Whether the Alabama Supreme Court justices violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights by affirming a state regulatory agency's decision to permanently revoke his law license for allegedly minor ethics rule violations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether, in Petitioner's appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court justices violated his rights under the equal protection clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution by failing to follow the appellate court’s binding precedent which had previously reversed a lower court’s ruling that found the Disciplinary Hearing Officer did not comply with Rule 4.2 (b) (6), Ala. Rules Dis. P. in his Report and Order. Il. Whether, by affirming a lower court’s decision, the Alabama Supreme Court justices violated Petitioner’s rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution since a state regulatory agency’s decision revoking his business license was unlawful or void for the reason that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 4.2 (b)(6), Ala. Rules Dis. P. and Alabama Supreme Court precedent in Cooner v. Ala. State Bar Assoc., (2013) 109044, 1340, 59 So.3d 37) by omitting to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law? Ill. i f Whether, the Alabama Supreme Court justices erred and violated Petitioner’s rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution when (after ; forty-six (46) years of exemplary personal and professional conduct, a life-long law abiding citizen, twenty-eight years of honorable military service, and no prior ethics complaints or violations) the justices affirmed a state regulatory agency decision to permanently revoked Petitioner’s business license for allegedly violating three benign — ethics rules, ethic’s rules not involving immorality, corruption, dishonesty, or criminality? . IV. ; Whether, in Petitioner’s appeal; the Alabama Supreme Court justices violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution by affirming a state regulatory agency decision revoking his law license even though the Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s Report and Order failed to include finding of facts of specific or clearly defined personal misbehavior or professional misconduct that he had purportedly engaged in? ; V. ii Whether, in Petitioner's appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court justices violated his rights under the Eighth and Sixth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution ; by affirming a state regulatory agency decision to revoke Petitioner’s law license in spite of the fact that it had lost jurisdiction of the disciplinary proceeding thirty (30) days after entry of its original final judgment which prevented it from replacing the prior final judgment with an out-of-time second judgment permanently revoking his business license? See Rule 59 ' (e), Rules of Civil Procedure. VI. Whether, in Petitioner's appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court justices violated his due process and equal protection rights by affirming the state regulatory agency decision refusing to docket and rule on his duly submitted Rule 60 (b) (4) motion to vacate the Disciplinary Board’s unlawful and untimely summary judgment?