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
Top Related