Whether the Third Circuit's decision affirming Petitioner's cyberstalking conviction is erroneous due to insufficient evidence of intent to cause emotional distress or a true threat under the First Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED In affirming the trial court’s decision denying Petitioner's post-trial motion to vacate his cyberstalking conviction, the Circuit Court neglected to address the government’s failure to prove that Petitioner had the requisite intent to harass or intimidate the victims or that through his conduct he caused, attempted to cause, or would be reasonably expected to have caused substantial emotional distress to the victims. Moreover, in as much as the recipients of Petitioner’s missives knew Petitioner and his penchant for hyperbole and knew that he had never before acted upon his hyperbolic words, none of his missives constituted a true threat. The question is: Whether the Third Circuit’s decision affirming Petitioner’s conviction is erroneous because the evidence in the record was insufficient to establish that he had the specific “intent to cause, attempt to cause or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional duress” as required by the Cyberstalking Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2261A(A)(2)(B), or that the Petitioner made a “true threat” as that term has been interpreted by this Court under the First Amendment of the Constitution. i LIST OF ALL PARTIES The Petitioner is Anthony Douglas Elonis and the Respondent is the United States of America, as set forth in the caption of the case on the cover page. ll