Whether stifling robust dissent without a true indicia of due process is tolerable

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. __ (2018) and the granting last month of the petition in Fleck v. Wetch 585 U.S.___ (2018), reinforces the very Free Speech and Association rights which Petitioners were punished for exercising despite the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. §401, et seq. 1. Whether stifling robust dissent without a true indicia of due process is tolerable when an International President cleverly imposes and quickly lifts a trusteeship after permanently removing only dissenting leaders from office and their staff positions, while also stripping the most vocal of even membership rights, all within weeks of the results of the will of the Local Union membership just exercised at the ballot box becoming known to the International. 2. Whether Petitioners can be removed for inquiring about and objecting to a forced Studio Mechanics Locals’ (SMLs) scheme across the United States and Canada which inhibits work opportunities, is discriminatory in application and compels both speech and association. 3. Whether the “patronage” defense should be retained in this day and age, and if so, whether it can be used to defeat the LMRDA rights of an elected officer removed from a nonconfidential and nonpolicy-making staff position which Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, at footnote 11 (1982) left open for resolution.