Whether the Delaware Supreme Court's application of sovereign immunity unconstitutionally places state financial interests above individual rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. A Delaware Department of Education official, sued in his official and knowingly disregarded available results of a State Police investigation exonerating Petitioner, a teacher, yet the official published information imputing Petitioner as a criminal of sexual misconduct to Delaware’s Secretary of Education and to potential employers nationwide via a searchable database of educator misconduct. Summary judgment was granted to Respondents on sovereign immunity grounds. Does the Delaware Supreme Court’s application of protection offered to the State by the doctrine of sovereign immunity under Del. Const. art. I, §9, Delaware State Tort Claims Act (10 Del. C. § 4001), and Insurance for the Protection of the State (18 Del. C. § 6511), unconstitutionally place State financial interests above the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed to individuals under the United States and Delaware Constitutions, ultimately turning a shield into a sword? II. Is it possible for a state official, sued in his official and to maintain sovereign immunity and qualified privilege defenses, when he is knowingly defrauding the state, compromising state interests, defying the officials’ code of conduct, and consciously disregarding an individual’s Federal and State constitutional rights through the conduct in question? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued Ill. Did the Court commit reversible error by affirming summary judgment despite an obvious pattern of irregularities in proceedings argued by a litigant, for example, but not limited to a. Denying Petitioner’s pro se Amendment, due by rule, despite Respondents’ two-year late Answer; b. Refusing to address the denied Amendment on appeal stating the argument was not raised below, despite record to the contrary; c. Failing to address evidentiary objections and claims of fraud on the court raised but not passed on in the court of first instance, nor on appeal; d. Affirming summary judgment despite the lower court’s failure to rule on a material Motion to Compel discovery before granting summary judgment; and, e. Failing to follow precedent. leading to ill-advised, arbitrary, and capricious decisions denying the litigant’s fundamental Federal and State Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, particularly where a conflict of interest exists, as evidenced by multiple judges’ recusals and disqualifications?