Whether a federal circuit court violates the statutory standard for indigents under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(l) and Ellis v. United States precedent by affirming the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition challenging fundamental constitutional violations as frivolous

P1 Petitioner was framed with false incriminating evidence back around 2014. A corrupted military court hearing was held without die petitioner being present. The petitioner never received notice to trial and he never had a chance to challenge the evidence. The petitioner did not receive any legal counsel either. The entire military court hearing was completely rigged from the very start. The judge ruled for the petitioner to be detained indefinitely and nobody ever said anything about it. All court information has been wrongfully withheld from the petitioner in a very dishonest manner so that the petitioner could not have a chance of challenging the wrong doing. The petitioner has been held to secret detention now for many years and still nobody will come forward with any information. During being unlawfully detained the petitioner has been subjected to torture, cruel and unusual punishment, sexual abuse, unethical human experimentation, and much more. This case is very complex due to lots of corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition with the district court around March of 2025. In April of2025 the district court dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice and ruled frivolous. It has been told that the district court judge was involved with corruption by accepting a bribe to dismiss the petitioner ’s habeas corpus petition. The petitioner then submitted the habeas corpus petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In September of 2025 the circuit court affirmed the district court ’s decision. My case is not frivolous because being detained indefinitely is not frivolous. Being denied due process without being able to challenge the evidence is not frivolous. Being denied notice of trial or detention is not frivolous. Not being able to have legal counsel or a chance to call on key witnesses is not frivolous. Ellis v United States 356 U .S.674 (1958) case had been established that it is not frivolous if it presents any issue that is not plainly frivolous. • Habeas Corpus / Frivolous Standard Whether a federal circuit court violates the statutory standard for indigents under 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e)(2)(B)(l) and this court ’s precedent in Ellis v.United States 356 U.S. 674, by affirming the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition challenging fundamental constitutional violations-as frivolous? • Due Process / Military Court Jurisdiction Whether the indefinite military detention of a U.S. citizen imposed by a military court without affording the detainee notice of trial, the assistants of counsel, or an P2 opportunity to challenge incriminating evidence, violates the due process and assistance of Counsel Clause of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? I.