Whether a Trial Court may not exercise its powers against a candidate for office to stifle free-speech

QUESTIONS PRESENTED “Globally, as of 5:24pm CEST, 17 June 2022, there have been 535,863,950 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,314,972 deaths, reported to WHO”, Staff, “WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard,” WHO, (accessed June 17, 2022), and, the present case rises on appeal, to raise assignments of error, in an action brought, inter alia, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the provisions protecting the entrances to places of worship, a case of first impression for this Honorable Court, under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act,18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), and presenting the following questions: 1. Whether, on a valid claim arising under the FOIA, a Trial Court may not properly dismiss, sua sponte, a case, without decision, where the ‘ requested Agency has failed to issue any response or explanation for delay. ; 2. Whether, on a valid claim arising under the FOJA, or, in the alternative, any other claim, a Trial Court may not, in departure from Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4(b), refuse a plaintiffs self-prepared summonses, on a claim that the Trial Court prepares the summons, and yet fail to do so even after receipt of duly filed praecipes to effect the same. 3. Whether, on a valid claim arising under the FOIA, or, in the alternative, any : other claim, a Trial Court may not refuse to docket any matter for hearing, under the rationale that there was no evidence that the respondents had received notice in actions in which the Trial Court had ignored duly filed praecipes and had refused to issue a summons to be served upon respondents. 4. Whether, on a valid claim arising under the FOJA, a Trial Court, knowledgeable that, under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i), a requestor is deemed to ‘ have exhausted all remedies, and, therefore, suffering irreparable harm, is by, statutory right, entitled to injunctive relief, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), is required, ‘ sua sponte, under its inherent powers, or after docketing a matter for hearing, to enjoin an Agency and/or compel such agency to show cause why it has refused or delayed its reply. 5. Whether, on a claim arising under the FACE Act, where there is a continuing harm, in derogation of rights guaranteed under the Free Exercise Clause, a Trial Court must at least enjoin the offending conduct, and, under the Citizenship Clause, or, in the alternative, under Due Process Clause, a Trial . _ Court must decide the presented matter on the merits. . 6. Whether a Trial Court may not exercise its powers against a candidate for office to stifle free speech. “i PARTIES AND