A. Should the determinations of the Board of Judicial Conduct — responsible by Statute and by the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules for maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary — rest upon robust procedural and substantive due process rights to a party who complains of judges violations of those rules to the Board of Judicial Conduct?

2. If the Board of Judicial Conduct refuses to follow its mandate and investigate claims of judicial misconduct, has the complainant, as a party to an action, civil or criminal, in which the complained of Judge presides, been denied his or her constitutional right to an impartial Judge being free and clear of bias by said Conduct procedural rules, that is, has the complaining party been denied due process under the XIV Amendment?

3. Are the procedures of the Board of Judicial Conduct so deficient as to render it incompetent to adjudicate allegations of violations by its own members of the statutory and constitutional duties of complaining parties?

4. Does the refusal of the Board of Professional Responsibility to follow its mandate to maintain the standards of the legal profession constitute a violation of complainants XIV Amendment right to effective representation in counsel of action?

5. Does the statutory mandate of the Board of Professional Responsibility to discipline attorney misconduct, that is, compel attorneys to conform to professional norms — Strickland in practice — and assist the public, that is, any user of legal services in the state regardless of residency (especially in the case of criminal litigation) create a substantive due process right for complainants upon which robust procedural due process rights rest?

6. Does the current structure of the Board of Responsibility render it incapable of fulfilling its mandate?

Should the determinations of the Board of Judicial Conduct - responsible by statute and by the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules for maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary - rest upon robust procedural and substantive due process rights to a party who complains of a judge's violations of those rules?