Whether the Final Decision of a State Court Denying Review of the Decision of an Administrative Agency Recommending Disbarment, Causes an Interlocutory order of Involuntary Enrollment to Expire of its own Terms, which Interlocutory Order the Lower Federal Court Mistakenly Relied Upon to Disqualify Petitioner and to 'Disbar' Petitioner?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether the Final Decision of a State Court Denying Review of the Decision of an Administrative Agency Recommending Disbarment, Causes an Interlocutory order of Involuntary Enrollment to Expire of its own Terms, which Interlocutory Order the Lower Federal Court Mistakenly Relied Upon to Disqualify Petitioner and to “Disbar” Petitioner? (2) Whether the State Administrative Agency’s Order of Disbarment that Discriminates Against the Petitioner’s Exercise of Constitutional Rights of Free Speech, Expressive Association and Petitioning is Invalid and Unenforcible under Strict and/or Intermediate Scrutiny? (3) Whether the State Administrative Agency’s Order of Disbarment that Ignores Petitioner’s p. i— Petition for the Writ of Certiorari in Thomas v. California State Bar Association Constitutional and Statutory Law Defenses is Inadequate Due Process of the Laws, rendering the Administrative Decision Invalid and Unenforcible? p. ii— Petition for the Writ of Certiorari in Thomas v. California State Bar Association STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of this petition for the writ of certiorari is authorized under 28 U.S.C. §1257(a), and it is discretionary. 28 U.S.C. §2101(c) allows a petition for writ of certiorari to be filed in this court on or before ninety (90) calendar days from the denial of a petition for review on the merits in the state court. S. Ct. Rule 13.3. The ninety (90) day period began on January 26, 2023 and will expire on April 26, 2023. p. iii — Petition for the Writ of Certiorari in Thomas v. California State Bar Association REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT There is paramount importance of issues involved herein involving the relationship between the federal and state laws and Petitioner’s fundamental individual constitutional right to earn a living. S. Ct. Rule 10(c). The licensed attorneys at law who complained to the State Bar Association regarding Petitioner’s conduct to cause it to bring this disciplinary proceeding misused the system to obtain a default order of interlocutory suspension that violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights. The complainants relied on the invalid order to successfully move the federal courts to disqualify Petitioner, and to secure the dismissal of the Petitioner’s federal action filed for his clients, the opponents of complainants, a breach of his fundamental individual constitutional rights. This arrangement between the complainant attorneys Mssrs. Perry, Gibson and Solomon and the p. iv— Petition for the Writ of Certiorari in Thomas v. California State Bar Association State Bar Association caused the federal courts to dismiss True Harmony et al. v. State Dept. of Justice et al., case no. 20-cv-00170 in the Central District of California, and appeal no. 21-55655 in the Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Petitioner challenged the interlocutory default order dated August 20, 2020 (and the order of the supreme court of the state denying review) on the basis of Due Process of the Laws ina prior petition for the writ of certiorari to this Court in no. 20-1500. This court denied the prior petition in 2021. But the issues raised in the prior petition are a subset of the issues raised in this petition, which seeks direct review of the ensuing proceedings in the state bar court that resulted in a decision of disbarment by the state supreme court. And Petitioner invokes this Court’s supervisory power to acknowledge the expiration of the invalid interlocutory order, which apparently has expired or merged in the decision of disbarment. S. Ct. Rule 10(c). p. v— Petition for the Writ of Certiorari in Thomas v. California State Bar Association With the expiration of the invalid interlocutory order of the (Cal.) State Bar Court, Petitioner seeks review of the federal court of appeals’s order of dismissal of the clients’ appeal in no. 21-55655. S. Ct. Rule 10(c). Petitioner seeks direct review of the ensuing phase of the proceedings in the State