Whether a state agency that combines prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions within a single entity, without meaningful separation of those functions, violates the Due Process Clause and the Appointments Clause when non-Article III officers exercise both functions in disciplinary proceedings against licensed professionals

No question identified. : Heisler debt, a vulgar profit typical in the world of vulture-funding. With oral argument set for May 1, I was relying on Lucia, Bandimere and other cases challenging administrative combinations of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in a single agency. On April 14, 2023, the ruling in Axon/Cochran was published, making the same argument about ODC’s combining functions against Applicant. At page 2, Justice KAGAN made the following observation: “Our task today is not to resolve those challenges; rather it is to decide where they may be heard.” Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1257(a), the constitutionality of ODC’s combined prosecutorial and adjudicative functions can be decided here and now by this High Court. And here is an additional rub: The Louisiana Supreme Court is neither a court of first-resort nor a court of last-resort. It is a court of the only-resort, theoretically deciding lawyerenforcement cases de novo, answering Justice KAGAN’s jurisdictional issue raised in Axon/Cochran at page 2. In terms of “...meaningful judicial review...”, the Louisiana structure offers less than the ALJs at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. In the case at bar, the hearing panel of three non-Article III ODC appointees left the hearing room with no instructions nor deliberations. My in limine objections and discovery requests were DENIED by a panelist called “...the chair...” Weeks later, the first panel issued a report so scathing it was highly-likely written by ODC deputy Paul Pendley, who conducted everything. Objections to the Hearing Committee’s report were sent to a new panel of non-Article III ODC members and oral argument, 15 minutes per side, heard but not recorded. The ultimate decision was sent to the Supreme Court for a 20minute oral argument per side, heard but not recorded. Because Pendley played every conceivable role, Applicant objected on Lucia and Bandimere bases’ and filed motions to dismiss based on ODC’s violation of its own rules, at Section 2 of Rule XIX: A. Agency. There is established one permanent statewide agency to administer the lawyer discipline and disability system. While it performs both prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, these functions shall be separated within the agency insofar as practicable in order to avoid unfairness. ODC didn’t deny Pendley played all the conflicting roles, yet my career of fighting corruption for 55 years has been destroyed. But after darkness, there is light. I will call the illumination Perhaps by karma, I am highly-likely the leading lawyer against the United States Department of Agriculture regarding administrative expulsions of store owners from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”), the successor to food stamps. Pending in the 7 Circuit Court of Appeals is the matter of Enas Said v. The United States of America, attacking USDA’s version of ALJs who call themselves Administrative Review Officers (“AROs’’). My opening brief was due April 14, the same day Justice KAGAN’s opinion was published’. Immediately after reading Axon/Cochran, a request for a 15-day extension was granted. The opening brief in Said was restructured to address Justice KAGAN’s sage observations, Exhibit E. That case is fully briefed and I intend to ask for expedited consideration. But there is a clear and present danger that Applicant’s suspension by the Louisiana Supreme Court will receive reciprocity in the 7" Circuit. An immediate stay will allow serious issues to be decided in this Court here and now. Inevery SNAP appeal I file, I cite Lucia; Bandimere; Buckley v. Valeo; Carr v. Saul; Inre Murchison; Ryder v. United States; SEC v. Caledonian Bank; Weyerhaeuser v. United 1 Bandimere v. SEC, 844 F. 3“ 1168 (10" Cir. 2016); Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. __ (2018). 2 Applicant-Klein receives slip opinions when released and religiously reads the rulings. 3 States and Withrow v. Larkin’, ALJs, AROs and ODC. In addition to the ALJs