Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by an illegal stop, assault, seizure, and arrest by NYPD personnel, malicious prosecution, biased investigations by CCRB and IAB, and continued illegal and abusive acts by federal judges, court security officers, and U.S. Marshals Service personnel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Although I’m aware that just a few questions are ordinarily presented to this Court and in generalized fashion in petitions for writs of certiorari, the matters that this appeal concerns warrant the presentation of a greater number of such questions and with particularity. This is because the matters that this appeal concerns consist of the following: a) An illegal stop, assault, seizure, and arrest of me by NYPD personnel on 12/26/17 in areas that all were traditional public forums while I conducted myself in a lawful manner. b) The malicious prosecution that corresponds to People v. Komatsu, No. 2017BX048917 (Bronx Crim. Ct. Jan. 23, 2020) that was commenced against me due to that arrest before I prevailed in that case on 1/23/20 when that case was both dismissed and sealed. c) Extremely biased and shoddy investigations that personnel of the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) and Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) of the NYPD conducted in response to valid complaints that 1 reported to them in relation to my having been illegally arrested on 12/26/17 by the NYPD. d) U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni, other federal judges, federal court security officers (“CSOs”), and personnel of the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) having continued to pretextually commit illegal and otherwise abusive acts and omissions against me in relation to visits by me to federal courthouses in New York City while I conducted myself in a lawful manner. That scheme and conspiracy involving them was a primary causal factor for the bedlam that existed inside of federal courthouses in New York City throughout the proceedings of the district court action. That violated this Court’s findings in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86S. Ct. 1507, 16 L, Ed. 2d 600 (1966) that confirm that parties in litigation are entitled to serenity and calm inside of courthouses. Sheppard also confirms that judges are required to diligently exercise proper control over the entire areas inside of courthouses to make certain that bedlam doesn’t exist in them that may prejudice the rights of parties in litigation partly as a result of prejudicial pretrial publicity inside of and near courthouses. Despite this, that scheme and conspiracy criminally persists as ongoing harassment, provocation, and stigmatization of me that sabotaged my rights to fair trials in litigation of mine partly by preemptively prejudicing people that include potential jurors, witnesses, journalists, attorneys, judges against me through observations they make. That scheme has partly consisted of the following: i. Tliegal physical assaults and seizures of me by CSOs inside of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan federal courthouse in Manhattan during the Covid-19 pandemic partly on 6/29/21 that criminally increased my health risks in regards to being infected by Covid-19 and other contagious diseases as well as a threat on 5/24/22 inside of the Thurgood Marshall federal courthouse in Manhattan by a federal court security officer (“CSO”) whose last name is Larsen to punch me in my face after he illegally dropped a USB thumb drive of mine on the ground while it contained evidence that I need for litigation ii. Illegally having possession of and publicly and prominently displaying an image of my face that was from People v. Komatsu as well as my name on tablet computer screens partly in security screening areas partly inside of the Thurgood Marshall federal ii courthouses both before and after People v. Komatsu was dismissed and sealed to humiliate and stigmatize me while contaminating the minds of members of the public against me by compelled my association with people on a watch-list that is tantamount to illegal compelled expression of me through that image of me as absolutely no objectively valid justification has ever existed for the display of that information about me to members of the general public inside of courthouses. iii. Judge Caproni and other federal judges having al