Whether a state disciplinary board can constitutionally sanction an attorney for religious speech and biblical references in legal filings without violating the First Amendment's protections for free exercise of religion and freedom of speech

No question identified. : concern of my mental fitness to practice law. In the DE ODC’s petition at 7, the Disciplinary Counsel points to my references to the bible e, as evidence of a disability. Third Circuit Docket Items (“3DI’’) 3DI-3, page 34, and 3DI21-4. 5. This Reciprocal Order by Appellee is based on the Delaware Order I seek to overturn based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, violations of my First Amendment rights, procedural due process violations and other claims, especially since the DE Supreme Court acted as witness, judge and prosecutor’s assistant in a civil rights case, while it concealed evidence in my favor necessary to my defense. 6. Justice Diamond of the Eastern District Court entrapped me despite indicating it was not disciplining me because it knew I believed I was retired before the Court and required to call witnesses since I was deprived of that right in the original forum despite my assertion. So, the Court disbarred me as retired. This may cause 6 additional law suits and potential appeals needlessly wasting judicial resources while causing irreparable injury to me in terms not only of loss of my right to buy and sell but for my religious beliefs, but punishment and loss of 1*t Amendment rights to petition, speak, believe, exercise belief and associate. US Amend I, XIV. 7. Given the severity of the order, and the risk of loss, and other additional important information I attempted to alert the court too including but not limited to my belief there is a scheme to overthrow the government after 2050, I require additional pages. This Court did not docket pleadings apprising this court of all of my concerns and the danger I believe the members of the US Supreme Court are in. 8. This Court has inherent equitable powers over their process to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, including irreparable injuries in terms of loss of 1s‘ Amendment rights. Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U.S. 131 (1888). This Court must grant my request to prevent injustice by denial of words which essentially denies me the opportunity to be heard in defense of my religious speech reflecting my religious beliefs in my Freedom of Religion Restoration Act Complaint against former President Donald J. Trump. US Amend I, V. 3DI 21-4 pages 126 through 248. 9. This Court must grant my request for additional words to prevent government abuse against my person, oppression, and injustice. 10. Nevertheless, the Constitutional issues must be addressed to protect not only me, but others beyond me from professional government backed persecution based on exercise of fundamental rights. 11. A professional’s private exercise of First Amendment exercise of speech, association, religious belief, religious exercise, and the right to petition to defend the exercise of Constitutional freedom in their private capacity must not be eliminated in exchange for a mere license. 12. I must not be compelled to violate my religious belief by compelled religious violations of my belief in order to regain my license. 13. Nor should I be punished for my exercise of the right to access to the courts to defend my religious beliefs because the original disciplinary Court finds my citations to the Bible and religious beliefs contained in my speech in my private petitions illogical. ! ' See, Brief of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the International Mission Board, and Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. as amici curiae in Support of Petitions before the US Supreme Court by the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the aged, Denver Colorado, et.al, Petitioners v. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Serviced, et. al, No.15-105, 2015 WL 5013734 (US).(The Court allowed references to the bible in other RFRA petitions); See, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 682. (“Courts have no business addressing whether sincerely held religious beliefs asserted in a RFRA case are reasonable.”) Also see, Af