Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kenneth J. Rosellini, Petitioner v. Gary N. Wilcox, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Judge, Superior Court, Bergen County, New Jersey, et al.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

IN THE

JUL 2 9 2025

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KENNETH ROSELLINI--PETITIONER,

v.

GARY WILCOX, HON. FRANK LAROCCA,

MICHAEL DOBLIN, DDS, JUDGE EDWARD

TORACK, MARIE LIHOTZ, HANY MAWLA, MARIE

SIMONELLI, STUART RABNER, CARMEN DIAZ­

PETTI, SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

DISTRICT XI ETHICS COMMITTEE, NORMAN

KLEIN, and ROBERT C. PAPA-RESPONDENTS

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

KENNETH JAMES ROSELLINI (PROSE)

636A VAN HOUTEN AVENUE

CLIFTON, NEW JERSEY 07013

(973) 998-8375

received

NOV - * 2025

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1)

Is there a full and fair opportunity for a

person to raise constitutional issues in in state court

attorney ethics proceedings, so that Younger

Abstention can be invoked by a federal district court

to dismiss a §1983 civil rights case filed by that

person alleging constitutional violations, where a

state court rule bars the trial level tribunal and

appellate level tribunal from hearing constitutional

issues, reserves constitutional issues for a hearing

with the state’s highest court, and the state’s highest

court fails or refuses to make any opinion or decision

whatsoever on those constitutional issues, except to

deny the person’s petition to the highest court

without explanation?

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the

cover page.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW........................................................ 1

JURISDICTION...............................................................2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........................................ 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................... 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING WRIT........................... 7

CONCLUSION .............................................................. 16

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A -- UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, Case

No. 22-2610, Order denying Appellant’s petition

for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, .la

APPENDIX B - UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, Case

No. 22-2610, Order affirming district court

dismissal of Appellant’s claims against

Appellees under the Younger Abstention

Doctrine.............................................................................3a

APPENDIX C - UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, Case

No. 22-2610, Opinion affirming district court

dismissal of Appellant’s claims against

Appellees under the Younger Abstention

Doctrine.............................................................................5a

APPENDIX D - UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW

JERSEY, Civil Action No. 20-20101,

Order denying Appellant’s motion to vacate Order

of dismissal of Appellant’s claims against Appellees

under the Younger Abstention Doctrine .............. 17a

ii

APPENDIX E--DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF

NEW JERSEY, Civil Action No. 20’20101,

Order of dismissal of Appellant’s claims

against Appellees under the Younger

Abstention Doctrine.................................................... 23a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Cullen v. Fliegner, 18 F.3d 96, 103’04

(2d Cir. 1994).............................................................. 16

Feingold v. Office ofDisciplinary Counsel, 487 F.

App'x 743, 745 (3d Cir. 2012)

:.................... 12

Gonzalez v. Waterfront Comm’n ofN.Y. Harbor,

755 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 2014).............................

7

In Re Hinds, 90 N.J. 604 449 A.2d 483 (1982). . . .11

Malhan v. Secy United States Dep’t ofState,

938 F.3d 453, 461 (3d Cir. 2019)...........................

3

Middlesex County Ethics Comm, v Garden State

Bar Assn., 457 US 423, 435 (1982)...................... 7’13

Ohio Civil Rights Comm 'n v. Dayton Christian

Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 629, 106 S. Ct. 2718,

91 L. Ed. 2d 512 (1986)............................................ 8’10

Root Ref. Co. v. Universal Oil Prod. Co., 169 F.2d

514, 521-22 (3d Cir. 1948)........................................ 13

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. vAG, 21 F.4th 886,

888 (3d Cir 2022).......................................................... 10

Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69,

77-78 (2013)................................................................

3

United States Supreme Court in Middlesex Cty.

Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457

U.S. 423, 437 (1982)....................................................... 7

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)..................

3

Zahl v. Harper, 282 F.3d 204, 210 (3d Cir. 2002) .8'11

STATUTES AND RULES

28U.S.C. §1254................................................................ 2

28 U.S.C. §2201 ...............................................................3

42U.S.C. §1983 ...............................................................2

Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules

Following Rules Governing the Courts of the State of

New Jersey-

Rule 1-4-5..................................................................

4

Rule L20-16(f)(2)......................................................

6

Rule L20'15(h).......................................................

3-4

Rule Professional Conduct 3.4(c)............................... 4

Rule Professional Conduct 8.4(d).............................. 4

CONSTITUION OF THE UNITED STATES

First Amendment....................................................... 1-16

Fourteenth Amendment........................................... 1*16

iv

OPINIONS BELOW

The Drder of the United States Court of

Appeals for die Third Circuit, filed on April 30, 2025,

reprinted i Appendix hereto at Appendix A, la to

2a, Rosellir v. Wilcox, Case No. 22-2610. This Order

denied Ap] sllant’s petition for rehearing by the

panel and t e Court on banc.

The )rder of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 5,

2025, reprii ted in Appendix hereto at Appendix B,

3a to 4a.

'his Order Affirmed the District Court

Dismissal appellant’s claims against Appellees

under the Y unger Abstention Doctrine.

The 1 pinion of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 5,

2025, reprii ;ed in Appendix hereto at Appendix C,

5a to 16a. ' his Opinion Affirmed the District Court

Dismissal

.ppellant’s claims against Appellees

under the Y< rnger Abstention Doctrine.

The C der of the United States District Court

for the Disti it of New Jersey, filed on July 28, 2022,

reprinted in \ppendix hereto at Appendix D, 17a to

22a. This O der denied Appellant’s motion to vacate

Order of dis lissal of Appellant’s claims against the

Appellees ur [er the Younger Abstention Doctrine.

The 0 der of the United States District Court

for the Dist] ct of New Jersey, filed on October 14,

2021, reprin id in Appendix hereto at Appendix E,

23a to 42a. This Order of dismissed Appellant’s

claims agaii jt the Appellees under the Younger

Abstention E ctrine.

1

JURISDICTION

The < ate on which the United States Court of

Appeals fo the Third Circuit denied Appellant’s

petition for •ehearing by the panel and the Court en

banc was A ril 30, 2025, a copy of this Order appears

at Appendix A.

This natter involves federal questions under

the under t e First and Fourteenth Amendments to

the Constit tion for the United States of America,

and the a plication of the Younger Abstention

Doctrine tc decline to exercise jurisdiction over

Appellant’s Complaint for violations of the

Constitutioi pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983..

The j risdiction of this Court is invoked under

28 U.S.C. §1 554.

CONSTH JTIONAL, PROVISIONS, STATUTES

AND POLICIES AT ISSUE

First Amenc nent to the Constitution of the United

States

Congress si all make no law . . . abridging the

freedom of s eech ....

Fourteenth imendment to the Constitution of the

United Stat( i

No State sh< LI make or enforce any law which shall

abridge the ] rivileges or immunities of citizens of the

United Stal s; nor shall any State deprive any

person of 1 e, liberty, or property, without due

process of la1 ... .

2

Younger Al itention Doctrine

‘Younger i quires federal courts to abstain from

deciding ci ;es that would interfere with certain

ongoing sts e proceedings.” Malhan v. Secy United

States Dep ; of State, 938 F.3d 453, 461 (3d Cir.

2019) (citir ; Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571

U.S. 69, 77 78 (2013)); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

37 (1971).

TATEMENT OF THE CASE

This proceeding involves one or more

questions o: exceptional importance, whether state

court rules, n this case Rule l-20-15(h) of the Rules

Governing 1 le Courts of the State of New Jersey,

violate the iue process clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment because it instructs persons to take

actions regs dless of whether those actions violate

the Constiti ;ion for the United States of America,

and whethe: only being permitted to present claims

of Constitw onal violations to one tribunal in a

proceeding, n this case the New Jersey Supreme

Court, is si Eficient due process so that Younger

Abstention l >plies even when that tribunal denies a

hearing on lose claims without a hearing or any

explanation s to why they were denied.

Petitic ter seeks the following declaratory

relief in the Inited States District Court. Count I of

Petitioner’s ( implaint seeks declaratory relief under

28 U.S.C. §2; 11 for, inter alia, the following-

A. Declaring as a matter of due process under the

Fourteenth 1 mendment to the Constitution for the

3

United Sta ss of America, that state court officers

have a dut and obligation to guard against fraud

upon the lourt to ensure their constitutional

integrity, a: d that the doctrine of Res Judicata may

not be us d as a legitimate basis under the

Fourteenth Amendment to deny an application to

vacate or

id a state court judgment based upon

fraud upon le court; and . . .

C. Declarin as a matter of due process under the

Fourteenth Lmendment, that Rule U20-15(h.) of the

Rules Gove ning the Courts of the State of New

Jersey viol tes the due process clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, both on its face and as

applied to t e Plaintiff, because it instructs persons

to take acti ns regardless of whether those actions

violate the Constitution for the United States of

America,' an ...

F. Declaring that Rule 1-4-8, RPC 8.4(d), RPC 3.4(c),

and any ini ;rent power possessed by state courts,

may not be used for purposes of intimidation or

chilling fu: damental rights under the First

Amendment ind both the Due Process and Privileges

and Immu ities clauses of the Fourteenth

Amendment so that they infringe upon the

fundamental rights of free speech and advocacy of

litigants in s ite courts.

Subse< aent to the Petitioner’s filing of the

federal civil: ghts complaint, on March 31, 2021 the

District Ethi s Panel issued a 2-1 decision that the

Complaint si mid be dismissed without prejudice for

the Petitiom • to pursue the issues raised in the

federal comp lint. The public panelist who refused to

4

recuse himself on a motion by Petitioner, issued a

dissenting opinion in clear retaliation for the filing of

the federal complaint; in violation of Petitioner’s

First Amendment rights he found [emphasis added]... in light of the fact that Mr. Rosellini

continues to pursue his quest, and now cites

that he is being denied his right to free speech

as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution, I would

now recommend that the District Review

Board consider to issue a reprimand as a

result of this hearing, regardless of the

outcome of his latest Civil Complaint.

Subsequently, the Office of Attorney Ethics (“OAE”)

sought censure, citing with approval the dissenter’s

opinion.

When the Disciplinary Review Board

(appellate review from the District Ethics Panel)

found for Suspension, the OAE adopted that position

to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

When Petitioner raised the issue of

Constitutional issued to the New Jersey Supreme

Court, as the Third Circuit Panel acknowledges, “the

New Jersey Supreme Court denied Rosellini’s

petition without explanation”. See 13a. This denial,

without any evidence of consideration of the

Petitioner’s Constitutional issues raised, is clearly

not in accordance with the requirement under

Younger Abstention that Petitioner had an adequate

opportunity to be heard on these issues in state

court.

The Third Circuit Appellate Panel asserts-

5

Rosellini faced no procedural barriers here. In

fact, New Jersey’s disciplinary rules provide

two avenues for constitutional challenges to

the proceedings. An attorney can (1) petition

the New Jersey Supreme Court for immediate,

interlocutory review upon a showing of

irreparable harm during the proceedings, N.J.

Ct. R. l-20’16(f)(l), or (2) raise constitutional

challenges in a petition for review after an

adverse decision by the DRB, N.J. Ct. R. 1-2016(f)(2). Rosellini chose only the second

avenue. If anything, Rosellini limited his own

opportunities to raise his constitutional

claims.

See 13a.

Petitioner in no way “limited his own

opportunities to raise his constitutional issues”, and

in fact was afforded no effective opportunity. N.J.

Ct. R. 1-20-16(f)(2) provides two possible avenues to

raise constitutional issues, this first one is an

interlocutory petition which the New Jersey

Supreme Court can simply deny without explanation,

or on a final appeal, which apparently the New

Jersey Supreme Court denied without explanation—

choosing the second avenue in no way “limited” any

opportunity to have Constitutional issues heard. In

fact, the Appellees application of the rule, finding

that they were barred from opining on Constitutional

issues before it, was a clear bar.

6

r

REASONS WHY CERTIORARI SHOULD BE

GRANTED

Younger Abstention and Due Process require a

full and fair opportunity for a person to raise

constitutional issues in in state court attorney ethics

proceedings, so that Younger Abstention cannot be

invoked by a federal district court .to dismiss a §1983

civil rights case filed by that person alleging

constitutional violations, where a state court rule

bars the trial level tribunal and appellate level

tribunal from hearing constitutional issues, reserves

constitutional issues for a hearing with the state’s

highest court, and then state’s highest court fails or

refuses to make any opinion or decision whatsoever

on those constitutional issues, except to deny the

person’s petition to the highest court without

explanation.

The case , that the Third Circuit Panel relies

on, Gonzalez v. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor,

755 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 2014), misapplied the facts

and law of the cases it cited, and the Third Circuit

Panel itself misapplies the facts and law of the cases

of United States Supreme Court in Middlesex Cty.

Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457- U.S.

423, 437 (1982). Gonzalez v. Waterfront Comm’n of

N.Y. Harbor, 755 F.3d 176, 184 (3d Cir. 2014) states

in pertinent.part:

The

Supreme

Court

has,

on

multiple [**21] occasions, affirmed decisions

to abstain notwithstanding the state agency's

refusal or inability to consider federal

challenges in the initial administrative

proceeding—at least where those challenges

may be presented on appeal to the state

7

the Appellees, and the Third Circuit Panel, that an

ethics committee’s refusal to abide by the

Constitution, would be consistent with Younger

Abstention in the face of a District Court’s

responsibility to enforce the Constitution. See Smith

& Wesson Brands, Inc. v AG, 27 F.4th 886, 888 (3d

Cir 2022) (“District Court violated its "virtually

unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction

given," Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v.

United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 47

L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976)”). In Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n

v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 629,

106 S. Ct. 2718, 91 L. Ed. 2d 512 (1986), the court

found it absurd the Commission would not consider

Constitutional issues before it:

. . . even if Ohio law is such that the

Commission

may

not

consider

the

constitutionality of the statute under which it

operates, it would seem an unusual doctrine,

and one not supported by the cited case, to say

that the Commission could not construe its

own statutory mandate in the light of federal

constitutional principles ....

See Ohio Civ. Rights Commn. v Dayton Christian

Schs., Inc., 477 US 619, 629 (1986). In Zahl v

Harper, 282 F3d 204, 210 (3d Cir 2002), the Court

found that:

The third part of the Garden State test is met

because Zahl can assert his federal preemption

claim in the state administrative proceeding.

Moreover, he has an automatic right of appeal

to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court

of New Jersey, N.J. Ct. R. 2:2-3(a)(2), which is

capable of reviewing Zahl's federal claims.

10

See Zahl v Harper, 282 F3d 204, 210 (3d Cir 2002).

In Middlesex itself, the New Jersey Supreme Court

actually heard and ruled upon the Constitutional

claims raised in that proceedingWhatever doubt, if any, that may have existed

about respondent Hinds' ability to have

constitutional challenges heard in the bar

disciplinary hearings was laid to rest by the

subsequent actions of the New Jersey

Supreme Court. Prior to the filing of the

petition for certiorari in this Court the New

Jersey Supreme Court sua sponte entertained

the constitutional issues raised by respondent

Hinds. Respondent Hinds therefore has had

abundant

opportunity

to

present

his

constitutional challenges in the

state

disciplinary proceedings

See Middlesex County Ethics Comm, v Garden State

Bar Assn., 457 US 423, 436 (1982). The plaintiff­

appellant in the Middlesex case, therefor, actually

had his Constitutional issues heard and ruled upon

by the New Jersey Supreme Court [In Re Hinds, 90

N.J. 604 449 A.2d 483 (1982)], which is why the

United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of

abstention. In fact, the Third Circuit Panel cites not

a single Circuit or Supreme Court decision in which

the person asserting standing and jurisdiction in

district court was denied any ruling or explanation

on Constitutional issues that they raised at either

the trial/commission level or the appellate level of

the subject tribunal. Under no circumstance is the

situation which the Petitioner in the within case has

found himself in, should the District Court’s virtually

11

unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction

given. This is clearly not in accordance with the

requirement for abstention that the state

“proceedings must afford an adequate opportunity to

raise federal claims.” See Feingold v. Office of

Disciplinary Counsel, 487 F. App'x 743, 745 (3d Cir.

2012) (emphasis added).

The Third Circuit Panel also failed to properly

consider the issues of bad faith in the state

proceedings. Those proceedings were found by a two

to one decision to be required to be dismissed at the

local ethics committee level, and only proceeded

when the Office of Attorney Ethics and every

subsequent tribunal either explicitly or tacitly

supported the position of the dissenter in that “in

light of the fact that Mr. Rosellini continues to

pursue his quest, and now cites that he is being

denied his right to free speech as guaranteed by the

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Constitution, I would now recommend that the

District Review Board consider to issue a reprimand

as a result of this hearing, regardless of the outcome

of his latest Civil Complaint.” The reason for the

retaliation is clear, the state actors refuse to

acknowledge their obligations under the Constitution

to ensure that state court tribunals must be free

from fraud, even in the face of doctrines such as Res

Judicata, which is why Appellees oppose the

declaratory relief Petitioner is seeking, that as a

matter of due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution for the United States

of America, that state court officers have a duty and

obligation to guard against fraud upon the court to

ensure their constitutional integrity, and that the

doctrine of Res Judicata may not be used as a

12

legitimate basis under the Fourteenth Amendment

to deny an application to vacate or void a state court

judgment based upon fraud upon the court.

[W]hen the controversy has been terminated

by a judgment, its freedom from fraud may

always be the subject of further judicial

inquiry; and the general rule that courts do

not set aside their judgments after the term at

which they rendered has no application.

See Root Ref. Co. v. Universal Oil Prod. Co., 169 F.2d

514, 521-22 (3d Cir. 1948).

“If all three prongs of the Younger analysis are

met, federal courts should abstain unless there is a

showing of "bad faith, harassment, or some other

extraordinary circumstance that would make

abstention inappropriate." Middlesex Cnty. Ethics

Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423,

435, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1982).” See

Feingold v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 487 F.

App'x 743, 745 (3d Cir. 2012). The bad faith on the

part of the Appellees is in covering up the

wrongdoing of the state court proceedings which led

to the subject sanctions and ethics proceedings. This

includes the actions of the Defendant-Appellee Gary

Wilcox, who was recently temporarily suspended

from the state bench for unethical conduct (Gary N.

Wilcox, Supreme Court Order) (referred to by the

Third Circuit Panel, footnote 7 on Page 9, Appellant

“also cites unrelated ethics proceedings against a

New Jersey judge . . . .”

This matter stems from New Jersey Attorney

Ethics proceedings brought against Petitioner for

disobeyed are frivolous litigation sanctions orders

13

that were issued when he filed, pro bono, on behalf of

a client, a motion in New Jersey Superior Court to

vacate family court orders based upon fraud upon the

court, including allegations that there was forged

signature on a settlement agreement, which was not

properly placed upon the record and which went

missing from the record, which had never been

litigated before. Petitioner openly asserts that these

orders are constitutionally invalid, and were issued

in retaliation for him having raised issues of fraud

upon the court which expose the state courts’ own

wrongdoing. Petitioner’s client, Linda Doblin, passed

away in August of 2022. She was denied justice in

her lifetime. At the time of the fraud upon the court,

she was a hearing disabled financially dependent

spouse who had obtained a final order of divorce

after being subjected to spousal abuse, with primary

custody of her minor child and with necessary

financial support from her ex-spouse. Due to the ex

spouse’s successful fraud upon the court and abuse of

process, less than three years after the final

arbitrator’s judgment pursuant to the divorce,

Petitioner’s client found herself a) bankrupt, b) with

her child effectively in the sole custody of the spouse,

with one hour a week supervised visitation with her

son, the father enabled to abuse their son’s education

by sending him away to an isolated desert

Scientology indoctrination camp for months at a

time, and c) subjected to malicious criminal

prosecution for interference with custody (which was

dismissed when the subject settlement agreement

came up missing from the court record), when her

son in accordance with the law, time after time

sought refuge with his mother from abuse from the

spouse).

The Third Circuit Panel applied too

14

limiting a definition of bad faith to the Younger

Abstention exception.

Intervention would still be warranted upon a

showing of "bad faith, harassment or any other

exceptional circumstance that would call for

equitable relief. . . a refusal to abstain is also

justified where a prosecution or proceeding has

been brought to retaliate for or to deter

constitutionally protected conduct, or where a

prosecution or proceeding is otherwise brought

in bad faith or for the purpose to harass. E.g.,

Lewellen v. Raff, 843 F.2d 1103, 1109-10 (8th

Cir. 1988), cert, denied, 489 U.S. 1033, 103 L.

Ed. 2d 229, 109 S. Ct. 1171 (1989) (bad faith

prosecution where brought in retaliation for

exercise of First Amendment rights); Rowe v.

Griffin, 676 F.2d 524 (11th Cir. 1982) (bad faith

prosecution where brought after assurances of

immunity to defendant).

In such cases, a showing of retaliatory or bad

faith prosecution establishes

irreparable

injury for the purposes of the Younger

doctrine, Bishop v. State Bar of Texas, 736 F.2d

292, 294 (5th Cir. 1984); Shaw v. Garrison, 467

F.2d 113, 119-21 (5th Cir.), cert, denied,

409 U.S. 1024, 34 L. Ed. 2d 317, 93 S. Ct. 467

(1972), and the expectations for success of the

party bringing the action need not be relevant.

See, e.g, Lewellen, 843 F.2d at 1109-10

(injunction justified regardless of expectations

where prosecution brought to discourage

exercise of constitutional rights). Abstention

would serve no purpose because a state cannot

have a legitimate interest in discouraging the

exercise of constitutional rights, see, e.g., id. at

15

1110, or, equally, in continuing actions

otherwise brought in bad faith, thereby

reducing the need for deference to state

proceedings.

See Cullen v. Fliegner, 18 F.3d 96, 103-04 (2d Cir.

1994) (emphasis added). It is respectfully submitted,

that the sole purpose of the state ethics proceedings

against the Petitioner is to retaliate, in bad faith,

against him for the exercise of First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights, and under those circumstances,

the District Court must not abstain.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully

submits that this Petition for Writ of Certiorari

should be granted under Rule 10 of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the United States.

Dated- July 29, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

KENNETH ROSELLINI, ESQ.

16