Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Courtney Green, Petitioner v. Walt Disney Company

NO. 23-55358

es

In the Supreme Court of The United States

FILED

OCT 1 3 2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U.S.

Courtney Green.

Petitioner,

V.

The Walt Disney Company

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

Kansas city,MO 64113

Table of Contents

Question Presented 2

Petition For Writ of Certiorari 2

Decision Below 2

Jurisdiction 3

Federal Rule Involved 6

Statement of Case 6

I. Green’s circumstantial evidence that The Walt disney Company

unconventionally used methods of spyware and abused.... 6

Reasons For Granting the Writ

II. The United States Court of Appeals ninth Circuit Ruled the Case 17

Electronic surveillance 18

Invasion of Privacy/Voyeurism 19

Spyware 20

Sec. 250.45 Unlawful surveillance in the second degree 21

Consent 21

Non consensual monitoring and surveillance 22

Viewing the sexual/intimate areas of a person 24

Reasonable privacy 25

Eavesdropping 26

Aggravated harassment 27

Unethical Human Experimentation 28

Impactful cases 29

Reason for granting writ 29

Relief 32

Conclusion 33

Related Cases 34

Statues and Rules 35

Table of Authorities 35

Exhibits 37

Related cases

• Green v. Lg electronics USA inc./LG Electronics Inc. 2:22-07429-PA-JEm

• Green v. Schweitzer brentwood branch Library USCA 22-1905

• Green V. Fox Corporation USCA 22-898

• Green V. ABC Entertainment inc. USCA 22-899

• Green V. NBC Universal Media LLC USCA 22-722

• Green V. live w Kelly and Ryan USCA 22-726

• Green V. Viacom CBS USCA 22-724

• Green v. Vizio 2:22-cv-07429-PA-JEM/ 22-56083

•

•

Green V. Walmart inc. USCA 24-1022

Green V. Marsh’s Sunfresh 23-00838-cv-w-BP

Statues and Rules

American Data privacy act

Electronic communication privacy act

Federal consumer online privacy act

n

Invasion of privacy

16 CFR Part 313: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule under the

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017

Exploitation

Racketeering

Malice

Eavesdropping

Aggravated harassment

Unlawful Surveillance in the Second degree

Table of Authorities

❖ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) >

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/319/

❖ Consumer Privacy Act (CPA)

https://www.consumerDrivacvact.com/

❖ H.R.4081 - Consumer Privacy

Protection Act of 2017

> https://www.conqress.qov/bill/115th-conaress/house-bill/4081 ❖ 16 CFR Part 313:

Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

> https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security

(Exhibit A)

/

*3

Question Presented

Whether the respondent Paramount acted negligently in addressing the conduct

of its staff and the integrity of its network. Did Paramount

unconventionally use data and spyware capabilities in a manner that

violated privacy laws, electronic and network regulations, statues and

the petitioners constitutional rights. Did employees of the respondent

Paramount participate in conduct that aided in corrupt intent and

racketeer influenced acts; At the expense of The petitioners Character;

were methods of unconsented surveillance in fact used to exploit,

defame, profit, control, gather and distribute personal data and other

findings about the petitioners person 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 district of California is published in the

ninth circuit 2022.

The decision of the United States Court of appeals is

published at the ninth Circuit 2023.

Jurisdiction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

December 17,2023 Case was filed with Central district of California courts Courtney

Green v. The Walt Disney Company Case Number:2:22-cv-09271 -SVW-RAO

December 28,2023 case dismissed with prejudice because the action failed to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff failed to state specifics for when, how and why

the monitoring of my person occurred., IFP application denied.

March 24,2023 Motion to vacate order of dismiss and reinstate; Response to order

dismissing with prejudice filed by plaintiff Courtney Green. RE: ORDER DISMISSING

WITH PREJUDICE [19]. (aco)

March 31,2023 ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA

PAUPERIS by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. The court has considered the motion

and the motion is DENIED.

The Court certifies that the proposed appeal is not taken in good faith under 28

U.S.C. 1915(a) and is frivolous, without merit and does not present a substantial

question within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 753(f).; DENYING [34] MOTION for

Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, (aco)

April 4,2023 Motion to vacate order of dismiss and reinstate filed by plaintiff

Courtney Green. RE: ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE [19]. Motion set

for hearing on 4/17/2023 at 01:30 PM before Judge Stephen V. Wilson, (aco)

April 5,2023 MINUTES OF ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

VACATE [37] by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Furthermore, the Court advises Plaintiff that it will not accept any further filings

in this case, except for a Notice of Appeal from this Order. (SEE DOCUMENT

FOR FURTHER DETAILS).; DENYING [37] Motion to vacate order of dismiss

and reinstate, (aco)

April 5,2023 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF

DEFICIENCIES IN FILED DOCUMENT RE: Motion to vacate order of dismiss

and reinstate [19][37] by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. The court accepts the motion

as filed. The motion is submitted. Order to issue. The hearing is vacated and

off-calendar, (aco)

April 17,2023 Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis to the

9th CCA re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, [43] filed by

Courtney Green. [Notice of the filing is sent to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.]

(car)

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

April 19,2023 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case

number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 23-55358 assigned

to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, [43] as to Plaintiff Courtney

Green, (mat)

April 20,2023 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): A review of

the district court’s docket reflects that the district court has certified

that this appeal is not taken in good faith and is frivolous. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). This court may

dismiss a case at any time, if the court determines the case is frivolous.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days after the date of this order,

appellant must: (1) file a motion to dismiss this appeal, see Fed. R. App. R

42(b), or (2) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous

and should go forward. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should

go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court

$505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in

this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. If appellant does not respond

to this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute,

without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a motion to

dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant submits any

response to this order other than a motion to dismiss the appeal, the

court may dismiss this appeal as frivolous, without further notice. The

briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk shall serve on

appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a

form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4

financial affidavit. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any

motion to dismiss the appeal, statement that the appeal

should go forward, and/or motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

[12699822] (CKP)

Filed order (BRIDGET S. BADE, KENNETH K. LEE and

LAWRENCE VANDYKE): The district court certified that this appeal

is not taken in good faith and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On April 20, 2023, the court ordered appellant

to explain in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed as

frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (court shall dismiss case at any

time, if court determines it is frivolous or malicious). Upon a review of

the record and the opening briefs, we conclude this appeal is frivolous.

We therefore deny appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(Docket Entry No. [5] ) and dismiss this appeal as frivolous, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). All other pending motions are denied as moot.

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DISMISSED.

[12800262] (RT) The week of May 15,2023 petitioner sent in complaint

brief/Questionable arguments. **>May 22,2023 Filed original and 0

copies of Appellant Courtney Green opening brief of 25 pages

(Informal: No). Served via ECF on 05/22/2023. (briefing remains

stayed) [12720377] (KT)

**>May 26,2020; May 30,2023 Filed Appellant Courtney Green

letter dated 05/24/2023 re: Request for case opening packet. Paper

filing deficiency: None.

[12724901] (RL) {original packet was never received}

May 30,2023 Filed Appellant Courtney Green FORM 14 motion for

extension of time. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/24/2023.

[12724856] (RL) **>June 6,2023 Received original and 0 copies of

Appellant Courtney Green opening brief of 6 pages (Informal: Yes).

Served on 06/07/2023. Major deficiency: not accompanied by motion to

file substitute brief. Notified Appellant. [12734074] (KT)

June 20,2023 Filed Appellant Courtney Green addendum to motion to

expand the record. Dated 06/13/2023. Paper filing deficiency: None.

[12739203] (RL) June 27,2023 Filed Appellant Courtney Green

addendum to motion to expand record. Dated 06/27/2023. Paper filing

deficiency: None. [12748691] (RL)

September 27,2023 Filed order (BRIDGET S. BADE, KENNETH K.

LEE and LAWRENCE VANDYKE) : The district court certified that

this appeal is not taken in good faith and denied leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On April 20, 2023, the court

ordered appellant to explain in writing why this appeal should not be

dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (court shall dismiss

case at any time, if court determines it is frivolous or malicious). Upon

a review of the record and the opening briefs, we conclude this appeal

is frivolous. We therefore deny appellant’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (Docket Entry No. [5] ) and dismiss this appeal as frivolous,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). All other pending motions are

denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed

case. DISMISSED. [12800262] (RT)

Federal Rule Involved

Media and network personnel openly used spyware and other

methods of electronic surveillance to collect data, eavesdrop and

harass the petitioner; Actively participating in the act of Invasion of

Privacy through the disclosure of private facts and intrusion of

solitude, Illegal gathering and disbursement of private

information.Violating the electronic communications privacy act, the

stored communications act,consumer privacy protections act, the

cybersecurity information sharing act. Participating in racketeer

influenced acts with corrupt intent, exploitation, defamation of

character,malice and non consensual use of private information and

personal data, eavesdropping, misconduct,harassment and violation

of professional conduct, exposure of trade secrets resulting in unfair

business practices,consumer privacy act.

Statement of Case

The respondent The Walt disney Company unconventionally used

methods of spyware, eavesdropping and company data collection and

surveillance capabilities to target,gather and exchange intel about the

petitioners person throughout its network and mass audience.These

methods were used to conceal acts of exploitation, non consensual

monitoring and studying of the petitioner through constant intrusion of

his private dwelling place. These acts of misconduct have continuously

occurred since 2020 and due to the respondents negligence in addressing

the integrity of its network it has aided in the pain and suffering of the

petitioner and show to be undoubtable organized corrupt intent and

racketeer influenced acts.

I. Green’s circumstantial evidence shows that the Walt Disney

Company unconventionally used methods of spyware and

abused network capabilities to survell, eavesdrop,exploit,

intrude solitude and harass the petitioner constantly from 2020

to present year 2023.

During October of 2019 I began noticing that while watching television shows

employees of different television networks seem to look as if they were attempting

to converse with me through the television. This notion began while tuning into the

espn show “highly questionable” when sports analyst Mina Kimes

stated “You're going to pay for this” along with mentions of ratings. 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 would at the time be currently

doing, wearing, things I had eaten etc. to confirm I was who they were speaking of;

Mrs. Ripa also made 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, which turned out to be the doing of an organized

group. Doing this time Host Kelly Ripa also openly stated that the monitoring of my

person and the constant stalking and gathering of my private information would “Go

on forever” and it was also implied that there was no place I could hide, there were

also hints at a pre planned expiration date of some sort.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;Kelly and ryan began playing a prize game on the show with a call in viewer, the

caller recognized 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.This was also mentioned in USCA 22-898 green v. Fox Corporation.

Why was specific information that had been obtained through the monitoring of my

online browsing activity being openly shared if I was not in fact being targeted? For

what purpose would a television personality be conversing about an at home

consumer in misconducted, bullying and abusive manners if it were not for intended

malice. During this time Kelly ripa openly made claims and hints in regards to well

being in statements like and I quote “Something bad’s going to happen ” and other

instances making claims to specific age limits etc. on average The live with Kelly

and Ryan show caters to 2.3 million viewers per week. Out of all these viewers how

and why was I singled out if there was not some form of surveillance or ulterior

motive. It is shown during this timeframe the Host of the show knew when I tuned in

by acknowledging in numerous ways such as specific

culinary choices, clothing and garments for example; at the time I slept under a pink

comforter that was openly acknowledge to further show that it was in fact me that

she was talking too. Not only was Host Kelly and Ryan aware of the surveillance of

my person but crew members were aware as well as the network the respondent The

Walt disney Company was aware and neglected to address the issue. In one instance

Co-host Ryan attempted to warn host Kelly Ripa of her misconduct but those

warnings went ignored. In another instance while tuning into the show during the

early morning hour Kelly Ripa was doing her usual talk careless rants and while

conversing as usual at the beginning of segments and not only spoke in regards to me

but also made reference towards family member that was believed to have been

tuning in as well where Mrs. Ripa also made abusive slurs and exhibited bullying

misconduct, During/around this segment there were mentions of ginger tea and as

well as other flavors and talks of food preferences. Following these episodes there

appeared a stand-in host That also made references to my person as 4 amongst other

names that were being stated in reference to my person at the time. This female show

host also participated in the same harassing behavior. Host also found clever ways to

indirectly say the name “Courtney” during the show as seen and done on other

occasions in other incidents with other shows etc.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 2020 and 2021 when I first began noticing that the viewing of my person

was taking place, I was always puzzled, confused, irritated or uncomfortable while

watching television so during this time I was told to do things like “smile” and

different scenarios were arranged in attempts to gain knowledge of personal

preference or learn my person with show host even stating that “We want to get to

know you ” as if they were attempting to make this into some sort of interactive

reality show or ease me into being use to or comfortable with being on camera.

Throughout this debacle there were several mentions of contractual agreement with

statements such as “He’s under contract, so it’s all legal” in a taunting manner. During

and around 2020 throughout early 2021 it was stated and made out as if this was a

24/7 reality show, in some instances said that I was not real and that I was a virtual

creation even going as far as showing some interactive virtual female being and

saying that's what I was. In some instances host of shows would either make

expressions that they saw me make or these expressions would be implemented into

skits or media material. This was also mentioned in similar Filings with Fox

Corporation and ABC Entertainment Inc. and lg electronics ( Green V Fox Corporation

USCA 22-898, green v. Abe Entertainment Inc. 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 showing that they were in fact

talking about me and explained why random photos of me were being taken by

strangers while I was out and about, further proving orchestrated acts of stalking. In

one particular instance Drew Barrymore was conversing with a guest on the show

about a movie “Miss Meadows” she was promoting where the catchphrase for her

character was “too-do-loo!” ; they began joking about mishaps they had seen me go

through in retrospect to the daily stalking/ following that was occurring at the time.

Aside from having random photos taken by strangers while out, I also experienced

mishaps while grocery shopping. These issues included the monitoring and studying

of food choices which led to exploitation of culinary choices, controlled grocery

options as well as the tampering of and contamination of goods purchased; which I

have reported and submitted numerous complaints about. While viewing this

segment The guest star shouted and I quote “Go to the store” while laughing she also

made other comments regarding culinary choices such as cereal and milk that I

would frequently purchase and be eating during the mornings while viewing this and

other morning shows. 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 at the place in which I was residing at the time which led me to believe that

there were other methods of hidden surveillance/spyware being used as well that

were also being secretly monitored and exploited because there was no television in

the bedroom, As the guest and Drew Barrymore conversed the guest began indirectly

making comments regarding findings and things about my person that led me to

believe there were forms of stalking happening. This was also mentioned in similar

Filings with Viacom CBS and ABC Entertainment inc. and Lg Electronics (ref.

Green V. Viacom CBS USCA 22-724, green v. ABC Entertainment Inc. USCA

22-899, green v. Lg Electronics USA inc/Lg Electronics inc.). In another

instance/episode Ms. Barrymore hosted guests from a previous movie she had done

called “Charlie's Angels” where they played a game to see if the crowd could figure

out which one of the guest stars was actually in the studio on stage and which was an

illusion as a play on AI technology and delusion.

This was also mentioned in similar Filings with Viacom CBS and ABC

Entertainment inc. and Lg Electronics (ref. Green V. Viacom CBS USCA 22-724,

green v. ABC Entertainment Inc. USCA 22-899, green v. Lg Electronics USa inc/Lg

Electronics inc.).

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.

(see Exhibit A)

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.JHolmes held a discussion during GMA3 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 including but not

limited to the handling of species and other genetic factors. 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 regarding food safety. One of the body parts included genitals and

reproductive areas, This further confirmed the notion that there was some sort of

experimental testing happening without my knowledge which partially explained

why my eating habits and culinary choices were being so heavily monitored.

Through this debacle, 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 or had affected 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. In another instance, On a November

17,2022 Airing of the Tonight show with Jimmy Fallon; While tuning in host

Jimmy Fallon held a discussion with guest Martha Stewart and there were hints at

surveillance and recent culinary choices were jokingly mocked such as snap peas

and other foods I had eaten or purchased around that time; there were

even remarks made hinting at methods of surveillance being planted inside my

refrigerator; Advertising reps on HSN and QVC also made mentions of monetary

methods with remarks like “Heput it in the bottom drawer”.

(ref.https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=2aH7bY 175Go&t=2s).

Other Mentions of this were outlined in a {Minnesota filing against General Mills Ref.

green v. General Mills headquarters 22-cv-27237 ECT/ECW) 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”.Following this event on December 12,2021

there was a tornado that hit edwardsville, Illinois.While ABC news was covering this

story there was a camera set on the ground in grass and in the frame there was a tree

limb sat in a specific angle. During this time,often in the morning I would get up and

open the front door and go outside and come back in. On this morning when I walked

outside a tree limb was placed on the lawn in the specific way the limb was that

appeared in the camera lens.After seeing this and coming back inside, news

correspondent T.J. Holmes came on screen and gave a dead stare face as a form of

intimidation. Within these months , following these escalations amongst others; On

GMA Michael Strahan attempted to ask for this fiasco to Stop. Why would a host on

m

national television be asking fellow co-workers To stop if these were frivolous

allegations?This same host also made this same request during a Fox Sports halftime

update along with asking the question and I quote “Can we do this?” This was also

mentioned in a New York pro se claim against the Fox corporation (Ref. Green v. Fox

Corporation USCA 22-898 Document title “Statement ofFacts ” 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

askedfor this behavior 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, (see

Exhibit B) This was also mentioned in a Missouri 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 these actions were denied and made out to

be frivolous and/or delusional it was openly shown in every opportunity given to be fact.

While viewing the 2021 American Music Awards a Musician stated while performing

that “I should love myself”. During this show there were also loose hints during

performances depicting incidents and indirect comments made towards my

person.Oftentimes throughout this debacle I felt the feeling of

helplessness,embarrassment and estranged bewilderment because without sufficient

proof it was impossible to even explain what had and was happening all the while

physically seeing occurrences illustrated through the entertainment industry. 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 wm.’’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 This was also shown during the 2022 oscars as well. During the Emmys,

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. During viewings of these award

ceremonies and entertainment events while being acknowledged that I was tuning

in, Often times there would be giggles and puzzled looks as if it were unclear to the

attendees why I was watching the program because these were the very people

participating in and benefiting from exploitation and causing my defamation and

they were being awarded for it; This further showed me that I was indeed being

exploited throughout the entertainment industry and that they all in some form or

way participated or aided in this calamity and had profited through what was to the

world seen as art and were being rewarded for it. While observing this, it often

gave a distasteful and discomforting feeling. Following this I the petitioner

Courtney Green wrote complaints to television networks and manufacturers via

letter, complaint portal and via email. I also reached out to the department of

consumer affairs. (See Exhibit C)

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 libraries where the intrusion

of privacy and my online browsing activity was being monitored as well as

Television networks in late November, Host of the show Dancing with the stars

stated “Can't get a hold ofyour 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,but used to control the situation in to there

advantage. Around this time I also began seeing commercials for the very lawyers I

was reaching out to and calling. This was explained in a Missouri lawsuit regarding

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

branch library) (see Exhibit D)

Ref. “Statement ofFacts ” (In the beginning ofDecember of2021 starting

12/3/2021-12/17/20211 began searchingfor lawyers/legal representation to pursue

a suit against Schweitzer Brentwood Branch Library regarding this matter and

again while doing so employees of the branch saw what I was doing and alerted

each other as well as branch visitors and began devising ways to figure out who my

representation would be and what actions were being taken. Around this time I

began seeing commercials for the law companies I was reaching out to. Unable to

find any firm willing to take this case or any other for that matter; I began the

process offiling a civil suit 12/18/2021. On one particular day as I was conducting

my search andfilling out documents for the suit logged into and using adobe a female employee

of the Schweitzer Brentwood Branch Library dressed in a red top with curly hair and glasses

stood on looking and raised her hand and counted down and when she got to 0, without being

19

able to save my progress or log out of any accounts (such as

email, adobe etc.); my computer logged off and turned off After that happened I began noticing

that documents were being compromised, moved, deleted/altered and/or having issues opening

sending, editing or delays in the adobe program as well as hints that my email and my adobe

account had been hacked. Around this time I also began seeing talks

of lawsuits while viewing NFL football. On fox sports there were mentions of arbitration cases as

well as one sports anchor stating bluntly that “He s not going to win by himself’, Talks of

lawsuits and indirect discussions were conducted on local news as well as on Newsy and many

other programs as phishing methods to see if they were legally liable for participating in these

actions etc. I printed off and attempted to send in

paper copies of the initialfiling Green v. Schweitzer Brentwood Branch Library 12/24/2021. The

case was filled 01/11/2021. During the dates 12/24/2021 through 02/05/20221 sent case filing

documents via usps mail from the post office located at 1442 S Glenstone Ave Springfied, Mo

65804, While doing so

post office workers made mentions and comments about what was happening and/or things that

they heard or saw pertaining to what was happening laughingfurther showing that this was

happening.) During this time I experienced delays in correspondents being submitted

and received with the courts, I also began seeing specific law offices that I had

reached out to advertised on commercials as well as specific talks of information in

legal documents that were in the development stages that had not been printed or

submitted to the courts yet, this included mentions and implemented information

into news stories, sketches show criteria etc. on local news,global news,during

sports talks, late night shows and daytime talk shows etc. while observing this I

reached out to cyber security organizations and later discovered this information

was openly shared as well showing how this was being attempted to be covered up,

hidden and how this neglected situation was escalating to further extents. In

another instance Around the time I began the process of creating and submitting a

petition for Writ Certiorari for ABC Entertainment in November through

December of 2022 and after being denied and submitting a new filing in the

southern district court of new york against the respondent The Walt Disney

company CV22-927l-SVW(RAOx), employees of the respondent were still

participating in misusing there media platform to gathering findings to avoid

recourse and figure out my online browsing activity; In one instance after have

submitted filings in these cases a member of the household where I was residing

now divorced and no longer around actively interacted with associates of the

respondent during and evening news segment shouting aloud at the tv “Its not a

problem r. During this time this case as well as similar cases regarding relative

issues were being simultaneously closed, placed in default, dismissed etc. Further

Exhibiting another way The Respondent The Walt Disney company was using this

concealed method of spyware and monitoring to there advantage.

During the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 Dick Clark’s Rockin New years eve with

Ryan Seacrest there were acknowledgements and mentions of my person; through

performances as well as program host. This included the Disneyland Rockin 'Eve

celebration in Los Angeles and the New Orleans Celebration. In the 2022 and the

2023 celebration I watched while switching back and forth between ABC and NBC

networks where I also viewed the Miley Cyrus new years party; during the 2021-22

news years airing it was mentioned by Miley and co host pete davidson that I was

home alone and had no friends amongst other indications that I was being monitored

through means of television or other forms of surveillance. During the 2021-22 ABC

rockin new years eve program it was acknowledged that I could be seen and also

mentioned and further implemented into performance and show criteria direct and

indirect comments about my person. During the 2022-23 new years eve celebrations

there were further instances where direct and indirect mentions of my person were

mention and the monitoring of my person were further shown to be true while again

viewing both the Dick dark annual rockin new Years celebration including new york

times square, disneyland in Los Angeles and New Orleans; as well as while tuning

into the Miley cyrus New years party with co host Dolly Parton . While Viewing the

Miley Cyrus New years party there were Direct mentions of occurrence stated in

New york and Missouri lawsuit filings about my online browsing activity amongst

other things while comical guest from “Saturday Night Live” performed comedic

skits and interacted with the crowd, There were also indirect mentions of the viewing

and/or monitoring of my person during a live musical performance a musical artist

pointed up as to hint at or signal that there was a hidden surveillance device of some

sort, this also occurred on many instances before while viewing other live programs.

Also while watching comical “Saturday Night Live” stars interact with the crowd, it

was openly stated that and implied that they were using jokes about my person to

distract and stale time stating and I quote “Are we stallingfor something”. When I

switched back over to the abc network’s Dick dark's Rockin New years eve

celebration; a musical guest was finishing up addressing/speaking to the audience.

Further exhibiting yet another tactic used to manipulate and control my television

preferences as previously mentioned with the Emmy awards show and the NFL

football game. While watching the 2022-23 new Orleans segment of The dick dark

rockin new years celebration following the count down to the new year it was

implied indirectly that perhaps some sort of satellite or skyview method was also

being used for surveillance purposes as well. Mentions of the 2021-22 and 2023-23

Miley Cyrus new years parties as well as incidents involving “Saturday Night Live”

SNL were also mentioned in a petition sent to the supreme Court (ref. Green v. NBC

Universal media 11c USCA 22-722) as well as other filings involving television

manufacturers (ref. Green v. LG electronics usa/Lg Electronics inc. USCA 23-1062,

green v. vizio inc. USCA USCA 22-56083).

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”. Other implementations were mentioned throughout

2022 between the months of July of 2022 through September of 2022 on shows like

press your luck where the show host implemented indirect rumors and financial

findings secretly obtained into game show criteria further showing that my banking

data was still being stalked and monitored. On Generation Gap between the months

of June of 2022 through October of 2022 host kelly Ripa mentioned Aloud to the

audience “you guys saved me” in reference to previous actions mentioned in legal

proceedings that occurred back in 2021 on the live with kelly and ryan show.Why

would this same host that was mentioned in previous filings for participating in

harassing,abusive and bullying misconduct; encouraging the act of stalking,

misusing her media platform and social stature to gather and disperse personal

private information to the masses and participate in corrupt racketeering influenced

acts which all were dismissed and deemed as frivolous {Ref. green v. Live w Kelly and

Ryan show USCA 22-276, green v. Abe Entertainment USCA 22-899, green v. Fox

Corporation 22-898), be thanking live audiences and viewers following these

incidents; if this were not true? It further more confirms that Her television show

audience and network following did in fact help in this whole ordeal proving

organized and racketeer influenced acts against my person. Also during March 2023

and April 2023 While tuning into America's Funniest videos, host Alfonso Ribeiro

saw me tuning in and began indirectly making joking comments toward my person

even stating in one instance “quite frankly in my opinion you're overpaid”. The host

even did a bit where he spent in and out of the camera frame and mentioned

delusion, and as participated in finding a clever way to mention the name

“Courtney” by having a staff member appear on the show with the same name after

making these mocking remarks.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). In mid

march of 2022 I acquired a new PO Box which is also the addressed on file with the

courts.Shortly after obtaining the mailing address, while viewing and espn talk show,

sports analyst's were conversing and specifically mentioned the numbers of my po

box and zipcode while making making jokes about my person. This clearly violated

the boundaries of my privacy and proved that some form of stalking and/or tabs were

being kept on me. I previously mentioned in prior filings about issues with mail and

post office visits and to have my personal address mentioned during a live

broadcasting where millions of viewers watch without my consent is both a violation

of federal law and other laws and statutes Not only was this personal information

spoke about but was exposed during a live airing seen by the masses; further

showing how this invasion of privacy breach has intruded my personal life and also

exhibiting how this television platform is used to disburse private facts and other

information without consent to the masses, causing unwarranted exposure and a

negative impact on one's personal life. Espn caters to millions of viewers on a daily

and weekly basis; I have observed personal information and/or direct and indirect

comments and conversations regarding my person implemented into shows and live

airing of sporting events ranging from NFL,NBA,Hockey interviews and interaction,

halftime shows, sports analyst talk shows etc.

Often During the months of October of 2021 through January of 2022 I would

watch a television show or movie through an app such as Hulu(one of Disney’s

apps), netflix,Peacock or tubi and those actors would appear as guests on talk shows

or on late night shows which further indicated that my viewing data was being

monitored and tracked, this happened on a few different occasions where movie stars

would appear knowing that I had watched their show or movies. Also while utilizing

the respondent The Walt Disney company Hulu app, there would be instances where

I would be attempting to view a movie and it would instantly be blocked or the app

would crash and I would have to reboot the television and that particular show or

movie would no longer be available to watch. This would also happen in instances

where I would be browsing shows and movies and watch a few trailers for selection

and I would go back in attempts to find this particular movie or show and it would be

gone. In doing so these selections would be switched out for alternative customized

options that either implemented the likeness of my person or certain scenarios or

have a hidden message in show/movie titles. After having watched different movies

or shows through apps, while tuning into talk shows the host would say things like “/

thought you ’d like that” or talk around or make reference to different reactions or

things that were seen. During September 2023 viewings of ABC news around the

time of the 75 year anniversary I tuned into the evening news and observed The

weather man while giving the evening forecast making comments regarding suits,

stating “There only 3 left, I believe we can do it” this was in regards to the case that

were all being dismissed and the remaining that they were working

to figure out a way to get closed. Recently during this time all the nightly talk shows

had stopped doing live airing and were running reruns of 2021 and 2022 segments to

create a sense of delusion or make it seem as if I were making up things that had

happened. During this time A careful planning of scheduling was orchestrated to

make sure that things would be controlled or staged, such as certain viewing options

on television. As stated before that the stalking and monitoring of my daily habits are

being studied, these findings and information is then used to orchestrate, predict and

manipulate outcome. For instance, by studying my schedule the respondent was able

In one instance while tuning into a sports broadcast it was stated “Control what we

can”. For instance Late night shows stopped airing live segments and began airing

reruns of shows, during this time I had yet again had issues with securing

employment with the desired schedule. In mid September I finally was able to obtain

employment working a night shift. During the first week of employment Tuesday

September 26,203 While on lunch break around midnight Espn was on the break

room television and I observed the 2 female analysts acknowledge they could see

me, along with this there were also other coworkers in the breakroom that in some

form also acknowledged they were aware of the viewing of my person. On

September 27,2023 this case green v. The Walt Disney company was dismissed as

frivolous. A few days later after viewing the days that I entered for break and

monitoring when I got off. October 2023 the late night shows on networks

mentioned in filings began airing live segments of their shows again, It was also

hinted at and stated while tuning into the evening news of fox4 on a night off that I

had obtained new employment and the status of insurance etc. this is one of

numerous ways organized plots have been devised and used to control the outcome

in the respondents favor, further showing signs of corrupt intent and racketeer

influenced acts. With this new schedule I would be also unavailable to tune into

shows like Dancing with the stars that had just begun airing in October which was

also mentioned in this suit for incidents back in 2021 as well as other shows airing

such as ,the chase, ABC News etc. further confirming what was stated by the Male

meteorologist on ABC evening news. Also during this time there had been several

calculated acts staged to deceive and cast an illusion of my person publicly. Also

during this time a lady weather anchor with ABC news also made comments

regarding my person and to acknowledge I was viewing as well. Also on 2023 show

“The Chase” while viewing, there were also indirect comments and things

implemented into game show questions that hinted at my person.

II. The United States Court of Appeals ninth Circuit Ruled

the Case be dismissed as frivolous.

Frivolous

adjective

1. Unworthy of serious attention; trivial.

2. Inappropriately silly.

3. Of little weight or importance; not worth notice; slight.

-1 ask the courts how after 3 years and numerous complaints, all pertaining

to similar and relative issues; These issues being openly spoken about and

broadcasted on several major networks with acknowledgement of

validation is this case not worthy of attention. Has the petitioner not given

fiscalfactual evidence proving without doubt I have been targeted? Am I

excludedfrom constitutional rights or rights to privacy? I ask the courts;

Are these not crimes Written into law? Isn't using legal company

resources and capabilities intendedfor purposes of legitimate professional

business practices for illegal activity/intent a form of organized crime or

corrupt intent in its various forms?

What is electronic surveillance?

Electronic surveillance is a broad term used to describe when

someone watches another person’s actions or monitors a person’s

conversations without his/her

knowledge or consent by using one or more electronic devices or

platforms. In a relationship where there is domestic violence or

stalking, an abuser may use recording and surveillance technology to

“keep tabs” on you (the victim) by monitoring your whereabouts and

conversations. The motive for using

electronic surveillance may be to maintain power and control over you,

to make it hard for you to have any privacy or a life separate from the

abuser, and/or to try to discover (and stop) any plans you may be making

to leave the abuser. Electronic

surveillance can be done by misusing cameras, recorders, wiretaps,

social media, or email. It can also include the misuse of monitoring

software (also known as spyware), which can be installed on a computer,

tablet, or a smartphone to secretly monitor the device activity without the

user’s knowledge. Spyware can allow the abusive person access to

everything on the phone, as well as the ability to

intercept and listen in on phone calls.

If the person is not part of the activity or conversation:There are

several criminal laws that address the act of listening in on a private

conversation,

electronically recording a person’s conversation, or videotaping a person’s

activities. The names of these laws vary across the country, but they often

include

wiretap, voyeurism, interception, and other recording laws.

When deciding which law(s) may apply to your situation, this may

often depend on the

circumstances of the surveillance and whether you had a “reasonable

expectation of privacy” while the abuser recorded or observed you.

Legally, a reasonable

expectation of privacy exists when you are in a situation where an

average person would expect to not be seen or spied on.l For example, a

person in certain public places such as in a football stadium or on a main

street may not reasonably have an expectation of privacy, but a person in

his/her bedroom or in a public restroom stall generally would.

lSee Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (noting that “what a

person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or

office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But

what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to

the public, may be

constitutionally protected.”)

INVASION OF PRIVACY / VOYEURISM

Invasion of privacy laws can apply to situations where an abuser misuses

technology, such as a surveillance device, in order to observe, monitor, or record

your personal or private activities. This may include taking nude or

partially nude photos or videos without your consent. It can also include

when an intimate partner

secretly videotapes sexual acts without the consent of his/her partner.

Voyeurism refers to the act of spying on someone for sexual pleasure.

Voyeurism does not always include videotaping or the use of electronic

devices (it may apply to physically spying on someone), but the act of

videotaping your sexual activity (or nudity) without your consent and

knowledge could fall under the crime of

voyeurism if there is no “invasion of privacy” law in your state.

• On several occasions during the 2022 NFL season sports anchors would

make references to my person while live on air in regards to me

showering etc. or make indirect comments towards private areas,

hinting that my bathing habits were also being monitored.

What is spyware?

Spyware is monitoring software that can be used to secretly monitor

a device’s activity

without the user’s knowledge. Spyware can be installed on a:

• computer;

• tablet;

• smartphone; or

• other devices.

Spyware can allow an abuser access to everything on your device, as

well as the ability to record and listen in on phone calls or other

communications. Spyware software may be hidden on a device, and

generally does not give a notification that the software has been installed

or is in use. It can be hard to find spyware once it is installed and also hard to

remove from a device.

• From 2020 up to and throughout the present year of2023 it was and has been

acknowledged on numerous occasions and shown in several instances that these methods

were used by The Respondent The Walt disney Company and it s counterparts either

through assisting in the act of, participating and or encouraging its viewing network to

engage in these activities.

• It is also shown how these methods were used while using public library

computers (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.

schweitzer Brentwood branch library USCA 22-1906).

• It was also shown how these methods were used to

control, intercept, interrupt and disconnect mobile services as well. During this whole

ordeal to date; I have had 4 mobile Phones, laptops and a tablet compromised in addition

to the monitoring of my browsing activity while using Public library computers.

Sec. 250.45

Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree

A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second

degree when: 1. For his or her own, or another person's

amusement,

entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a

person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the

utilization or

installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a

person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate

parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a

reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or

consent;

• The petitioner stated on several occasions that the surveillance and monitoring

of his person was non consensual and that he was “Not Ok with this” and

unaware of this breach, once finding out did everything within his Power to

alert and stop this incident consistently from 2020 to present 2023.

2. For his or her own, or another individual's amusement,

entertainment, profit, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the

purpose of degrading or abusing a person, the actor intentionally uses

or installs or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging

device to surreptitiously view, broadcast, or record such person in an

identifiable manner:

- For the purposes of this subdivision, when a person uses or installs, or

permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device in a

bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet,

bathroom, washroom, shower

or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a hotel, motel or inn,

there is a rebuttable presumption that such person did so for no

91

legitimate Purpose; or Without the knowledge or consent of a

person,

- at a place and time when such person has a reasonable

expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or

consent.

Unlawful surveillance in the second degree is a class E felony

• Methods ofsurveillance were used in many ways for exploitation

purposes, as well as amusement and defamation. Throughout the

course of this issue it has been shown how The respondent and its

counterparts used surveillance footage to harass, humiliate and

entertain its viewing audience as well as predict the appellants future

endeavors in hopes to derail and/or control.

• These findings were also used to inspire show criteria and

the creation and innovation of new revenue streams such as new shows and ideas

spainingfrom movies,shows, health innovation, implemented into the marketing

and advertising of products

leading to unjust enrichment etc..

Non-consensual monitoring and surveillance of someone

-Installation of Viewing Device

• This element means that you either physically installed a viewing device yourself, or

had someone install a viewing device on your behalf A key part of this element is that

you installed this viewing device without providing notice or obtaining the consent of the

viewer or recorded person.

- This method of concealed surveillance, monitoring and data

tracking was unknown to the petitioner until television personnel alerted the

petitioner of this matter showing that this was unknown and non consensual. The

petitioner made several attempts to alert networks/broadcasters of the monetary

issue and was ignored and the problem was neglected. The petitioner also reached

out to consumer affairs regarding the monitoring and data problem and still saw no

resolution. In 2022 the appellant reached out personally to the

Respondent The Walt disney company and still received no response.

-The respondent The Walt Disney company was aware of multiple viewing devices

that were used to surveil and monitor the petitioner including in private dwelling

place(s) including surveillance methods through television electronic

capabilities and neglected to address such issues even after being notified by the

petitioner personally as well as through legal

proceedings; The respondent and it’s counterpart having knowledge

of these claims denied involvement and openly stated the

petitioner falsely exaggerated allegations.

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.

- While acknowledging monitoring capabilities through

television. As the petitioner was inbetween living spaces in 2021

and moved between different residences in 2022 it was

acknowledged that

other forms of surveillance was being used to maintain constant

viewing of his person and daily habits which confirm several forms

of stalking and assisted, encouraged and the participation in the act

of tracking and controlling one's movement without consent for

ulterior motives.

Viewing the sexual/intimate areas of a person

• This element means that the viewing or recording device was

set up in a place where people would be undressing and/or engaging in

0%

sexual acts with the assumption of privacy. It is important to note that it

does not matter why the viewing or recording device was set up, or what

motivated the person viewing or recording the footage.

- Throughout the course of this ordeal there were mentions of actions

done while bathing or in the bathroom of my dwelling place. Which also

confirms that some form of surveillance was in this area as well. Which

also indicated invasion of privacy violations. This also was true for

instances in the petitioners bedroom

as well.

Reasonable Privacy

• The definition ofElement 3 is the installation of the viewing device in a place

where the viewer or recorded person had a reasonable expectation ofprivacy.

• This element means that the viewing or recording device was set up in a

place where the recorded person felt that they could undress privately. This

includes private residences, but also places that are generally expected to be

private, such as bathrooms

and changing rooms.

S 250.55, which covers the dissemination of an unlawful

surveillance image in the second degree. This covers intentionally

distributing an image that was obtained through unlawful surveillance,

as defined above.

S 250.60 It applies to anyone who is convicted of disseminating

unlawful surveillance images more than once in a ten year period.

This applies to any time an image or video that was knowingly

obtained through

unlawful surveillance changes hands between two or more people. Any

time you share, post, or otherwise spread the image, and you are liable

for the dissemination of unlawful surveillance images.

Eavesdropping

-The definition of eavesdropping is intentionally overhearing or

recording a conversation without consent, by means of a

mechanical device.

Eavesdropping means any time that you intentionally access a private

conversation between two or more people. This can mean the interception

of electronic communications, like emails, texts, or phone calls, but it can

also refer to recording conversations two people have in person with a

reasonable expectation of privacy.

• Since 2020 up to the present year of2023, there has been a constant and

gradual chain of events that show that several methods were used to carry out the

act of eavesdropping. It was stated on numerous occasions that the monitoring of

my person has been occurring unknowingly for an additional 10-12 years.

Through this malfunction the respondent has enabled it s staf to carry out

countless acts of malice that has undoubtedly af ected and in many ways impacted

and altered the course of my life.

• On countless occasions tv personnel openly exhibited how numerous

methods of eavesdropping were executed while taking advantage of this

neglected television malfunction. Through this monetary method tv personnel

were able to openly view the respondents personal life at their leisure, openly

broadcast these personalfindings to multiple viewing networks, openly

intrude on private matters by encouraging scenarios, recommending and

insisting actions. Through this electronic error the petitioner was individually

targeted, controlled and eavesdropping and spyware were used to gather

insight and avoid recourse. Through this, unlimited access which has

accumulated profit in numerous ways and has been used to manipulate

outcomes in their favor and gradually gain and obtain electronic control

through study trial and error.

• Since 2020 up to the present year 2023, the respondent the Walt disney

company and its counterparts have assisted, participated as well as encouraged the

act ofEavesdropping in numerous various scenarios. This has been shown by

distributing illegally gathered information throughout its viewing

audiences/network through direct communication, repeating verbatim specific

incidents, show criteria and data transmissions.

• This information was shown to be usedfor intentional malice towards the petitioner

and to manipulate outcomes in the respondents favor.

Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree

-Aggravated harassment in the second degree is communicating with

the intent to threaten, to such an extent that another person would

reasonably fear for their 19 safety, the safety of their property, or the safety

of their family members.

-In this context, aggravated harassment could be charged if an

image obtained through unlawful surveillance is used to threaten harm.

This could include

threatening the livelihood of a person.

• For over 3 years non consensually the petitioner has endured tv

personalities openly viewing his person in real time, mocking, jokes, violations of

the privacy in the sanctity of his own home, the gathering and collection of his

daily habits which has caused tremendous hardship in everyday things such as

shopping, stable employment, constant compromises to social media,mobile

devices andfinancials, numerous retaliation acts, the constant ridicule from

networkfollowings for attempting to pursue legal recourse to resolve this issue

that has been concealed and hidden. Through this manufacturing error this

ongoing surveillance has also af ected health, relationships, family matters, social

stature, business and career.

• The respondent The wait Disney company and its counterparts held

discussions about projected and preplanned expiration dates in regards to my

person while live on air. While exhibiting other abusive behavior and harassing

misconduct such as scenarios or hints at methods and plots of retaliation. •

This harassment also included af ectingfinancial standings through

orchestration of interruption in employment, causing financial strain

and potential loss of opportunity or endeavors.

• The harassment I endured also af ected my mental and emotional

health

• Also by disconnecting me from local viewing programs in

attempts to cover up actions instead of addressing incidents, made me

feel single out and purposely targeted.

• By the respondent participating and encouraging the act of

monitoring shopping and culinary choices placed strain on my

physical health and causedfood safety issues which ultimately

deprived me ofproper nutrition due to limitations and controlling

food choices in my shopping area. This ordeal proved to be time

consuming, aided in encouraging the act ofprice gouging, the

manipulation of or limited shopping options as a form of

sovereignty.

(REF. 18 U.S. Code § 1038 - False information and hoaxes)

. (b) Civil Action.—Whoever engages in

any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading

information under circumstances where such information may

reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that

an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would

constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39, 40, 44, 111, or

113B of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954

(42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 46502, the second sentence of

section 46504, section 46505 (b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if

homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b)

of title 49 is liable in a civil action to any party incurring

expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to

that conduct, for those expenses.

(c) Reimbursement.—

(1) In general.—The court, in imposing a sentence on a defendant who has

been convicted of an of ense under subsection (a), shall order

the defendant to reimburse any state or local government, or

private not-for-profit organization that provides fire or rescue

service incurring expenses incident to any emergency or

investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses. (2)

Liability.—A person ordered to make reimbursement under this

subsection shall be jointly and severally liable for such

expenses with each other person, if any, who is ordered to make

reimbursement under this subsection for the same expenses.

(3) Civil judgment.—An order of reimbursement under this

subsection shall, for the purposes of enforcement, be treated

as a civiljudgment.

Unethical human experimentation

• Counterparts of the respondent The Walt disney Company would often mention

several forms ofgenetic modification.

• It is shown how the monitoring of the petitioner's shopping and

culinary choices led to issues with food safety which af ected specific

areas of his body. While enduring these hardships it was shown to be

acknowledged by Employees of the respondent The Walt disney Company

while live on air that it was happening by mentions offood or areas of the

body or actions. These food safety occurrences were also documented

through state health complaint portals. By the careful monitoring and

studying ofshopping choices it was shown how this data was then used to

predict and control/limit the petitioner's diet.

Impactful Cases

There are several impactful cases when it comes to unlawful surveillance.

• In 2007, Peter Barta, a public defender at the Legal Aid Society,

was charged with taking video footage of his female coworkers while they

were undressing. He was ultimately convicted of the felony charge

(unlawful surveillance in the second degree) and disbarred.

• Another high-profile case happened in 2013. Colgate University

student Michael J. Piznarski had a sexual encounter with a woman

which he secretly recorded. He then threatened to publicly release the

recording if the woman didn’t have sex with him again. Ultimately, she

relented, and he secretly recorded that encounter as well. The woman

went to the police, and an investigation and trial proceeded. Piznarski

was convicted, among other things, of two counts of unlawful

surveillance in the second degree. He was sentenced to 1-3 years in

prison and permanently placed on the sex offender registry.

• The respondent denied claims and stated that there was a contract

that made the monitoring and exploitation of my person permissible.

In this suit I clearly show that I did not give consent nor did I enter

into any form of agreement with the respondent. Even after

contacting consumer af airs

as well as the respondent personally these actions still continued without being

addressed. It was even stated that “Control What we can control”.

Further showing the respondent The Walt disney Company s negligence, corrupt intent,

racketeer influenced acts and malice

Reasons For Granting the Writ

The court should grant Writ of Certiorari in this case because Paramount

abused its media power by using unconventional

methods within its network to carry out organized plots and

racketeer influenced acts.

The court should grant review in this case to oversee lawful

integrity, examine factual findings that further exhibit a collective working in

regards to relative cases regarding similar incidents.

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 nor

any of its counterparts of partnerships neglected to come forth to acknowledge the

situation or work to end this electronic breach,With no response to complaints from

The petitioner nor attempts to find a way to end the surveillance and correct

behavior, these

neglected actions have led to escalated matters that the respondent the wait Disney

Company can now not control which is why they are in fact liable. The United

States court of appeals for the ninth

circuit ruled on September 27, 2023 that appeal 23-55358 Green v. The Walt

Disney company 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 appellant as well as other ulterior motives such

as using television electronic capabilities as well as taking advantage of other

surveillance vulnerabilities to aid in the concealed act of racketeering, exploitation,

defamation of one's

character etc. No contractual agreement was made between the

petitioner and the respondent, nor was there any form of

compensation for the time (3 years and counting) the appellant has 32

endured this; Whereas employees of the respondent Paramount are

compensated for their 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 by the respondent The Walt

Disney company for entertainment purposes. Actions committed by

staff of the respondent The Walt Disney Company violated both

company policies as well as laws, statutes and network regulations.

By unconventionally using data and spyware capabilities the

appellee violates several privacy laws and constitutional rights.

Without having a formal proceeding, and solely basing a final

decision on briefs and documents submitted by the petitioner,

enables the ability to prevent the respondent The Walt Disney

Company from having to take responsibility and confirm facts

and/or examine the integrity of its company and staff pertaining to

rules of professional conduct. 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. Since the year 2020 it has

been described how methods have been used to derail and control

career and financial advancement. While it has been shown and

proven that the respondent The wait disney company knowingly

took advantage of spyware and data hacking methods that has

resulted in hardship, pain and suffering towards the petitioner and

furthermore has been exploited through television content while all

allegations have been denied and made out to be frivolous. While

the docket entries show several submissions from the appellant,

The case has been decided without the courts even requesting a

response to the argument presented towards the respondent The

Walt disney Company. Though subpoenas were issued for review of

many entertainment segments where said incidents occurred in the

instance allegations were denied as standard cause for investigative

examination/due cause (under rule 11); The petitioner has laid a

basis for factual incidents and laws violated, even if the appellant

fails to correctly state the precise laws, rules and statutes violated

but gives sufficient accounts of incidents that due in fact violate

rules,regulations,laws and statutes regarding such matters; Is it not

the courts duty or give valid reason to acknowledge laws that are

33

violated based on the jurisdiction of the subject matter?(rule 2.2)

(Fed.R.civilProc. 12(b)(1) Through the constant invasion and

intrusion of the respondents privacy, the respondent The Walt

Disney Company has exhibited acts of sovereignty, unlawful

Surveillance, voyeurism, eavesdropping,exploitation, malice and

the participation in racketeering influenced acts and other corrupt

intent.

Relief

Injunctive Relief in the amount of $175,000,000.00

• Pain and suffering

• Theft of intellectual property

• Eavesdropping, use of spyware and and other monetary actions

• Encouraging the act of stalking

• Intrusion of privacy

• Compromising personal and business affairs leading to leaked trade

secrets, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment.

• Voyeurism

• Abuse of power

• Professional misconduct

• Harassment

• Malice

• Violation of the privacy consumer act

• Violation of the electronic data act

• Violation of the consumer data act

• Exploitation

• Racketeer influenced activity

• Abusive misconduct

• Mental abuse and emotional distress

• Defamation and assassination of one's character

• retaliation

• The petitioner Request a written and signed apology from the

respondentThe Walt disney company and all its counterparts involved.

• Unjust Enrichment

Conclusion

The petitioner Courtney Green respectfully asks that the court issue a

Writ of 31 Certiorari in United States Court of Appeals case 23-55358

Green v. The Walt Disney company.

Respectfully Submitted,

Courtney Green

Petitioner

P.o. Box 22444

Kansas City, Mo 64113

-3