Where petitioner sought removal of unelected administrative Workers' Compensation judges involving their actual or apparent improprieties involving admitted, unrecorded ex-parte communications

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where petitioner sought removal in 2010 of unelected administrative Workers’ Compensation judges involving their actual or apparent improprieties involving admitted, unrecorded “ex-parte communications” with opposing counsel without presence of : petitioner involving pending Workers’ Compensation proceedings pursuant to exclusively applicable “Code of Ethics; Removal of Workers’ Compensation Judges” 77 P.S. 2504 and nine years later Pennsylvania disciplinary proceedings expressly refused to decide whether 2010 removal proceedings were “ex parte communications” suspending petitioner from Pennsylvania Bar . for five years based on clearly erroneous admittedly — unconstitutional newly enacted 2014 Pennsylvania Judicial Code, did court clearly err imposing identical reciprocal discipline for the first time after thirteen . years because state disciplinary decision unconstitutional reliance on 2014 Judicial Code constitutes harmless error because Workers’ Compensation judges’ . communications were not “ex parte communications” based on admittedly inapplicable 207 Judicial Cannon , 3(A)(4) (2010) and therefore not “improper” clearly contrary to this Court’s and all federal circuit and district court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in violation of petitioner's constitutional rights . under First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 2. Where state disciplinary complaint was not filed until July 27, 2017 over petitioner’s repeated objections involving petitioner’s alleged violation of Pennsylvania ; Disciplinary Rules in 2010 causing indisputable unconstitutional prejudicial delay clearly contrary to Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board rules including 85.10 expressly prohibiting disciplinary proceedings based i on alleged ethical violations occurring more than 4 years prior to alleged disciplinary violations, did court clearly err concluding for first time after thirteen years alleged deferment of disciplinary proceedings ; did not violate petitioner’s due process rights based on clearly erroneous Judicial Notice and contrary to state : disciplinary record, Selling and codified Selling rules. and this Court’s and federal circuit and all Pennsylvania decisions. 3. Where petitioner compelled to pursue truthful ‘removal proceedings based entirely on underlying cumulative, evolving, circumstances, facts and stated admissions exclusively disclosed by Bachman, Dombrowski and Hagan which clearly violated compensation removal statute which in petitioner’s opinion ‘based on his exhaustive objective reasonable due dili; gence that their disclosed stated admissions throughout entire proceedings clearly violated 77 P.S. 2504 : prohibiting “ex parte communications” manifesting impropriety or, at a minimum, appearance of impropriety necessary to prevent waiver and protect Wilson’s fundamental constitutional right to fair and impartial proceeding and appeal, did court clearly err imposing ; identical reciprocal discipline contrary to Selling codified rules and this Court’s and federal circuit decisions clearly violating petitioner’s rights under . First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution.