Whether the Louisiana Supreme Court violated Edward Moses Jr.'s due process rights in suspending his law license without adequate confrontation

No question identified. : . , ii QUESTION (s) PRESENTED On May 29, 2024, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued the following: It is ordered that respondent, Edward Moses, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 30646, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on a reciprocal basis for a period of one year. It is further ordered that respondent shall not be eligible to apply for reinstatement to the practice of law in Louisiana pursuant to Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(K) unless and until he submits to a comprehensive mental health evaluation through the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program and files a copy of the evaluation report in this court and with the ODC. The right of the ODC to object to respondent's reinstatement under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(K) or seek any other relief is reserved. Nothing in our order should be read as precluding the reinstatement of respondent in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana if otherwise permitted under the rules of that court; however, under no circumstances shall respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana without an express order from this court. In re Moses, 2024-B-00295 (La. May 29, 2024) In re Moses, 2024-B-00295 (La. May 29, 2024) 1. Is “Emperor Moses” the real party in interest entitled to an injunction barring the state officials from operating within the Atakapa Indian Nation 2. Chevron is overruled. Can a State Court issue a decision recognizing the “Atakapa Indian TRIBE OF nv»}MOSES under the federally recognized Indian tribe list act of 1994? Yes 8. Did the District Court Violate Edward Moses Jr’s right to confront the government in attorney suspension proceedings? yes ‘ 5 iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE Pursuant to Rule 29.6, Applicant “Emperor Moses,” states that there is no parent or publicly held company owning 10% or more of the corporation’s stock, and that no publicly held company owns any portion of Applicant. PARTIES TO PROCEEDING The