Whether a state court judge can constitutionally interfere with ongoing Supreme Court certiorari review by imposing sua sponte fitness evaluations and restricting a pro se litigant's right to file pleadings

No question identified. : ¢ Deploy fraudulently sustained jurisdiction to impose unlawful criminal and fitness orders—despile a perfected federal record and ongoing Supreme Court review. This motion is filed not as a courtesy, but as an emergency invocation of this Court’s inherent protective power to halt a rogue lower tribunal attempting to undermine certiorari jurisdiction with brute force and unrestrained judicial misconduct. Petitioner demands the following immediate and binding relief from this Honorable Court: 1. Immediate Entry of a Protective Stay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1257 and 1651, SCOTUS Rules 21 and 23, and the inherent supervisory powers of this Court, forbidding all further proceedings in McHenry ‘County Circuit Court, including enforcement of any fitness evaluations, state court orders, or hearing continuances issued during the pendency of this Petition; 2. Formal Declaratory Judgment recognizing that the Supreme Court holds exclusive and preemptive jurisdiction over Petitioner's federal claims under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), and that all state-level proceedings in Case No. 24CM000976 are therefore null, void, and eonatiiutiobally foreclosed during active certiorari review; 3 Supervisory Injunction or Writ of Prohibition enjoining the State of Illinois, its agents, and all subordinate actors — including but not limited to Judge Mary Nader, Assistant State’s Attorneys, public defenders, bailiffs, clerks, and unidentified prosecutorial staff — from initiating, sustaining, or reviving any criminal, civil, or administrative action against Petitioner connected to this matter, on the basis that said actions constitute: o An unconstitutional interference with Supreme Court jurisdiction; o Aretaliatory campaign under color of law i in violation of 42 U. S. C. § 1983; o Adirect attack on the federal rights being actively reviewed by this Court, as prohibited by Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972), and Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974). Petitioner further requests that the Court clarify that any further acts by the State of Illinois or its agents contrary to this stay will be treated as constitutional violations subject to immediate federal remedy. Il. BACKDROP A COLLAPSING STATE FORUM NOW ATTACKING ARTICLE IIT : On July 21, 2025, Petitioner lawfully entered McHenry County Circuit Court to deliver federally served filings; including: F ‘ e Motion to Dismiss for Brosecutorial Misconduct; » Renewed Federal Supremacy Notice and Default; COL Form Warnings (Color of Law Trespass Notices); e Supplemental § 1983 Record Notices. ‘ Upon entry, Petliones éncountered deliberate obstruction: « Bailiff Ryan McConnell screamed “Sit down! Court is in session!” (in an unusual and inappropriate manner it was unwarranted and unnecessary only designed to intimidate lawful exercise of federal rights) despite Petitioner’s right to serve filings under U.S. procedural norms; e An unnamed prosecutor, without any formal appearance or compliance with Brady, refused all contact and dodged service like a fugitive; « Judge Mary Nader, after allowing papers to be thrown back into Petitioner’s box by unknown female agents at the public, defender’s desk, openly declared that Petitioner may no longer file pleadings—a direct Faretta violation and a de facto gag order. She then proceeded to illegally reinstate a forced fitness evaluation, with no hearing, no motion, and no retaliating for Petitioner’s federal litigation and lawful First Amendment expression in Camarda v. Whitehorn, now pending before this Court. : Petitioner objected in full voice: “You are interfering with federal litigation. You are preempted. You have no jurisdiction. I do not consent. I am pro se. That man does not represent me. That is a Faretta violation. That i