1. Should the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme
Court below be reversed because the Tennessee
Supreme Court arbitrarily punished Petitioner/lawyer as if his "pure speech" was "nonspeech" and/or "incidental speech?"

2. Should the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme
Court below be reversed because, in the below quasi-criminal proceedings, the Tennessee Supreme Court
employed a standard that fails to meet minimum Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements (notice and a fair trial) and the prerequisite First Amendment requirements necessary before the false statement exception to free speech is invokable?

3. Should the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme
Court be reversed because the combination of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Model Rule 8.2(a)(1) (hereinafter "Rule 8.2(a)(1)"), combined with the so-called "objective standard," with its fictitious so-called "reasonable attorney" standard, combined with American Bar Association Standards For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter "ABA Standards") section 6.12 (infra at 7 n.2; at 7-8; App. pp. 15-17, 29-32, 59-64, 66, 70, 76; RoA Vol. 20, AR Vol. 18, Tr. Ex. 7), made it impossible, in advance of Petitioner/lawyer penning the words in the recusal motion, to know that using the words for which Petitioner/lawyer has been sanctioned by suspension of law license would risk being punished by the State, much less what the penalty could be?

Should the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court below be reversed