Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Courtney Green, Petitioner v. ABC Entertainment Inc.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

NO. 22-899

DEC TO 2022

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

In the Supreme Court of The United States

Courtney Green.

Petitioner,

V.

ABC Entertainment Inc.

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ of Certiorari to

the United states Court of Appeals For the

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Courtney Green

P.O. Box 22444

- IV

Dj

P

t I

u

jgp

ti

Kansas city,MO 64113

RECEIVED

DEC 2 0 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

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. wniiams 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989)) 11/30/2022.

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 ABC Entertainment Inc. 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 one's

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 ABC Entertainment Inc. was negligent in

addressing the actions of its employees.

I. Green’s circumstantial evidence that ABC Entertainment Inc. openly

participated in the act of racketeering, defamation of character,

exploitation and non consensual monitoring of the petitioners daily habits

for ulterior motives.

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/or delusional and going to need therapy; referring to the then

unexplainable occurrences that were happening in 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 Qreen v Kansas city Public Library Waldo Branch USCA 22-2469, Green v. Kansas city Public Library Trails west

USCA 22-2468, Green V. Midwest genealogy Center USCA 22-1915, Green V. Mid continent Public Library North

branch

Independence,

Green y 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 2021 the viewing

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

with Fox Corporation (Green VFoxcorporation usca22-898)

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 quote “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

Filing with Viacom CBS (ref Green v Vmcom CBS USCA 22_724). During an airing of the show

Tell the truth on the dates 07/18/2021 as I tuned in contestants and guest celeb

appearances observed me tuning in and stated that I was in the attic/upstairs,

referring to the room I had just checked into through Airbnb. On GMA and GMA3,

The cast acknowledged they could see me and at times joked

around and also made comments about my person. In one particular instance T.J

Holmes held a discussion with a doctor between September 2021 and November

2021 , amidst this conversation genetic modification was hinted at towards my

reproductive system. As well as other things. From 2020 - present I have been

having issues with stored bought food and beverages consumed having effects on

different body parts as well as other issues not food related which I have filed

complaints for regarding food safety. Through this it has been shown while

viewing different programs that it would be acknowledged that tv personnel

would know at times what specific body part, food consumed would affect at

that point in time and would hint at it in one form or another. This has not been

the first time genetic modification has been hinted at while viewing a program.

Aside from these mentions in several instances dating back to 2020, it has also

been implied in many ways of a preplanned expiration date. Also during the

week of a segment on GMA3, a female reporter visited Antarctica. The host of

the show openly joked about the viewing of my person through the television.

One day while viewing GMA3 between September of 2021 through November

of 2021 T.J. Holmes stated and I quote “We’ve been doing this for a long time” x

amount of years and if you wanted to find them were in New York and giving the

show studio location address, during this airing the anchor also stated and I

quoted “I’ll put $10,000 on it”. Within these months , following these escalations

amongst others; On GMA Michael Strahan attempted to ask for this fiasco to

stop.

On Kspr33 News anchors implemented obtained information into daily news

stories as well as acknowledged that they could view me while on air. For

example; During the dates of 11/10/2021-11/15/2021 I applied and went

through the virtual interviewing process for a call center position and during

the evening news a reporter in the field implemented this into a news story by

reporting in a cubical to let me know he saw this and this is where I would be

potentially working. This was mention in a Msisouri pro se filing involving

invasion of privacy through cyber stalking (green v. Schweitzer Brentwood branch library USCA

22-1906). In another instance during the beginning of the month of February

02/01/2022-02/11/2022 a snow storm came in and on the day it melted the

reporters reported standing in front of a bus stop to indicate that I would be on

the buses and that I was leaving. Also during Ozark Sports there were clips

implemented into show criteria hinting at different information about my

person. During airings there were also talks directly and indirectly at me. There

were also mentions of the viewing of me through the television during the 2021

American Music Awards and grammys.While viewing the 2021 Emmy

Awards, Indirect comments and other acknowledgements were made that I was

tuning into the program, in one instance An actress made jokes while giving a

speech for a award and commented in a taunting mocking manner “This is

what it looks like to win.”person. Also during the 2022 Emmy

awards there were further acknowledgments that I was being viewed through

the television as well as clear indications that the viewing and monitoring of

my person was being exploited through the film industry and made out as a

mockery. During the Emmy's, one actress while delivering a speech stated that

I was not supposed to be watching.At the time there was a NFL Football game

on a different channel that I was switching back and forth from. This is one of

several incidents exhibiting how my viewing habits were being monitored

*

and/or manipulated to control when and what to watch and furthermore shows

how this issue has been attempted to be covered up or hidden from being

addressed. Following this I the plaintiff Courtney Green wrote complaints to

television manufacturers via letter, complaint portal and via email. I also

reached out to the department of consumer affairs. During the 2021 Airing of

Dancing with the stars there were hints that I could be seen through the

television and even could be seen how this situation not only affected me but

was in some form or fashion affecting performances and the entertainers as

well on this show as well as other programs. I began the process of pursuing

legal proceedings against Television networks in late November, Host of the

show Dancing with the stars stated “Can't get a hold of your lawyers, They're

all busy” in a taunting fashion further alerting me that I was not only being

monitored through means of television and information from my online

browsing data was being stalked, which was explained in a Missouri lawsuit

regarding invasion of privacy through cyber stalking ( Ref. Green v. schweitzer brentwood

branch library, ) While tuning into an episode of Supermarket Sweep airing live in

Los Angeles, host Leslie Jones mentioned that It had been 3 years referring to

the viewing of my person through the television and the exploitation that I was

enduring; as she taunted and stated that I was a loser. I 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 30, 2022 that appeal 22-899 Green v. ABC

Entertainment Inc. 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 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 ABC Entertainment Inc. 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 petitioner 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 22-899 green v. ABC Entertainment Inc. 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

j •

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

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 ffivolousness 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

ABC Entertainment Inc. nor hold any form of contractual agreement in which

any of these actions could or would be permissible. The non consensual

»*

monitoring and studying of my person through the television is comparable to

a peeping tom video recording women in a public bathroom, It is not Ok! and

• 3

is Illegal. Furthermore It was stated that I was a grown man after receiving

copies of IFP documents as if since I am grown I should just be dealing with

this instead of treating it as an serious issue, it also exhibits that Employees of

the respondent ABC Entertainment were ok taking advantage of a thought the

been teen or minor because they felt they were easy to manipulate. With this

acknowledgment, The courts can deeper examine the true intent of the

Respondent ABC Entertainment 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,

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 petitioner 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 ABC

Entertainment Inc responded to complaints from The petitioner nor 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

ABC Entertainment Inc. 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

0V

-» is

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 ABC

Entertainment Inc.. 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 22-899 Green V. ABC

Entertainment Inc. 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 22-899 Green v. ABC

Entertainment Inc.

Respectfully Submitted,

Courtney Green

Petitioner

P.o. Box 22444

Kansas City, Mo 64113

in

i