1. Did Petitioner have Article standing to collaterally attack a federal criminal conviction, assuming 28 U.S.C. §2255, relying on this Court's precedents, not overruled, that demonstrate the Government lacked Article III standing to charge conduct not within the precise subject matter for nationwide Federal police power enforcement?

2. Did the district court commit an abuse of discretion in not addressing, much less reaching, the merits presented in the petition and 28 U.S.C. §2255, and substantially in the habeas corpus case, where this Court's case law, presented by the district court, renders the federal conviction invalid and demonstrates a violation of Petitioner's substantive due process rights?

3. Did the Court of Appeals abuse its discretion in so avoiding the Constitutional and Jurisdictional claims raised in the district court in rubber-stamping on affirmance the district court's dismissal based on remanding the matter to the district court to address and reach the merits, where the Government was never required to answer the petition?

4. What remedy is available in this Court by right for the wrongs committed against him by the Government to protect the rights of an infancy encompassed in the Federal laws of habeas, where this Court's precedents invalidate the federal conviction, nullify the prosecution against Petitioner, or bar any further prosecution in this Court's case law precludes the Government from applying the criminal laws in this case within the boundaries of a State, since no Article III court may sit in judgment thereunder when sitting in a case for conduct committed by a State, and is one of importance to the public?

Whether Petitioner has Article III standing to challenge conduct not within the precise subject matter of nationwide Federal police power enforcement