Was the district court's assertion of subject matter jurisdiction valid after jurisdiction was challenged under F.R.Cr.P. Rule 12(b)(2) regarding the use of illegally obtained wiretap evidence in violation of Title III and Fifth Amendment due process rights?

1. ) WAS THE DISTRICT COURT'S ASSERTION OF "SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION" VALID AFTER JURISDICTION WAS CHALLENGED UNDER F.R.CR.P. RULE 12(b)(2), REGARDING THE "USE" OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED WIRETAP EVIDENCE; IN VIOLATION OF STATUTORY LAW OF TITLE III, 18 U.S.C.§2515 and FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS? 2.) DID THE DISTRICT COURT'S USE OF "GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION" OF LEON, CONFER "SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION" IN SPITE OF THE "CLEAR STATEMENT RULE" IN TITLE III, 18 U.S.C. §2510 et. seq. AND CONFLICT WITH RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN DAHDA V. UNITED STATES, 584 U.S. 440 (2018) UNDER RULE 10(c) OF SUPREME COURT?