1. For a judgment to be enforced, the originating statute must not just
state 'judgment, ' as in BR 3.5(a) but it must also state 'and a court of a
foreign country, ' therefore the judgment from New Zealand cannot be
enforced reciprocally. 'Jurisdiction ' is not defined in Bar rules, and it is
used here for a reciprocal disciplinary judgment from the court of a
foreign country.

2. The statutory standard of evidence in New Zealand disciplinary
proceedings is 'on the balance of probabilities. ' This standard is not
sufficient to allow a finding in the United States, which requires the
higher standard of'clear and convincing evidence ' for lawyer discipline.
The Court erred in stating that such evidence standard was sufficient
to uphold a disciplinary violation in Oregon. Although Bar proceedings
are considered sui generis, like criminal matters, they are a lifetime
judgment of personal integrity. The New Zealand standard does not
meet the United States ' evidentiary standard and to adopt such a
standard violates due process. The statutory standard of evidence in
New Zealand is 'on the balance of probabilities. ' This standard is not
sufficient to allow a finding in the United States, which requires a
higher standard. The Court erred in stating that such evidence
standard was sufficient to uphold a disciplinary violation in Oregon. A
lower standard violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution.

3. The Petitioner invoked the Substantive Due Process defense argument
of vagueness, which embodies the definition of misconduct in New
Zealand. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, Section 7(l)(a)(ii)
definition of misconduct, is autocratic, subjective and majoritarian,
violating the substantive due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

4. The tribunal and the High Court used the defenses and factual and
legal arguments in Petitioner 's pleadings as a means of questioning his
honesty and inflaming the proceedings. The Petitioner 's honesty and
integrity were criticized, and his evidence marginalized and ignored.
This was a violation of procedural due process and a violation of his
substantive due process rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution. Freedom of Speech in
legal proceedings must be enforced.

5. The Law Society suspended Petitioner from practice without adequate
notice or hearing by refusing to continue membership based on a lien
they claimed over it for court costs. Such a lien is unlawful. There are
no Due Process procedural rules regarding non-issuance of a practising
certificate. Suspension from practice without adequate notice and no
hearing is a violation of the right to Due Process under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This
concurrent narrative, which caused damage to a client, was removed
from the case and is a defense to such an alleged violation.

6. The Petitioner was unable to appear at the Law Society Tribunal
because an accused must be physically present. Remote appearance is
forbidden by the rules. He disagreed with material facts, and with
witness statements and affidavits. Other issues of witnesses,
subpoena 's and other matters of trial created issues in the High Court
that are endemic to the system. This was a violation of procedural due
process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution.

7. The Petitioner objected to one member of the tribunal panel, his

Question not identified