Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Should this Court hear the appeal in a case and controversy to allow the Courts on remand, not Congress, or bureaucrats or Disciplinary Boards to consider the numerous splits between the states and circuits on what Constitutional rights attorneys and judges have in professional disciplinary proceedings, given Kelly’s case is ripe to resolve a bunch of splits since she alleged facts the Defendants and Courts violated Constitutional rights not limited to the split in whether attorneys have the 6 Am right to cross examine their accuser or call witnesses and the split where one forum says attorneys have the right to gather evidence through discovery and Virginia says no attorneys have no right to perform discovery and other splits. II. Should this Court hear the appeal in a case and controversy to allow the Courts on remand, not Congress, or bureaucrats or Disciplinary Boards to consider Meg Kelly’s Constitutional challenges to certain Disciplinary Rules not limited to DE Disciplinary Rules 1314, or the reporting requirements under Delaware Disciplinary Rule 18 by compelling selfincrimination under the threat of punishment in contravention of the 5" Amendment in quasicriminal proceedings and of this Court’s decision in Spevack v. Klein, which courts like Mississippi State Bar v. Attorney-Respondent in Disciplinary Proceedings, 367 So. 2d 179, 183 (Miss. 1979 seems to void and other issues and her many other Constitutional challenges to additional disciplinary rules and professional disciplinary proceedings as applied to lawyers discussed or alluded to on the record below. II. Should this Court hear the appeal in a case and controversy to allow the Courts on remand or by this appeal, not Congress, or bureaucrats or Disciplinary Boards to consider the issues as to whether judges or this US Supreme Court may be disciplined or otherwise corrected solely within the purview of the Constitutional limits of 1. Case or controversy or 2. Impeachment, not through disciplinary proceedings, so as to prevent violating Meghan Kelly’s right to an impartial forum to petition not partial towards regulations or regulators or business instead of the impartial rule of law as applied to her by allowing me to amend the complaint to Constitutionally challenge Judicial disciplinary proceedings or at least certain rules as applied to judges. IV. | Whether the Court abused its discretion for dismissing my initial complaint for damages arising from Defendants, the Delaware Supreme Court and the arms of the Court’s interference with my private case and other activity in my RFRA law suit against former President Donald J. Trump, Kelly v Trump, made with the intent to intimidate me to cause me to forgo my case based on the Defendants disdain for my religious-political beliefs contained in my speech, in my petitions, or poverty and my petitions to correct and stop Court misconduct in light of the admitted reason for discipline was the Defendants found my religious beliefs in the bible and Jesus incomprehensible, when I sued Trump to alleviate a substantial burden upon my exercise of religious belief from the burden he caused by the establishment of government religious belief in a course of conduct not limited to executive orders Ex. Or. No. 13198, Jan. 29, 2001, as amended by Ex. Or. 14015, Feb. 14, 2021; Ex. Or. No. 13199, Jan. 29, 2001, as revoked by Ex. Or No. 13831, May 3, 2018; Ex. Or. No. 13279, December 12, 2002, as amended by Exec. Or. No. 13559, November 17, 2010; Ex. Or. No. 13559, Nov. 17, 2010; Ex Or. No. 13831, May 3, 2018, and Biden’s enactment of Ex. Or. No. 14015, Feb. 14, 2021 that give churches Il money to perform government business under the lie of charity and another executive order E.O. 13798 which allows churches to take parishioner’ donations to support or give the packing of government candidates or parties to give the blasphemous backing that God backed Trump which incited violence or threats of violence against