Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Meghan Kelly, Petitioner v. Disciplinary Counsel Patricia B. Swartz, et al.
Supreme Court briefOct 18, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 9487
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
In the Matter of a Member of the Bar of the )
Supreme Court of the state of Delaware
)
Meghan M. Kelly, respondent.
)
Supreme Ct. No. 58, 2022
Misc. 541,
Board Case No. 115327-B
Respondent’s reply to ODC’s Corrected Response to Respondent’s Objections to
the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Respondent, Meghan Kelly, pro se this June 7, 2022, files this reply,
contemporaneously, with Respondent’s Meghan Kelly’s Motion to exceed the word
limit in my Reply to ODC’s Corrected Response to Respondent’s Objections to the
Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility,
incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference, and Respondent’s Meghan
Kelly’s Motion to be excused from the notary and affirming requirements in
Delaware Court pleadings, incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference.
I
Introductory Arguments
The ODC’s factual characterizations, legal arguments by Kathleen Vavala
(“KV” or “Kathleen”), and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) asserted
below, and in the ODC’s Corrected Response to Respondent’s Objections to the
Report and Recommendation (“KV”) of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(“Board”), and the Board’s findings, in this fixed, unfair partial proceeding brought
in conspiracy by the Delaware Supreme Court, Chancery Court agents, ODC and
Board, (collectively, and individually “State”) to conceal Court agents’
1
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 9488
unconstitutional interference with the “due process” adjudication of Kelly v Trump,
and thereby in interference with my personal-religious-political-speech; personalreligious-beliefs; personal-religious-political-exercise; and personal-religiouspolitical-petitions has punished me and violated by constitutional protections by
selective disparate treatment against me, for the exercise of fundamental rights, as
a party of one, as an indigent individual with religious-political beliefs in God as
savior and the state as civil authority curbed by the first amendment from
“establishing religion.”
The State’s findings must be rejected as a matter of law as an abuse of
discretion, clearly erroneous findings of fact, an errant conclusion of law, and an
improper application of law to facts.
The hearings and actions taken against my professional license in retaliation
for my exercise of Constitutional rights are in violation of the First Amendment,
the Procedural and Substantive Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment. They must be rejected as by “rule of law” rather
than personal vendetta for my personal-religious-political speech contained in the
petitions. (US Amend I, XIV)
2
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 9489
The State denied me of substantive and procedural due process rights in this
disciplinary proceeding.1 The record shows clear and convincing evidence that the
proceedings were brought, with religious-political animus, in retaliation against me
for filing Kelly v Trump and for petitioning the court regarding bar dues to
safeguard my liberties.2
The state abused its discretion by 1. Vindicative prosecution, which
constitutes a violation of due process, and by Selective prosecution, which
constitutes a denial of equal protection.
I have a right to petition the courts when I believe a transgression has been
committed against me by the establishment of government religion by President
Trump.
I uphold my oath by requesting government agents, judges, presidents and
members of congress to adhere to rule of law by allowing me to exercise my
Constitutional rights. The steps taken to orchestrate this proceeding circumvent
due process protections and, thereby, manifest selective; targeted; unjust
persecution.
1
2
Objxn
Id.
3
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 9490
I include, restate and incorporate by this reference my Objections to the
Report, the exhibits referred therein, and the Memorandum of Law (“MOL,” at DI
31), and all arguments and points made in each and every one of these documents,
filed on May 21, 2021, are restated in this reply. DI. 26-50 (“Objxn” and “-” or “Ex-” for specific exhibits therein).
I incorporate herein in its entirety, by this reference Respondent’s Motion for
a free copy of the record of the Board and Before the Delaware Supreme Court
[(hereinafter also referred to as, “Court”)], which is required for Appeal, filed on
May 10, 2022. D.I. 55-56.
I incorporate herein in its entirety by this reference Respondent’s Motion for
an extension of Time under Rule 15(b)(i) and (iii), filed on May 16, 2022. DI 6272.
II.
Background: The Court made insidious attacks, through its arms
and agents in retaliation for my exercise of fundamental rights in petitioning
the Court in Kelly v Trump, to interfere with, and affect the outcome, and
sought to conceal such attacks by eliminating witnesses participating in the
attacks, eliminating pleadings, and eliminating me by defaming my character,
as not credible, disabled.
4
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 9491
The State brought this petition against me to conceal state misconduct, and
to retaliate against me for the exercise of Constitutionally protected activity based
on disdain towards me for my religious-political-beliefs, poverty, and to conceal
Court agents’ misconduct.3
I filed a RFRA lawsuit against President Trump seeking to dissolve the
establishment of government-religion to alleviate a substantial burden upon my
free exercise of religious beliefs, without government incited persecution as a
Christian, Catholic, Democrat, living in Trump territory, in Sussex County,
Delaware.4
I do not believe my former law firm would have hired me back if I sued the
popular president. So, I put off seeking to rejoin my former real estate settlement
law firm, in order to safeguard my free exercise of religious beliefs without
government incited private economic, social or physical persecution. 5
Since, I was not working for pay, I petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court
for relief from attorney dues for all lawyers facing economic hardship or
unemployed during the global pandemic.6 My request was not granted. Id.
3 (ObjxA-H-2, N, including internal exhibits, P, including internal exhibits, K-including internal
exhibits, DI 62-72); MOL.
4
. (Objxn-A, DI 62-72, Ex-C)
5 (DI 62-72, Internal-Exhibit C, which includes pleadings in Kelly v Trump, Objxn-E)
6
(Objxn-E-F, K-internal exhibits 20-24)
5
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 9492
I had planned on rejoining my former law firm, after Kelly v Trump was
complete. However, I decided to hold off until the conclusion of the disciplinary
proceeding granting me my active law license. I halted communications with my
potential employer around August of 2021. I believe I emailed the last
communication with my potential employer to Disciplinary Counsel Patricia
Swartz, in response to her questions on the date of the hearing.
The State seeks to compel me into permanent poverty by demeaning my
reputation as disabled by wrongly bringing this disciplinary proceeding against me
for my religious-political speech contained in my petitions.
Nothing was normal during Kelly v Trump. Court staff appeared to seek to
sabotage my case, based on my political-religious beliefs and/or indigency, by 1.
misleading me to almost miss my deadline to appeal, 2. Appearing to disparage me
based on religious-political beliefs or/and poverty, 3. instructing me to write off the
Attorney General’s address, which impeded service, and 4. By writing on a
praecipe, causing confusion, and needless pleadings.7
To worsen matters, the Delaware Supreme Court appeared to cause its arms
to attack me to get me to forgo my lawsuit. 8 DE-Lapp’s letter indicated the relief
requested from the DE Supreme Court, relating to bar dues, as the source of its
7
(Objxn-B-D, K-internal-exhibits-2-7, 27-29, DI 62-72.
8 DI 62-72, Objxn-E-G, K-internal Ex-20-26-29.
6
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 9493
interference with my law suit. Id. (Exhibit A, B, C) The Clerk of Court
confirmed the entire court reviewed my petitions relating to attorney dues,
evidencing the entire Court incited the interference in Kelly v Trump.
Further, Sussex Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth S. Clark,
interrogated me at the arms of the court’s request in public at BJ’s, located in
Millsboro. He demanded I come to his chambers for filing Kelly v Trump to
obstruct, impede or cause me to forgo my lawsuit. Id.
Other parties are not threatened by Court agents wearing the cloak of
government authority to obstruct, impede or cause claimants to forgo cases whose
religious-political beliefs they disagree with. Minorities like myself, whose
religious-political beliefs do not conform to the mainstream are still afforded
Constitutional protections for exercise of fundamental rights relating to their
diverse, tightly held religious-political beliefs, including speech defending such
rights in petitions.9
I petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court concerning the disparate treatment.
The Delaware supreme Court ruled my case was frivolous, and indicated my
petitions relating to disparate treatment need not be addressed.
9
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644
7
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 9494
The Court’s disagreement with my religious beliefs is an impermissible
reason to deem me disabled. “Courts have no business addressing whether
sincerely held religious beliefs asserted in a RFRA case, [including mine] are
reasonable.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 682. The
government may not determine what is and what is not an acceptable religious
belief.10 My God is the arbiter of my life, regarding religious beliefs, not the
government, even when the government deems my religious beliefs wrong or a
disability.
The Courts misguided conclusion that my case is frivolous is not a
permissible reason to deem me disabled. Other lawyers have their cases and their
clients’ cases kicked out as frivolous and they are not disciplined or deemed a
danger to society. My religious-political beliefs is the ODC’s admitted reason for
their claim for disability and for disciplining me. (Exhibits E, F)
On August 23, 2021, the ODC sent me a threatening letter by email,
interfering with my active case, but for my petitions, before I appealed the
Delaware Supreme Court’s decision to the United States Supreme Court, admitting
my Delaware Supreme Court and Chancery Court religious-political pleadings, as
10 Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 887, 110 S. Ct.
1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990). (“the First Amendment forbids civil courts from” interpreting
“particular church doctrines” and determining “the importance of those doctrines to the
religion.”)
8
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 9495
the reason for their attack.11 (Exhibit E). The ODC’s attack was
“unconstitutional on its face and as applied.” Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d
118, 122 (3d Cir. 2005). Should they have any legitimate concerns, which the
record shows none, the ODC should not have interfered with my First Amendment
exercise of petitioning the courts, to affect the outcome or pressure me to forgo the
case, in violation of US Amend I and XIV. Id. at 125-126.
On October 25, 2021, I filed a lawsuit to enjoin the ODC for retaliating
against me for exercising fundamental rights, and for damages for emotional
relief.12 On November 1, 2021 the US Supreme Court denied my writ of
certiorari.13
On November 4, 2021, Delaware Supreme Court sealed my Delaware
Supreme Court petitions in Kelly v Trump relating to disparate treatment, without
notice and an opportunity for me, a party to be heard, and without valid cause. 14
I did not have access to the sealed documents, through public record, nor did
the ODC, the public, or the federal courts, which prejudiced me to the benefit of
the State. 15 Third Circuit Judge Bright’s, concurring in part and dissenting in part
11
Objxn-K-Internal-Ex-5-7.
Objxn-H
13
Objn-K-Ex-1.
14
(DI 62-72)
15
(N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. United States, 836 F.3d 421, 434 (3d Cir. 2016), “We have
previously recognized a right of access to judicial proceedings and judicial records, and this right
12
9
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 9496
in U.S. v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 221, 226 (3d Cir. 2007) indicated sealing
documents without notice or opportunity for a party to be heard without valid
reason was enough to remove a judge from a case.
In my case the Delaware Supreme Court, sua sponte, sealed documents to
assist the ODC’s prosecution of me by concealing relevant material to my defense,
evidencing the entire court’s apparent bias against me and the Court’s partiality to
the state.
“When a court considers the imposition of a seal, it must make particularized
findings on the record, giving notice on the docket of such consideration and
rejecting alternatives to closure.” U.S. v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 224 (3d Cir. 2007);
See United States v. Criden, 675 F.2d 550, 560 (3d Cir.1982).
In my case, the Delaware Supreme Court did not make any such findings,
and clearly sealed the four docket items in Kelly v Trump, Delaware Supreme
Court No 119, 2021, DI 16, 21, 40, 41, to benefit the government to my detriment,
showing clear prejudice against me, in violation of the procedural and substantive
of access is beyond dispute.” Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 780-81 (3d Cir.
1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (recognizing that, in the context of criminal
proceedings, the press has a historically-based, common law right of access to judicial records
and documents). That right is rooted in common law and predates the Constitution. Bank of Am.
Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1986).
10
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 9497
due process clause applicable to the state pursuant to the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.
Nothing was normal in Kelly v Trump. The State and ODC attacked and
retaliated against me for my religious-political speech contained in my petitions,
reflecting my religious-political beliefs.16 The State has a history of ignoring my
religious-political petitions, disparately treating me based on religious view point.
17
This is not the first time, the State through its arm has retaliated against me
for its own lawless lusts, convenience, at the exchange of sacrificing Constitutional
liberties, including the right to petition. Objxn-D, H, at paragraphs 277-299. I lost
more than two million dollars in expected income, but for, the retaliation by the
arms of the Court, for petitioning the State through its arms or the Court regarding
concerns while taking the Delaware Bar. Id.
III.
The Board and Court’s violations of substantive and Procedural
Due Process in Disciplinary Matter eliminate subject matter jurisdiction and
make their judgments void as a matter of law
16
. Objxn-Ex B-H2, K
17 MOL Objxn-Ex-H, Objxn-Ex-N-internal-exhibits 1, 2to Exhibit 6, 3 to exhibit 6, 4 to exhibit
6, 5 to exhibit 6, 6 to exhibit 6, 8 to exhibit 6, Exhibit 7-9.
11
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 9498
Nothing was normal in my disciplinary case either. I was not treated like
other lawyers or other plaintiffs. I was disparately treated based on my poverty,
and personal-religious-political beliefs, as a party of one, and was selectively
punished for exercise of Constitutional liberties. 18
The State in bad faith prevented and obstructed discovery, to conceal
witnesses were removed from the Chancery Court to impede their testimony from
aiding in my defense, and to conceal relevant records were sealed by the Court to
favor the ODC.19 The United States Supreme Court held, "the suppression by the
prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process
where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." Moran v. Burbine,
475 U.S. 412, 466 (1986). Concealing the fact two witnesses were removed from
the Chancery Court to prevent their favorable testimony in my defense, and
government concealing of petitions favorable to my defense, violates my Due
Process rights to a fair proceeding, by bias towards the State.
The Board’s findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence and
should not be adopted. The record shows substantial evidence the Board was
objectively biased towards the ODC, not fair, and prejudiced against me. The
18
Objxn-K- 8-9, FF, GG, D.I. 55-56.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985);
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972).” Moran v.
Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 467 n.59 (1986)
19
12
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 9499
Board denied me of basic Equal protection, procedural and substantive due process
rights afforded to similarly situated respondents based on disdain for my religiouspolitical-exercise of fundamental rights and poverty. US Amend I and XIV. I was
denied an opportunity to be heard, to prepare and present my case, denied adequate
time to perform discovery, denied adequate notice which I at no time waived.20
The Board gave me 18 days, when the DLRDP Rule 9(d)(3) required, they provide
me with notice “at least 20 days in advance of the hearing date,” which prejudiced
me. Id. The Board denied me of an opportunity to subpoena and cross examine
witnesses with first-hand knowledge, to conceal the fact the State eliminated two
potential witnesses from the court. Id.
The state rushed the proceeding and intentionally caused foreseeable
emotional distress, in hopes to make me physically ill to use it against me, like
heartless monsters. Id.
I at no time sat on my rights, but fought for my life and liberty to worship
God through the practice of law, and as a citizen without government persecution
but for my exercise of fundamental rights. Id.
The state denied my 1st and 6th Amendment rights, applicable to the state
via the 14th Amendment, to represent myself at the inception, causing me to file
20
Objxn, Ex-M-P-Q-R-R-1-S-T-U-U2-V-W-X-AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF-GG-HH, DI 55-56
13
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 9500
pleadings.21 The Board ignored, and did not address my motions objecting to
insufficient notice, by its failure to provide at least 20 days-notice of the hearing,
as required by the rules of Disciplinary procedure, Rule 9, which prejudiced my
case, motivated by their animosity towards my religious-political beliefs and
exercise. Objxn-Ex-M,N, W. I filed objections to the appointment of Counsel,
moved for opportunity to perform discovery and postpone the hearing until fair
reasonable due process was granted in a motion dated, December 18, 2022. That
was ignored. Objxn-Ex-N-M-N-O-P. On December 29, 2021, I filed a letter with
the Court requesting relief since the hearing was two weeks away, and I had not
even been granted 6th Amendment permission to represent myself to perform
discovery or prepare, at the time. Objxn-Ex-P.
It was not until December 30, 2022, the Court granted me the right to selfrepresent, less than 13 full days before the hearing, with no opportunity to prepare
my defense of religious-political petitions, speech, association, beliefs against state
persecution, but for my belief in Jesus. Ex-P-2.
I was so physically and emotionally exhausted that I fell ill with the
shingles. After the reprieve, the small battle of self-representation won, I noticed
Obxn-Ex-N. Mark 13:11 “Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not prepare
beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you
speaking, but the Holy Spirit.”
21
14
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 9501
my rash, pain, lethargy and weakness. Yet, I filed a motion the next day, that was
ignored by the Board dated December 31, 2021, to prevent medical and mental
examinations, dated December 31, 2021, Ex-Q, and another one dated on or about
January 31, 2022, incorporated herein, Ex-X. Physical and mental examinations
are against my religious beliefs, and the Court must not maliciously violate my
religious beliefs in bad faith.
I followed up with the Board numerous times on the status of my motion to
perform discovery, objection to insufficient notice, and postpone the hearing so as
not to prejudice me, and at no time sat on my rights. Ex-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-R1,R-2-S-T-U-U2-V-W-X. I filed additional motions to postpone the hearing so as
not to deny me a fair reasonable opportunity to prepare and present my case,
perform discovery, cross examine witnesses. Id. I was denied basic due process
rights, and substantive due process rights, based on my religious-political exercise
of fundamental rights, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment,
motivated by the state’s disdain towards my personal religious-political beliefs,
exercise, speech and petitions demonstrating my faith in Jesus. Id.
I appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court and was denied procedural and
substantive due process rights, based on the fact the Court appeared to render a
verdict before granting me an opportunity to be heard, motivated by disdain to
discriminate me based on my religious beliefs by disparate treatment, unusual to
15
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 9502
those of other claimants before the court. Ex-R, Ex-R-1, Ex-S, Ex-T, Ex-U, Ex-U2, Ex-V.
The State ignored and denied me an opportunity to be heard on various
motions and appeals, including but not limited to pleadings dated December 18,
2021, December 31, 2022, January 13, 2022, January 15, 2022, objecting to due
process violations, moving to postpone the hearing, to call witnesses, and
objecting to the insufficient notice sent out notice 18 days prior to the scheduled
hearing. Ex-P-Q-R-R-2-S-T-U-U-2-V-W. I had no time to subpoena witnesses, or
even to discover the fact the state eliminated witnesses through terminating their
employment in the Chancery Court, and I moved the Board and the Court to grant
me time, specifically mentioning Arline Simmons as witness. I at no time waived
my insufficient notice argument.
Kathleen, did not participate in the proceeding until after the hearing took
place. Her recital of the DRPC rules to mislead the court is in vain. I was not
afforded the protections of the rules, and at no times waived my Constitutional
rights to a fair proceeding. The voluminous exhibits the Board ignored, deeming
them as irrelevant, are relevant to show in fact the Board denied me an opportunity
to be heard on the assertions and pleas contained therein, in defense of my exercise
of fundamental rights. The exhibits show I did not sit on my rights or waive them.
16
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 9503
Contrary to Kathleen’s assertion, having only been granted the right to
represent myself 13 days before the hearing date, I was not afforded with ample
time to provide a list of witnesses to call 10 days in advance of the hearing, as
required under DLRDC (12)(h) as I faced other complications including but not
limited to the lack of a phone, computer malfunctioning, the shingles, and vulture
attacks. See D.I. 55-56. I did not even discover Arline Simmons, a witness I
motioned to call, could not be served at the Chancery Court until after the hearing.
Objxn-Ex-U. I had insufficient time to effectuate discovery, as I fought to
represent myself so as not to violate my religious beliefs. The Board ignored and
indirectly denied my requests for time for an opportunity, while rendering an
informal, unappealable order in email form. Obxn-M-U2.
The hearing was postponed for 8 days, for a reason I did not assert, my
illness, which did not afford me enough time to prepare, research, perform
discovery, fully recover, or to subpoena witnesses to notice opposing counsel 10
days in advance. DLRDP (12)(h). Objxn-Ex-R-1. The Board ignored and
rendered no orders on other motions, and rendered an E-mail determination, to
obstruct formal appeal on January 18, 2022, in the fixed proceeding against me.
Objxn-Ex-U-2.
I attempted to require the Board cancel the hearing, in advance, to prevent
incurring costs as I was still not feeling well. I was so sick and exhausted and
17
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 18 of 40 PageID #: 9504
emailed the Board to cancel the hearing. I had no time to prepare, could not sleep,
and truly felt sick, but was concerned the State may think I had the plague, Covid19. Objxn-Ex-EE. I attended the hearing without being afforded an opportunity to
prepare, and present my case, call witnesses, perform discovery or even to be
human to care for my recovery because I did not want to be held in contempt. I
made a special appearance preserving my objections to improper notice, lack of
subject matter jurisdiction due to the Delaware Supreme Court’s apparent
participation in inciting the case, and to object on substantive and procedural Due
process and Equal Protections grounds for the disparate treatment against me
during the proceeding, and in inciting the proceeding. Objxn.-MOL.
The State knew I was exhausted, recovering from the shingles, lacking of
sleep, without being afforded a fair opportunity to prepare and present my case.
They did not care about me, or my personal health or my lack of a fair opportunity
to present my case for my sake. They appeared to hope I would get sick to use it
against me.
I attended the hearing by phone since I had no working computer. Objxn-ExGG, D.I. 55-56. Upon receipt of the transcript, I objected, and I object again as the
transcript does not accurately reflect my testimony. The reporter placed words that
I did not say in my mouth. Objxn-Ex-AA, BB, CC. It appeared the state set me
18
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 19 of 40 PageID #: 9505
up. I filed corrections, which in no way make the transcript completely accurate.
Id.
Kathleen, did not participate in this action until after the hearing. She relies
on the inaccurate transcript I object to, and demeans me for my lack of a working
computer and poverty, as evidence of disability. I am so poor I did not have a
phone until sometime in January 2022. My computer did not work at the time of
the hearing, and my backup computer also malfunctioned. My confusion as to why
the computer was not working was absolutely genuine, and not evidence of a
disability.
Kathleen’s bad faith, or at best ignorant, attacks display her cold heartless
indifference towards the substantial burden poverty has placed upon my defense of
exercise of fundamental rights in this case.22 “[A]t all stages of the proceedings the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses protect [indigent persons] from
invidious discriminations” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 370 (1996) “Because
this case implicates the [Constitutionally protected] right of access to the courts,”
and other fundamental rights, the government’s disparate treatment towards me,
based on poverty, is still unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny basis test. Citing,
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 n.20 (2004).23
22
23
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 317 (3d Cir. 2001);
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 370 (1996); Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 18 (1989)
19
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 20 of 40 PageID #: 9506
The Record shows the Court denied me an opportunity to be heard, until it
was too late, until violations of my First Amendment rights already occurred.
Objxn-Ex-R2, V. The Delaware Supreme Court also indicated it made a
determination on my defenses before affording me an opportunity to be heard by
deeming my claims for an opportunity to prepare and present a case, perform
discovery and call witnesses, as frivolous before their assertion, preventing a fair
and impartial opportunity to be heard at the hearing, preventing discovery,
colluding with the state in the fixed proceeding against me. Objxn-Ex-V It is
notable that both the Board and the court waited until two or three days prior to the
hearing to address any matter while ignoring motions, leaving them unanswered.
The proceeding must be dismissed as the Board and the Court both violated
my substantive and procedural due process rights in the Board proceeding in bad
faith, with objective partiality towards the government, and prejudice against me.
The Third Circuit held, “A judgment may also be void if a court "acted in a
manner inconsistent with due process of law."24
IV
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for apparently
inciting the prosecution, and concealing beneficial evidence in bad faith to
prejudice me with partiality to the government to fix the proceeding against
24
Constr. Drilling, Inc. V. Chusid, No. 03-3786, 2005 WL 1111760, at *3 (3d Cir. May 11,
2005). See Respondent’s Exhibits to the Hearing (“R-Ex”) Exhibits 35, 37 Part 2, 42, R 44
20
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 21 of 40 PageID #: 9507
me in violation of the Procedural and Substantive Due Process Clause
pursuant to the State under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
The record shows the Delaware Supreme Court through its agents
participated in inciting the proceedings against me, acting as witness, prosecutor
and judge, and by concealing evidence by 1. inciting the Court’s arms to attack me
in Kelly v Trump, and the present disciplinary proceeding, 2. collaborating with the
Chancery Court and directing Delaware Supreme Court employee Mrs. Robinson
to sign off on the departure information of one or two of the former Chancery
Court staff workers with information material to my state case, who appeared to
lose their jobs, while preventing my opportunity to perform discovery or subpoena
the two concealed witnesses, and 3, by eliminating some of the petitions for which
the Defendants allege to bring the State action against me, placing them under seal,
without notice to me a party, and without lawful reason, such as sensitive
information relating to social security or bank accounts, to cover up the Court’s
and State’s lawless acts, with knowledge these petitions are relevant to my defense
and the federal proceeding.
Eliminating truth or evidence guarantees injustice. It is my religious belief
courts exists to correct and guide those misguided by business greed, profit,
position, and power, who sacrifice the lives, health and liberty of others for
material gain, essentially selling souls to gain the world, only to lose their own
21
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 22 of 40 PageID #: 9508
eternal soul by the sin against the holy spirit, hardness of hearts from caring to
think, to know, to love others unless it affects them.
Eliminating evidence hides the truth, or diverse views, allowing only the
government-backed private partners’ and public views to be protected under the
Constitution.
The State seek to eliminate me, just as they cover up wrong doing by
eliminating witnesses, forcing them to lose their jobs, under the deception of
looking after them, only to look after the mere appearance of justice, not actual
justice, and by concealing and sealing my pleadings. The Delaware Supreme
Court justices do not care to uphold the fundamental rights of those in my class of
one, of a person with unique religious-political beliefs which do not conform to the
majority’s, the individuals within the ODC and/or the judges on the Delaware
Supreme Court.
Eliminating people who petition the Court, as “mentally disabled” for
thinking the Court would care to help someone who is poor, or who believes in
Jesus Christ or diverse political views in that I seek to care for humanity not
control them through money, is disparate treatment based on protected view point,
in violation of the Equal Protections Clause applicable to the State pursuant to the
First and Fourteenth Amendment. US Amend I, and XIV.
22
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 23 of 40 PageID #: 9509
The Delaware Supreme Court incited the State’s petition, and concealed my
religious-political petitions in bad faith with partiality towards the ODC. Joann
and the Clerk of Court at the Delaware Supreme Court admitted that the Court
sealed two motions, and Exhibits A-4, and A-5, in Kelly v Trump, relating to the
Court and its agents’ disparate treatment towards me. None of the sealed
documents contained sensitive information.25 (Exhibits F, G) This was not for my
protection or the protection of the parties, but was to cover up Court misconduct,
just as the state seeks to eliminate me to conceal government misconduct by
labeling me disabled, disparaging my reputation, to deem me not credible. 26
The Delaware Supreme Court participated in eliminating potential material
witnesses by having an agent sign off on the departure forms for two Chancery
Court employees, Arline Simmons and Katrina Kruger. The Court colluded to
conceal two people with first hand-knowledge of the facts of this case, despite my
motion to subpoena one. 27
I want the court to stop eliminating documents and witnesses, and do not
want the court to eliminate the clerk who raised her voice at me on June 2, 2022,
while confirming there was no motion to seal petitions. The court staff who yelled
25 DI 62-72
26
. Objxn-K-Ex-31 See letters of recommendation on my behalf concerning my reputation.
27
Objxn-Ex-T-U-U-2-V.
23
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 24 of 40 PageID #: 9510
at me in the Chancery Court are gone, no longer employed with the Court, and that
breaks my heart.
Covering up mistakes by eliminating those who make them is not correction
but concealment, allowing it to be ignored not lovingly corrected. The State seeks
to eliminate me to conceal its own wrongs instead of learning from them. 28
The State’s elimination of four sealed and concealed docket items and the
elimination of two material witnesses from availability through process by service
to the Chancery Court is relevant to my defense of retaliation, discriminatory
motive, discriminatory purpose, with a discriminatory outcome made to chill my
religious-political speech by demeaning my character as disabled, and threatening
my bar licensure’s status for exercising political-religious speech, contained in
petitions, or outside the petitions, which the government disagrees with, based on
religious-political viewpoint.
The Court must dismiss the Petition and Board’s recommendation because
of its own unclean hands, to uphold actual justice, not the mere marketing and
appearance of an illusion in this case. Justice is not a business. The exercise of
Constitution liberties is not for sale. Otherwise only the wealthy, well connected,
and powerful have something to exchange. Leaving the poor, including me, not
28
Objxn-MOL
24
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 25 of 40 PageID #: 9511
free, but for sale, having only our own soul to sell in exchange by indebtedness,
which violates my religious beliefs, to exercise what are not liberties, freedom of
conscience, belief, speech, association, exercise and petition.
V.
The Delaware Supreme Court lacks subject Matter Jurisdiction
for procedural and substantive due process violations in causing the petition
and for maliciously violating my due process rights during the Board
proceeding.
The Delaware Supreme Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction by its 1st and
14th Amendment substantive and procedural Due Process violations based on its
prejudicial treatment in inciting the petition, and disparate treatment during the
proceeding.
The Court disregarded my religious beliefs against appointment of counsel,
requiring I file multiple pleadings to fight against government compelled violations
against my religious beliefs.29 The Court disregarded my motion concerning the
ODC’s fraud, committed in bad faith by lying, seeking to commit fraud,
concerning receipt of my answers.30 The Record shows the Court denied me an
opportunity to be heard, until it was too late, until violations of my First
29
30
Objx-Ex-I-P-2
Objxn-Ex-L
25
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 26 of 40 PageID #: 9512
Amendment rights already occurred.31 The Delaware Supreme Court also
indicated it made a determination on my defenses before affording me an
opportunity to be heard by deeming my claims for an opportunity to prepare and
present a case, perform discovery and call witnesses, as frivolous before their
assertion, preventing a fair and impartial opportunity to be heard at the hearing,
preventing discovery, colluding with the state in the fixed proceeding against me.
It is notable that both the Board and the court waited until two days prior to the
hearing to address any matter while ignoring motions, leaving them unanswered.
VI.
The State abused its discretion by Vindictive prosecution
The record shows no legitimate objective reasons to bring the petition
against me, or to deem me disabled or a danger to the public as an attorney with an
active license to practice law. The State brought the petition against me with
animus, to cover up state lawless acts, and to punish me for my religious-political
speech and beliefs contained in my petitions.
The record does not support I am suffering from a physical or mental
condition adversely affecting my ability to represent others in the practice law. I
am reasonably and foreseeably emotionally distressed by the State’s
unconstitutional application under the color of the DLRDP, as applied to me for
31
Objxn-Ex-R, R-1, R-2, S,
26
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 27 of 40 PageID #: 9513
my exercise of religious-political speech, petitions, exercise, association and
beliefs.32
The state discriminates against me by seeking to take away my active license
to practice law based on disdain for my personal-religious-political petitions
reflecting my beliefs, speech, association and exercise, essentially persecuting me
for all these fundamental rights in violation of my substantive and procedural Due
Process rights. The ODC admits it brings this petition based on my religiouspolitical petitions per its August 23, 2021 letter and religious beliefs it finds
illogical, per the petition at number 7, is “evidence of the prosecutor's retaliatory
motive to prove actual vindictiveness.” (Exhibit D and E, attached hereto).33
The District Court held in U.S. v. Roberts, 280 F. Supp. 2d 325, 30-31 (D.
Del. 2003)
The Due Process Clause… "protects a person from being punished for
exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right." United States v.
Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 372. The Supreme Court has held that "while an
individual certainly may be penalized for violating the law, he just as
certainly may not be punished for exercising a protected statutory or
constitutional right." Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 372; Blackledge v. Perry, 417
U.S. 21, 28-9 (1974). To punish a defendant because he has done what the
State v. Holloway, 460 A.2d 976, 978 (Del. Super. Ct. 1983) “Though the law itself be fair on
its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with
an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations
between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is
still within the prohibition of the constitution.”
33 Citing, U.S. v. Reynolds, 374 F. App'x 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2010), Objxn-Ex-P-internal-ExhibitA, Ex-P-Internal-Exhibit-A-part 2, Ex-H.
32
27
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 28 of 40 PageID #: 9514
law permits is a due process violation. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. at
363; United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 457 (6th Cir. 1980); States v.
Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212, 1220 (3d Cir. 1993).
The government did not meet its burden by providing, objective legitimate
reasons for its conduct. The government's justification is pretextual. Actual
vindictiveness has occurred in my case. Id
The Third Circuit held, “it is an elementary violation of due process for a
prosecutor to engage in conduct detrimental to a … defendant for the vindictive
purpose of penalizing the defendant for exercising his constitutional right to a
trial,” as I exercised in Kelly v Trump. U.S. v. Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212, 1219 (3d
Cir. 1993).
The Court must presume vindictive prosecution that deprived me of due
process in this case, requiring dismissal of the petition against me, since ODC
admitted it prosecutes me in retaliation for my personal-religious petitions and
personal-religious beliefs. (Exhibits E, F) 34
The Third Circuit in U.S. v. Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212, 1220 (3d Cir. 1993),
held, “The presumption of vindictiveness is a prophylactic rule designed to protect
a defendant's due process rights where a danger exists that the government might
34
United States v. London, No. 15-1206, at *5 (3d Cir. Aug. 31, 2018); United States v. Stafford,
No. 19-3833, at *14 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2021); (U.S. v. Reynolds, 374 F. App'x 356, 361 (3d Cir.
2010) “Prosecutorial vindictiveness may be found when the government penalizes a defendant
for invoking legally protected rights.”); United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S.
263, 273-74 (1982).
28
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 29 of 40 PageID #: 9515
retaliate against him for exercising a legal right.” See Bordenkircher,434 U.S. at
363, 98 S.Ct. at 667-68; United States v. Esposito,968 F.2d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 1992)
The District Court in United States v. Figueroa, Criminal No. 14-00672
(SRC), at *16 (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2021) cited the Third Circuit while holding,
“A presumption of vindictiveness can only be adopted "in cases in
which a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists[,]" that is when "the
situation presents a reasonable likelihood of a danger that the State might be
retaliating against the accused for lawfully exercising a right." United States
v. Esposito, 968 F.2d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 1992).
Here, the ODC admits to be retaliating against me for lawfully exercising
my rights, by my religious beliefs, reflected in my speech, contained in my
petitions, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment, with no other
objective reasonable evidence on the record to sustain a judgment of disability,
evidencing actual animus to rebut its animus. Exhibits A, B; United States v.
Esposito, 968 F.2d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 1992); U.S. v. Korey, 614 F. Supp. 2d 573,
582 (W.D. Pa. 2009).
“Vindictive prosecutions in response to a defendant's exercise of protected
statutory and constitutional rights are…prohibited.” Anderson v. Metzger, Civil
Action No. 16-174-CFC, at *17 (D. Del. Dec. 14, 2018); See United States v.
Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372 (1982).35
35
U.S. v. West, 312 F. Supp. 2d 605, 617-18 (D. Del. 2004); Citing, United States v. Schoolcraft,
879 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1989).
29
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 30 of 40 PageID #: 9516
Kathleen’s vain arguments by repeating DLRDP Rules that applied to other
proceedings, but not mine, or pointing to the Board’s bad faith conclusions based
on its own partial participation in the fixed proceeding against me where the Board
denied me equal protection and substantive and procedural due process rights fails
as a matter of clear error of law. US Amend I, XIV.
Kathleen claims “the religious provisions of the US and Delaware
Constitutions do not prohibit the Court acting through the Board, from proceeding
with disability action against [me] based upon [my alleged] incapacity to practice
law.” KV-Pg-32 The US Constitution certainly does prohibit this disability
proceeding, in my case. Since the state claims my religious-political petitions,
displaying religious-exercise, religious-speech, religious-association and religiousbeliefs is the insidious reason for a claim of disability. The Court through its arm,
the Board, does not have subject matter jurisdiction to regulate my exercise of
fundamental rights, including the right to bring personal-religious-political
petitions, when the Court disagrees with my religious-political beliefs under the
sham of respondent’s practice of law. This Court may not regulate religious
speech and religious beliefs under the shield of regulating business, the profession.
The Courts must not sell fundamental rights, in exchange for professional licenses,
making those who work for money less free by government backed private
30
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 31 of 40 PageID #: 9517
partners, sacrificing individual liberties, the free exercise of religious belief in
Jesus, in exchange for the right to buy and sell.
Kathleen’s wrongly asserts the Court has the authority to order the
examination of my person, in violation of my religious beliefs and exercise, while
the State ignored my motions relating to religious objections to health
examinations and mental health examinations. Objxn-K, paragraphs Obxn-Q
There is no legitimate interest or compelling interest somehow more important
than my exercise of fundamental liberties, narrowly tailored to uphold such
interests in this partial proceeding to compel me to violate my religious beliefs and
exercise by such examinations. Mental and physical examinations are against my
religious beliefs and exercise. Id.
Kathleen’s citation to an abrogated case Middlesex, merely related to
procedural due process concerns relating to lapse of time, is distinguished from my
case. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423,
(1982); Abrogation Recognized by Harmon v. Department of Finance, 3rd
Cir.(Del.), April 27, 2020; Citing, Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S.
69,(2013), Malhan v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of State, 938 F.3d 453, 462 (3d Cir. 2019).
My case relates to the State’s prosecution against me for my exercise of
genuinely held religious-beliefs, religious-political speech, religious-political-
31
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 32 of 40 PageID #: 9518
association, and the right to petition the courts when I believe there has been a
grievance against me by a government agent, no matter my poverty, religious
beliefs, or political orientation.
Kathleen’s arguments that a determination against me would not impede on
my religious worship fails too. The practice of law is a religious exercise, not done
for mere pay. Amos 5:15, Matthew 23:23. I ran for office to draft just decrees and
drafted 5 proposals to impeach President Trump, without pay, to help the
oppressed in accordance to God’s will which teaches justice with mercy, not
money, saves lives and eternal lives, by correction to prevent condemnation.36
The Court’s transfer of my license to disability inactive violates my free
exercise of religion, as punishment for my personal-religious-exercise, speech,
association, petitions, and beliefs.
My Constitutionally protected religious-political beliefs are in issue as the
source of the vindictive prosecution against me brought to punish me for the
exercise of religious liberties which the state, and government backed private
partners’ and professions, disagrees with. I am being persecuted for believing in
36
Objxn B-2, K-Ex10-11, Objxn-Ex-N, Tate v. Cubbage, 210 A.2d 555, 557, 1965 Del. Super.
LEXIS 67, *1, 58 Del. 430, 433, (“It is no business of courts to say that what is a religious
practice or activity for one group is not religion under the protection of the First Amendment.
Nor is it in the competence of courts under our constitutional scheme to approve, disapprove,
classify, regulate, or in any manner control sermons delivered at religious meetings.”)
32
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 33 of 40 PageID #: 9519
Jesus Christ and my personal political beliefs. It is my religious-political belief that
the government and the courts are in danger of being overthrown by the
elimination of the dollar, a planned, preventable, reversible, economic crash to
eliminate the governments’ function by a takeover by private partners through a
collective group of private central banks, including the Federal Reserve. 37
KV asserts my political-religious beliefs and concerns by the pleas relating
to the World Economic Forum’s Founder’s plan to crash the global economy were
not relevant to the proceeding, and wrongly asserts I admit my concerns about
lawlessness are not relevant, is misleading. My religious-political beliefs are in
issue and are relevant, as the source of insidious government persecution against
me and my property interest in my license to practice law. My pursuit of justice
and just decrees are relevant, as I corrected myself on the record. (See transcript
46, 42-44) My love for others beyond my own, and my concern at compelled,
controlled oppression, injustice and unjust decrees show I am an aide, not a danger
to the public. 46. The record shows my conduct, caring for others, and standing
up for those without opportunity are relevant in how my conduct as an attorney is
beneficial to the public, not a threat to society. Id. There is evidence the Great
depression was planned unnatural by bankers who gain more profit and debt
control the worse off the government and the people are. Objxn-Ex-K-internal-Ex37 Objxn-B-2, K-Ex-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19
33
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 34 of 40 PageID #: 9520
I8. I showed the Court evidence of a planned elimination of the dollar, and a
planned by design economic crash, which this Court has the authority to prevent or
reverse, no matter what some misguided expert opines. Objxn-Ex-K-Ex 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and Objxn-GG.
Although the State seeks to destroy my life, by taking away my liberty under
the threat of government persecution for exercising fundamental rights, and my
ability to buy and sell for not worshipping what I believe to be the mark of the
beast, the profession, business greed, this court is my hope of a hero of a planned
elimination of the dollar, global economic crash, and way of government. I alerted
the Court on how to prevent or reverse the crash. Objxn, page 47, 51-52; Objxn-F,
G, H, GG. I should not be disciplined for my religious-political beliefs and speech,
even if this State rejects myreligious-political beliefs and personal religious
concerns.
The State abused its discretion by Selective Prosecution
I have met my burden of proving by clear evidence the State abused its
discretion by selective prosecution “to overcome the regularity that attaches to
decisions to prosecute,” which is not rebutted by the record.38 Kathleen’s and the
38 United States v. Wood, Criminal Action No. 20-56 MN, at *4-5 (D. Del. July 20, 2021);
Citing, United States v. Taylor, 686 F.3d 182, 197 (3d Cir. 2012)
34
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 35 of 40 PageID #: 9521
Board’s vain assertions,” rests upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, an errant
conclusion of law, and an improper application of law to fact.” 39
“Although prosecutors enjoy wide discretion, they may not prosecute based
on a defendant's "race, [political affiliation] or other arbitrary classification."
United States v. Gist, 382 F. App'x 181, 183 (3d Cir. 2010).
A “selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal
charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the
charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.” United States v. Armstrong, 517
U.S. 456, 463 (1996).
The Unites States Supreme Court in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S.
456, 464-65 (1996) held,
a prosecutor's discretion is "subject to constitutional constraints." United
States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 (1979). One of these constraints,
imposed by the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 500 (1954), is that
the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on "an unjustifiable
standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary
classification," Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962). A defendant
may demonstrate that the administration of a criminal law is "directed so
exclusively against a particular class of persons . . . with a mind so
unequal and oppressive" that the system of prosecution amounts to "a
practical denial" of equal protection of the law. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118
U.S. 356, 373 (1886).
39
United States v. Gist, 382 F. App'x 181, 183 (3d Cir. 2010)
35
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 36 of 40 PageID #: 9522
The Record shows a colorable basis (1) I have been singled out for
prosecution while “persons similarly situated, [based on religious-political lawsuits
deemed frivolous] have not been prosecuted [by the ODC,]” for the same type of
conduct, and (2) the State's discriminatory prosecution of me has been invidious
and in bad faith, that is, deliberately based upon impermissible considerations
including religion, poverty, political-affiliation and religious-political protected
speech contained in petitions, to prevent me from exercising fundamental rights of
religious-political-petitions, religious-political-beliefs, religious-political-exercise,
religious-political-association, and religious-political-speech. 40
The State’s prosecution against me is made in retaliation for my personalreligious-political-petitions, reflecting personal religious-political-beliefs,
including religious-political-speech and association in Kelly v Trump and for bar
dues. The application of the DLRDP, as applied to me, violates my First
Amendment fundamental liberties, applicable to the state pursuant to the
Fourteenth Amendment, against me, as a party of one, as an indigent, lawyer with
personal, unique religious-political beliefs under the Equal Protections Clause.
proceeding against me to punish me for my religious-political beliefs.
40
U.S. v. West, 312 F. Supp. 2d 605, 618 (D. Del. 2004); State v. McGuiness, ID 2110001942, at
*4 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2022); Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 61 n.13 (Del. 1988);
36
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 37 of 40 PageID #: 9523
The record clearly shows the State had a discriminatory purpose, to
selectively prosecute me for my religious-political exercise of fundamental rights.
I found no evidence of any other party or member of the Bar indicating
anyone has ever been prosecuted for a RFRA claim, to alleviate a substantial
burden upon exercise of religion. I am solely selectively being prosecuted.
My transfer to disability would have a discriminatory effect by chilling me,
and potentially other professionals from exercising fundamental rights, which the
majority or the profession as a whole may disagree with, thereby stifling freedom
of thought, critical thinking, and debate, dumbing down professionals and experts
by the mob reign of professional trained lusts replacing the hope of the impartial
rule of law.41 Deeming me disabled for suing the President of the United States,
shows that the State believes the powerful are protected by the law, but the poor or
those with religious beliefs in God, not worship of money as savior, are not. Other
indigents and others with religious beliefs the State rejects, may be chilled from
exercising their free speech, religious beliefs, religious exercise right to petition out
of fear of being be deemed disabled, or similarly economically persecuted, for
assuming the Constitutional protections afford them equal rights too. Deeming me
as disabled for suing the government to dissolve the establishment of government
41
United States v. Schoolcraft, 879 F.2d 64, 68 (3d Cir. 1989).
37
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 38 of 40 PageID #: 9524
religion which has placed a substantial burden upon my exercise of religious
beliefs because the state disagrees with my belief in God as savior not what I
believe is the mark of the antichrist, the profession as God or guide, its purpose to
gain money, business greed or money as savior, shows the state protects religious
viewpoints which conform to its will, rendering free will, and freedom to believe to
only those who believe in like matter with the State or its government backed
partners, such as the Disciplinary counsel who appears to care about sacrificing the
Constitutional law to serve the profession’s appearance, profit and prestige, not the
public. I believe what they fight for is lawlessness, sacrificing constitutionally
protected liberty, lives and health to serve their profession, essentially sacrificing
other people’s souls to serve their own conditional interest with no unconditional
love in them like a pack of wolves pretending to be shepherds.
Those who serve money, or whose focus is on making money and the
economy and jobs, serve greed, not their country, misleading their people to harm
by controlling the people instead of caring for them by protecting their liberty.
True justice, is laying down conditional interests, in comfort, costs,
convenience, to serve, by choosing to independently think, caring to know, in order
to love, protecting even those you may be correcting by improving the world, not
condemning it.
38
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 39 of 40 PageID #: 9525
The State abused its discretion in seeking to prosecute me for my religiouspolitical petitions. The State engaged in selective and vindicative prosecution with
animus and bad faith by seeking to deem me mentally disabled, to deem my faith
in God as guide, not money as guide, as a disability, and to conceal the State
misconduct against me in this proceeding.
The record clearly provides evidence of discriminatory effect and
discriminatory intent. Objxn, MOL. United States v. Bass, 536 U.S. 862 (2002)
I am not disabled for asserting the President and the courts adhere to the
Constitutional rule of law by seeking to dissolve the establishment of government
religion. Neither the courts, nor the president is above the law, nor should a
citizen, I, be adjudicated as mentally disabled, but for, the conduct of bringing a
lawsuit against government agents when I believe the agents committed a
grievance against me. Winning or losing is not the standard. Otherwise half the
parties would be deemed mentally disabled. I believe this court erred as a matter
of law in deeming my material arguments to dissolve executive orders, which
establish government religion based not on freedom, but bartered business, as
frivolous in Kelly v. Trump, 256 A.3d 207 (2021) for the reasons contained in the
attached Order. (Exhibit H).
39
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-3 Filed 06/07/22 Page 40 of 40 PageID #: 9526
The Disciplinary proceeding is brought, in part, to suppress free speech to
cover up State misconduct, by defaming my character and reputation as uncredible,
and to discriminate against me based on my religious-political viewpoint, with no
important interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech, and my exercise of
fundamental rights, and without using the least restrictive means narrowly tailored
to meet any legitimate interest. 42
The Board of Professional Responsibility’s (“Board”) Report (“Report”)
must be rejected, and the Delaware Supreme Court must dismiss this petition. The
ODC failed to present and the Board failed to find by clear and convincing
evidence I am incapacitated from continuing to practice law. The Board’s findings
in this fixed, sham proceeding in partial colluding forums must be rejected as a
matter of law, and as a matter of fact to prevent manifest injustice.
Further the State fails to achieve a compelling or overriding government
interest narrowly tailored, using the least restrictive means, to meet that interest to
discipline me for the exercise of Constitutionally protected conduct, including but
not limited to my religious-political petitions, religious-political speech, religiouspolitical association, religious-political beliefs and religious-political exercise by
42 Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 599 (1985); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367
(1968); Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697, 707 n.4 (1986); Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct.
1715, 1721, 1722, 1729 (2019)
40
Case 1:21-cv-01490-CFC Document 77-4 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 9527
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-1
Page: 1
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIRCUIT
)
Meghan Kelly
)
Appellate Court
Plaintiff,
)
No.: 21-3198
v.
)
No. 22-2079
Disciplinary Counsel Patricia B.
)
Swartz, et al.
)
District Court
)
No.: 1:21-cv-01490-CFC
Defendants.
)
Appellant Plaintiff Meghan Kelly’s Opening Brief
moving the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the Delaware District Orders (DI. DI
16-17, 30-31, 59-60), and to remand the matter to the Delaware District Court for
consideration
Dated October 22, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Meghan Kelly
Meghan Kelly, Pro se
Not acting as an Attorney
34012 Shawnee Drive
Dagsboro, DE 19939
meghankellyesq@yahoo.com
(302) 493-6693
Bar No. 4968 Inactive
1 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-1
Page: 2
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Table of contents…………………………………………………………iStandard of Review………………………………………………………...2
Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………2
Statement of case…………………………………………………………..2-45
II. Table of Citation……………………………………………………….
III Statement of case………………………………………………………… 2-45
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I.
Whether the Delaware District Court’s Orders (DI. (“District-Court”), (DI 16-17,
30-31, 59-60 (collectively, “District-Order”)), is now in error as a matter of law and as a matter
of fact, in light of with the passage of time the state proceeding has concluded. So, there is no
case to abstain from under the Younger abstention doctrine. So they case should be remanded to
be heard on the substance of the complaint and motions………………..…………9-10
II.
Whether the District-Court erred in applying Younger to dismiss my complaint
and motions by overlooking I asked for damages and relief unavailable in the state forum.
Whether the Court should have granted a stay as opposed to dismissal……………10-14
III.
Whether the District Court erred in applying Younger to dismiss my case,
complaint, and motions when I had no adequate opportunity to raise my federal claims or
ancillary claims for damages, equitable relief and nominal relief in state court……..14-18
i.
2 of 80
Case: 21-3198
IV.
Document: 98-1
Page: 3
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
Whether the District Court erred in applying Younger when bad faith, harassment, or
extraordinary circumstances have arisen in my case that make a Younger abstention
inappropriate………………………………………………………………………...18-20
V.
Whether the Court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the
Complaint, while applying the Younger abstention, when such amendments would certainly
overcome a Younger abstention……………………………………………………..20-28
VI.
Whether new and additional facts and arguments contained in my motions and
pleadings must be considered to prevent abuse of discretion, clear error of law, clear error of fact
and to prevent manifest injustice against me by denying me the opportunity to be heard to
safeguard my exercise of First Amendment rights, creating loss of First Amendment rights and
my interest in my ability to work in my profession…………………………………….28-45
VII.
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….45
ii.
3 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-1
Page: 4
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CONSTITUTION
US Const. Amend I……………………………………..…..16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 29, 32, 35, 43, 45
US Const. Amend V………………………………………………………………………...16, 45
US Const Amend. IV……………………………………………..…20, 22, 24, 29, 32, 35, 43, 45
US Const. Amend. VI…………………………………………………………………………..36
FEDERAL STATUTES
28 U.S.C. § 2106……………………………………………………………………………........1
28 U. S. C. § 1343……………………………………………………………………………....…2
42 USC §1983………………………………………………………………………….2, 8, 11, 19
42 USC §1985………………………………………………………………………………2, 8, 11
42 USC §1988………………………………………………………………………………2, 8, 11
42 U. S. C. § 2000bb-1(b) Religious Freedom Restoration Act……………………...2, 11, 26, 31
FEDERAL RULERS
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)…………………………………………………………………...………..22
THIRD CIRCUIT LOACL RULES
3d Cir. L.A.R. 107.2(b)………………………………………………………………….………5
STATE REGULATIONS
DLRDP Rule 9(d)(3)…………………………………………………………………….…35, 36
CASES
Abbott v. Mette, No. CV 20-131-RGA, 2021 WL 327375, at *3 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2021), report
and recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-131-RGA, 2, 1021 WL 1168958 (D. Del. Mar. 26,
2021), aff'd, No. 21-1804, 2021 WL 5906146 (3d Cir. Dec. 14, 2021)…………………12, 13, 26
4 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-1
Page: 5
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 317 (3d Cir. 2001)……………………………….40
Adams v. Quattlebaum, 219 F.R.D. 195 (D.D.C. 2004) ………………………………...22, 23
Alexander v. Ieyoub, 62 F.3d 709, 713 (5th Cir. 1993)……………………………………...12
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). ………………………………………………...22
Bank of Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 343 (3d Cir.
1986)………………………………………………………………………………………….33
Boyd v. Farrin, 575 Fed. Appx. 517 (5th Cir. 2014)…………………………………………12
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)………………………………………………….35
Brindley v. McCullen, 61 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1995)……………………………………….12, 16
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682…………………………………………..31
Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994)…………………………………………….26
Carroll v. City of Mount Clemons, 139 F.3d 107(6th Cir. 1998)…………………………….13
Constr. Drilling, Inc. V. Chusid, No. 03-3786, 2005 WL 1111760, at *3 (3d Cir. May 11, 2005)
……………………………………………………………………………………........15, 26, 41
Crane v. Fauver, 762 F.2d 325 (3d Cir. 1985)…………………………………………….12-13
Cunard Line Ltd. v. Abney, S.D.N.Y.1982, 540 F.Supp. 657……………………………..…..23
Datastorm Technologies, Inc. v. Excalibur Communications, Inc., N.D.Cal.1995, 888 F.Supp.
112……………………………………………………………………………………………..23
Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 108 S. Ct. 523, 98 L. Ed. 2d 529 (1988)………………12
5 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-1
Page: 6
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
De La Cruz-Saddul v. Wayne State University, E.D.Mich.1980, 482 F.Supp. 1388…….…….22
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 887, 110 S. Ct.
1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990)…………………………………………………… …………..32
Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007)..26
Hammond v. Baldwin, 866 F.2d 172, 177 (6th Cir. 1989)………………………………………16
Harmon v. Department of Finance, 3rd Cir.(Del.), April 27, 2020……………………………..10
Harris v. Raymond, No. 3:20-CV-01119, 2020 WL 5267920, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2020),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:20-CV-1119, 2020 WL 5260769 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 3,
2020)………………………………………………………………………………………..……26
Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 122 (3d Cir. 2005)……………………………………...32
Inc. v. Lopez, CIV. No. 14-1223 (PG) (D.P.R. Oct. 27, 2015)………………………...………..16
In re Kelly, No. 58, at *3 (Del. Sep. 7, 2022)……………………………………………..……..9
In Re Murchinson, 349 US 133, 136 (1955)………………………………………………..15, 27
Jones v. Prescott, 702 Fed. Appx. 205, 209 (5th Cir. 2017)…………………………...………..12
Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022)……………………………………...26
Kalniz v. Ohio State Dental Bd., 699 F. Supp. 2d 966, 975 (S.D. Ohio 2010)………………….13
Lewis v. Beddingfield, 20 F.3d 123, 124 (5th Cir. 1994)………………………………………...12
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 370 (1996)……………………………………………………….40
6 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-1
Page: 7
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
Lucero v. Ramirez, No. 20-CV-2411-CAB-JLB, 2021 WL 1529932, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16,
2021)…………………………………………………………………………………………...26
Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 1998)………………………...13
Malhan v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of State, 938 F.3d 453, 462 (3d Cir. 2019)………………………..10
Maraan v. Off. of Ohio Disciplinary Couns. for Supreme Ct. of Ohio, No. 1:18CV645, 2021 WL
3173311, at *3 (S.D. Ohio July 27, 2021)………………………………………………..…13, 14
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 466 (1986)…………………………………………………..35
May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 537 (1953)…………………………………………………...15
Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (1971)………………………………….……………27
McCool v. Gehret, 657 A.2d 269, 277 and 280 (Del. 1995)…………………………………...16
Meyers v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 23 F. App'x 201, 206 (6th Cir. 2001)… 13, 14
Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, (1982)……………. 10
Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972)………………………………………………………….35
Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 18 (1989)…………………………………………………..40
Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 1998)………………………….13
Nimer v. Lichfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 707 F.3d 699 (6th Cir. 2013)………………………...13
N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. United States, 836 F.3d 421, 434 (3d Cir. 2016)…………………33
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644…………………………………………………………..…31
Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 780-81 (3d Cir. 1994)……………………..…33
7 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-1
Page: 8
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
PDX N., Inc. v. Comm'r N.J. Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., 978 F.3d 871, 882 n.11 (3d Cir.
2020).……………………………………………………………………………..……………2, 9
Pease v. Rathbun-Jones Eng. Co., 243 U.S. 273, 276 (1917)………………………………….15
Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972), Overruled in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169
(1976)………………………………………………………………………………………..…27
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 719 (1996)…………………………………...12
Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188 (1982) reversed on other grounds; Gibson v. Berryhill, 411
U.S. 564, 570 (1973)…………………………………………………………………………….15
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69,(2013)………………………………..10, 12
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 n.20 (2004)……………………………………………...40
Tumey v State of Ohio, 273 US 510 (1927)………………………………………………….16, 27
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 584 , Citing, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510…………………...26
United Church of the Medical Center v. Medical Center Comm'n, 689 F.2d 693, 701 (7th Cir.
1982)……………………………………………………………………………………………..16
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)…………………………………………………...35
U.S. v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 221, 226 (3d Cir. 2007)………………………………………….33
Utica Packing Co. v. Block, 781 F.2d 71, 77 (6th Cir. 1986)…………………………………..16
Ward v Village of Monroeville, 409 US 57 61-62 (1972)………………………………………..15
Velasquez v. Litz, No. CV 3:21-1659, 2021 WL 5298912, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2021)…….26
8 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-1
Page: 9
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
Watkins v. Ohio Dep't of Educ., No. 2:21-CV-04482, 2022 WL 672565, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7,
2022…………………………………………………………………………………………13, 14
Williams v. Hepting, 844 F.2d 138, 145 (3d Cir. 1988)………………………………………..13
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46 (1975)…………………………………………………….15
Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 1999)……………………………..12, 13
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)…………………1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22
TREATISES
1 Chrles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §
2862………………………………………………………………………………………………26
9 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 1
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, APPEAL OF THE ORDERS
BELOW OF THE DELAWARE DISTRICT COURT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106, Appellant Meghan Kelly respectfully prays this Court
vacate the decisions by the Delaware District Court below (“District-Court”), (DI 16-17, 30-31,
59-60 (collectively, “District-Order”)), dismissing my Complaint under the Younger abstention,
denying by not addressing my Motion to amend the complaint (DI 43), and denying subsequent
rolling motion(s), motion for PACER access, motion for an exemption of PACER fees, motion
to appear remotely, exemption of court costs due to costs causing a substantial burden upon my
access to the courts due to poverty, and religious beliefs against poverty, motion for a stay, and
all previously denied motions, except motions that may now be moot or not yet ripe for
determination. (DI. 11, 12, 20, 21, 29, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41, 43, 52, 54, 58, incorporated herein by
reference in its entirety). The motions that are moot for review are the motions for temporary or
preliminary restraining orders and motions for expediting relief. (DI 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 36, 40,
47, 48, 49, 51, 53). The Motions not yet ripe for determination were filed after the District
Court’s Order, and must first be considered by the District-Court before this Court may review
the District-Court’s determination. (61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69-75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88,
89. 90, 91, 95, 96, incorporated herein by reference).
The District Court’s decision must be set aside as clearly erroneous as a matter of law and
as a matter of fact, creating manifest injustice against me. The District Court abused its
discussion as to deny me the opportunity to be heard on Constitutional claims in the only forum
with jurisdiction so as to render me without relief anywhere. The District Court refrained from
examining the substance of my complaint and motion(s) to amend the complaints. The issue is
whether the District Court has jurisdiction to hear my case. I argue Younger does not apply.
1
10 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 2
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
The District-Order must be vacated and this case must be remanded back to the District-Court to
review the substance of my complaint, amended complaint(s), and motions.
JURISDICTION
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1343.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review is de novo standard PDX N., Inc. v. Comm'r N.J. Dep't of Labor
& Workforce Dev., 978 F.3d 871, 882 n.11 (3d Cir. 2020).
STATEMENT OF CASE
This case arises from Defendants, the Delaware Courts and the arms of the Court
interference in my RFRA law suit against former President Donald J. Trump in an attempt to
intimidate me a to cause me to forgo my case based on the Defendants disdain for my religiouspolitical beliefs contained in my speech, in my petitions, or poverty. (DI 2-4)
I initially brought Kelly v Swartz, et al, on or about October 25, 2021, for equitable relief,
and damages caused by the Delaware disciplinary counsels’, court members’ and the State’s
interference in my Religious Freedom Restoration Act lawsuit (“RFRA”) against former
President Donald J. Trump (referred to as “Kelly v Trump”), in violation of 42 USC §§§ 1983,
1985, 1988. I sought claims for emotional distress, First Amendment violations, loss of
employment opportunities, or other economic harm, and harm to my reputation. (DI 2-4).
I also sought claims for Defendants’ selective prosecution in bringing a disciplinary
action against me to demean my reputation by placing me on inactive disabled to conceal
Defendants misconduct in collusion with the Delaware Supreme Court, and to punish me for
2
11 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 3
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
exercising the right to access the courts and First Amendment rights, based on Defendants
disdain for my religious-political beliefs contained in the speech in the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act petitions and other petitions. Id.
I later amended the Complaint to include additional facts showing the Delaware Supreme
Court instigated the disciplinary proceeding against me, colluded with Defendants to prejudice
my case, concealed evidence and witnesses, while denying by ignoring my motions to perform
discovery. I also included additional claims procedural due process violations, denial to access
to the law library and other disparate treatment by the Delaware Courts made in bad faith, which
occurred during the Delaware Disciplinary proceeding as distinguished from Kelly v Trump. I
sought nominal damages, damages and additional equitable relief, including but not limited to
voiding the Delaware Disciplinary proceeding and Kelly v Trump due to procedural due process
violations which shock the conscience. I moved to add the Delaware Supreme Court as a party.
(DI 43, 58-60, 69-75, 77, 80-82, 85)
I include and restate and incorporate by reference Respondent’s reply to ODC’s
Corrected Response to Respondent’s Objections my to the Report and Recommendation of the
Board on Professional Responsibility, dated June 7, 2022, and all documents referred therein and
incorporated thereto. (DI-77, ) I include, restate and incorporate by this reference my Objections
to the Report, the exhibits referred therein, and the Memorandum of Law (“MOL,” ), and all
arguments and points made in each and every one of these documents, filed on May 21, 2022,
are restated in this reply. (DI. 69-75) (“Objxn” and “-” or “-Ex-” for specific exhibits therein) (DI
69-72, 75).
Per the Court’s Order dated October 18, 2022, my brief is due before October 26, 2022,
should my extension be denied. (3D-94-97). This Court kindly held I may proceed on the
3
12 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 4
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
original record in this Court reducing the need to file a complete appendix. (3D-24) This Court
also kindly held, “Appellant need not conform to structure of a formal brief and may submit one
principal brief not to exceed 45 pages.” (3D-67) I thank this Court for its generosity.
On October 20, 2022, I called my Third Circuit case manager because I discovered the
Brief was due in less than a week. (3DI-94) She recommended I file for an extension of time to
draft the brief. I filed a motion for an extension to draft the brief that same day. (3DI-95)
Admittedly, I believed the case was stayed pending the Delaware District Court’s
determination on my latest motion to amend the orders of the District Court and alter the facts
under Rule 60, and a Second Motion for a stay I incorporate herein by reference. (DI 95-96)
Early morning on Friday, October 21, 2022, I called my case manager because I was
concerned about typos in the Motion for an extension to file. I rushed in an attempt to file before
closing time on Thursday, October 20, 2022. She indicated I need not amend the Motion.
Due to the emergency situation, and my reliance on my case manager’s suggestion to file
a motion to extend for time, I called back around 3:00 PM. (3DI-96) I was concerned about
relying on the extension. I sought a confirmation that I may file after October 25, 2022. She
asked how much time I required. I indicated I asked for 30 days or an amount of time the Court
deems just in my motion. My case manager indicated I could get back to the Court on Monday,
October 24, 2022. Monday is the due date.
To my horror, I looked at the PDF of my motion. My request in the amount of 30 days is
missing. So, I filed a corrected motion to eliminate typos and to ask for a specific amount of
days, 30 days I mistakenly thought I included, but must have only indicated in the system. I
incorporate herein by reference my Motion and corrected motion, letter and exhibits thereto,
4
13 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 5
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
herein. (3DI 95-96). The PACER system indicates “until/for A time this court deems just and
fair. I can ask for 30 days, but I am going to start working on it now, in hopes to file it asap.”
ECF. [21-3198, 22-2079] (MMK) [Entered: 10/20/2022 05:04 PM]
I do not want to risk eliminating my right to access to the courts to prevent irreparable
injury in the form of the Defendants infringement upon my free exercise of religious-political
belief, exercise, speech and association. Nor do I desire to lose my property interest in my
Delaware license to practice law. A lawyer’s right, my right to pursue my profession constitutes
a property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of which I
cannot be deprived for any whimsical, capricious or unreasonable cause, including the state’s
disagreement with my religious-political beliefs contained in speech in religious-political
petitions. So, I write with haste. Rights imperfectly asserted under the duress of days to file, are
better than waiving rights for failure to file.
I also preserve issues relating to the Third Circuit’s Orders and conduct, done to chill or
punish my exercise of my right to petition in defense of my first amendment rights I preserve for
appeal. I am concerned that my case manager may have misled me to my detriment to eliminate
the case by encouraging me to file a motion for an extension of time only to deny it by failing to
present it to the Clerk or the Court until the due date. On October 20, 2022, I pointed to the rule
that allows 7 days to fix delinquencies in filing a brief to safeguard procedural due process by
providing notice and opportunity to correct errors. See, 3d Cir. L.A.R. 107.2(b). I argue, 7 days
is not enough to protect my meaningful opportunity to be heard and procedural due process
rights under the 5th Amendment applicable to this Federal Court, under the facts of my case. My
case manager indicated I could file a motion for additional time. I am not so sure the clerk
would grant additional time in light of my last conversation. (3DI-96).
5
14 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 6
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
In my motion and corrected motion for an extension of time I indicate the importance of
having people as opposed to automation to correct filing errors by the Court. I believe Court
staff and judges will be reduced in number to be eliminated as schemed by participants in the
World government summit and World economic forum by automation of standardized
professions, including the practice of law. (3DI-95-96) I also pointed to other filing errors by
other courts. Id. Errors are not the problem. Failure to correct them or retaliation against those
who point them out or make them, is the problem. The Disciplinary case was brought in
retaliation against me for asking the Court to correct government violations of my Constitutional
right to freely exercise my religious-political beliefs, religious-political beliefs, speech,
association, by exercising my right to petition to safeguard these rights from government
infringement. On the record I point to retaliation by the courts, including yet not limited to the
Delaware Supreme Court to correct its own or its agent or the government’s agent as a problem.
The retaliation discourages citizens, including me, from exercising their right to access to the
courts to petition the courts to correct the Court’s own errors or violations of law or errors by its
arms or agents. This is one reason for this case. (DI. 2-4, 43, See, attached Dec 11, 2020 letter)
I also note, the Third Circuit Court chilled my meaningful access to the courts by
discouraging me from contacting the Court more than once a day in an Order in retaliation for
my motions to correct the Third Circuit’s record to prevent irreparable prejudice against me. The
Court also discouraged me from correcting motions, as other lawyers do in the common course
of filing pleadings, especially in emergencies. The Third Circuit threatened me with sanctions
which violate my religious beliefs in Jesus against debt. (3DI-90). During that time, my case
manager was out on the civil rights case, and my case manager was out on the other case before
the Third Circuit.
6
15 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 7
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
I note with prejudice that the Third Circuit’s Order I sought reconsideration from is based
on a false assumption, a misleading statement, that appears to be made in bad faith to cover up
the Court’s error that I filed an emergency motion when the record shows I mailed in the
documents I sought to remove from the record. ( 3-DI 86-90). There is proof of postage. (3DI
87-10-11) I incorporate by reference my petitions to correct the filings, and related motions
including but not limited to (3DI 87-88).
This is unacceptable. The courts are not above the Constitution. The Courts’ goal is not
to safeguard its mere appearance of justice by compromising actual justice which guarantees
injustice. The Courts are not a business. Judges should not be concerned with their appearance
or their self-serving desire to market their value or legitimacy, which eliminates impartiality by
making the court’s focus on fickle fads, and pleasing the mob, and doing what serves their seats
instead of doing what is right, impartially under Constitutional law.
I desire to safeguard the integrity of the Courts by requiring they do not sacrifice people,
and their individual exercise of their Constitutional rights, as the Defendants seek to sacrifice me
for the exercise of my rights. I seek to preserve the integrity of the courts not destroy them. I do
not seek to destroy this Court or the Delaware Chancery Court or the Delaware Supreme Court,
but I do seek to hold them to the letter of the Constitutional law. If I am disparately treated in
bad faith to fix the outcome or to throw out my case in various forums for the mere convenience
of the court, or with malice and disdain towards me for my religious-political beliefs, speech,
association or petitions, than others also may be unlawfully chilled by the Courts from exercising
their right to access to the courts in defense of fundamental rights. (DI 2-4) Such precedent in
my case creates a danger to the public to serve mere business greed, profit, power and position,
not good by respecting all without disparate treatment based on income or belief. I object to
7
16 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 8
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
misleading statements noted on the Third Circuit’s record made with intent to chill my exercise
of the right to petition, even to petition to make corrections, in defense of my fundamental rights,
or to prejudice my appeal. (3DI-77-90)
The Delaware Supreme Court placed my license on inactive, disabled on August 11,
2022, and denied my motion for rehearing on multiple issues.
The State proceeding has concluded. The District Court did not analyze any of the
substance of my complaints or motions, and has abstained under Younger. So, this Court’s
review is limited as to whether Younger applies at this time, not the merits of my complaint and
motions.
Younger does not require abstention to my case. There is no state case to abstain from.
The state case has concluded. There is no bar. Even if there was a case: 1. Younger does not
apply to my claims for damages. The Court erred by dismissing instead of staying the case 2.
Younger does not apply to federal constitutional claims in the or ancillary claims I had no
opportunity to assert on the state forum. For example, 42 U.S.C.A. §§§ 1983, 1985, 1988 3. Bad
faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances have arisen in my case that make abstention
inappropriate 4.The Court erred in denying my motion to amend the complaint to include
procedural and substantive due process violations, equal protections violations, and other
conduct and claims that required I add the Delaware Supreme Court and the members to my
complaint on January 24, 2022. (DI 43) I should be granted leave to amend the complaint, to
correct any defects or arguments relating to a Younger dismissal to prevent manifest injustice
that shocks the conscience in terms of loss of fundamental rights, and government punishment
for the exercise of my rights, including the right to petition. 5. The new and additional facts and
arguments contained in my motions and pleadings must be considered to prevent abuse of
8
17 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 9
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
discretion, clear error of law, clear error of fact and to prevent manifest injustice against me by
denying me the opportunity to be heard to safeguard my exercise of First Amendment rights,
creating loss of First Amendment rights and my interest in my ability to work in my profession
I respectfully request this Court vacate the District-Order, and remand the case back to
the Delaware District Court for review.
I.
THE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE YOUNGER ABSTENTION
REQUIRED DISMISSAL, BUT REGARDLESS THE CASE IN DELAWARE IS OVER,
YOUNGER DOES NOT BAR MY CASE FROM PROCEEDING
The District Court erred in ruling that the Younger abstention required dismissal.
Regardless of the error, the issue is moot because the state disciplinary proceeding has
concluded.
The District Court need not abstain under Younger since the Delaware Supreme Court’s
case is over. The District Court should stay the case, pending my intended appeal to the US
Supreme Court.
The Third Circuit explained, “Younger abstention … applies when certain types of state
proceedings are ongoing at the time a federal case is commenced” PDX N., Inc. v. Comm'r N.J.
Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., 978 F.3d 871, 882 (3d Cir. 2020). The case before the
Delaware Supreme Court is not ongoing. The Delaware Supreme Court made this clear by
ordering “the Clerk of the Court is directed to refuse any further filings from Kelly in this
matter.” In re Kelly, No. 58, at *3 (Del. Sep. 7, 2022)
Younger does not apply. The state proceeding is over. This case may continue and I
request the Third Circuit to please remand the case to the Delaware District Court. I note, the
District Court made no analysis on the facts or law beyond denying my case under Younger. I
9
18 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 10
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
pray the District Court grants a stay until the conclusion of my appeal to the US Supreme Court.
So, I can focus on the appeal which may prevent duplication of work, narrowing of the issues,
and possible elimination of claims to prevent needless waste of resources for the parties and the
Court.
II
THE COURT ERRED IN APPLYING YOUNGER BECAUSE I ASKED
FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEF UNAVAILABLE IN THE STATE FORUM. THE
COURT SHOULD HAVE STAYED, NOT DISMISSED THE CASE
Th District Court erred as a matter of law by relying on the Younger abstention doctrine,
and in dismissing my complaint and motions. The District Court based its decision on mistakes
of fact. It would be an abuse of discretion, creating manifest injustice to dismiss my case.
This court’s reliance on an abrogated case, Middlesex in its Orders is also misplaced.
Middlesex merely related to procedural due process concerns relating to lapse of time, as
distinguished from my case. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457
U.S. 423, (1982); Abrogation Recognized by Harmon v. Department of Finance, 3rd Cir.(Del.),
April 27, 2020; Citing, Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69,(2013), Malhan v.
Sec'y U.S. Dep't of State, 938 F.3d 453, 462 (3d Cir. 2019).
In my case, I was denied a fair, impartial forum and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The State’s prosecution against me, as a party of one with individual-religious-political beliefs,
for my exercise of genuinely held religious-beliefs, religious-political speech, religious-politicalassociation, and the right to petition the courts when I believe there has been a grievance against
me by a government agent, no matter my poverty, religious beliefs, or political orientation,
violates my First Amendment rights and equal protections of the law.
The District-Court in its November 2, 2021 Memorandum, whether misleadingly or
inadvertently, referred to Defendant’s August 23, 2021 letter indicating my Chancery Court
10
19 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 11
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
religious-political pleadings in my active case as the reason Defendants brought the state
proceeding. (DI 16, DI 3, District Court Exhibit 21) However, this court omitted the letter’s
reference to the Delaware Supreme Court pleadings as a reason. This omission is material to my
argument the Delaware Supreme Court (hereinafter “Court” or collectively with Defendants in
the case “State”), instigated the disciplinary proceeding against me. Therefore, the Court cannot
present itself as impartial. (DI 9, Exhibit 5, DI 16-17). This Court also omitted my claim for
damages in all of its orders, despite the fact I pointed to my claim for damages in pleadings. (DI
16-17, 30-31, 34-35, 59-60). I acknowledge the Court allegedly replaced the complaint at DI 2,
as misfiled, with the page containing the claim for damages. I requested this be published to the
public. The Court may have initially overlooked my claim for damages; however, I apprised the
court of my claim for damages before I discovered the filing (DI 34-35, DI 61).
This Court also omitted my motions to amend the complaint to include additional counts,
to include the Delaware Supreme Court justices in their personal capacity, and to include
additional relief including declaratory, injunctive, damages and nominal relief. (DI 43, 58-60).
Admittedly, I sought to withdraw my Motion to Amend the Complaint at DI 43, in order to
motion the Court for permission to amend the complaint, after the appeal for the state proceeding
is complete or the time for appeal lapsed, as new and additional evidence continuously arose, and
will likely continue to arise during this time. (DI 69-75, 77, 80-82, 85).
This Court overlooked the fact I sought damages, not merely injunctive relief, in my
original complaint, and other relief unavailable in the state courts. I sought relief, including but
not limited, damages and equitable relief, under 42 USC §§§ 1983, 1985 and 1988, for, inter
alias, court members’ and the State’s interference in my Religious Freedom Restoration Act
lawsuit (“RFRA”) against former President Donald J. Trump (“Kelly v Trump”). The Court
11
20 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 12
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
ignored my claims for infliction of emotional distress, defamation, loss of employment
opportunity and lost wages. The Court also failed to consider my arguments concerning the loss
of my right to exercise First Amendment Constitutionally protected liberties, including the
exercise of my religious-political petitions, religious-political beliefs, religious-political
association, religious-political exercise, and religious-political petitions, and loss of my property
interest in my license to practice law. (DI 2-4, 34-35-2, 61-62) Nor did this Court look at the
Defendants’ interference with Kelly v Trump to entice me to forgo my case. This case relates to
the harm caused by the Defendants in both the disciplinary proceeding and Kelly v Trump.
In Deakins v. Monaghan, the Supreme Court held only that “the District Court has no
discretion to dismiss rather than to stay claims for monetary relief that cannot be redressed in the
state proceeding.”1
I made it clear to this Court, I pled defamation, Constitutional injury and
1 Citing, Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 108 S. Ct. 523, 98 L. Ed. 2d 529 (1988) “Federal
district court must stay rather than dismiss claims that are not cognizable in parallel state
proceeding.” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202, 108 S. Ct. 523, 529–30, 98 L. Ed. 2d
529 (1988) “In reversing the District Court's dismissal of the claims for damages and attorney's
fees, the Court of Appeals applied the Third Circuit rule that requires a District Court to stay
rather than dismiss claims that are not cognizable in the parallel state proceeding.”); See also,
Brindley v. McCullen, 61 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1995); See also Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
517 U.S. 706, 719 (1996) (“we have applied abstention principles to actions ‘at law’ only to
permit a federal court to enter a stay order that postpones adjudication of the dispute, not to
dismiss the federal suit altogether.”); Lewis v. Beddingfield, 20 F.3d 123, 124 (5th Cir. 1994). (It
was proper to stay rather than dismiss the federal suit because the damages could not be claimed
in the criminal prosecution.); Jones v. Prescott, 702 Fed. Appx. 205, 209 (5th Cir. 2017)
(Younger abstention does not apply to federal suits seeking only money damages) (citing
Alexander v. Ieyoub, 62 F.3d 709, 713 (5th Cir. 1993)); See also, Boyd v. Farrin, 575 Fed. Appx.
517 (5th Cir. 2014); Third Circuit: Abbott v. Mette, No. 20-CV-131-RGA, 2021 WL 1168958,
at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-1804, 2021 WL 5906146 (3d Cir. Dec. 14, 2021) (A
court “has no discretion to dismiss rather than to stay claims for monetary relief that cannot be
redressed in the state proceeding.”); Abbott v. Mette, No. CV 20-131-RGA, 2021 WL 327375, at
*3 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-131-RGA, 2021 WL
1168958 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-1804, 2021 WL 5906146 (3d Cir. Dec. 14, 2021)
(“As a general matter, assuming that a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, the federal
court's “obligation to hear and decide [the] case is virtually unflagging.” Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v.
Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 77 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);Crane v. Fauver,
12
21 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 13
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
emotional distress, by pleading damages, albeit unartfully in my original Complaint. (DI 2, 3435). In addition, I showed my intent to seek nominal damages, damages, and equitable relief too.
(D.I. 43, 58, 69-75, 77-79). My claims for damages were unavailable in state court.
A court “has no discretion to dismiss rather than to stay claims for monetary relief that
cannot be redressed in the state proceeding.” Citing, Abbott v. Mette, No. 20-CV-131-RGA, 2021
WL 1168958, at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-1804, 2021 WL 5906146 (3d Cir. Dec.
762 F.2d 325 (3d Cir. 1985) (“District court should have retained jurisdiction over correctional
officers' civil rights action arising out of their discharge, even if it properly declined to exercise
jurisdiction over federal claims, and stayed action pending outcome of related state proceeding
where officers were relegated for prudential reasons to state proceeding which could only afford
them dismissal of charges and back pay, with attorney fees only to extent that back pay award
was reduced by interim earnings, but officers sought constitutional damages and attorney fees,
and new complaint upon termination of state proceedings may have been time-barred.”);
Williams v. Hepting, 844 F.2d 138, 145 (3d Cir. 1988) (The Third Circuit held, “Accordingly, we
hold that the district court should have stayed instead of dismissed without prejudice Williams'
failure-to-investigate and suggestive pretrial identification claims. Because these particular
federal court claims for damages seek relief that is unavailable in Williams' ongoing state
proceedings, the allegations should be stayed pending the outcome of his state court appeal on
the underlying conviction.”); Nimer v. Lichfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 707 F.3d 699 (6th Cir.
2013) (Younger abstention applies to § 1983 damages claims, but district court must stay rather
than dismiss federal suit; in other words district court has no discretion to dismiss federal suit);
Carroll v. City of Mount Clemens, 139 F.3d 1072 (6th Cir. 1998) (when federal suit seeks
damages and Younger is invoked, federal suit should be stayed, not dismissed; this likely will be
a formality, given probable preclusive effect of state court decision); Watkins v. Ohio Dep't of
Educ., No. 2:21-CV-04482, 2022 WL 672565, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2022)(“ Further, when a
plaintiff seeks both equitable and legal relief, many courts in the Sixth Circuit stay the entire case
rather than treat each form of requested relief differently.”); Maraan v. Off. of Ohio Disciplinary
Couns. for Supreme Ct. of Ohio, No. 1:18CV645, 2021 WL 3173311, at *3 (S.D. Ohio July 27,
2021) (Court “stayed until the conclusion of the state disciplinary proceedings, rather than be
dismissed.”), citing, Kalniz, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 975 (explaining that where a plaintiff is bringing
constitutional civil rights claims in a federal court case in which Younger abstention was proper,
the stay protects against the possibility that the statute of limitations could deprived the plaintiff
of the opportunity to present the merits of her damages claims); see also Meyers v. Franklin Cty.
Court of Common Pleas, 23 F. App'x 201, 206 (6th Cir. 2001) (and cases cited therein); Yamaha
Motor Corp. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 1999) (when damages are sought in § 1983 action
subject to Younger abstention, and damages are not available in pending state proceeding, federal
action should be stayed, not dismissed); Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475
(8th Cir. 1998) (when § 1983 complaint seeking damages is subject to Younger abstention,
federal action should be stayed rather than dismissed).
13
22 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 14
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
14, 2021); See, Watkins v. Ohio Dep't of Educ., No. 2:21-CV-04482, 2022 WL 672565, at *1
(S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2022).
Abstention is not appropriate, staying the action was required. See, Meyers v. Franklin
Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 23 F. App'x 201, 206 (6th Cir. 2001); Maraan v. Off. of Ohio
Disciplinary Couns. for Supreme Ct. of Ohio, No. 1:18CV645, 2021 WL 3173311, at *3 (S.D.
Ohio July 27, 2021); Watkins v. Ohio Dep't of Educ., No. 2:21-CV-04482, 2022 WL 672565, at
*8 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2022); (“Further, when a plaintiff seeks both equitable and legal relief,
many courts in the Sixth Circuit stay the entire case rather than treat each form of requested
relief differently.”).
The Delaware District Court abused its discretion by dismissing as opposed to staying the
proceeding and denying all motions as moot with its dismissal.
The Younger abstention does not apply to additional claims I included for money
damages for First Amendment violations, loss of employment opportunity, emotional distress,
and loss to reputation. (DI 2, 3, 4).
III.
YOUNGER DOES NOT APPLY TO MY FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIMS OR ANCILLARY CLAIMS I HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE IN THE
STATE COURT
I had no adequate opportunity to raise my federal claims or ancillary claims for damages
and nominal relief in state court. (DI 2 and DI 43). I asserted Constitutional defenses.
Nevertheless, the state court precluded my meaningful opportunity to be heard on my defenses
and motions, prevented discovery, denied me the opportunity to call witnesses, denied me access
to the law library, sealed pleadings to conceal evidence, and fired two witnesses to prevent their
testimony in my favor to prejudice the proceeding against me. (DI 55, 70-75, 77)
14
23 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 15
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
I moved the Court to amend the complaint to include the Delaware Supreme Court as a
party, for additional relief, including but not limited to, additional equal protection violations,
and additional procedural and due process claims. I also seek to void Kelly v Trump and the
disciplinary matter. I also requested other equitable relief, and nominal damages. I also sought
to amend the name of a Defendant, and other matters I include herein by reference to the docket
item numbers. 2 (DI 43-44, 55-56, 58, 69-75, 81-82, 85).
The state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction is voidable. The
Younger abstention is not appropriate to enjoin a forum without subject matter jurisdiction. The
Delaware Supreme Court is without jurisdiction for its violations of procedural and substantive
due process. Its judgments must be deemed void. (See, May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 537
(1953) “It is void … if it denies due process of law.”); (Pease v. Rathbun-Jones Eng. Co., 243
U.S. 273, 276 (1917) Judgments “ are void for lack of due process of law, or should be set aside
for error.”). The state-court does not have subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction is voidable.
The Younger abstention is not appropriate to enjoin a forum without subject matter jurisdiction.
The Delaware Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to rule on its own alleged violations of
procedural and substantive due process, violations of First Amendment rights, conspiracy and
collusion under 1985, or whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. Its judgments in Kelly v
Trump and in the disciplinary cases may only be deemed void by the Federal District Court, not
the state court.
2 Constr. Drilling, Inc. V. Chusid, No. 03-3786, 2005 WL 1111760, at *3 (3d Cir. May 11, 2005)
(The Third Circuit held, “A judgment may also be void if a court "acted in a manner inconsistent
with due process of law."); See Respondent’s Exhibits to the Hearing (“R-Ex”) Exhibits 35, 37
Part 2, 42, R 44
15
24 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 16
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
I had no adequate opportunity to raise my federal claims in state court. I asserted
Constitutional defenses. Nevertheless, the state court precluded my meaningful opportunity to be
heard on my defenses and motions, prevented discovery, denied me the opportunity to call
witnesses, denied me access to the law library, sealed pleadings to conceal evidence, and fired
two witnesses to prevent their testimony in my favor to prejudice the proceeding against me. (DI
55, 70-75, 77)
There was no opportunity to ask the Delaware Supreme Court to void its own decision in
Kelly v Trump and the disciplinary matter or to seek equitable relief, money damages or nominal
damages against itself and its agents and arms. I seek to sue the Delaware Supreme Court. They
cannot decide the case against itself, because they are a defendant. The Delaware Supreme
Court is partial to the state and itself. I am entitled to an impartial judge, in accordance with the
1st and 14th Amendment procedural and substantive Due Process protections.3
State procedural law barred presentation of my Constitutional claims.
I will face irreparable injury in terms of loss of First Amendment rights and my property
interest in my license should this Court deny me of the opportunity to be heard.
A lawyer’s right, my right to pursue my profession constitutes a property protected by the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of which I cannot be deprived for any
3 US Const. Amend I, V. (See, Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188 (1982) reversed on other
grounds; Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 570 (1973); Ward v Village of Monroeville, 409 US
57 61-62 (1972) (“Petitioner is entitled to a neutral and detached judge in the first instance.”); In
Re Murchinson, 349 US 133, 136 (1955); Tumey v State of Ohio, 273 US 510 (1927); Withrow
v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46 (1975); McCool v. Gehret, 657 A.2d 269, 277 and 280 (Del. 1995) (“
excluding evidence [in my case emails] of efforts to influence a witness' testimony [to exclude
evidence] constitutes reversible error. ….“Opinion testimony by a judge creates the appearance
of partiality on behalf of a litigant, is greatly prejudicial to the adverse party…”); Inc. v. Lopez,
CIV. No. 14-1223 (PG) (D.P.R. Oct. 27, 2015); United Church of the Medical Center v. Medical
Center Comm'n, 689 F.2d 693, 701 (7th Cir. 1982); Utica Packing Co. v. Block, 781 F.2d 71, 77
(6th Cir. 1986); Hammond v. Baldwin, 866 F.2d 172, 177 (6th Cir. 1989).
16
25 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 17
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
whimsical, capricious or unreasonable cause, including the state’s disagreement with my
religious-political beliefs, outlined in Kelly v Trump. The Defendants point to my religious
beliefs and citations to the Bible in their petition at 7 which are relevant to my claims in Kelly v
Trump, and my Religious Freedom Restoration Act, religious-political pleadings in their Aug.
23, 2021 letter, as the reason for the disciplinary proceeding against me. (DI 56, 56-1, 56-2)
In Brindley v. McCullen, 61 F.3d 507, 509, the Court held in a § 1983 action for
damages, the Sixth Circuit ruled that when Younger abstention is invoked, stay rather than
dismissal is the appropriate disposition. A stay “avoids the costs of refiling, allows the plaintiffs
to retain their place on the court docket, and avoids placing plaintiffs in a sometimes-difficult
position of refiling their case before the statute of limitations expires.” Id. In my case the statute
of limitations and costs given my poverty and religious beliefs against indebtedness, prejudice
me by a dismissal under Younger. The statute of limitations also prejudices my case. I have
claims relating to Kelly v Trump, and retaliation for my petitions for relief from bar dues, not
merely claims for the Delaware Disciplinary case, which arose during that disciplinary
proceeding which has concluded. I believe my claims relating to the petition for relief from bar
dues were from January and February 2020, which approaches the statute of limitations in 3 or 4
months. In light of the multiple law suits and disciplinary proceedings which have arisen as a
result of the disciplinary proceeding, dismissing my law suit under Younger would likely render
me without relief for my bar dues petition which the Delaware Supreme Court appeared to
address in its order, August 10, 2022, indicating the need for money over justice, making liberty
for sale not free. Recall information contained in the bar dues petitions show the Delaware
Supreme Court incited the disciplinary proceeding against me, though additional evidence of the
court’s collusion arose thereafter.
17
26 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 18
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
I still have claims for retaliation for my right to petition based on religious-political and
poverty animus. I also have claims, including but not limited to 42 USC §§§ 1983, 1985 and
1988 claims, as well as defamation, emotional distress, violations of my first amendment right of
speech, belief, exercise of belief, association, speech and petition etc, relating to petitions other
than the disciplinary petition. It places me in a difficult position should this case not be
considered by the only court with subject matter jurisdiction to consider my claims, the Delaware
District Court.
IV. BAD FAITH, HARASSMENT OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
HAVE ARISEN IN MY CASE THAT MAKE ABSTENTION INAPROPRIATE
Bad faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances have arisen in my case that make
abstention inappropriate.
The Record shows evidence of collusion and fraud to fix the proceeding against me,
including but not limited to the sealing of records material to my defense to prejudice my case,
the Board and Court denying my motions to perform discovery and to call witnesses to conceal
the fact they eliminated two key witnesses by terminating them from the court, denial of my
procedural due process rights, compelling me to attend a hearing when I was ill getting over the
shingles. (DI 58) The record is full of additional outrageous issues including denial of access to
the law library, granting me permission to hand in physical pleadings only to refuse to upload
them onto the electronic record to conceal the ignored motions. (D.I. ). The Board rendered
email orders to prevent my opportunity to be heard on appeal. DI 47. The Hearing was
inaccurately transcribed to prejudice me in this sham proceeding. (DI 47) Patricia Swartz lied to
me about receipt of answer, which prejudiced me on costs an emotional distress. (DI 29). The
record shows bad faith denials by Defendants and the State Court in response to my motions for
a fair and impartial opportunity to be heard on issues other similarly situated attorneys would be
18
27 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 19
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
heard on. (DI 23, 34-36, 39-44, 47-58, 66, 69-75, 77-89, 95-96) There are other procedural
defects that shock the conscience, but there is neither time nor space to discuss. The procedural
history alone was 33 pages in my objections, I incorporate herein and do not waive due to space
and time limitations. Irreparable injury exception to abstention applies, in § 1983 actions.
Circumstances give rise to irreparable injury sufficient to warrant exception to Younger
abstention are extraordinary in the sense of creating an extraordinarily pressing need for
immediate federal equitable relief, not merely in the sense of presenting a highly unusual factual
situation. If I am being persecuted for believing differently, than other professionals who think
differently than the state or its government backed private or foreign partners are in danger of
being labeled the derogatory term disabled to demean their word before the public, while making
it difficult to buy and sell as a professional.
The State Courts, the Chancery and Delaware Supreme Courts are without jurisdiction to
grant relief beyond enjoining the state case since their members or agents incited the retaliatory
behavior against me in bad faith to fix the sham proceeding against me to protect the mere
appearance of the Courts while committing grave injustice that shocks the conscience. They
cannot void their own decisions by the dictates of their desires instead of my appeal or by a
lawsuit in federal court voiding their decision or holding they did not have subject matter due to
procedural due process or equal protections violations. I am not aware of any cases which make
orders voidable on equal protections grounds, but I reserve this argument for appeal too. It is
prudent to protect individual liberty of minorities and others who do not think or believe the
same as the majority or by the dictates of money. It makes us smarter to encourage diverse
thought, and free not controlled to conformed dreaded dumbed down standardization.
19
28 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 20
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
The Delaware Supreme Court and Board (“Defendants”) clearly violated Equal
Protections rights based on poverty-animus and political-religious animus, towards me as a party
of one on disdain for my religious-political petitions, defending and safeguarding my religiouspolitical beliefs, speech and association. beliefs, religious-political speech, religious-political
association my substantive and procedural due process rights, and disparately treated me, by
punishing me for my poverty, religious practice and religious speech pursuant to treatment that is
not neutral or generally applicable. US Const Amend. I, IV. I argue the case is voidable not only
for substantive and procedural due process violations including but not limited to denying me
notice pursuant to the rules, an opportunity to be heard, meaningful opportunity to prepare and
present my case before an impartial forum, an opportunity to call witnesses and to expect the
Court before whom I present my case has not actively concealed evidence and witnesses to fix
the proceeding against me, but also for the Court and the state’s and Defendants Equal protection
violations brought with poverty animus, and political-religious animus. Nevertheless, this is not
ripe for consideration until heard below. I fight now for the mere opportunity to be heard, the
opportunity for justice, not the guarantee.
I do not have an adequate opportunity to raise my federal claims in state Court, including
these claims. The state courts favor the Defendants, and favor their own agents. The Court
cannot make a determination for relief against itself as a party.
V.
THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING LEAVE TO
AMEND THE COMPLAINT, WHILE APPLYING THE YOUNGER ABSTENTION
On January 24, 2022, I filed a Motion to amend the complaint showing I must join the
Delaware Supreme Court and request for relief, I did not know was needed until that time,
showing bad faith, fraud or collusion. The State Forum had no ability to hear my claims and
additional claims fairly. (DI 43). The District-Court denied by failing to address it when it
20
29 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 21
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
rendered its order on April 26, 2022. The District Court sat on it for four months which is an
abuse of discretion, an error by failing to consider material facts, amending the facts to include
the additional facts, which causes manifest injustice against me, in terms of the loss of my
fundamental rights, emotional distress, loss of property interests in my licenses to practice law
and other harm. (DI 43)
The District Court appeared to fail to consider facts and legal arguments or exhibits
contained in my motions to amend and alter the complaint. I incorporate herein in the entirety by
reference, or other papers I filed I incorporate herein by reference, which are material to claims.
(DI 2, 3, 4, 7, the exhibits therein, 20, 21, 21 29, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 57, 58)
Since April 24, 2022, the new and additional evidence has arisen showing the Court
colluded in fixing the proceedings, including terminating two witnesses to conceal their
testimony and preventing me from calling witnesses and performing discovery to find out the
bad faith participation of the Delaware Supreme Court in concealing favorable testimony. Yet,
the District-Court was aware of this when it rendered its order. (DI 58)
After April 24, 2022, new and additional information, facts and legal claims and damages
have arisen which have not yet been considered. The District-Court must have opportunity to
consider the facts and arguments to prevent manifest injustice. (DI 62, 64, 65, especially note
the sealed docket items, that have since been unsealed, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80-85,
88, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96).
I have since moved the court through rolling motions to amend the Complaint altogether
once, at the conclusion of the appeal to the United States Supreme Court proceeding.
Nevertheless, this is not yet ripe for review. The mere opportunity to be heard must be protected.
21
30 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 22
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
The Court has not issued an opinion on the facts of my case, or the additional facts after the
order. I must be heard to prevent precedent that the Government is above the law, and there is
no forum to be heard, and others will be punished like me for asking for relief from government
incited substantial burdens upon my Constitutionally protected religious belief, religious
exercise, religious speech, religious association and religious petitions concerning government
incited grievances, and property interest in professional licenses. US Amends I, XIV
Leave to amend the complaint must be granted in the interest of justice since the District
Court allowed the additional injuries to be had against my person in bad faith. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If my motion to amend the complaint to include the Court had been
permitted, the Court would not be permitted to find Younger abstained my case.
Because this District Court prevented service of the Complaint, I must be permitted fair
opportunity to amend the Complaint after my appeal to the US Supreme Court to prevent
manifest injustice against me, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a), and under other provisions of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. I have a right to “amend without leave where no answer has been filed.”
Citing, De La Cruz-Saddul v. Wayne State University, E.D.Mich.1980, 482 F.Supp. 1388.
The District Court allowed the additional injuries to be had against my person in bad
faith. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Because this District Court prevented service of the Complaint, I must be permitted fair
opportunity to amend it after my appeal to the US Supreme Court to prevent manifest injustice
against me, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a), and under other provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. I
have a right to “amend without leave where no answer has been filed.” Citing, De La CruzSaddul v. Wayne State University, E.D.Mich.1980, 482 F.Supp. 1388 (Also see, Adams v.
22
31 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 23
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
Quattlebaum, D.D.C.2004, 219 F.R.D. 195 “Plaintiff enjoys absolute right to amend complaint
once at any time prior to responsive pleading or granting of motion to dismiss.”)
“Leave to file an amended complaint is not required, since defendant had not yet
answered,” and has not even been served yet. Cunard Line Ltd. v. Abney, S.D.N.Y.1982, 540
F.Supp. 657.
I think it prudent to serve an amended complaint as opposed to an original, and provide my
intent to file an amended complaint at a later time, all at once at the conclusion of my appeal of
the Delaware disciplinary matter to the US Supreme Court. (See, Datastorm Technologies, Inc. v.
Excalibur Communications, Inc., N.D.Cal.1995, 888 F.Supp. 112, “Complaint that has been
amended pursuant to rule governing motions to amend suspends pleading it modifies, rendering
original pleading void.”)
Defendants should reasonably expect, I would seek relief from this court for such
irreparable injuries I suffer as a result of the Court failing to enjoin the disciplinary proceeding,
and additional prospective relief to prevent new irreparable harm by amending my complaint to
include the same. (DI 2-4, 7-10). I have no adequate opportunity to raise my federal claims in the
state proceeding.
Defendants have notice, I will seek relief from this court for the irreparable harm I sought
to prevent, including but not limited to, irreparable injury, as a loss to protections of my
fundamental rights, harm towards my person, economic harm, by preventing me from seeking to
rejoin my former law firm, my active license to practice law, my reputation, my health, the
shingles, punishment for the exercise of my right to petition, in interference with my right to a fair
trial in Kelly v Trump, interference with my right to a fair trial in the disciplinary matter which was
unlawfully brought to punish me for the exercise of fundamental rights, my loss of and punishment
23
32 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 24
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
for the exercise of the right to a fair trial, to religious-political belief, religious-political association,
religious-political speech, and the right to make religious-political petitions when I believe the
government has committed a grievance against me, and procedural and substantive due process
rights applicable to the Defendants pursuant to the 1st and 14th Amendments, Vindictive
prosecution, selective prosecution and, or other claims.
On April 26, 2022, I filed a letter indicating my desire to amend the complaint again by
stating. “With new and additional information commonly arising in my case, I have a running
request to amend the complaint to conform with additional and new evidence, as they arise at the
end of proceeding, to include additional or new claims or evidence.” (D.I. 58 at page 14)
On May 7, 2022, I filed Plaintiff’s Addendum May 7, 2022, Critical documents unavailable
to conceal court misconduct attached hereto to be included in DI-4; State Court sealing of
documents in Kelly v Trump, correct and supplement the record at D.I. 4, (“May 7th Motion”),
wherein, I provided evidence the Delaware Supreme Court sealed my petitions, material to my
defense in the disciplinary proceeding, without providing me notice or an opportunity to be heard
to prejudice the case against me in the sham disciplinary proceeding. (D.I. 65, D.I. 65-2, D.I. 654).
I also alerted the court to my religious objection to swearing or affirming in the May 7th
Motion. (D.I. 65, paragraphs 17-22.); (Also see, D.I. 77-2).
Since, it became clear my complaint, as filed, did not appear accurate to the public, I filed
Appellant Plaintiff Meghan Kelly’s Motion Directing the Delaware District Court to correct the
Complaint to include the signature and listed damages for relief so as not to mislead the public,
attorneys and appellate Courts, to confirm my filing includes the claim for damages in the original
complaint. (DI 61).
24
33 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 25
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
On May 24, 2022, I filed a more formal motion, Plaintiff’s Rolling Motion to conform
complaint to the additional facts and legal arguments as they arise, as if already included in the
Complaint. (DI 69-75).
On June 7, 2022, I filed Plaintiff’s Motion to include pleadings filed on June 7, 2022, for
the Court’s consideration pursuant to her rolling motion to conform the complaint to additional
facts alleged and arguments as they arise, as if already included in the complaint. (D.I. 77)
There is a continuous need to amend the complaint, and I prefer to make a request leave be
granted at the conclusion of my appeal to the US Supreme Court on the state disciplinary
proceeding, as a matter of right, including appeals, or the time of appeal has lapsed. It appears
additional facts, harm, and claims of relief will arise until the conclusion of the State proceeding,
causing additional amendments to the complaint.
The Chancery Court revealed I cannot file for a mistrial, since the Court intentionally
drafted a rule requiring, I violate my religious beliefs against swearing in order to prevent me from
seeking a mistrial in Kelly v Trump, showing an unfair proceeding is guaranteed. (D.I. 77-2), See
paragraph 36 above. This same rule prevents me from contesting the adjudication of disability by
the Delaware Supreme Court before the Chancery Court. Id.
In the interest of justice, I must not be denied permission to file a motion to amend the
complaint to include the Delaware Supreme Court in addition to each of the members as outlined
in DI 43, as Defendants. I must petition this court to declare Kelly v Trump void, and seek to
enjoin the justices and the courts from enforcing their decision, because of the Delaware Supreme
court’s participation in denying my procedural and substantive due process rights in violation of
25
34 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 26
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
the First Amendment to fix the outcome, not only in the disciplinary proceeding, but also in Kelly
v Trump.4
A judgment may be void if a court "acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of
law." Constr. Drilling, Inc. v. Chusid, 131 F. App'x 366, 372 (3d Cir. 2005); citing, 1 Chrles Alan
Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2862.5 “While
60(b)(4) motions are ordinarily raised in the court that rendered the decision, they can be raised
elsewhere.” Id. Accordingly, I must be permitted the opportunity to plead to void Kelly v Trump
based on absence of subject matter jurisdiction or voidable subject matter jurisdiction for the
court’s incitement and participation in prosecuting me for my religious beliefs and speech,
contained in my petitions. In addition, I should not be denied the opportunity to request relief for
the state’s interference and attacks against me during my live religious-political RFRA case, Kelly
v Trump, to cause me to forgo constitutional rights and to affect the outcome. See, Kennedy v.
Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022) (“The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the
First Amendment work in tandem: where the Free Exercise Clause protects religious exercises,
whether communicative or not, the Free Speech Clause provides overlapping protection for
expressive religious activities.”)
4
Velasquez v. Litz, No. CV 3:21-1659, 2021 WL 5298912, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2021); See
Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007);
Abbott v. Mette, No. 20-CV-131-RGA, 2021 WL 1168958, at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2021), aff'd,
No. 21-1804, 2021 WL 5906146 (3d Cir. Dec. 14, 2021); Harris v. Raymond, No. 3:20-CV01119, 2020 WL 5267920, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2020), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 3:20-CV-1119, 2020 WL 5260769 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 2020)
5
Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994)(I argue the state’s decisions are void, without
jurisdiction exercised, outside of the scope of judicial function, in clear absence of all jurisdiction
since the Delaware Supreme Court incited the state arms to attack me to fix the outcome in both
Kelly v Trump, and the disciplinary matter.)
26
35 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 27
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
In Lucero v. Ramirez, No. 20-CV-2411-CAB-JLB, 2021 WL 1529932, at *1 (S.D. Cal.
Apr. 16, 2021), the Court held, “An attorney charged with misconduct is entitled to receive
reasonable notice, to conduct discovery, to have a reasonable opportunity to defend against the
charge by the introduction of evidence, to be represented by counsel, and to examine and crossexamine witnesses.” I was denied these rights in the disciplinary proceeding too. The Delaware
Supreme Court concealed the elimination of the witnesses, material pleadings, and colluded with
the Defendants to obstruct my access to material witnesses in the disciplinary proceeding.
I have a “right to be tried by an unbiased and impartial judge without a direct personal
interest in the outcome of the hearing [as prosecutor or witness].” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575,
584 , Citing, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510.
Per the US Supreme Court in Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502 (1972), Overruled in Gregg
v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 (1976), on other grounds,
“[E]ven if there is no showing of actual bias in the tribunal, [the US Supreme Court]
has held that due process is denied by circumstances that create the likelihood or the
appearance of bias. This rule, too, was well established long before the right to jury trial
was made applicable in state trials, and does not depend on it. Thus, it has been invoked in
trials to a judge, e. g., Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133
(1955); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (1971)
The Delaware Supreme Court, would have correctly kicked the case out, in Kelly v Trump,
for my failure to serve US Attorney General. They expressly did not. (DI 4, 79-3) Instead, the
court stated my legal arguments against executive orders that permitted money be given to
churches, under the deception of charity, to perform government business was lawful. In addition,
the members of the Delaware Supreme Court incited the Supreme Court’s arms to attack me during
proceeding, Kelly v Trump, to interfere with, and affect the outcome of my case.
I believe people go to hell for thinking business or money, convenience, avoidance of costs,
or productivity is the law, making the law for sale, not protecting free people by elimination of
27
36 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 28
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
Constitutional freedoms of speech, belief, exercise of belief, association, and petition. It teaches
that lawlessness, spoken of by Jesus, is the law, making money and material gain guide and God.
Jesus teaches those who serve money as guide and God will not have eternal life, but will be cast
in the fire. I believe courts have the ability to save eternal lives by taming the sin against the holy
spirit, with just decrees, to prevent businesses from killing stealing and destroying for the bottom
line.
The government ignores Constitutional liberties by enslaving its own people by making
money the law. No government money should be granted to any private entity, regardless as to
whether it is a not for profit, charity, another government, organization like CERN, business, or a
religious institution. If the government funds it, it should run it, at no cost to the people, by coining
money correctly, not through the federal reserve, and without debt and interest to care for the
people. Otherwise, equal protections are violated and partiality is granted to entities who may
perform government business at the least amount of cost, making those with more resources in a
better position of gaining more government funding. This creates wealth, favoring those who are
rich, while keeping the poor impoverished, not equal protections, but favoritism towards those
with connections, power or material wealth.
VI.
SOME NOT ALL OF NEW FACTS AND CLAIMS, WHICH MUST IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BE REMANDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, ALONG WITH MY OTHER CLAIMS
The new and additional facts and arguments contained in my motions and pleadings must
be considered to prevent abuse of discretion, clear error of law, clear error of fact and to prevent
manifest injustice against me by denying me the opportunity to be heard to safeguard my
exercise of First Amendment rights, creating loss of First Amendment rights and my interest in
my ability to work in my profession.
28
37 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 29
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
The hearings and actions taken by Defendants against my professional license in
retaliation for my exercise of Constitutional rights are in violation of the First Amendment, the
Procedural and Substantive Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. They must be rejected as by “rule of law” rather than personal vendetta for my
personal-religious-political speech contained in the petitions. (US Amend I, XIV)
The State denied me of substantive and procedural due process rights in this disciplinary
proceeding. The record shows clear and convincing evidence that the proceedings were brought,
with religious-political animus, in retaliation against me for filing Kelly v Trump and for
petitioning the court regarding bar dues to safeguard my liberties.
The state abused its discretion by 1. Vindicative prosecution, which constitutes a
violation of due process, and by Selective prosecution, which constitutes a denial of equal
protection.
The state courts are also without subject matter jurisdiction due to their conduct and
interference with Kelly v Trump, to fix the outcome of that case and their participation in fixing
the sham trial against me in the disciplinary action by violating my procedural and substantive
due process rights rendering both the action voidable.
I have a right to petition the courts when I believe a transgression has been committed
against me by the establishment of government religion by President Trump.
I uphold my oath by requesting government agents, judges, presidents and members of
congress to adhere to rule of law by allowing me to exercise my Constitutional rights. The steps
taken to orchestrate this proceeding circumvent due process protections and thereby manifest
selective targeted unjust persecution.
29
38 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 30
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
The State Courts, the Chancery and Delaware Supreme Courts are without jurisdiction to
grant relief since their members or agents incited the retaliatory behavior against me.
I did not have an adequate opportunity to raise my federal claims in state Court. The state
courts favor the Defendants, and favor their own agents. The Court cannot make a determination
for relief against itself as a party.
The Delaware Supreme Court and Board (also referred herein as “Defendants”) clearly
violated Equal Protections rights based on poverty-animus and political-religious animus,
towards me as a party of one on disdain for my religious-political petitions, defending and
safeguarding my religious-political beliefs, speech and association. beliefs, religious-political
speech, religious-political association my substantive and procedural due process rights, and
disparately treated me, by punishing me for my poverty, religious practice and religious speech
pursuant to treatment that is not neutral or generally applicable. US Const Amend. I, IV.
Nothing was normal during Kelly v Trump. Court staff appeared to seek to sabotage my
case, based on my political-religious beliefs and/or indigency, by 1. misleading me to almost
miss my deadline to appeal, 2. Appearing to disparage me based on religious-political beliefs
or/and poverty, 3. instructing me to write off the Attorney General’s address, which impeded
service, and 4. By writing on a praecipe, causing confusion, and needless pleadings.6
To worsen matters, the Delaware Supreme Court appeared to cause its arms to attack me
to get me to forgo my lawsuit. 7 DE-Lapp’s letter indicated the relief requested from the DE
Supreme Court, relating to bar dues, as the source of its interference with my law suit. Id. (DI 77
6
(Objxn-B-D, K-internal-exhibits-2-7, 27-29, DI 62-72.
7 DI 62-72, Objxn-E-G, K-internal Ex-20-26-29.
30
39 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 31
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
Exhibit A, B, C) The Clerk of Court confirmed the entire court reviewed my petitions relating
to attorney dues, evidencing the entire Court incited the interference in Kelly v Trump.
Further, Sussex Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth S. Clark, interrogated me at the
arms of the court’s request in public at BJ’s, located in Millsboro. He demanded I come to his
chambers for filing Kelly v Trump to obstruct, impede or cause me to forgo my lawsuit. Id.
Other parties are not threatened by Court agents wearing the cloak of government
authority to obstruct, impede or cause claimants to forgo cases whose religious-political beliefs
they disagree with. Minorities like myself, whose religious-political beliefs do not conform to
the mainstream are still afforded Constitutional protections for exercise of fundamental rights
relating to their diverse, tightly held religious-political beliefs, including speech defending such
rights in petitions.8
I petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court concerning the disparate treatment. The
Delaware supreme Court ruled my case was frivolous, and indicated my petitions relating to
disparate treatment need not be addressed. The Court sealed these same petitions it indicated
were not necessary to address to prejudice my case.
The Court’s disagreement with my religious beliefs is an impermissible reason to deem
me disabled. “Courts have no business addressing whether sincerely held religious beliefs
asserted in a RFRA case, [including mine] are reasonable.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
573 U.S. 682, 682. The government may not determine what is and what is not an acceptable
8
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644
31
40 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 32
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
religious belief.9 My God is the arbiter of my life, regarding religious beliefs, not the
government, even when the government deems my religious beliefs wrong or a disability.
The Court’s misguided conclusion that my case is frivolous is not a permissible reason to
deem me disabled. Other lawyers have their cases and their clients’ cases kicked out as frivolous
and they are not disciplined or deemed a danger to society. My religious-political beliefs are the
ODC’s admitted reason for their claim for disability and for disciplining me. (Exhibits E, F)
On August 23, 2021, the ODC sent me a threatening letter by email, interfering with my
active case, but for my petitions, before I appealed the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision to the
United States Supreme Court, admitting my Delaware Supreme Court and Chancery Court
religious-political pleadings, as the reason for their attack.10 (Exhibit E). The ODC’s attack
was “unconstitutional on its face and as applied.” Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 122 (3d
Cir. 2005). Should they have any legitimate concerns, which the record shows none, the ODC
should not have interfered with my First Amendment exercise of petitioning the courts, to affect
the outcome or pressure me to forgo the case, in violation of US Amend I and XIV. Id. at 125126.
On October 25, 2021, I filed a lawsuit to enjoin the ODC for retaliating against me for
exercising fundamental rights, and for damages for emotional relief.11 On November 1, 2021 the
US Supreme Court denied my writ of certiorari.12
9 Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 887, 110 S. Ct.
1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990). (“the First Amendment forbids civil courts from” interpreting
“particular church doctrines” and determining “the importance of those doctrines to the
religion.”)
10 Objxn-K-Internal-Ex-5-7.
11 Objxn-H
12
Objn-K-Ex-1.
32
41 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 33
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
On or about November 4, 2021, the date the preliminary review committee conducted a
hearing, the Delaware Supreme Court sealed my Delaware Supreme Court petitions in Kelly v
Trump relating to disparate treatment, without notice and an opportunity for me, a party to be
heard, and without valid cause.
I did not have access to the sealed documents, through public record, nor did the ODC,
the public, or the federal courts, which prejudiced me to the benefit of the State. 13 Third Circuit
Judge Bright’s, concurring in part and dissenting in part in U.S. v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 221, 226
(3d Cir. 2007) indicated sealing documents without notice or opportunity for a party to be heard
without valid reason was enough to remove a judge from a case.
In my case the Delaware Supreme Court, sua sponte, sealed documents to assist the
ODC’s prosecution of me by concealing relevant material to my defense, evidencing the entire
court’s apparent bias against me and the Court’s partiality to the state.
“When a court considers the imposition of a seal, it must make particularized findings on
the record, giving notice on the docket of such consideration and rejecting alternatives to
closure.” U.S. v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 224 (3d Cir. 2007); See United States v. Criden, 675 F.2d
550, 560 (3d Cir.1982).
(N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. United States, 836 F.3d 421, 434 (3d Cir. 2016), “We have
previously recognized a right of access to judicial proceedings and judicial records, and this right
of access is beyond dispute.” Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 780-81 (3d Cir.
1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (recognizing that, in the context of criminal
proceedings, the press has a historically-based, common law right of access to judicial records
and documents). That right is rooted in common law and predates the Constitution. Bank of Am.
Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1986).
13
33
42 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 34
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
In my case, the Delaware Supreme Court did not make any such findings, and clearly
sealed the four docket items in Kelly v Trump, Delaware Supreme Court No 119, 2021, DI 16,
21, 40, 41, to benefit the government to my detriment, showing clear prejudice against me, in
violation of the procedural and substantive due process clause applicable to the state pursuant to
the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Nothing was normal in Kelly v Trump. The State and ODC attacked and retaliated
against me for my religious-political speech contained in my petitions, reflecting my religiouspolitical beliefs.14 The State has a history of ignoring my religious-political petitions, disparately
treating me based on religious view point. 15
This is not the first time, the State through its arm has retaliated against me for its own
lawless lusts, convenience, at the exchange of sacrificing Constitutional liberties, including the
right to petition. Objxn-D, H, at paragraphs 277-299. I lost more than two million dollars in
expected income, but for, the retaliation by the arms of the Court, for petitioning the State
through its arms or the Court regarding concerns while taking the Delaware Bar. Id.
Nothing was normal in my disciplinary case either. I was not treated like other lawyers
or other plaintiffs. I was disparately treated based on my poverty, and personal-religiouspolitical beliefs, as a party of one, and was selectively punished for exercise of Constitutional
liberties. 16
14
. Objxn-Ex B-H2, K
15 MOL Objxn-Ex-H, Objxn-Ex-N-internal-exhibits 1, 2to Exhibit 6, 3 to exhibit 6, 4 to exhibit
6, 5 to exhibit 6, 6 to exhibit 6, 8 to exhibit 6, Exhibit 7-9.
16
Objxn-K- 8-9, FF, GG, D.I. 55-56.
34
43 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 35
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
The State in bad faith prevented and obstructed discovery, to conceal witnesses were
removed from the Chancery Court to impede their testimony from aiding in my defense, and to
conceal relevant records were sealed by the Court to favor the ODC.17 The United States
Supreme Court held, "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused
upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to
punishment." Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 466 (1986). Concealing the fact two witnesses
were removed from the Chancery Court to prevent their favorable testimony in my defense, and
government concealing of petitions favorable to my defense, violates my Due Process rights to a
fair proceeding, by bias towards the State.
The Board’s findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence and should not be
adopted. The record shows substantial evidence the Board was objectively biased towards the
ODC, not fair, and prejudiced against me. The Board denied me of basic Equal protection,
procedural and substantive due process rights afforded to similarly situated respondents based on
disdain for my religious-political-exercise of fundamental rights and poverty. US Amend I and
XIV. I was denied an opportunity to be heard, to prepare and present my case, denied adequate
time to perform discovery, denied adequate notice which I at no time waived.18 The Board gave
me 18 days, when the DLRDP Rule 9(d)(3) required, they provide me with notice “at least 20
days in advance of the hearing date,” which prejudiced me. Id. The Board denied me of an
opportunity to subpoena and cross examine witnesses with first-hand knowledge, to conceal the
fact the State eliminated two potential witnesses from the court. Id.
17
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985);
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972).” Moran v.
Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 467 n.59 (1986)
18
Objxn, Ex-M-P-Q-R-R-1-S-T-U-U2-V-W-X-AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF-GG-HH, DI 55-56
35
44 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 36
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
The state rushed the proceeding and intentionally caused foreseeable emotional distress,
in hopes to make me physically ill to use it against me, like heartless monsters. Id.
I at no time sat on my rights, but fought for my life and liberty to worship God through
the practice of law, and as a citizen without government persecution but for my exercise of
fundamental rights. Id.
The state denied my 1st and 6th Amendment rights, applicable to the state via the 14th
Amendment, to represent myself at the inception, causing me to file pleadings.19 The Board
ignored, and did not address my motions objecting to insufficient notice, by its failure to provide
at least 20 days-notice of the hearing, as required by the rules of Disciplinary procedure, Rule 9,
which prejudiced my case, motivated by their animosity towards my religious-political beliefs
and exercise. Objxn-Ex-M,N, W. I filed objections to the appointment of Counsel, moved for
opportunity to perform discovery and postpone the hearing until fair reasonable due process was
granted in a motion dated, December 18, 2022. That was ignored. Objxn-Ex-N-M-N-O-P. On
December 29, 2021, I filed a letter with the Court requesting relief since the hearing was two
weeks away, and I had not even been granted 6th Amendment permission to represent myself to
perform discovery or prepare, at the time. Objxn-Ex-P.
It was not until December 30, 2022, the Court granted me the right to self-represent, less
than 13 full days before the hearing, with no opportunity to prepare my defense of religiouspolitical petitions, speech, association, beliefs against state persecution, but for my belief in
Jesus. Ex-P-2.
Obxn-Ex-N. Mark 13:11 “Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not prepare
beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you
speaking, but the Holy Spirit.”
19
36
45 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 37
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
I was so physically and emotionally exhausted that I fell ill with the shingles. After the
reprieve, the small battle of self-representation won, I noticed my rash, pain, lethargy and
weakness. Yet, I filed a motion the next day, that was ignored by the Board dated December 31,
2021, to prevent medical and mental examinations, dated December 31, 2021, Ex-Q, and another
one dated on or about January 31, 2022, incorporated herein, Ex-X. Physical and mental
examinations are against my religious beliefs, and the Court must not maliciously violate my
religious beliefs in bad faith.
I followed up with the Board numerous times on the status of my motion to perform
discovery, objection to insufficient notice, and postpone the hearing so as not to prejudice me,
and at no time sat on my rights. Ex-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-R-1,R-2-S-T-U-U2-V-W-X. I filed
additional motions to postpone the hearing so as not to deny me a fair reasonable opportunity to
prepare and present my case, perform discovery, cross examine witnesses. Id. I was denied basic
due process rights, and substantive due process rights, based on my religious-political exercise of
fundamental rights, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment, motivated by the state’s
disdain towards my personal religious-political beliefs, exercise, speech and petitions
demonstrating my faith in Jesus. Id.
I appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court and was denied procedural and substantive
due process rights, based on the fact the Court appeared to render a verdict before granting me an
opportunity to be heard, motivated by disdain to discriminate me based on my religious beliefs
by disparate treatment, unusual to those of other claimants before the court. Ex-R, Ex-R-1, Ex-S,
Ex-T, Ex-U, Ex-U-2, Ex-V.
The State ignored and denied me an opportunity to be heard on various motions and
appeals, including but not limited to pleadings dated December 18, 2021, December 31, 2022,
37
46 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 38
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
January 13, 2022, January 15, 2022, objecting to due process violations, moving to postpone the
hearing, to call witnesses, and objecting to the insufficient notice sent out notice 18 days prior to
the scheduled hearing. Ex-P-Q-R-R-2-S-T-U-U-2-V-W. I had no time to subpoena witnesses, or
even to discover the fact the state eliminated witnesses through terminating their employment in
the Chancery Court, and I moved the Board and the Court to grant me time, specifically
mentioning Arline Simmons as witness. I at no time waived my insufficient notice argument.
Defendant Kathleen Vavala (“Kathleen”), did not participate in the proceeding until after
the hearing took place. Her recital of the DRPC rules to mislead the court is in vain. I was not
afforded the protections of the rules, and at no times waived my Constitutional rights to a fair
proceeding. The voluminous exhibits the Board ignored, deeming them as irrelevant, are
relevant to show in fact the Board denied me an opportunity to be heard on the assertions and
pleas contained therein, in defense of my exercise of fundamental rights. The exhibits show I did
not sit on my rights or waive them.
Contrary to Kathleen’s assertion, having only been granted the right to represent myself
13 days before the hearing date, I was not afforded with ample time to provide a list of witnesses
to call 10 days in advance of the hearing, as required under DLRDC (12)(h) as I faced other
complications including but not limited to the lack of a phone, computer malfunctioning, the
shingles, and vulture destruction of property. See D.I. 55-56. I did not even discover Arline
Simmons, a witness I motioned to call, could not be served at the Chancery Court until after the
hearing. Objxn-Ex-U. I had insufficient time to effectuate discovery, as I fought to represent
myself so as not to violate my religious beliefs. The Board ignored and indirectly denied my
requests for time for an opportunity, while rendering an informal, unappealable order in email
form. Obxn-M-U2.
38
47 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 39
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
The hearing was postponed for 8 days, for a reason I did not assert, my illness, which did
not afford me enough time to prepare, research, perform discovery, fully recover, or to subpoena
witnesses to notice opposing counsel 10 days in advance. DLRDP (12)(h). Objxn-Ex-R-1. The
Board ignored and rendered no orders on other motions, and rendered an E-mail determination,
to obstruct formal appeal on January 18, 2022, in the fixed proceeding against me. Objxn-Ex-U2.
I attempted to require the Board cancel the hearing, in advance, to prevent incurring costs
as I was still not feeling well. I was so sick and exhausted and emailed the Board to cancel the
hearing. I had no time to prepare, could not sleep, and truly felt sick, but was concerned the
State may think I had the plague, Covid-19. Objxn-Ex-EE. I attended the hearing without being
afforded an opportunity to prepare, and present my case, call witnesses, perform discovery or
even to be human to care for my recovery because I did not want to be held in contempt. I made
a special appearance preserving my objections to improper notice, lack of subject matter
jurisdiction due to the Delaware Supreme Court’s apparent participation in inciting the case, and
to object on substantive and procedural Due process and Equal Protections grounds for the
disparate treatment against me during the proceeding, and in inciting the proceeding. Objxn.MOL.
The State knew I was exhausted, recovering from the shingles, lacking of sleep, without
being afforded a fair opportunity to prepare and present my case. They did not care about me, or
my personal health or my lack of a fair opportunity to present my case for my sake. They
appeared to hope I would get sick to use it against me.
I attended the hearing by phone since I had no working computer. Objxn-Ex-GG, D.I. 5556. Upon receipt of the transcript, I objected, and I object again as the transcript does not
39
48 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 40
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
accurately reflect my testimony. The reporter placed words that I did not say in my mouth.
Objxn-Ex-AA, BB, CC. It appeared the state set me up. I filed corrections, which in no way
make the transcript completely accurate. Id.
Kathleen, did not participate in this action until after the hearing. She relies on the
inaccurate transcript I object to, and demeans me for my lack of a working computer and
poverty, as evidence of disability. I am so poor I did not have a phone until sometime in January
2022. My computer did not work at the time of the hearing, and my backup computer also
malfunctioned. My confusion as to why the computer was not working was absolutely genuine,
and not evidence of a disability.
Kathleen’s bad faith, or at best ignorant, attacks display her cold heartless indifference
towards the substantial burden poverty has placed upon my defense of exercise of fundamental
rights in this case.20 “[A]t all stages of the proceedings the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses protect [indigent persons] from invidious discriminations” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
370 (1996) “Because this case implicates the [Constitutionally protected] right of access to the
courts,” and other fundamental rights, the government’s disparate treatment towards me, based
on poverty, is still unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny basis test. Citing, Tennessee v. Lane,
541 U.S. 509, 533 n.20 (2004).21
The Record shows the Court denied me an opportunity to be heard, until it was too late,
until violations of my First Amendment rights already occurred. Objxn-Ex-R2, V. The
Delaware Supreme Court also indicated it made a determination on my defenses before affording
me an opportunity to be heard by deeming my claims for an opportunity to prepare and present a
20
21
Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 317 (3d Cir. 2001)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 370 (1996); Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 18 (1989)
40
49 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 41
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
case, perform discovery and call witnesses, as frivolous before their assertion, preventing a fair
and impartial opportunity to be heard at the hearing, preventing discovery, colluding with the
state in the fixed proceeding against me. Objxn-Ex-V It is notable that both the Board and the
court waited until two or three days prior to the hearing to address any matter while ignoring
motions, leaving them unanswered.
I must be permitted to argue the Disciplinary proceeding be voided by the District Court.
The Board and the Court both violated my substantive and procedural due process rights in the
Board proceeding in bad faith, with objective partiality towards the government, and prejudice
against me.
The Third Circuit held, “A judgment may also be void if a court "acted in a manner
inconsistent with due process of law."22
I must be permitted to argue the Delaware Supreme Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction or subject matter is voidable for apparently inciting the prosecution, and concealing
beneficial evidence in bad faith to prejudice me with partiality to the government to fix the
proceeding against me in violation of the Procedural and Substantive Due Process Clause
pursuant to the State under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The record shows the Delaware Supreme Court through its agents participated in inciting
the proceedings against me, acting as witness, prosecutor and judge, and by concealing evidence
by 1. inciting the Court’s arms to attack me in Kelly v Trump, and the present disciplinary
proceeding, 2. collaborating with the Chancery Court and directing Delaware Supreme Court
22
Constr. Drilling, Inc. V. Chusid, No. 03-3786, 2005 WL 1111760, at *3 (3d Cir. May 11,
2005). See Respondent’s Exhibits to the Hearing (“R-Ex”) Exhibits 35, 37 Part 2, 42, R 44
41
50 of 80
Case: 21-3198
Document: 98-2
Page: 42
Date Filed: 10/22/2022
employee Mrs. Robinson to sign off on the departure information of one or two of the former
Chancery Court staff workers with information material to my state case, who appeared to lose
their jobs, while preventing my opportunity to perform discovery or subpoena the two concealed
witnesses, and 3, by eliminating some of the petitions for which the Defendants allege to bring
the State action against me, placing them under seal, without notice to me a party, and without
lawful reason, such as sensitive information relating to social security or bank accounts, to cover
up the Court’s and State’s lawless acts, with knowledge these petitions are relevant to my
defense and the federal proceeding.
Eliminating truth or evidence guarantees injustice. It is my religious belief courts exists
to correct and guide those misguided by business greed, profit, position, and power, who
sacrifice the lives, health and liberty of others for material gain, essentially selling souls to gain
the world, only to lose their own eternal soul by the sin against the holy spirit, hardness of hearts
from caring to think, to know, to love others unless it affects them.
Eliminating evidence hides the truth, or diverse views, allowing only the governmentbacked private
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.