Whether a private citizen has Article III standing to seek criminal prosecution for witness intimidation when the alleged harassment threatens the citizen's constitutional right to a fair trial and economic livelihood

below are, Whether I have standing to appeal the court's unintelligible refusal to issue a criminal complaint, when the crime is against justice, and my safety, prosperity, and a fair trial is dependent on the state’s prosecution. If so, whether it was an abuse of discretion for the [trial courts] to approve of obvious crimes that are violating Constitutional Rights without any intelligible reason, and for the Single Justice to affirm their denials without any intelligible reason. Background: I sued Respondent Aidan Kearney in 2018 for defamation. Starting in January 2019, Aidan Kearney threatened and/or harassed me and my witnesses nearly consistently before every court hearing. The 2018 case is still not closed, but I still consider it too dangerous to name witnesses in that case. Rian Waters vs. Aidan Kearney & others 2022-P-1105 After the civil courts refused to contain the witness intimidation, and the police all refused to help, I filed multiple applications for criminal complaints in the Massachusetts district courts. The evidence in these cases unquestionably established threats, to cause emotional and financial damage to parties or witnesses, with timing routinely showing intent to obstruct court cases. It is also unquestioned that the person responsible for the threats is Kearney. In the lower courts Kearney did not deny performing the acts that I complained of, (nor could he as he has explicitly admitted and reaffirmed every element of the witness intimidation statue multiple times on _ video but rather he argued that my witness and I were not threatened, and that the witness intimidation statute is unconstitutional, because as a journalist he believes he has a right under the First Amendment to perform the acts that I complained about. Now that Kearney and nine of his supporters have been charged with witness intimidation for comparatively minor harassment in one of the State’s cases, an attorney aligned with Kearney is currently bringing this constitutionality argument in the First Circuit. O'Neil, et al v. Canton Police Department, et al 23-civil-02062 Kearney did not respond to half the complaints I filed or any of my petitions in the supreme judicial court, and the only legal reasoning that the courts have “ey given for their decisions is that in Massachusetts “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” In re Two Applications for a Criminal Complaint, No. SJC-13373, 2 (Mass. Oct. 11, 2028) But as I preemptively argued in every lower court, the Supreme Court has determined that the roots of the State’s case law are based on an incorrect interpretation of a Supreme Court case regarding Article III standing. This court decided that a particular “appellant ha[d] made an insufficient showing of a direct nexus between the vindication of her interest and the enforcement of the State's criminal laws.” Linda R. S. v. Richard D, 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1978) A few years later the Supreme Court clarified their decision. “Upon careful reading, however, it is clear that standing was denied not because of the absence of a subject-matter nexus between the injury asserted and the constitutional claim, but instead because of the unlikelihood that the relief requested would redress appellant's claimed injury.” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 79 n.24 (1978) (‘We continue to be of the same view and cannot accept the contention that, outside the context of taxpayers’ suits, a litigant must demonstrate 4 something more than injury in fact and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury to satisfy the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Art. IIT”) Neither Kearney nor any court provided any opposing arguments to any of my arguments regarding standing, and the SJC made no attempt to reconcile the fact that all of the crimes I'm alleging are crimes against justice that are denying me the Co