Whether the First Amendment and due process protections are violated when federal law enforcement agencies fabricate judicial orders, obstruct court access, and suppress exculpatory evidence to prevent citizens from challenging institutional misconduct

No question identified. : PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: A Constitutional Crisis Demanding Immediate Intervention This application is not merely a request for relief; it is an appeal to the fundamental covenant of our Republic. It presents a constitutional crisis of unprecedented magnitude, a naked seizure of judicial power by the Executive that threatens to shatter the bedrock of American governance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, wielding the instruments of state secrecy—FISA Title | surveillance powers—as weapons of institutional capture, has allegedly performed an assault on the federal judiciary— authoring judicial orders under judges' names to evade accountability for documented constitutional violations spanning more than a decade. These are not the fevered claims of an aggrieved litigant. They are claims supported by specific dates, identified personnel, documentary evidence, and an irrefutable, chilling pattern of legal errors that defy professional judicial reasoning. Most damning: not a single judge—from the District Court to the Circuit Court—has acknowledged, investigated, or addressed these allegations of forgery and fraud upon the court. This silence is not neutrality, it is complicity, and it is a verdict against justice itself. Lower courts have failed their constitutional mandate. The calculated silence has calcified into precedent, authorizing a perilous new reality: executive agencies may now author judicial fiat dismissing claims against themselves, fabricate litigation histories through informant proxies, nullify a citizen's right to counsel through secret surveillance, destroy exculpatory evidence, and operate with absolute impunity while the Article II judiciary remains utterly mute. The Republic, forged in the imperative of checks and balances, cannot survive such institutional capture. This Court must act now to restore the solemn independence of Article III, or admit that the separation of powers is merely a ghost in the machine. Il. THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE IS UNDER ACTIVE ASSAULT The Constitution established three co-equal branches because the Framers understood that power, unchecked, becomes tyranny. Article III created an independent judiciary, the final bulwark against executive overreach. When executive agents assume the pen of judicial authority, writing orders that dismiss claims against themselves, that bulwark crumbles into dust. When judges maintain silence while sworn allegations of judicial impersonation are presented with compelling evidence, Article III ceases to be a protective charter and becomes an empty pretense for state tyrangys.--m A. The Pattern of Judicial Fabrication by the Pittsburgh FBI and Judicial Silence Across Multiple Orders 1. March 24, 2025: Courthouse Intimidation and Defamatory Fabrication as Predicate. On March 24, 2025, Petitioner exercised his most sacred First Amendment right to petition for redress, attempting to file documents exposing the FBI's misconduct. Instead of sanctuary, he met calculated intimidation. Law enforcement personnel used the coded word "discipline" over courthouse radio within Petitioner's hearing deliberate tactic to instill fear of arrest and create a hostile environment, effectively obstructing his right to access the courts. U.S. Judicial Security and U.S. Marshal Allen, acting under FBI directive and the color of federal authority, deliberately provoked Petitioner to manufacture grounds for detention or removal, thereby obstructing his right to access the courts. Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148, 161-63 (3d Cir. 1997). U.S. Marshals then levied the most base and fabricated accusation—that Petitioner delivered urine to U.S. Attorney Olshan on November 13, 2024—a lie utterly unsupported by any evidence. Petitioner repeatedly requested courthouse surveillance footage to disprove this defamatory lie. The FBI refuses to produce it because that footage would prove Petitioner's innocence and expose their fabrication. This false accusat