Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. For a judgment to be enforced, the originating statute must not just state judgment,’ as in BR 3.5(a) but it must also state ‘and a court of a foreign country,’ therefore the judgment from New Zealand cannot be enforced reciprocally. ‘Jurisdiction’ is not defined in Bar rules, and it is used here for a reciprocal disciplinary judgment from the court of a foreign country. 2. The statutory standard of evidence in New Zealand disciplinary proceedings is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ This standard is not . sufficient to allow a finding in the United States, which requires the higher standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ for lawyer discipline. . The Court erred in stating that such evidence standard was sufficient to uphold a disciplinary violation in Oregon. Although Bar proceedings are considered sui generis, like criminal matters, they are a lifetime ‘judgment of personal integrity. The New Zealand standard does not meet the United States’ evidentiary standard and to adopt such a standard violates due process. The statutory standard of evidence in New Zealand is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ This standard is not sufficient to allow a finding in the United States, which requires a : higher standard. The Court erred in stating that such evidence standard was sufficient to uphold a disciplinary violation in Oregon. A : | 3 ‘ . 3 lower standard violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 3. The Petitioner invoked the Substantive Due Process defense argument | of vagueness, which embodies the definition of misconduct in New Zealand. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, Section 7(1)(a)Gi) definition of misconduct, is autocratic, subjective and majoritarian, : violating the substantive due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. 4. The tribunal and the High Court used the defenses and factual and legal arguments in Petitioner’s pleadings as a means of questioning his honesty and inflaming the proceedings. The Petitioner’s honesty and integrity were criticized, and his evidence marginalized and ignored. This was a violation of procedural due process and a violation of his substantive due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Freedom of Speech in legal proceedings must be enforced. 5. The Law Society suspended Petitioner from practice without adequate notice or hearing by refusing to continue membership based on a lien ; they claimed over it for court costs. Such a lien is unlawful. There are no Due Process procedural rules regarding non-issuance of a practising certificate. Suspension from practice without adequate notice and no ; hearing is a violation of the right to Due Process under the Fifth and . 4 ‘ 4 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This concurrent narrative, which caused damage to a client, was removed | from the case and is a defense to such an alleged violation. 6. The Petitioner was unable to appear at the Law Society Tribunal because an accused must be physically present. Remote appearance is forbidden by the rules. He disagreed with material facts, and with witness statements and affidavits. Other issues of witnesses, subpoena’s and other matters of trial created issues in the High Court that are endemic to the system. This was a violation of procedural due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 7. The Petitioner objected to one member of the tribunal panel, his objection was ignored, and there is no formal procedure in New Zealand for such objection. This was a violation of procedural due process under the United States Constitution, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 8. The Law Society Investigator demanded all files and bank records of the Petitioner's clients without a court order. Except for the two | complaining clients, the Petitioner refused production of bank statement