Does 47 U.S.C. subsection 223(a)(1)(D) prohibit only the harassment caused by repeatedly ringing a telephone or does it also prohibit repeated verbal harassment, when repeated verbal harassment is specifically covered by section 47 U.S.C. subsection 223(a)(1)(E)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner Kulwant “Ken” Sandhu believed that Netflix, a subscription video service, fraudulently inflated its stock prices. He felt this fraud would destroy the United States economy. He reported his conclusions to two federal regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and requested they take action. When they did not, he repeatedly called both agencies to demand action, sometimes using rude or profane language, but always stressing the imminent financial catastrophe. The United States prosecuted Mr. Sandhu for “mak[ing] or caus[ing] the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number.” 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(D). The district court refused to give Mr. Sandhu’s requested instructions that would have either ensured the jury understood that Mr. Sandhu’s speech was not at issue or, in the alternative, that speech could be protected by the First Amendment in some circumstances. The Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction, failing to follow basic rules of statutory construction and problematically applying the First Amendment exception for “speech integral to criminal conduct.” The questions presented in this petition are: (1) Does 47 U.S.C. subsection 223(a)(1)(D) prohibit only the harassment caused by repeatedly ringing a telephone or does it also prohibit repeated i verbal harassment, when repeated verbal harassment is specifically covered by section 47 U.S.C. subsection 223(a)(1)(E)? (2) Does the First Amendment exception for “speech integral to criminal conduct” allow criminal punishment for speech about public policy matters that the speaker directs to federal agencies or officials? ii