I. WHETHER THE PRIOR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION RULE SHOULO HAVE PAECLUDED THE OISTRICT COURT AND THE APPELLANT COURT FROM EXERCISING JURISOICTION OVER THE SAME BES TO DEFEAT OR IMPAIR THE STATE COVRT'S JURISDICTION?

II. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT LACK THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM BECAUSE IT WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQIVALENT OF A HABEAS CORPUS AO FACIENDUM ET RECIPIENDUM WAICH PASSED OVER THE JURISDICTION LINE OF DIVISION BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTIES ?

III. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS OBLIGATED TO EX AMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF JONES' SPECIAL PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO HIS FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IACb)CID MOTION HE FILED IN THE APPEALS COURT REGAROING ITS LACK OF SUBSECT MATTER JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS THAT THE PRIOR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION RULE DISABLED THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM EAERCISING THEIR JURISDICTION OVER HIM AND THIS CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER REVIEW?

IV. WHETHER THE APPEALS COURT'S PREMATURE ADJUDICATION OF JONES' CLAIMS HAVE RENDERED THE APPEALS COURT JUDGMENT VOID FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISOICTION BECAUSE JONES WAS DENRED THE RIGHT TO BE HEARO AND AN OPPORTONITY TO ANSWER TO THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLY BRIEF ?

V. WHETHER THE POTENTIAL FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DENIAL AND THE UNWELLINGNESS OF THE ARPEALS COURT TO AFFORO JONES A REMEDY AGAINST THE DISTRICT COURT'S INVALID AND FOREIGN PROLESS OF ILLEGALLY SEIZING HIM AND THIS CAUSE OF ACTION FROM THE COMPETENT JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT SHOULD PROVIDE JONES A REMEDY IN THE STATE COURT TO BE DEVESTED FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT HAD NO POWER TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT ?

Whether the axon exclusive soars decision rule should have precluded the district court and the appellate court from exercising jurisdiction over the same res to defeat or impair the state court's jurisdiction