Whether an African-American lawyer facing disciplinary proceedings was deprived of his rights to Due Process and a Fair and Impartial Tribunal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW e Whether-an African-American lawyer facing disciplinary proceedings was deprived of his rights to Due Process and a Fair and Impartial Tribunal under the 14th , Amendment as interpreted by this court in Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 238 (1980) when the White-American Judge assigned as the Referee, interjected at the trial _ . during The Florida Bar’s presentation of its case in chief, with a racially charged narrative and expounded to a witness upon his 40 years of experience as a lawyer . and compared the African-American lawyer’s conduct to that of himself, the Judge’s colleagues and other members of The Florida Bar and apologized to the witness for the “transgressions” of the African-American lawyer and suggested that said lawyer was unfit to practice, and then ultimately issued a ruling of permanent disbarment, which The Florida Supreme Court adopted in a one paragraph ruling that failed to cite any case law and failed to explain why the arguments of the African-American lawyer in his appeal were rejected? : . Whether a lawyer facing disciplinary proceedings was deprived of his rights to Due Process and a Neutral Judiciary under the 14% Amendment as interpreted by this court in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510. (1927), when the Judge assigned as the Referee was under investigation by the Clerk and Comptroller for Palm Beach County, Division of Inspector General, the local newspaper, The Palm Beach Post, and The State of Florida’s Office of Public and Professional Guardians, for a series of rulings he had made in cases granting thousands of dollars of fees to a professional guardian, who is the wife of a fellow Judge, and said fellow Judge was 1 \ ili recommended to be investigated by The Florida Bar, and when the Judge assigned _ as the Referee was also the presiding Judge for an ongoing foreclosure case for one of the witnesses and the lawyer facing disciplinary proceedings was the defense lawyer for that witness in the ongoing foreclosure case, and one of the issues at trial was the amount of attorney’s fees that were due and owing the attorney from the witness for a series of cases that he had represented her and her family in? _@ Whether a lawyer facing disciplinary proceedings was deprived of his rights under the 5th Amendment as interpreted by this court in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) when the now-retired Chief Prosecutor of the 17‘ Judicial State Attorney’s Office for Broward County, Florida, attended the proceedings, after having contacted the lawyer by phone on numerous occasions to advise the lawyer that he : was under criminal investigation, and ultimately being advised that the lawyer had retained criminal defense counsel and after contacting the lawyer's criminal defense counsel, still attended the proceedings, without advising the lawyer or the lawyer’s criminal defense counsel that he would attend the proceedings, thus placing the lawyer in a position where if he testified in his own defense, he would be testifying in the presence of the State Attorney, regarding the matters that he was under criminal investigation for, without the benefit of the advice and presence of his retained criminal defense counsel? Ba Y , iv