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
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
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?

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