Given that the first fourth and fourteenth RELIGIOUS guaranties are the law stated with specificity in Constitutional and legal RIGHTS that are respected by ALL States as a matter of American law and as a legal requirement of and in Constitutional American law to be accepted and acknowledged does not a name changed by COURT ORDER satisfy the LEGAL definition as a PRODUCT of protected RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION Christian identity and are absolutely PROTECTED as a matter of law regardless of race or Delaware institutional racism and carry both legal weight and United States Constitutional respect and authority as the LAW OF THE LAND that would be in contrast and in comparison to be automatically be afforded affirmatively applied given by the State of Delaware to a Caucasian convicted career criminal like FRED MAAHS receives or that of affirmation of HANDLON or WITHAM by the State who routinely receives and are given preference automatically by the State as a result of unlawful outlawed prohibited Caucasian privilege promotion illegally by the State Court system institutionally and as identified and documented as material evidence of the claims made in the contemporaneous record of proceedings regarding the intentional mispelling that was perpetrated twice criminally and antecedently in the superior court by both DOJ HANDLON and subsequently by Witham and subsequently thereafter by several others referenced ALL persons noted were absolutely acting in deliberate criminal misconduct in violation of an active CHRISTIAN NAME change COURT ORDER as an acts of deliberate racially motivated criminal obstruction of the right of protected Christian Religious expression

question presented. Institutional racism adverse to : Black. citizens is described as a factual factor that is predicated on present day oppression in violation of federal and State law. What is documented is the existence of the 1860 Delaware slave codes black nigger standards that are employed by the State does the reader recognize the claims made violation of 18 USC 241 and 42 USC 1981 1983 and 1986 provisions and : operations as applied to this particular PETITION?. The FRED MAAHS Sr case is factual example used as a case study does the reader understand the validity of iv the contrast and comparison made between MAAHS Sr and ALSTON treatment? In the Delaware Administrative offices of the courts system et al case whereas the State was sued was not the Maahs record not known having been fully briefed to the three judges of the Supreme court of Delaware? Delaware Supreme court in spite of the Maahs record and rap sheet found and saw no violations of law when