1. Was Petitioner denied constitutional procedural due process of law by the Nevada Supreme Court in its "Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea Agreement And Suspending Attorney" in disciplinary matter 73592 entered on February 23, 2018, which provided that any grievance forwarded from a screening panel hearing, at which hearing Petitioner could not participate, automatically allowed the imposition of discipline upon Petitioner, including suspension of Petitioner's right to practice law?

2. Was Petitioner denied constitutional due process of law by the Nevada Supreme Court's arbitrary and capricious application of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 and Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, in that said rules as applied to Petitioner are lacking in standards to distinguish what is permissible conduct from what is not permissible, and are therefore void for vagueness?

3. Whether the suspension imposed upon Petitioner by the Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 constitutes involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in that Petitioner was disciplined for refusing to continue to represent clients who accused him of wrongdoing?

Was Petitioner denied constitutional procedural due process