James Robert Tice v. United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Whether the bar on second or successive petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), applies to a claim whose factual basis was suppressed by the State and which has never been adjudicated on the merits, where a federal court granted relief on one count of a split prosecution and left the companion count - tried at the same trial on the same evidence - undisturbed.

Whether juvenile adjudications and the adult judgments derived from them are void ab initio where the seizure that began the proceedings was effected by an off-duty probation officer with no supervisory authority, on federally regulated housing, without warrant, court order, or certification under 18 U.S.C. § 5032 - a seizure under color of law within 18 U.S.C. § 242 - and whether federal supremacy jurisdiction attached when federal agents acquired actual notice of the violation and agreed to investigate, barring continued state prosecution.

Whether an adult criminal judgment is void where the accused remained subject to juvenile court jurisdiction during the period charged and no transfer hearing was held, as required by Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), and 42 Pa. C.S. § 6355.

Whether jeopardy attached at a juvenile replacement hearing at which the court examined guilt on pending uncharged allegations and imposed a new indefinite disposition, barring later adult prosecution for the same conduct under Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975).

Whether a court of appeals may decline mandamus where a district court has left a petition for habeas corpus and coram nobis relief unadjudicated, such that no court reaches the merits, contrary to the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 2.

Whether Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars a civil rights action challenging a judgment void for want of jurisdiction, where the habeas remedy is simultaneously foreclosed as successive.

Whether continuing registration, supervision, and civil disability imposed under a void judgment constitute involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, and punishment retroactively imposed in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and whether the daily enforcement of such a judgment is a continuing violation that accrues anew and is subject to no limitations bar. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007).

Whether a federal court's refusal to adjudicate Fifth Amendment takings claims - the 1989 sale of a veteran s estate property conducted without the accounting federal law requires, and the uncompensated 1659 seizure of chartered ancestral property - denies any forum for claims federal law makes self-executing.