Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Courtney Green, Petitioner v. Fox Corporation

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

NO. 22-898

DEC 0 5 2022

P2 7150

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

In the Supreme Court of The United States

Courtney Green.

Petitioner,

V.

Fox Corporation

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari to

the United states Court of Appeals For the

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

i

fT ni \ i

n

, i'

■i

n

! ,a i

Courtney Green

■■j

P.O. Box 22444

RECEIVED

Kansas city,MO 64113

DEC 1 3 2022

1

Question Presented

Whether repeated actions over time arguably abandon coincidence and prove to

be the product of orchestrated and intentional scenarios.These actions being

indubitably ignored over a course of time, prove to show signs of negligence and

little to no remorse for the malice bestowed upon the petitioner Courtney Green.

At the expense of The petitioners Character, were methods of unconsented

surveillance in fact used to exploit, defame, profit, control and gather personal data

for ulterior motives?

Petition For Writ of Certiorari

Petitioner Courtney Green respectfully requests the issuance of a writ of certiorari

to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit.

Decision Below

The decision of the Southern district of New York is published in the second

circuit 2022.

The decision of the United States Court of appeals is published at the second

Circuit 2022.

Jurisdiction

The Southern district of New York Second Circuit entered judgment

04/04/2022 deeming complaint frivolous, denying all summonses and

subpoenas.Petitioner was also warned that further vexations or frivolous

litigations in this court would result in a order barring him from filing any new

7

actions without permission. All other pending matters were terminated. The

Petitioner submitted a motion to reconsider 04/04/2022 and was denied. The

United States court of appeals mandated and ruled Appeal be dismissed

because it lacked an arguable basis either in law or in fact (NeitZkev. wrniams 490 u.s.

319, 325(1989)) 11/14/2022.

Federal Rule Involved

Invasion of Privacy through the disclosure of private facts and intrusion of

solitude, Illegal gathering and disbursement of private information, unfair

business practices electronic communications privacy act, the stored

communications act,consumer privacy protections act, the cybersecurity information

sharing act,racketeering, exploitation, defamation of character, malice.

Statement of Case

I the Petitioner Courtney Green, am appealing a pro se lawsuit against the

Respondent Fox Corporation for invasion of privacy, using a television platform

as a convenient method of carrying out the act of racketeering, the illegal

transmission of personal information and intellectual property through cyber

stalking and in person interaction for purposes of profit, unfair business

practices, intentional malice, exploitation, humiliation and defamation of ones

character and non consensual monitoring and studying of the petitioners daily

habits for ulterior motive. Continuous escalated behavior over the course of

years proves the Respondent Fox corporation was negligent in addressing the

actions of its employees.

I. Green’s circumstantial evidence that Fox Corporation openly

participated in the act of racketeering, defamation of character,

exploitation and non consensual monitoring of the petitioners daily habits

for ulterior motives.

During Fox morning news in early 2020, Tucker Carlson openly asked me if I

felt helpless during a political interview.During the live w Kelly and Ryan

show, on consecutive morning airings of the show between the dates of

09/20/2021-11/18/2021 Host Kelly Ripa along with co- host Ryan acknowledge

in one form or another that they could physically see me through the tv by

making direct and indirect comments about what I currently doing, wearing,

things I had eaten etc. also making indirect comments about my person such as

financial status, state of mind stating that I was crazy and going to need

therapy; referring to the then unexplainable occurrences that were happening in

a

which tv personnel stated I had no proof, that turned out to

be the doing of an organized group. During this show Kelly Ripa also mentioned

my living arrangements, at the time I was in between homes and it was stated on

several occasions that I was homeless, etc. The information being dispersed was

discovered to be gathered through various forms of internet stalking and data

collection which was mentioned in Missouri Cases (ref. Green v Kansas city Public Library

Waldo Branch USCA 22-2469, Green v. Kansas city Public Library Trails west branch USCA 22-2468, Green V. Midwest

genealogy Center USCA 22-1915, Green V. Mid continent Public Library North Independence, Green V. Schweitzer Brentwood

Branch Library USCA 22-1905)- This information was exchanged by virtual and in

person conversations with show guests or implemented into show criteria

and sketches. On the week of Halloween there was a prop of a giant skeleton

that was placed on the show coincidently identical to the giant skeleton prop

that was on a street that I frequently walked down, on my daily route to the

bus stop to further acknowledge that I was being stalked. In some instances

Kelly Ripa also hinted at these occurrences going on forever. One morning

while viewing the show Host Kelly Ripa and cohost were making jokes and

poking fun while playing a prize game on the show with a call in viewer, she

noticed what was happening and stated that she was recording this airing.

Kelly Ripa then attempted to intimidate by attempting to gather the caller's

information. In one instance Co-host Ryan attempted to warn host Kelly

Ripa of her misconduct but those warnings went ignored. I submitted

subpoenas to the courts for visual proof of these incidents. This also occurred

on other occasions with other stand in hosts also referring to me as 4. Also

when Michael Strahan was a co- host on the show in 2024 the viewing of my

person was also taking place. This was also mentioned in a New York Filing

with ABC Entertainment ( Green V. ABC Entertainment USCA 22-899)

During the Drew Barrymore show between the dates 09/15/2021-11/15/2021,

Drew Barrymore as well as the co host participated in jokingly comments on

and about my person and even added in a bit about previous clothing style

options such as green cargo pants that I had previously worn in the past amongst

other things. In one particular instance Drew Barrymore was conversing with a

guest on the show about a movie she was promoting where the catchphrase for

her character was “too-do-loo!” and they began joking about mishaps they had

seen me go through in retrospect to the daily stalking/ following that was

occurring at the time. The guest star then shouted and I quoted “Go to the

store”. This further confirmed not only my daily habits were being studied and

monitored but my shopping habits were as well. This also raised the notion that

secret footage was being exploited. I also submitted a subpoena to the courts for

the timeframe of this incident. In another instance while viewing the Drew

Barrymore show, there were props on the show set up similar to the likeness of

the bedroom in which I was at the time residing and Ms. Barrymore was

conversing with a guest and there were indirect comments made about my

person, further exhibiting how this neglected security breach was having a

negative impact on my personal life. This was also mentioned in a New York

4

Filing with Viacom CBS ^ Green v Viacom CBS usca 22-724 During Fox sPorts airin§ of

the NFL season beginning in September of 2021 through February of 2022

sports anchors acknowledged in one way or another that they could see me

through the tv. Throughout the season Sports anchors and reporters participated

in at times jokingly behavior towards my person through player interviews

amongst each other and during the halftime segments, in one instance stating

and I quote “Hey guys, he thinks were his friends”. In another instance

pertaining to a cyber breach involving my cellular device that had been

occurring as well; In which I reached out to my cellular provider regarding this

matter back in the July of 2020 as well as mentioned through complaint to

proper authorities. During the month of October of 2021 through December of

2021, It was mentioned and I quote “ He hasn't even used his phone” in a joking

manner. Also during this time I was having issues with store bought food I was

consuming being tampered with and while live on air while sports

commentators Troy Aikman and Joe Buck were conversing it was stated “Hey

guys whatever you're feeding him, keep doing it; I don't care”. I have been

sending in complaints to proper health services regarding this ongoing issue.

Between weeks 12-15 sports commentators began noticing the viewing

experience was becoming less enjoyable and saw that these actions were having

a negative effect and they could get in trouble, anchor Michael Strahan asked

for this behavior to stop. During the month of December of 2021 1 began

attempting to pursue legal actions pertaining to this matter and somehow the

employees of the Respondent Fox Corporation heard of this and began talks

about it in attempts to figure out if they were liable for their behavior; stating

things like “He has no proof’, “He won’t win by his self’, “Guys Fox Corporate

in New York is watching”. I submitted subpoenas to the courts for this

timeframe for supporting visual aid.

On Ozark fox Kolr 10 around 10 pm after the viewings of the NFL Sunday

night games reporters implemented outsourced information on or about my

person into news stories as well as acknowledging that they co^d see me,

attempting to converse with me as I viewed. Also on Ozarks

between the

months (10/11/2021-11/27/2021) a meteorologist from the show during a

morning segment made joking comments about the situation acknowledging

that he could see me and attempted to bring this to the studios attention by

hinting at things that had been occurring over the past few months. I also

submitted a subpoena to the court for these incidents.

During the dates of (02/17/2022- 03/12/2022) news anchors and guest of fox4

news acknowledged they could see me and made joking comments about my

person and about stuff that was happening or that I was doing such as going to

the post office to mail legal proceeding documents and hinted at a movie

“stating see that’s why I don’t let my kids watch it”; which further raised the

notion that I was not only being monitored and studied but exploited for

financial gain. A subpoena was submitted to the courts for this incident as well.

5

In February of 2022,1 wrote a complaint to Fox Corporation concerning this

ongoing matter in March of 2022.Also during this timeframe I would see

mimics or duplication of meals that I had cooked or mentions of certain

ingredients used in the preparation process which further raised suspicion that I

was being surveil and continuously stalked and that this surveillance was used

to study me as if I was a test subject. For example During the week of August

10, 2022 I purchased eggplant, cream of mushroom, collard greens, stuffed

ravioli, tomatoes, cheese etc. to make a casserole dish. This same week Fox4

hosted a cooking segment where a lady made a similar dish. And also around

October of 2022 and mid november of 2022 the amount of monies I had was

mentioned on air showing that my finances were again being monitored. Also

during the November of 2022, it was stated.by a. Fox 4 news,anchor in the field

that 2023 plans were a go and in full affect,! have reached out to television

manufacturers regarding this cyber breach, have also sent a complaint to the

department of consumer affairs and these incidents have also been mentioned

in other related cases regarding these similar issues (ref Green v.

Vizio Inc. 2:22-07429-PA-JEm, green v. LG electronics 22-06057, green v. general mills world HQ 0:22-cv-02737-ECT-ECW,

green v Schweitzer brentwood branch Library USCA 22-1905)

II. The United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit Ruled the Case be

dismissed because it lacked an arguable basis either in law or in fact. The courts

ruled on November 14, 2022 that appeal 22-898 Green v. Fox Corporation be

dismissed due to lack of an arguable basis either in law or in fact. It is argued that the

breach in the television was used as a platform to carry out continued uncontrollable

malice towards the petitioner as well as used as a direct aid in the act of racketeering,

exploitation and defamation of one's character. This was all due to an invasion of

privacy through means of monitoring one’s person ,non consensual; by breaches which

violated the electronic communications privacy act and the data privacy act.The

statement of facts show a series of constant events that indicate that this in fact

occurred on numerous occasions and proves that rights were violated and in turn laws

were broken. Subpoenas submitted by the petitioner with specific timeframes for

visual evidence of these occurrences accurately back detailed incidents outlined in the

statements of facts. These occurrences are not only mentioned in this suit but also are

supported by suits filed against other entities that exhibited similar behavior. While

acknowledging freedom of speech amendments, if an individual expresses in many

ways that he/she does not agree with, does not consent to, is uncomfortable with being

monitored/ surveilled, studied and exploited and the opposing party is aware of this

fi

and continues to engage in this conduct without corrective measures. It proves that

The respondent as a whole took advantage of the petitioner without remorse even after

finding that legal recourse was being taken against them. Furthermore, denying

allegations and showing that they will go to extreme measures to continue these

practices prove the depth of this situation. Through a series of pro se filings it is shown

how information was unlawfully obtained and then openly disbursed to the masses,

viewing data was collected and used for orchestrated plots as well as to deter legal

recourse in the respondents favor. No contractual agreement was made between the

respondent and the petitioner, nor was there any form of compensation for the time (3

years and counting) the petitioner has endured this; Whereas employees of the

respondent Fox Corporation are compensated for there time on air as employees of the

entertainment and media industry labeled as anchors,reporters, sports commentators,

musicians, television personnel etc. The petitioner on the other hand carries none of

these labels nor is employed by any television organization. The petitioner is a

consumer, one that views the content that is provided for entertainment purposes. On

several occasions it is acknowledged when the petitioner tunes in to said programs and

is treated as if he is a part of the entertainment. No where in the respondents user

agreement, privacy policy etc. does it state that at home viewers will be monitored and

surveilled, footage can and will be implemented into show criteria, daily habits could

be studied and used to cause future malice in your personal life for the world's

amusement at the company's leisure. I the respondent filed this pro se complaint with

the southern District of New york beginning in December of 2021, through this whole

process I feel that the factual information has been ignored. Through this process I

have sent in countless documents for this legal filing as well as other filings with the

New York courts through the temporary filing email portal for ECF submission. In

some instances in case 22-898 green v. Fox corporation I noticed an acknowledgement

of receipt but did not see the documents enter into the docket. Throughout these pro se

filing^Judge Taylor Swain and Court clerk Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe have mentioned

and used Case - Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)" As a reference. Neitzke v. Williams involved

an incarcerated individual claiming that a prison violated eighth amendment rights by

denying medical treatment as well as denying his fourth amendment due process rights

by transferring him to a different cellhouse without a hearing. He then refused to work

7

due to this medical condition, so the case was dismissed as frivolous on the grounds

that williams failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of

Appeals, holding that the District Court had wrongly equated the standard for failure

to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) with the more lenient standard for frivolousness

under § 1915(d), which permits dismissal only if a petitioner cannot make any rational

argument in law or fact entitling him to relief, affirmed the dismissal of the Fourteenth

Amendment claim on the ground that a prisoner clearly has no constitutionally

protected liberty or property interest in being incarcerated in a particular institution or

wing. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim as to

two of the five defendants, declaring itself unable to state with certainty that Williams

was unable to make any rational argument to support his claim. I am neither a prison

nor property of any entity or individual though I have been treated as such through this

whole debacle. Further reviewing this reference; I, the petitioner find it inconclusive

and unrelated to this case or any of the filings that have been submitted to the courts.

As a consumer The United States has various consumer privacy acts that are put in

place as data protection laws. The “American Data Privacy and Protection Act

(ADPPA) Federal Consumer Online Privacy Rights” for instance, prove to be clearly

violated in many ways such as the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017, This

bill amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime to intentionally and willfully

conceal knowledge of a security breach that results in economic harm of at least

$ 1,000 to any individual. Furthermore as respectfully mentioned I am not nor have I in

the past held any form of employment with the respondent Fox Corporation nor hold

any form of contractual agreement in which any of these actions could or would be

permissible. With this acknowledgment, The courts can deeper examine the true intent

of the Respondent Fox corporation such as exploitation and participating in the act of

racketeering.

Reasons For Granting the Writ

The court should grant Writ of Certiorari to clarify an accurate portion of

the chain of events that aided in acts that have sequentially taken place

over the course of three years.

The court should grant review in this case to oversee lawful integrity,

a

examine factual findings and measure these actions along the legal scale.

Weighing whether these actions were intentional and meant to target and cause

unforeseen hardship and/or Malice to the petitioner. Furthermore, to examine

the question of how this breach in privacy happened, why the respondeat is

being targeted and lastly why after 3 years and after numerous warnings from

employee personnel as well as the petitioner has the respondent neglected to

come forth to acknowledge the situation. Why hasn't the respondent Fox

Corporation not attempted to find a way to end the surveillance and correct

behavior of its staff. In failing to do so, these neglected actions have led to

escalated matters that the respondent Fox Corporation can now not control

which is why they are in fact liable. Taking into consideration the fiscal

evidence stated outlining the strainius circumstances repeatedly endured over

the course of time, not only degrade and undermine the value of one's person

but display these methods were in many ways used in attempts to conform and

control the petitioners way of thinking and living. Repeated occurrences of

similar incidents abandon the thought of coincidence and raise the suspicion of

orchestrated plots. These chain of events along with the shown repetitive

occurrence show that the petitioner was indeed targeted and these methods

collectively aided in calculated misfortunes and clearly exhibits how easily

information can be used to derail/delay and negatively impact someone's life if

cyber security goes unaddressed. The show of consistency further proves that

These events could only be carried out by careful planning and some form of

studying one's habits. Information being exploited could only be obtained

through the breach of cyber data and/or the physical viewing thereof. It is

shown, The petitioner Courtney Green showed without doubt that actions were

taken to stop this situation through legal measures as well as reaching out

personally to the respondent Fox Corporation. Due to the case being dismissed

because of the lack of arguable basis in law or fact it is strongly implied that

that factual information was overlooked or never reached the point of review

by District Pro se court or the New York United states court of Appeals. USCA

9

22-898 Green V. Fox Corporation is one of five similar filings that are

connected and aid in supporting other filings, which make it a vital portion and

very much relevant.

Conclusion

The petitioner Courtney Green respectfully asks that the court issue a Writ

of Certiorari in United States Court of Appeals case 22-898 Green v. Fox

Corporation.

Respectfully Submitted,

Courtney Green

Petitioner

P.o. Box 22444

Kansas City, Mo 64113

m