The questions presented here concern whether '"'Rowland v. California
Men's Colony II" should be modified, clarified, or further addressed
to answer the following questions:

1. Can companies, stripped of untainted assets, be prosecuted
without representative counsel?

2. Do companies qualify for the same "representative counsel"
protective rights offered individuals under "Luis v. U.S."
wherein untainted assfets, designated to 'pay legal fees, are
stripped from the companies, preventing the companies from
hiring representative counsel in criminal matters?

3. Can "Rowland" be "weaponizea" in a criminal matter to deny
companies constitutional rights of due process and representative
counsel?

Can companies be prosecuted without representative counsel when untainted assets are stripped, and do they qualify for the same constitutional protections as individuals under Luis v. U.S.?