1. Whether a pharmacy violates its corresponding responsibility under 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) by being required to operate beyond licensing requirement and training and deny filling prescription(s) for a controlled substance issued by an authorized prescribing provider, for a medical disease purpose(s) where the prescription's legitimacy remains undetermined?

2. Whether the record as a whole establishes by a preponderance of the evidence base on an evidentiary standard of "red flag" as a guideline that Pronto Pharmacy's DEA Certificate of Registration Number FP2302076 should be revoked and any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration and applications for any other pending DEA registrations should be denied pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a) (4) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f)?

3. We further ask this Court to determine whether a Pharmacists refusal to fill a prescription for a "legitimate medical purpose" under the Pharmacists "corresponding responsibility," provision, constitute and violates the Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and usual punishment?

4. Whether it was the intent Congress for DEA to regulate the field and practice of medicine and pharmacy auger deference awarded to administrative agencies?

Whether a pharmacy violates its corresponding responsibility under 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) by being required to operate beyond licensing requirement and training and deny filling prescription(s) for a controlled substance issued by an authorized prescribing provider, for a medical disease purpose(s) where the prescription's legitimacy remains undetermined?