Did the First Amendment and Connecticut Constitution preclude Connecticut from reciprocal attorney discipline

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Did the First Amendment and Connecticut Constitution preclude Connecticut from reciprocal attorney discipline predicated on petitioner’s Maine appeal, filed by his Maine attorney, where Maine’s Law Court: allowed that attorney to withdraw without hearing despite Maine rule contemplating hearing; judged petitioner a pro se attorney and nov a pro se citizen; petitioner could not afford a new attorney and was not Maine attorney of record; petitioner's Maine law license was incidental to Maine pro appeal; and petitioner was punished by one year Maine license suspension, reciprocated by Connecticut (and others) for exercise of fundamental pure political speech and petition rights protected by the First Amendment, with greater pure political speech and petition protections guaranteed by the Connecticut Constitution? II. Were pro se petitioner’s First Amendment rights to pure political speech, petition and law license denied because petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights against First Amendment intrusions were denied, including rights of de novo review of records below, assessments for First Amendment applicability; and protections re selective enforcement, vagueness, inadequacy of notice, ‘safe harbors’ of permitted conduct, disability discrimination (stroke), and attorney ‘roles’ versus ‘identity’ circumstances?