Whether the New Jersey Judiciary's denial of the motion to intervene by the Petitioner in the an action on the basis that Petitioner does not have "an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the transaction," which directly conflicts with its prior holdings that intervention can be granted in an action when the applicant's interest could be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation, violated Petitioner's constitutionally protected due process right when his good name, professional reputation, honor, or integrity was adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation as a non-party.

Whether New Jersey Judiciary's treatment of its officers of court violated the equal protection clause of the constitution when minority attorneys are presumed dishonest and no due process is needed to protect them, while attorneys deeply connected with the judiciary systems can walk away with no punishment for committing fraud upon the court, which had caused the minority attorney to suffer harms in relating to his good name, professional reputation, honor, or integrity in his legal profession.

Whether New Jersey Judiciary's failure to implement pertinent due process procedures required by the federal laws to safe guard the officers of the court, such as, the Petitioner or attorneys similarly situated from being maliciously prosecuted by fraud upon the court where the Petitioner or attorneys similarly situated are not a party to the action and are not given opportunity to defend themselves created a hostile work environment for its officers of the court.

Whether the denial of a motion to intervene violated the petitioner's due process rights