Whether repeated actions over time arguably abandon coincidence and prove to be the product of orchestrated and intentional scenarios

Question Presented Whether repeated actions over time arguably abandon coincidence and prove to be the product of orchestrated and intentional scenarios.These actions being indubitably ignored over a course of time, prove to show signs of negligence and little to no remorse for the malice bestowed upon the petitioner Courtney Green. At the expense of The petitioners Character, were methods of unconsented surveillance in fact used to exploit, defame, profit, control and gather personal data for ulterior motives? Petition For Writ of Certiorari Petitioner Courtney Green respectfully requests the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Decision Below The decision of the Southern district of New York is published in the second circuit 2022. The decision of the United States Court of appeals is published at the second Circuit 2022. Jurisdiction The Southern district of New York Second Circuit entered judgment 04/04/2022 deeming complaint frivolous, denying all summonses and was also warned that further vexations or frivolous litigations in this court would result in a order barring him from filing any new actions without permission. All other pending matters were terminated. The Petitioner submitted a motion to reconsider 04/04/2022 and was denied. The United States court of appeals mandated and ruled Appeal be dismissed because it lacked an arguable basis either in law or in fact (\eiteke v, wiltiams 490 USS. 319, 325 (1989) 11/30/2022. ¥) 7 Federal Rule Involved . Invasion of Privacy through the disclosure of private facts and intrusion of solitude, [legal gathering and disbursement of private information, unfair business practices electronic communications privacy act, the stored communications act,consumer privacy protections act, the cybersecurity information sharing act,racketeering, exploitation, defamation of character, malice. Statement of Case I the Petitioner Courtney Green, am appealing a pro se lawsuit against the Respondent ABC Entertainment Inc. for invasion of privacy, using a television platform as a convenient method of carrying out the act of racketeering, the illegal transmission of personal information and intellectual property through cyber stalking and in person interaction for purposes of profit, unfair business practices, intentional malice, exploitation, humiliation and defamation of one's character and non consensual monitoring and studying of the petitioners daily habits for ulterior motive. Continuous escalated behavior over the course of years proves the Respondent ABC Entertainment Inc. was negligent in addressing the actions of its employees. I. Green’s circumstantial evidence that ABC Entertainment Inc. openly participated in the act of racketeering, defamation of character, exploitation and non consensual monitoring of the petitioners daily habits for ulterior motives. During the live w Kelly and Ryan show, on consecutive morning airings of the show between the dates of Host Kelly Ripa along with cohost Ryan acknowledge in one form or another that they could physically see me through the tv by making direct and indirect comments about what I currently doing, wearing, things I had eaten etc. also making indirect comments about my person such as financial status, state of mind stating that I was crazy and/or delusional and going to need therapy; referring to the then unexplainable occurrences that were happening in which tv personnel stated I had no proof, that turned out to be the doing of an organized group. During this show Kelly Ripa also mentioned my living arrangements, at the time I was in between homes and it was stated on several occasions that I was homeless. etc. The information being dispersed was discovered to be gathered through various forms of internet stalking and data collection which was mentioned in Missouri Cases (cer Green v. Kansas city Public Library Waldo Branch USCA 22-2469, Green v. Kansas city