Whether petitioner was wrongly prosecuted under the Wire Fraud statute because Congress intended such allegations of false advertising of nonprescription drugs to be prosecuted only under 15 U.S.C. 52-57?

Whether petitioner's advertising practices in themselves constituted Wire Fraud despite his honest belief in the efficacy of his remediesand where there was no claim that the remedies were not actually effective as advertised nor their physical contents or licensing status misrepresented?

Whether an 'intent to harm' is a necessary part of the 'intent to defraud' element of Wire Fraud, as held by a majority of appellate courts but disputed by the First Circuit which also dispensed away with any such requirement in petitioner's case?

Whether petitioner was wrongly prosecuted under the Wire Fraud statute