Whether the Seventh Circuit's removal of an attorney's name from the roll of attorneys is presumptively reasonable without due process, record support, or interference with attorney-client relationships

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether this Court should call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power by rejecting the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in John H. Davis v. Jeanne W. Anderson, et al., (Case No. 17-1732), which holds that the removal of an attorney’s name from the roll of attorneys who practice in the Seventh Circuit for allegedly filing in a pro se manner, for allegedly failing to comply with court rules, or for allegedly refusing to heed straightforward directions from a district judge — is presumptively reasonable — even when there is nothing in the record of the Seventh Circuit which supports any of the asserted allegations? Whether this Court should call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power by rejecting the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in John H. Davis v. Jeanne W. Anderson, et al., (Case No. 17-1732), which holds that the removal of an attorney’s name from the roll of attorneys who practice in the Seventh Circuit for allegedly having a conflict of interest with Petitioner’s client, for allegedly violating Rules of Ethics with Petitioner’s client, or for allegedly filing frivolous pleadings — is presumptively reasonable — even when there is nothing in the record of the Seventh Circuit which supports any of the asserted allegations? Whether this Court should call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power by rejecting the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in John H. Davis v. Jeanne W. Anderson, et al., (Case No. 17-1732), which holds that the removal of an attorney’s name from the roll of attorneys who practice in the Seventh Circuit — is li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued presumptively reasonable — even when there was no due process afforded the attorney? Whether this Court should call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power by rejecting the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in John H. Davis v. Jeanne W. Anderson, et al., (Case No. 17-1732), which holds that a Preliminary, a Chronology, and Exhibits are controlled by Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are considered to be the required parts of a Complaint — is presumptively reasonable — even when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not cover a Preliminary, a Chronology, and Exhibits as part of a required Complaint? Whether this Court should call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power by rejecting the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in John H. Davis v. Jeanne W. Anderson, et al., (Case No. 17-1732), which holds that an attorney is prevented from continuing appellate representation in a criminal matter which was pending at the time that the Seventh Circuit removed the attorney’s name from the roll of attorneys who practice before it, and by doing so, has interfered with the contractual attorney — client relationship in the pending criminal case — as presumptively reasonable — even when, at the same time, an unrelated civil case was pending when the attorney’s name was removed from the roll of attorneys, where the panel of judges in said civil case, permitted the attorney to continue pursuing the pending case?