Do Petitioners have an absolute right under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Mississippi's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act to have the reports upon which their insurance was cancelled?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners, the Hoggatts, filed criminal fraud charges with the Mississippi Attorney General against Allstate a month prior to filing of this civil action. They later amended their criminal affidavit during the lawsuit, and filed a Motion to Amend their civil complaint. The District Court sanctioned and fined the Hoggatts for filing their amended criminal affidavit with the Mississippi Attorney General and Mississippi Insurance Department, and for filing their Motion to Amend, and additionally sanctioned and fined the Hoggatts for attempting Interlocutory Appeal. The Hoggatts Amended Complaint asserted Allstate’s Negligence per Se liability, due to Allstate’s numerous violations of state and federal law, pre and post filing. The District Court ordered additional fines against the Hoggatt for filing a Rule 60 motion, post dismissal, and directed additional attorneys’ fees, and additional attorneys’ fees paid to Allstate for preparing a Motion for Contempt. FEDERAL ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION Do Petitioners have an absolute right under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Mississippi’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act to have the reports upon which their insurance was cancelled? FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTIONS Does the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the right to petition the government mean that a federal district court may not punish, fine, and hold in contempt of court an attorney or civil litigant, for filing an amended criminal affidavit, with the FTC, the Mississippi Insurance Department, and to the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office for conduct that Allstate committed after initiation of this civil action, even if the alleged criminal conspirators include Allstate attorneys? Do the Hoggatts have a right, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the First Amendment, to report Allstate’s intentionally fraudulent and retaliatory “Notice of Non-Renewal directed to Dr. and Mrs. Hoggatt? ABUSE OF DISCRETION Did the district court abuse its discretion when denying the Hoggatts’ Motion to Amend with additional parties and tort claims, including, but not limited to, negligence per se claims for Allstate’s documented conspiracy to act in concert to commit many documented crimes, i.e., fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, witness retaliation, witness intimidation, civil rights violations, and for destruction of evidence to impair its use in an official proceeding, committed post-filing?