Whether the sovereign United States can be sued without explicit consent and whether Article III jurisdiction is impacted by governmental party status

1. Whether the applicant has a right to the relief he demands; 2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, whether the laws of his country afford him a remedy; and 3. If they do afford him a remedy, whether it is a mandamus issuing from this Court (questions 1-3 being adapted from Chief Justice Marshall ’s Marbury) . 4. Whether our Constitution ’s Article 111, at its Sections 1 and 2 when read together, constitutes potential for direct, judicial, financial conflicts of interest; wherever and whenever, the United States as sole, Section 1 Compensator, appears in Section 2, Federal controversies as here in Petitioner ’s lower court case, as a named party facially, thereby, stripping that Federal Court of its Article 111 jurisdiction; ensuring a self-defeating outcome for the USA in consequence; should it so choose to both appear and proceed in any Federal, Section 2 controversy . 5. Whether our Constitution, now at its Articles I and II, in addition, shows the United States also solely and directly compensating all Legislative and Executive Branch employees as well; doing so there, however, apart from any apparent, constitutional impediment. 6. Whether any provision of our Constitution expressly grants the sovereign United States, or any branch of our subordinate, federal government, immunity from suit. 7. Whether an individual waiver of sovereign immunity can be implied, or must, instead, be unequivocally expressed; solely by the sovereign United States themselves, by Article V convention. 8. Whether the Congress as subordinate, has the constitutional power to freely act, at any time, on the sovereign ’s behalf, to simply waive the sovereign ’s immunity in cases and legislation Congress wishes to engage in, and do so apart from the expressed permission of the sovereign, as is, for instance, garnered solely, it appears, by Article V Convention, and that apart from that same, i sovereign expression, there can be no, such waiver thus voiding, it appears, ab initio, such acts as the FTCA, Tucker Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and so on. 9. Whether, given our current Constitution, the sovereign United States, of themselves, can engage in the substitution-based doctrine of respondeat superior at will in lieu of Article V Convention; as it did in this Petitioner ’s lower court case (by perhaps substituting there, for instance, for the Dept. Of Justice); there bearing Case No. l:17-CR-00171 NT. 10. Whether the United States as sovereign, are immune from suit save as they expressly consent to sue or be sued, and that the expressed, Article V terms of their consent to sue or to be sued, in any Federal court, must solely define a court ’s jurisdiction to entertain that same suit. 11. Whether the individual, sovereign States themselves each share similar, constitutional constraints; with respect to their individual, Judicial Branch. 12. Given our Constitution ’s Article 111, at its Sections 1 and 2 when read together, whether the Federal District Court Of Maine, at Bangor, in Petitioner ’s case No. l:17-CR-00171-NT, with District Court Judge Nancy Torresen there presiding and where the United States appeared as Plaintiff, and with the lower court (Torresen) there sentencing Petitioner to a certain term of confinement, and lifetime supervision upon release being a case in which Plaintiff USA prevailed, thus warrants that same case’s immediate dismissal; for all cause shown both above, and below. 13. Given the contents of paragraph 12 immediately above, whether the lower court (Torresen) by added, Constitutional usurpation, additionally violated Petitioner ’s 6th Amendment right ‘to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor ’ where that same, lower court, in fact, denied Petitioner ’s then present, eye-witness parents being, in fact, eye witnesses to four, Federal and State agents (two each) purported ‘knock and talk’, their right to testify on Petitioner ’s behalf at Petitioner ’s trial both parents being pr