Whether sanctions imposed by a federal district court against an attorney for criticism of judicial conduct violate the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when such sanctions effectively prohibit the attorney from practicing in their area of specialization

No question identified. : e« June 5, 2023 — “Order” confirming the viability of orders imposed as sanctions by the District Court, Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber presiding, requiring payment of roughly $32,000 in costs and fine (CA07 — #22-3137, Dkt. 25, Appx. “B” hereto.) and, e« Also incorporated herein by reference see dates and orders set forth in Movant’s petition filed in this Court under S. Ct. Dkt. #20A400, at p. 2. Movant (Respondent Pro Se Mark Barinholtz) hereby moves to extend the time in which to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the above-captioned case. Movant is currently taking steps to research, update and prepare for filing such a petition for writ of certiorari in this case. Accordingly, and further to the matters stated herein, Movant asks that this Court extend the deadline for filing of a certiorari petition, or filing of a petition for other relief, if any petition is filed, to stay further enforcement of Judge Leinenweber’s and the Seventh Circuit’s rulings until the petition is finally resolved. Movant believes and herein relies upon the federal statutory provisions which confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in these circumstances, namely, 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). That statute provides that cases decided by any Article III federal court, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court “by writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil ... case, ... after rendition of judgment.” Movant further believes and herein alternatively relies upon the federal statutory provisions of the all writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) “Writs”). That Act also confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in such circumstances as those present here. That statute provides that cases decided by any Article III federal court, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court with respect to “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions. .. .” (Also see S. Ct. Rule 23 “Extraordinary Writs”). Here, where the Seventh Circuit and the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) have “in tandem” assumed it to be within their respective jurisdictions to mete out certain forms of purported discipline — discipline which usurps or at least prejudicially impinges upon Movant’s Constitutional rights to livelihood and to otherwise not be censored by prior restraint from criticizing professional and/or judicial misconduct. Movant believes certain forms of relief (e.g., mandamus, stay, or holding an aspect of a lower court order in abeyance) may be appropriate to remedy constitutionally protected 14th Amendment due process concerns. In fact, there is no other remedy and no other court which may ameliorate the prohibitions and monetary burdens which the District Court and the Seventh Circuit have imposed on Movant with respect to the main focus of his practice, i.e., federal claims involving intellectual property and related rights in areas of entertainment and other arts-focused subject matters. Movant is informed and believes that Senior U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, whose orders below are being challenged by Movant, is no longer scheduling newly filed motions, and in fact is in the process of winding down his judicial duties. Though it is unclear what impact that may have on these circumstances, it will likely at least cause an additional layer of complexity in remedying this scenario. Movant further believes both lower courts’ references in these contexts to steadfastness in their refusal to review the circumstances leading up to, and inextricably intertwined with this controversy, render further action in the Seventh Circuit, e.g., petition for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, or any further prayer to the District Court, would be futile. Notwithstanding the referral noted in the Seventh Circuit’s Order of June 5, 2023, last par. at p. 3 (Appx. B hereto), as of the filing of this Application, Movant remains in good standing in Illinois, active and authorized to practi