whether-the-third-circuit's-rule-r.a-d-e.-16-violates-equal-protections

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Third Circuit’s rule R.A-D-E. 16 violates Equal protections as applied to me as a party of one, as an attorney with religious political beliefs the Delaware Supreme Court labeled are a disability, and as applied to the group labeled disabled, by affording me and the group for which I am labeled with fewer Constitutional protections than attorneys disciplined by disbarment and suspension under R.A.D.E. 6, without a necessary or compelling reason somehow more important than foreclosing me and a class of attorneys the 5% Amendment fundamental right for the opportunity to be heard on Constitutional defects on the disciplinary order reciprocating cases are based. Il. | Whether the Third Circuit Rule R.A.D.E 16 violates procedural due process or substantive due process by denying me the opportunity to be heard, as a party of one as an attorney with unique religious-political beliefs, and the class of attorneys labeled disabled the opportunity to be heard in defense of Constitutional liberties relating to the underlying Order the Third Circuit Reciprocal disciplinary proceedings are based, to safeguard property interests in the Third Circuit license(s) to practice law, reputation and related interests. US Amend I, right to _ petition A. Whether this issue is capable of repetition. Yet, evading review. ii % te \ Ill. Whether the Federal disciplinary proceeding violates case or controversy requirements under Article IIT, Section 2, Clause 1, since there is no Opposing counsel or underlying case. The Court acts as prosecutor and judge. Alternatively, whether my Due Process rights are violated under the facts by allowing the judge to be the prosecutor as applied. IV. Whether it is unconstitutional for lawyers to be regulated by the Courts other than during a case, 1. a law suit in which they represent a party or 2. where the lawyer is a party. V. Whether it is un-Constitutional for federal judges to be self-regulated or regulated by Third Parties, by congressional rule or elimination of life time tenures, in violation of my religious belief as a party of one whose unique religious political beliefs requires she safeguards the impartiality of the courts as a religious exercise of her belief in Jesus. Matthew 23:23, Amos 5:15 VI. Whether the Third Circuit violated my invoked right against selfincrimination by using information submitted to in Kelly v Swartz, Case Number 21-3198 to file a reciprocal proceeding, despite my invocation of the 5" Amendment, given I immediately moved to strike the information from the record. The information was removed. ii aw \ A. If not, whether the rule under R.A.D.E. V violates the 5" Amendment right against self-incrimination, and is capable of repetition yet evading review.