Whether this case is frivolous

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.) Whether this case is “frivolous” as claimed and dismissed by the United _ States District Court for the Southern District of New York ON 4/27/20. . 2.) Whether Petitioner's First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth Amendment rights to counsel are “attached” or otherwise violated during this “adversarial” 30+ years of Respondents’ terrorism of Petitioner which Respondents euphemistically call “Investigation” or “national security matter” wherein they illegally and ) unconstitutionally engage in acts of terrorism against Petitioner by violently raping her brain 24/7, etc. and daily forge pro-terrorism materials making it . appear they originate from Petitioner; then unconstitutionally and illegally . issuing Executive Orders (or similar instruments) falsely claiming “national security” or “investigation”; then threaten to arrest Petitioner’s attorney of 2; 3 years, Mark J. Geragos, if he confers with her for purposes of protecting her : from these violent Respondents, named and unnamed, by stopping all planks of terrorism against Petitioner. 3.) Whether Petitioner and her attorney, Mark J. Geragos, can confer immediately and BEFORE the other matters listed herein are addressed by this court so that: Plaintiff is properly represented; this court receives the , pleadings from an attorney who understands the legal process, terminology . and can make oral arguments properly... 4.) Incorporating herein the facts and allegations outlined in Question 2 above, whether Petitioner and the SDNY; State of NY; Manhattan DA and any other \ \ group or individual investigating and trying to stop this terrorism and properly prosecute Respondents, named and unnamed, can safely interview or confer immediately with Petitioner. ; (The primary purpose of these pleadings is to allow Petitioner to confer with her _ attorney---and legitimate prosecutors specifically Manhattan DA; SDNY; State of NY. Petitioner does not believe she has the capability to be able to sufficiently ; present and argue her total case; nor access to any attorney. However, she has stated herein more of her case as context for the necessity and urgency of conferring , with her attorney immediately as well as speaking with the legitimate prosecutors ’ mentioned herein asap. Therefore, the following questions may be better suited presented and addressed by Petitioner’s attorney and/or the listed legitimate ; prosecutors once allowed to confer or speak with Petitioner.) 5.) Whether Respondents can be made to cease and desist from all planks of this ° terrorism temporarily whether enumerated herein or not which violate the Constitution and laws stated herein until Petitioner is allowed to confer with Mr. Geragos, and the SDNY; State of NY; Manhattan DA who will file the appropriate pleadings to stop all planks of terrorism against her. 6.) Whether POTUS, Congress, AG Barr et al are acting in their personal capacities in preventing Mr. Geragos (also the SDNY; State of NY; Manhattan DA et al) from conferring with her and forging pro-terrorism materials, not in legitimate executive or legislative activities thus are not | . immune from prosecution and civil actions while in office. : : VA \\ .