1. Whether a free speech right to impugn judicial integrity must be recognized for attorneys in order to reclaim their First Amendment Rights in invoking and avoiding government power in the protection of client life, liberty and property?

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings for attorneys can constitutionally abrogate First Amendment Rights when rules are used to punish speech that impugns the integrity of the judiciary without requiring a showing of knowledge or reckless disregard to truth or falsity using the constitutional and subjective standard?

3. Whether attorney Michelle MacDonald, a candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court and critic of the judiciary, may immediately appeal under 28 USC § 1291, to reverse the Minnesota Supreme Court's Judgment due to its refusal to adhere to her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by deciding to "indefinitely" suspend her from the practice of law, and then by refusing to reinstate MacDonald without their "requisite" show of remorse" " or "change in conduct and state of mind", disregarding her participation in a restorative justice prayer circle, facilitated by Family Innocence, with Judge [David Knutson]?

Whether a free speech right to impugn judicial integrity must be recognized for attorneys in order to reclaim their First Amendment Rights in invoking and avoiding government power in the protection of client life, liberty and property?