Does the California Reciprocal attorney discipline statute —Business and
profession code 6049.1 - violate the standard set forth in Selling v
Radford . 243 U. S. 46, 51 (1917) because it does not provide for a review
of the discipline imposed by another jurisdiction for insufficiency of proof or
for some other reason which would make the imposition of discipline unjust,
where Selling v Radford . 243 U. S. 46, 51 (1917) requires infirmity of prove
and any other reason that would make the imposition unjust as well as due
process considerations .

Is the California Supreme Court 's imposition of reciprocal discipline in In
RE Haynes in violation of Selling v Radford . 243 U. S. 46, 49 (1917)
because the it imposed discipline base on a foreign jurisdiction imposition
of discipline where the foreign jurisdiction —the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California-- based its determination of discipline
on a summary judgment record, as opposed to an evidentiary hearing, in
violation of its local rules, which requires a findings of fact, and used a
preponderance of the evidence standard where both the district court and
California Court required a clear and convincing standard. Anderson v.
Liberty lobby.Inc 477 U.S.242,257, (1986); Tolan v. Cotton . 572 U.S. 650,
656 (2014) (per curiam)

Does the California Reciprocal attorney discipline statute—Business and profession code 6049.1 — violate the standard set forth in Selling v Radford, 243 U. S. 46, 51 (1917)