Does this Court's opinion in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967), In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968), and North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015) require that the order of disbarment be reversed, remanded, or vacated and set aside for violation of the Due Process and Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED! >. For fifty-three years under this Court’s precedent in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S: 511 — ; (1967,) lawyers cannot be disbarred for exercising their privilege against selfincrimination. Moreover, an adverse inference must be drawn from proven facts. Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 36 (1969). This court also held in In re Ruffalo, ~ 390 US. 544 (1968),.that lawyers are entitled to notice, and full and fair litigation | , ) in attorney discipline proceedings. The Supreme Court of Georgia order of | | disbarment by virtue of default for exercising Fifth Amendment privilege is in direct conflict with Spevack, Leary and Ruffalo. Moreover, the Georgia Bar failed to give ; notice of charges of misconduct, denied full and fair litigation, plus fabricated a | story that the petitioner ‘failed to respond to discovery” and lied to three tribunals and even though none of the courts issued orders, statements, hearing records, or directives or ever claimed dishonesty or fraud upon the court. ; . 1. Does this Court’s opinion in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967), In : | ; re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968), and North Carolina Board of Dental | . Oe Examiners v FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015) require that the order of | disbarment be reversed, remanded, or vacated and set aside for violation of the Due Process and Self-Incrimination Clause of the | Fifth Amendment, and violation of the Due Process and Equal i . 1 Petitioner also filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition | P Petitioner fully responded to discovery [Mandamus