1. Is the term "same transaction" unconstitutionally vague?

2. How would two incidents separated by four months constitute the "same transaction"?

3. Why are the exact same issues which have previously been determined by a valid and final judgment relitigated in a successive prosecution?

4. Would the conduct needed for the offense, which is committed in an offense within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause, make both offenses still benefit from the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine?

5. How does an original tribe or entity be considered to have and wield "inherent" or "delegated" power if such power is to them?

6. Would one offense in a separate offense prove to convict from surrounding original tribes which derives tribe?

Is the legal definition of the term 'same transaction' unconstitutionally vague?