1. WHETHER THERE EXIST A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN THIS
CASE AND THE UNANIMOUS DECISION OF ALL CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEAL (INCLUDING THE THIRD CIRCUIT ITSELF) ON THE SAME ISSUE.

2. WHETHER THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE RESULT
IN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL "SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT" OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT WHICH ARE OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ALL "PRO SE"
HABEAS PETITIONERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC.

3. WHETHER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO SHOW THAT THE
HABEAS REMEDY UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2255 IS "INADEQUATE OR
INEFFECTIVE" TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF DETENTION WHEN THERE
EXIST A "FUNDAMENTAL" JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT IN THE INDICTMENT
BECAUSE IT FAILS TO STATE A CRIME COUPLED WITH THE REPEATED
PROCEDURAL "PLAIN ERRORS" OF THE SENTENCING DISTRICT COURT IN
VIOLATION OF SUPREME COURT AUTHORITY IN CASTRO V. UNITED STATES ,
540 U.S. 375, 124 S.Ct. 786 (2003)( ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE).

4. WHETHER THE SECTION 2255 REMEDY WOULD BE "INADEQUATE OR
INEFFECTIVE" TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF DETENTION UNDER THE
AFORESAID EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
RAISE SERIOUS DUE PROCESS QUESTIONS CONCERNING CONGRESS' INTENT
TO CLOSE OFF ALL AVENUES OF REDRESS IN ITS ENACTMENT OF AEDPA
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PRISONER IS PRECLUDED FROM RAISING HIS
CLAIM OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE IN A SINGLE SECTION 2255 OR 2241
MOTION —WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD —IN AN EFFECTIVE FASHION
AT AN EARLIER TIME.

5. WHETHER THE PHRASE "INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTIVE" SHOULD BE
RESTRICTED TO INCLUDE ONLY THOSE INSTANCES INVOLVING AN
"INTERVENING CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIVE LAW" (MADE RETROACTIVE
BY THE SUPREME COURT) WHICH MAKES CRIMINAL CONDUCT ALLEGED
IN THE INDICTMENT NON-CRIMINAL AND THEREBY PRESERVING ACCESS
TO THE "SAVINGS CLAUSE" INc'SECTION 2255 UNDER SECTION 2241 .

Whether there exist a conflict between the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in this case and the unanimous decision of all circuit courts of appeal on the same issue