Does the fundamental right to privacy still exist in our modern digital age, and do conspiracies against civil-rights, cyberstalking, stalking-by-proxy constitute illegal conduct?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does the fundamental right to privacy still exist in our modern digital age, and do conspiracies against : rights, acts of “cyberstalking” and stalking-by-proxy constitute illegal conduct? Could we view activities such as psychological manipulation, coercion, deliberate obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, denying someone the ability to obtain appropriate clinical care or engage in employment, barring an individual from soliciting legal advice or representation, and the intricate application of sophisticated retaliatory punishments in reaction to individuals exercising their rights to communicate, report, file claims, and so forth, at local, state, and federal levels as infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights? When looking into the coerced removal of cases filed by the petitioner from various legal entities such as the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and nine related cases from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, the District of Massachusetts, the Western Dis7 trict of Washington, among other places, we notice a pattern of violations against the petitioner’s fundamental right to access the courts. This disturbing predicament involves an array of suspicious and manipulative behaviors that highlight a meticulous and ‘ conspiratorial pattern of punishments coming from an abusive syndicate of collated institutions; one could call it the “deep-state” or “system.” This clandestine network has infringed upon the petitioner’s rights to communicate, submit reports, and file claims, as such, with private institutions, associates, as well as dd : act ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued local, state, and federal authorities. Such actions, if verified, could provide proof of a “system” that dilutes individual citizens’ rights and undermines the foundational principles of our justice system. These alleged activities by the respondents could unearth critical sociological, legal, and cultural discussions regarding preserving and respecting constitutional rights, ensuring legal access, and pursuing justice. The petitioner suggests that these issues require immediate highlevel judicial examination due to the risk to the petitioner’s safety, and the potential to shift how justice is currently (not) being administered. The implications are significant for the individual petitioner, and yet they still yield a more comprehensive reflection on the state of our justice system and its functionality in upholding the rights and freedoms it is designed to protect.