Whether the Ninth Circuit continues to violate the Dental Examiners ruling, the Sherman Act, and Kinney's First Amendment and Due Process rights

QUESTION'PRESENTED © 6) ©"80 on 30+ states have maridato?y or integrated state bar “ associations who méstly tise ‘ attorneys serving as “judges” to impose discipline a on attorneys. The DOJ and FTC have tried to get . Texas (2»¢ in GDP) and Florida (4th in GDP) to so comply with Dental Examiners, but failed. The cot. biggest problem is still in California (1*t in GDP). . This state bar does not have an independent state oo supervisor (i.e. one not in the legal profession) to review discipline recommendations. Voluntarily. inactive attorneys are considered “active member 7 participants” by the FTC [see 2015 staff report]. California argues [as many do] that: (1) its state ‘ bar judges are “inactive” attorneys [which ignores . the FTC report]; and (2) its rules are equivalent to an and clearly-articulated ; state policy because its rules are “so detailed and . prescriptive” that they “remove” all “discretion”. : California’s discipline adversely impacts the legal services market. Anti-trust violations by the Cal. . State Bar and Cal. Supreme Court occur when ; petitions for review are denied so that the State Bar’s un-reviewed “recommendation” becomes a “final judicial determination” [CRC Rule 9. 16(b)] . _ Why was Kinney’s motion to vacate his “reciprocal . oo _ disbarment” denied given that Dental Examiners a was ignored by the Cal. State Bar (2015); Cal. pe Supreme Court (2016); and Ninth Circuit (2017)?