Whether the courts below erroneously held that Mr. Williams and his companies could be prosecuted criminally, for acts his employees committed that have always been considered civil violations, (misrepresentations and deceptive tactics to collect a debt). Several other similarly situated companies have done the exact same acts as the petitioners in yet none have been prosecuted criminally only civilly. Further this FDCPA argument has never been directly addressed by the lower courts.

Whether the courts below erroneously held in conflict with other circuits and the Supreme Court that allowed the petitioner to remain imprisoned when it was clear that the government agents never had a legitimate search warrant, let alone probable cause. The evidence clearly showed magistrate Judge Janet King never gave authorization to the FBI's agent Timothy Brody to search the petitioners business. This argument has been presented to the lower courts with evidence, but it has never been directly addressed.

Whether the courts below erroneously held that the petitioner could be charged, convicted and imprisoned for a case that did not involve a substantive crime/offense in the case.

Whether the courts below erroneously held that the petitioner be sentenced when the predicate offense of WIRE FRAUD, was never charged in the indictment, conspiracy to commit wire fraud has no penalty provision, it relies on the substantive offence of wire fraud.

Whether the courts below erroneously held that Mr. Williams and his companies could be prosecuted criminally for acts his employees committed that have always been considered civil violations