Whether prosecutors violated the petitioner's constitutional rights by prosecuting protected forms of non-violent free speech as felonies, and whether the state's actions prevent access to exculpatory evidence in violation of due process

1) It is ideal for the Supreme Court to review Fouliardv. Wisconsin to clarify the constitutionality of “bail jumping” because non-violent, non-argumentative, nonthreatening, information seeking forms of free speech not directed, “directly, nor indirectly”, at anyone on the prohibited contact list, were prosecuted as the crimes of felony bail jumping, harassment, and stalking! Did Prosecutors violate This Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights, via the overbreadth & vagueness doctrines, by prosecuting protected forms of non-violent free speech as felonies? 2) If the average person knows it is impossible to falsely imprison anyone in this Master Bedroom after looking at the floor plan and reading the DA’s write up: is it a violation of This Petitioner’s 5‘ and 14th amendment rights to continue to label This Petitioner a “Domestically Violent Abuser & Stalker” via a miscarriage of justice? And does This Petitioner qualify for any exceptional discretionary legal remedies? 3) This Court may also find it ideal to accept this case to clarify how the Clergy Privilege is “sedulously foster” in America to lower Courts ii according to previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Being that The Clergy Privilege was claimed via Notarized Affidavit on Sept 24th, 2021 and declined on Sept. 27‘, 2021. Is not any evidence of communicating with a Pastor unlawful evidence, and therefore barred via “The Fruit from the Poison Tree Doctrine” by the 4» Amendment Right against illegal searches? 4) May this Court also accept this case to clarify the nature of “exculpable evidence”. Is it a violation of the findings in [Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)], and [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33], as well as violations of Constitutional due process provided for by the 5th and 14th Amendments to prevent any person from acquiring new evidence because The State — under the threat of imprisonment and or additional criminal charges — is actively preventing This Petitioner from gaining access to this Petitioners children who were eyewitnesses that have exculpable testimonial evidence? Is not The State in sole possession of the exculpable evidence, if This Petitioner is iii barred by The State from acquiring said evidence? This is a novel evidentiary question that represents an expansion of the [Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)] findings, but is not any action States take to actively prevent exculpable evidence from being presented at trial, or after trial, a violation the following: a prosecutor’s constitutional duty to provide exculpable evidence, all of the Bill of Rights, and Wisconsin’s own Law [State Statute 971.23(1)(h)], as well as The Spirit of The Law? iv II.