Is communication to facilitate understanding regarding procedure by one who suffers from a mental disability, such as anxiety disorder, a statutory request for access to a government agency under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

QUESTION PRESENTED The question is: Is communication to facilitate understanding regarding procedure by one who suffers from a mental disability, such as anxiety disorder, a statutory request for access to a government agency under the Americans with Disabilities Act? . The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law . . Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all programs, activities, and services of public entities. It applies to all state and local governments, their departments and agencies, and any other instrumentalities or special purpose districts of state or local governments. It clarifies the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, for public transportation systems that receive federal financial assistance, and extends coverage to all public entities that provide public transportation, whether or not they receive federal financial assistance. This title outlines the administrative processes to be followed, including requirements for self-evaluation and planning; requirements for making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination; architectural barriers to be identified; and the need for effective communication with people with hearing, vision and speech disabilities. This title is regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. THE SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED U.S. CONST. AMEND. I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "Scholars and jurists agree that the First Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" includes a right of court access. THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 32] Article 1 adopted 1879.) SEC. 2. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or press. iv The State Bar of California is governed by the California Supreme Court. The State Bar has a new rule of law, Rule 8.4.1 on Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (Rule Approved by The California Supreme Court, Effective November 1, 2018). The new rule allows all citizens to allege they have suffered discrimination and retaliation due to the actions of an attorney. The rule states in number four of its comment section, "This rule does not apply to conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution." . The question is: Whether the State Bar of California’s new rule violates an individual's First Amendment right to allege discrimination by excluding the behavior of an attorney protected under the First Amendment? Vv THE THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED All citizens have the right to petition for an extraordinary writ. It is established under uniformity that all courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a writ of mandate. The rule of law in the State of California by 1879, when California's current constitution was ratified, unequivocally vested the Supreme Court with "power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus, and all other writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction." (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. VI, § 4.) California's newly enacted Code of Civil Procedure, which to date provides: "Writ" means an order or precept in writing, issued in the name of the people, or of a court or judicial officer. (Id. at§ 17, subd. (b)(14), emphasis added. The question is: , Whether the California Supreme Court had the same broad discretion to issue a summary denial on case $26313