Whether suspending respondent for a year and a day, after ignoring evidence that supported her allegation, violated due-process, free-speech

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . The disciplinary system in Louisiana has strayed from respecting due process for attorneys who allege wrongdoing by a judge. Respondent's client, Mark Anthony Jenkins, was found not the biological father in district court. The legal paternity issue was set for hearing in juvenile court where the parties had ‘stipulated there was no authentic act of acknowledgment by Jenkins. On the day of trial, after a circuit judge had taken the court record from juvenile court, the judge refused to rule, falsely claiming district court decided legal paternity. Opposing counsel filed a writ application falsely presenting the untried issue for “review.” Robert Murphy, the writing judge, decid. ed legal paternity by mischaracterizing a statement . as a “judicial confession to signing an acknowledgment of legal paternity.” Actions to nullify the ruling for lack of supervisory jurisdiction failed in state and federal courts that all ignored court record evidence. Respondent was suspended for alleging collusion to move the issue to circuit court without a trial. The questions presented are: 1) whether suspending respondent for a year and a day, after ignoring evidence that supported her allegation, violated due process and threatens freedom of speech; and 2) whether the same disregard for the evidence against the judge in a federal civil rights action shows access to due process was blocked, and that compels correction of the courts through writ of certiorari.