Whether the Supreme Court will review the 9th Circuit's interpretation of 47 U.S. Code § 230 and its potential constitutional implications

questions presented)] ; 2 || a) The 9¢ circuit’s insurrection of 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c) (1) subverting the! 3 plain text of CDA 230 cl. This was called “republishing nonsense”. . : 4 || b) The 9" circuit inventing 3 g immunity from it, not supported by any text of cl 5 incl. short title. At best, “republishing” supports full restitution. | . | 6 || c) The arbitrary enforcement of “republishing” and ‘ 7 “immunity”, benefitting one specific group—criminal syndicates (social ‘ 8 media companies) with such unreasonable loathing against g against, notoriously 9 working vilely and tirelessly against, the.essence of the first amendment. ; 10 The 9% circuit’s nonsense, if applied fully, voids the modern internet in : 11 full; if applied partially, turns it into a dark web. Amazon and PayPal and 12 eBay will all have to be out of business; all their users are too “immune”, 13 | so are they immune with any dealing of user info and with most frauds. 14 | d) The 9" circuit’s Subversive falsity (“republishing nonsense” and 15 ‘4mmunity business”, the latter of which is purely original) (not the actual 16 act by the actual Congress) is in such direct and impudent Violation of the ; 17 first, fifth, eighth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution! 18 | e) Whether the right to jury trial could be subverted at free will by judge, 19 especially w/ FRCP 50’s strict limitations to judgments as a matter of law. 20 | 8. Whether asking someone to repeat themselves or otherwise manufactured. 21] difficulties in the court context could possibly fit the due process clause. } 22 | 2) “The difference between TRO and PI, and appealability, ignored by courts. 23 | Specifically, court cannot call a noticed motion “TRO.” } 24 | h) The current different appealability of Pl and TRO, does not fit the equal 25 protection clause, which is a result of ignoring the plain text of rule 65. If 26 65 is applied as it is written, this issue dissolves. Specifically, court has to 27 answer when a TRO transforms into a PI. Or should TRO be seen as a PI? 28 || i) Atleast FOURTEEN counts of serious corruption by CAND and CA-9. Petition -2 1 || })_ Properly construing and applying section 3 of the 14 amendment. It is 2 asked that the SC corrects its earlier subversion of law in Trump v. . 3 Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024). 4 || i). Also, whether Brown v Board of Education should be overruled, which | 5|| relates directly to enforcing the section 5 of amendment XIV. | 6 || 2. [