1. Whether federal courts can brand as "frivolous" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) a citizen's constitutional claims supported by official government correspondence, dated surveillance-verified incidents, sworn declarations under penalty of peijury, and audio recordings submitted to federal agencies —thereby weaponizing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) to silence allegations of government misconduct that are verifiable, concrete, and grounded in established legal precedent —or whether dismissing such evidence-backed claims as "irrational" or "wholly incredible" without discovery, without examining the proof, and without applying the correct legal standards violates due process and transforms frivolousness review from a shield against baseless litigation into a sword that strikes down legitimate constitutional grievances before they can be heard.

2. Whether the federal judiciary can permit the Executive Branch to author its own judicial absolution —drafting dismissal orders under judges' names to escape accountability — without destroying the foundational separation of powers enshrined in Article III, and whether such allegations of executive usurpation of judicial authority can ever be dismissed as "frivolous" when the very orders dismissing the claims bear the legal errors, procedural irregularities, and substantive deficiencies that evidence non-judicial authorship.

3. Whether the promise of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) —that no person shall be denied their constitutional right to counsel —can be nullified through the secret machinations of National Security Letters, allowing federal agents to systematically obstruct a citizen's access to legal representation for over a decade without judicial oversight, without statutory authority, and without remedy, thereby creating a shadow system where fundamental constitutional rights disappear at the stroke of an executive pen cloaked in the false armor of "national security."

4. Whether due process and equal protection tolerate a pre-filing injunction that permanently banishes a citizen from the courthouse steps based on a demonstrably fabricated litigation history —where a federal court punishes a man for cases he never filed, disregards his sworn testimony proving his innocence, refuses to investigate evidence of identity fraud by government operatives, and erects an insurmountable barrier to justice —all while the actual wrongdoers operate with impunity under the protection of that same fabricated record.

5. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)'s express requirement that "the district court certifies, in writing, that the appeal is not taken in good faith" means what it says, or whether courts may strip indigent litigants of their appellate rights through interpretive sleight-of-hand that treats judicial silence as certification, constructive presumption as statutory compliance, and the absence of due process as procedurally sufficient —thereby denying the poor their day in court while the powerful proceed unimpeded.

Whether federal courts can brand constitutional claims as 'frivolous' without proper examination of evidence and due process standards