Whether the Wiretap Act preempts state procedural laws and jurisdictional doctrines under the Supremacy Clause when a privacy invasion claim involves internet-based communications

No question identified. : of Appeals, is attached. Pursuant to United States Supreme Court Rules 13(1) and (3), the 90-day deadline for filing my petition for certiorari in this Court falls on Dec. 4", 2025.! 2. In the trial court (Bexar County District Court in San Antonio, Texas, case no. 2020 CI 21633), I had sued the two respondents in this matter, William Lucero and Jacob Vos (whom I refer to as one unit, “Lucero/Vos,” since their defense is the same), along with Jacob Zimmerman and Mark Bankston, for using and disclosing my private emails, in violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520, incorporating by reference Sec. 2511, as well as torts including conspiracy. These defendants used and disclosed my emails, knowing they had been intercepted, in 2019-20 in a disciplinary proceeding they convened against me in the State of Colorado for the unauthorized practice of law. I did nothing in any Colorado court, but had been licensed as an attorney in that state from 1987 to 2009. 3. Inthe Bexar County district court, the reason for dismissal of Lucero/ Vos (residents of Colorado) and Zimmerman (a resident of Minnesota) was lack of personal jurisdiction, specifically that they had no “minimum contacts” with the State of Texas. As for Mark Bankston, a Houston attorney, the reason was my ' Thad a co-plaintiff with me, Richard Carlisle, in proceedings through the Court of Appeals, but he did not participate in the petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court. 2 failure to make service on him within the limitations period applicable to filing the complaint, although he brought that affirmative defense under the “umbrella” of the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA). See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 27.005(d). 4. Although these defendants were dismissed at different times, I was able to appeal all three dismissals to the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals together, in case no. 04-23-00665-CV. However, the Court of Appeals then split that case into three, requiring separate briefing and issuing opinions on the three appeals at different times. 5. I filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court in each matter. In the present case (Lucero/Vos), the Texas Supreme Court denied my petition, then, as mentioned, denied my request for rehearing on Sept. 5", 2025. It denied my request for rehearing in Zimmerman (case 25-0469) on Oct. 31", 2025, It has not yet ruled on my petition for review in Bankston, case 25-0705, which was filed Sept. 15", 2025. 6. I request an extension of 60 days so that I can combine the petition in this matter (Lucero/Vos) with that in Zimmerman, as well as that in Bankston, assuming the Texas Supreme Court denies review there, too. 7. Itis in the interest of judicial efficiency that there be but one petition for certiorari filed with this Court, first because this was a conspiracy among these defendants, but all the more because the fundamental issue in all three cases is preemption of state doctrines or laws by the Wiretap Act, as mandated by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. VI, Clause 2. It is an issue of first impression with great importance to the jurisprudence of this Court: the Texas court may not be permitted to decline jurisdiction over Lucero/Vos or Zimmerman, since to do so impairs the remedy provided by Congress for the invasion of my privacy. Nationwide jurisdiction is implied or the Wiretap Act is meaningless: its reach was intended, and must be determined to be, coextensive with the internet. 8. Alternatively, the “minimum contacts” with the state required by International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and its progeny before suit can be maintained in a state court against a nonresident defendant is met when he commits his wrongs by virtual means, at least for claims brought pursuant to this particular federal statute. Lucero and Vos (and Zimmerman) purposely availed themselves of the benefits and protections of this state by making use of Texa