Does the Traditional Method of Determining Jurisdiction Under Territorial Principles apply to 'Interstate Telephonic and Email—Computer Server Based Conspiratorial Vindictive Employment Reprisals

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Traditional Method of Determining Jurisdiction Under Territorial Principles apply to “Interstate Telephonic and Email—Computer Server Based Conspiratorial Vindictive Employment Reprisals” as Alleged in This Litigation, given the Supreme Court’s ruling in Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 281 (1911)that “a state may prosecute individuals for acts committed outside a jurisdiction when the effect of the acts is the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction”? 2. Did the Appellate Court and the District Court fail to consider the former employee’s [petitioner, Dr. Rafi] allegations of continuing vindictive employment retaliations around the nation from 2015 through 2021 “by his former employer and professional training institution [Yale University School of Medicine]” disregarding this Supreme Court’s binding ruling in Robinson V. Shell Oil Company, 519 U.S. 337 (1997)that former employees may sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to challenge retaliation by their past employers ? 3. Did the Appellate Court and the District Court fail to consider the former employee’s [petitioner, Dr. Rafi] allegations of continuing vindictive employment retaliations around the nation from 2015 through 2021 “by his former employer and professional training , institution [Yale University School of Medicine]” disregarding this Supreme Court’s binding ruling in Lawlor V. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322 (1955)that “Res Judicata Does Not Bar a Suit, Even If It Involves the Same Course of Wrongful Conduct as Alleged Earlier, So Long as The Suit Alleges New Facts or A Worsening of the Earlier Conditions” ? ul . Il