Dewayne Bulls v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.

Constitutional Validity of FISA Warrants Obtained Through Systematic Perjury and Evidence Fabrication Whether this nation will tolerate FISA warrants built on a foundation of lies—where federal agents deliberately violated 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)'s sacred oath requirement and sworn statement of facts mandate by knowingly submitting perjured affidavits fabricating 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) use the eve FISA was to expire, contradicted by over 90 consecutive negative drug tests that prove their deception, systematically violated § 1804(a)(12)'s certification requirement through reckless disregard for exculpatory evidence that would expose their crimes, and engaged in a 30-count criminal conspiracy under FISC to renew FISA warrants through evidence fabrication including the Pittsburgh FBI's unconscionable chemical substitution of non-scheduled hygiene and food additives for 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine molecular components as substitutions for MDMA under 18 U.S.C. § 1519—and whether such government lawlessness can ever satisfy the Fourth Amendment and due process demands that Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), require of a government that claims to serve justice.

Separation of Powers Violations and Executive Accountability Under FISA Whether the government's brazen orchestration of a systematic criminal conspiracy against American justice—including The Pittsburgh FBI's impersonation and forgeries under the banner of Justice of Article III courts through fraudulent judicial decisions pertaining to the petitioner under the banner of Justice using the deceptive magistrate and appellate court guise, also deliberate dereliction by Amicus Curiae in failing to advocate under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(4) and § 1803(1), and the transformation of FISA's congressionally designed civil liberties protections into a mechanism for constitutional evasion—represents the kind of lawless government tyranny that this Court was established to stop, constitutes such a profound separation-of-powers violation that it deprives petitioner of legitimate judicial review, and demands immediate Supreme Court intervention to restore the principle that no person stands above the law, particularly in light of Martin v. United States, 605 U.S. (2025).

Constitutional Limits on Secret Surveillance and Heightened Judicial Scrutiny Whether courts must finally fulfill their constitutional duty to apply heightened scrutiny when FISA surveillance stands exposed as the product of systematic constitutional violations and scientifically proven perjuries that have transformed Congress's carefully constructed safeguards—the mandatory protections of 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(4), § 1803(1), the disclosure requirements of § 1804(a)(12), and the factual foundation requirements that form the bedrock of lawful surveillance—into meaningless legislative theater through twelve years of FISA operations whose investigative cover has been definitively blown, laying bare the systematic unlawful FISA renewals designed not to protect national security but to avoid accountability for federal crimes, thus ensuring that the promise of constitutional government embodied in United States v. Daoud, 755 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2014), prevails over executive claims that national security justifies the nullification of Article injudicial authority and the complete destruction of FISA's statutory integrity through the executive nullification of the very legislative safeguards that distinguish lawful surveillance from governmental tyranny.