Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights to due process, freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure were violated by the federal government's unlawful surveillance, harassment, and retaliation against the petitioner for his political views and activism

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED iden Gale] Guceav of Tavis tnd \Wle® aanchitaonsl tglets to, pest wa (praia) lesa law drtrdament Cwudngfl guest lesa] search Guid draw, imptsanenn} Fra wa Unlawful, assqulh pdr, tlle¢) uy of lea betta ctaremt Lechnvlosy tetchedion by Feder Goedonr ) , Sewn br Orly. Feel byceay' of Saveshsqnm by cllelanatins Lith lau eateremyn t (65) and also (61s. andl vets OMA [ed ant Cdmunt ayers rcwnd Hat GU) Fewlorins Sams Stony nly wht oyamstens dit, Samls > Sry Communi con’ ith low anfortomnt {0 maphad yun nvestice HA, and ungnstrt ture lly | yrintl ans petserted ave 0 Jy io lat ssleaamunt CBS. who pavesheetts caming) gehvety by. low rticunul ali, sums diict aPeaniys OK) beans Huyeol to iitsclly temvenee James Tals @) Huw Cont Sums 8» Salon tertton (st) conve 10 i dsmnisseal a5 fi Codnoly mecedible) shun Sanus gost, Mega) urtervtm runs andl tenons by avis branches oh lew iL (cards, aveesh ecards, , huspre) ears,