QUESTION: [A-part] Whether conflicting free speech: superior Raw. Rlair dnes not address constitution question allowing electors-voters-jurors to decide for themselves opposite: Bell v Trombley all hearsay stare decisis to further errant ignorance of ministerial function test after swearing to ministerial oath of office not to apply ministerial (lawver-not-clergy) exemption with no particularization by appeal court.

[B-part3 Whether the court below can continue to refuse non-lawyer Pro Se Plaintiff Petitioner RickLUSSY to confront & compete against officers of the court & respectfully the court in Raw. Blair not to further suppress Due Process Of Law (read: 100-percent jury trial verdict of non-lawyers in due process of law-redress, with four cameras, two judges (Federal & Mont) two juror oaths, twelve jurors & two-alternates).

[C-part] Whether to apply ministerial oath of office to this particularized 82-page First Amended Complaint (221-page appendix) to go forward for second opinion.

Whether conflicting free speech: superior Ray v. Blair does not' address constitution question allowing to decide for themselves ; opposite: Bell v Trombley ail hearsay stare decisis to further errant ignorance of ministerial function test