7/27/2019 Questions Presented Table of Contents (1)

1/3

i

No. 13- 5668

IN THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Shane Christopher Buczek,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

REPONDENT

On Petition for a Wri t of Certi orari to the

Uni ted States Cour t of Appeals

For the Second Cir cuit

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals err in denying Petitioners Writ of Mandamus

when presented with the issue, can a District Court gain a valid indictment with a truly expired

panel without any extension being granted by the Chief Judge, without any notice ororder of

such extension in the record or docket, thusly the District Court was void of subject matter

jurisdiction and inviolation of F.R.C.P., Rule 6(c)(f)(g), and the Fifth and Sixth

Amendments to the Constitution?

7/27/2019 Questions Presented Table of Contents (1)

2/3

ii

Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals err in denying Petitioners Writ of Mandamus

when presented with the issue, can a District Court without a valid Grand Jury indictment

whereby AUSA may have personally indicted Petitioner misusing the e-government act to evade

identification of grand jury foreperson, thereby District Court did not have subject matter

jurisdiction over Petitioner to prosecute, try, convict and incarcerate Petitioner in direct

violation of F.R.C.P., Rule 6(c)(f)(g), and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the

Constitution?

Does the District Court and government have subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner

wherein Title 18, H.R. 3190, 3231, and sections 1344, 3147(1) and 1028 (a)(4), have not been

placed into the Federal Registry within 30 days of its alleged passing and there exists no Federal

Code of Regulations in the above such Title 18, supporting the statute as required by law?

7/27/2019 Questions Presented Table of Contents (1)

3/3

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page (s)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED i, ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS . iii

POINTS OF ISSUE(S) . iv

APPPENDICES v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES vi, vii, viii, ix

OPINIONS BELOW 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 2, 3

CONSTITIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED . 2

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 1, 2

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1, 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .. 4

ARGUMENT

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONERS WRIT OF MANDAMUS FOR RELIEF IN THAT

DISTRICT COURT NEVER HAD A VALID INDICTMENT NOR SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONERS CASE. ADDITIONALLY, THERE MAY BE

FEDERAL REGISTRY VIOLATIONS AND NO FEDERAL CODE OF REGULATIONS AS

REQUIRED BY LAW