Whether this Court's decision in Loper Light Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024) militates in favor of abrogating the prosecutorial discretion of the Virginia State Bar, and its Bar Counsel, in bringing misconduct complaints, against Virginia attorneys who are U.S. citizens, for conduct that no reasonable lawyer or layperson could deem misconduct under the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, because such a misconduct complaint violates the due process protections in the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Whether this Court's decision in Loper Light Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024) militates in favor of abrogating the prosecutorial discretion of the Virginia State Bar, and its Bar Counsel, in bringing misconduct complaints, against Virginia attorneys who are U.S. citizens, in retaliation against that attorney for his protected, ideological speech, because such a misconduct complaint violates the due process protections in the First and Fourteen Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Whether Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 and/or 1.9 are unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, on their face or as applied, if a Virginia lawyer who is a U.S. citizen may be guilty of misconduct for disclosing allegedly "confidential" client information to support his claims in a lawsuit against that client.

Whether the Virginia State Bar denied the petitioner, an attorney and U.S. citizen, due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, or applied Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 and/or 1.9 in an unconstitutionally vague manner, when it filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner violated the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct by alleging, in a federal lawsuit, that principals of his firm's former client engaged in a conspiracy to infiltrate his protected computer systems and sabotage his legal career, when the federal court dismissed the complaint in an unpublished opinion, affirmed on an unpublished appeal, and no court had ever sanctioned, disciplined or ever reprimanded the petitioner before the action in question.

Whether the Virginia State Bar denied petitioner, an attorney and U.S. citizen, due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, or applied Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 in an unconstitutionally vague manner, by proceeding with a complaint alleging he violated the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct by filing "frivolous" allegations in federal court, when the complainant never proceeded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 with respect to the supposedly frivolous allegations, no sanctions were imposed by petitioner in the underlying proceedings, nor had the petitioner ever been disciplined or sanctioned by any court, tribunal, or bar association, and the federal courts in question only deemed the allegations "frivolous" in unpublished opinions with no precedential value whatsoever.

Whether the Virginia State Bar's act of filing a bar complaint against petitioner, an attorney and U.S. citizen, which has no basis under the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, constitutes unconstitutional retaliation, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S Constitution for the petitioner's protected, ideological speech against a Zionist criminal enterprise affiliated with Rahm Israel Emanuel and the Democratic National Committee.

Whether writs of mandamus

Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises militates in favor of abrogating prosecutorial discretion of the Virginia State Bar for misconduct complaints against attorneys that violate constitutional due process protections