Where an individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an image, the State's interest in protecting the individual's privacy interest in that image is minimal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Where an individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an image, the State's interest in protecting the individual's privacy interest in that image is minimal. Where the State has only a minimal interest at stake —such as where the individual depicted did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy ~a prosecution of dissemination of private photographs | would not be a justifiable incursion upon First Amendment: protected speech. State v. Vanburen, 214 A.3d 791, 813, 820-21 (Vt. | 2019). The questions presented are: } a. Where provided evidence establishes that two people | exchanging photos did not engage in a relationship of a sufficiently intimate or confidential nature, where a nudist is not supposed to | expect privacy in his nude photos due to his belief that becoming nude increases confidence, does California’s prosecution of dissemination of a nudist’s nude photographs violate First and . Fourteenth Amendments? 3 b. Where no dating relationship between the Accuser and | Petitioner was a relied upon theory that (1) the two family court orders were unlawful due to the lack of dating relationship, (2) the parties did not engage in a relationship engendered any reasonable expectation of privacy, and (3) the Accuser did not have a | reasonable expectation of privacy in his nude photos as a nudist sent to Petitioner when they were not in a dating relationship, does a | defense attorney render reasonably effective assistance when the attorney fails to (1) request jury instruction related to dating relationship; (2) present to the jury that the Accuser was a nudist; (3) cross examine the sole witness concerning the Accuser’s upbringing and background as a nudist after the Accuser testified he exposed | himself in public; (4) cross examine the sole witness as to why he expected privacy in his nude photos when he distributed to | Petitioner who he called her “nobody” to him? | 2. Content-based prohibitions have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. To guard against that threat the Constitution demands that content 4 based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, . 505 U.S. 377, 382 (1992) , and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 817 (2000). The questions presented are: a. Where two family court orders impose unconstitutionally overbroad content and speaker based restrictions, before the 5 government prosecutes the violation of these two orders, do First and Fourteenth Amendment require the government to meet its burden of showing the constitutionality of those two orders? b. Where Petitioner and the Accuser did not engaged in any dating relationship and the Government should have been required to bear the burden of showing the constitutionality of two family court orders which impose content and speaking bases restrictions, does a defense attorney render reasonably effective assistance when the attorney signs off a stipulation with the prosecution, without : Petitioner's consent, agreeing that the two family court orders are lawful and valid? 5 3. A witness protected by the privilege may rightfully refuse to answer unless and until he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). Absent such protection, if he is nevertheless compelled to answer, his answers are inadmissible | | against him in a later criminal prosecution. Bram v. United States, 168 | USS. 532 (1897); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886). , The questions presented are: | ' a. Where a criminal defendant was previously compelled to testify in a family court hearing without being represented by counsel, are Fifth Amendment and due process rights violated by the introduction at