1a. Does creating a visual depiction of sexual conduct of a minor need to be the
dominan t or specific purpose; one of the dominant or specific purposes; or is it
enough that it occurs at all (one of infinite purposes)?

1b. Has the mens rea or specific intent element of 18 U.S.C. 2251 been interpreted
too broadly to include impulsive or inadvertent acts rather than only those acts for
which the actor possessed criminal intent or a dominant purpose of committing the
forbidden act?

1c. What is the illegal or forbidden act under 18 U.S.C. 2251(a)? Is it illegal to make
a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; or is it illegal to
engage the minor in sexually explicit conduct because one plans or wants to create a
visual depiction of that conduct?

2a. When is specific intent established for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 2251? Does it
need to exist at the onset of the sexual conduct or can it exist as a result of the
sexual conduct after such conduct has begun?

2b. If specific intent must be established for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 2251 at the
start or onset of sexual conduct, what constitutes the start of sexual conduct?

3. Is 18 U.S.C. 2251 unconstitutionally vague and therefore in violation of the
vagueness doctrine due to its oddly written and confusing language as well as the
use of the word "uses" which has led to arbitrary prosecutions due to the
legislatures delegation of authority to judges being so extensive?

4. Is a person "used" for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) if they are photographed
or videotaped?

5. Is jury instruction #15 too confusing? Specifically element 3 which is supposed to
place intent on the purpose for engaging a minor in sexual conduct, but appears to
place intent on whether or not the visual depiction was created purposefully?

6. Is 18 U.S.C. 2251 unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Fortier because his case
solely involved intrastate conduct using an iPhone which was not purchased for the
purpose of creating pornography, rendering its prohibition an unconstitutional
extension of the Commerce Clause?

7. As the use of cellular devices with cameras and the propensity for those using
them to frequently and impulsively record everyday happenings grows, will the
current interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 2251 make anyone, including those in high
school or college who are under the age of 18 or in a legal romantic or sexual
relationship with someone under the age of 18, criminally responsible and subject to
a federal sentence of 15-30 years or more anytime they photograph or videotape
themselves or those individuals under the age of 18 they are involved with engaging
in sexual conduct? ; or is 18 U.S.C. 2251enforced unfairly and purposed only for
certain individuals - and if so, what type of discrimination is used to decide who is
held criminally responsible and who is immune to the statute? Also, with whom
does this critical decision he?

Does creating a visual depiction of sexual conduct of a minor need to be the dominant or specific purpose; one of the dominant or specific purposes; or is it enough that it occurs at all (one of infinite purposes)?