Should the determinations of the Board of Judicial Conduct - responsible by statute and by the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules for maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary - rest upon robust procedural and substantive due process rights to a party who complains of a judge's violations of those rules?

No question identified. : QUESTIONS A, Should the determinations of the Beard of Dodieves| Conduct — cesponsible by Statute and by the “Tennessee Supreme Couct Reales for pmairtiiming the integrrty and im partial ety of the judiccar — rest upon robust pro ceducal and substarctive i. Process rits Lo, a party who complains ot G jue es vialections ot Hose rele “to the Board of Twdeta Conduct? 2. Te the Board of Dudieral Conduct relases to Lollow tts mandate ond invect: gate claims of judicral Misconduck ) has the Comp lana, as a party to an acton, dvil or criminal, in which te Come Laned ot Svdge presides , \peen denved hic or her cost fatima an i iw acta | Sudae b bein Oenre a& nébvin K Dems 2 7. by Saal Conduct procedura| rules, het 1S ) hes the comp lanung pats heen denied . Owe process Under hee XW Amendment ¢ » 3. Ave the procedures of the Koad of Sudicta\ Conduct go delicien’ as to cender rt incompetewk +ty aguorcate alleagtians of violations by Hs cuin members ot Lhe stotitory and constitictional c\ alts of , Complaintns parties 7 — CU. 4 Does the refusal ot the Beard of Proless ‘ona Responsibilety to Lollow its mandate +o maintain the standards of the legal profession constitute a vidlection | of complainants VW Arend ment eight to ellective representation in commel (+, agtion . 5S, Does the statutory mandate of the Board of Po Lessiona| Responsi bility to discipline attorney misconduct, thal is ; Compe| attorneys to coxorm to profesriona( norms — Strickland in practice — and assist the public , thet i¢ ) aiy user of leaal Services in the state ceaardless of residehey Cespecialls in te case x criminal lH gctio ) | creete & Substantive Cue process right Lor complainants Lpon ubich robust precedural due. Process rights rest 2 G. Does the cucrent structure of the Board of . Respons:b: [ety render it incapable of fulFilhing tts mandate 2 PARTIES Fetitioner, pro Se, Mchse\ Hall\\ burton SS214\ TrousduleTurner Correctional Center I4o Macon Way ; Hartsville, TN B40} Respondents Board of Professional Respons! hilt, of the | Supreme Court of Tennessee lo Cadillac Deive, Surte 220 Brentusood F TN S3t02FT Tennessee Board of DTudicial Conduct Nashville, TN 37215 ct,