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.

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