Whether habeas corpus relief in this Court is warranted on the claims the federal criminal statutes charged in the district court below are unconstitutional, on the premise that the Constitution does not confer power upon Congress to enact the purported federal criminal statute for nationwide enforcement?

Whether habeas corpus relief in this Court is warranted on the claim that the district court below lack subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal cases, where the premise is that only within the territories, possessions of the United States and within the District of Columbia does Congress enjoy a dual authority to confer such courts sitting within those exclusive jurisdictional areas with additional jurisdiction besides those enumerated in Article III, § 2, as to cases and controversies (interpreted to be civil in nature), as a State could confer upon its courts of justice (such as in criminal cases) that Congress cannot confer upon Article III courts outside those areas of exclusive jurisdiction the United States enjoys?

Whether this Court should exercise its review powers to declare a procedural habeas corpus statutory provision, namely the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), as being unconstitutional, where the premise is that the historical record from the Constitutional Convention reveals the purpose of placing the Suspension Clause within Section Nine of Article I, of the Constitution of the United States, was to place a restriction upon Congress from limiting access to the Great Writ except only when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it, and is a "substantive rule" Congress is prohibited from violating by the enactment of the AEDPA with its gatekeeping provisions that acts as nothing less than an impediment to access of the Great Writ this Court has found should not be denied, when custody is in violation of the Constitution?

Whether the federal criminal statutes charged are unconstitutional