutional authority to regulate purely intrastate activity, and does the decision in Gonzales * v_Raich surpass the powers attributed to the federal government by the founders? (8) Does the simple determination that an item had been passed in interstate commerce at some point give the federal government authority to regulate localized, intrastate activities? , (9) In order to be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1) does a criminal defendant have to be physically responsible for "producing" the visual representations on a flash drive, or can “.: another person perform this act without the accused knowledge, then the accused be held criminally accountable for the actions of the other? (10) Under Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), does the United States Attorney's office have the authority to interpret that a flash drive, manufactured by PNY in New Jersey, and purchased years earlier, gives the jurisdictional nexus to allow for criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. . 2252(a)(1)? : (11) Does a criminal defendant have a Constitutional right under , the Sixth Amendment, assistance of counsel till their criminal judgment is final as defined by. Linkletter v Walker, 85 S.Ct. ii : 1731 (1965)(Footnote #5); Allen v Hardy, 106 S. Ct. 2078 (1986) (Footnote #1); Teague v Lane, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989) _ woe (Footnote #1); and Gonzales v Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641? 7