Whether the lower courts' imposition of punitive sanctions violates Petitioner's rights under the First Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Litigants may not weaponize the judicial system to sanction colorable arguments that in effect insulate its conduct from legitimate judicial challenges without implicating central First Amendment concerns. The underlying premise of the adversary system is that truth is its object; thus, the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination is particularly compelling—and, in fact, essential—to the integrity of the adversary system. Thus, sanctions and threats may not be utilized to restrict the substantive arguments ltigants may present in legal proceedings. A sophisticated Medicare/Medicaid healthcare fraud scheme and the improper assignment of the state’s Medicaid and Medicare identification numbers to a private hospital was discovered by Petitioner due to the unprecedented amount of stonewalling he received when he sought to clarify the true nature of his employment relationship with the Respondents. The Respondents—a charity hospital system ostensibly designed to educate our future doctors while serving the most vulnerable members of our community— employed abusive litigation tactics utilizing the resources of the Louisiana Attorney General/current gubernatorial candidate to avoid detection and review of Petitioner’s case on the merits. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether the lower courts’ imposition of punitive sanctions violates Petitioner’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. ii 2. Whether the lower courts disregarded its mandatory duty to summarily correct, investigate, or report attorney misconduct, fraud, or corruption that affects the public interest. 3. Whether the lower courts exceeded its authority and/or failed to adhere to this Court’s established precedents when it reviewed an order granting remand, determined it was a merits judgment, and sanctioned Petitioner for requesting vacatur to avoid preclusion.