Does the California Reciprocal attorney discipline statute—Business and profession code 6049.1 — violate the standard set forth in Selling v Radford, 243 U. S. 46, 51 (1917)

Questions Presented : , | | Does the California Reciprocal attorney discipline statute—Business and | profession code 6049.1 — violate the standard set forth in Selling v | | Radford, 243 U. S. 46, 51 (1917) because it does not provide for a review | of the discipline imposed by another jurisdiction for insufficiency of proof or } : for some other reason which would make the imposition of discipline unjust, | | where Selling v Radford, 243 U. S. 46, 51 (1917) requires infirmity of prove | and any other reason that would make the imposition unjust as well as due . process considerations . ll Is the California Supreme Court's imposition of reciprocal discipline in In | | RE Haynes in violation of Selling v Radford, 243 U. S. 46, 49 (1917) | because the it imposed discipline base on a foreign jurisdiction imposition | of discipline where the foreign jurisdiction—the United States District Court | for the Northern District of California-based its determination of discipline ' ’ on a summary judgment record, as opposed to an evidentiary hearing, in } violation of its local rules, which requires a findings of fact, and used a ) preponderance of the evidence standard where both the district court and } California Court required a clear and convincing standard. Anderson v. Liberty lobby, Inc 477 U.S.242,257, (1986); Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (per curiam) Parties The parties to this action the Supreme Court of the State of California and petitioner Gregory M. Haynes