1. Whether in light of the public Oaths taken in
The Name of God to faithfully and impartially discharge
the duties of the office, the seven Justices of the
Illinois Supreme Court are not paying lip service to
racial justice in Illinois, and are not tacitly condoning
racism, race (black) and national origin (Nigeria) dis
crimination and xenophobia, against the Petitioner,
'Lanre 0. Amu, a black African-immigrant attorney,
that they suspended from the practice of law since
2013, for filing ethics complaints that in their narrative
impugned the integrity of Judge Lynn M. Egan and
others, when nobody took an Oath to articulate any
wrongdoing by the Petitioner at the "adversarial "
attorney disciplinary hearing orchestrated to suspend
his law license.

2. Whether the Respondent, the IARDC, has the
authority to commence disciplinary proceedings against
the Petitioner to gain the upper-hand in their dispute,
to discredit the Petitioner, and to get the Petitioner
suspended from the practice of law, because the
Petitioner refused to go along with the IARDC 's
refusal to investigate Petitioner 's July 21, 2011 ethics
complaint against IARDC 's cronies, and because
Petitioner threatened to sue the IARDC in the federal
court and to also report the matter to the U.S. Depart
ment of Justice, when Crain 's Chicago Business ' March
1, 2014 independent investigative report later confirmed
in toto the merits, the sanctity, and the truth of the
tip of the iceberg of Petitioner 's July 21, 2011 ethics
complaint that IARDC had denied, suppressed, and
claimed was false to get Petitioner suspended from
the practice of law.

3. Whether the Respondent, the IARDC, its Hear
ing Board, its Review Board and the Justices of the
Illinois Supreme Court did not conspire to subject the
Petitioner to sham and psychologically abusive attorney
disciplinary proceedings as vehicle to suspend Petition
er's law license in 2013 on claims that the Petitioner
lacked evidence to prove the judicial corruption
he alleged in his ethics complaints when in fact the
IARDC Hearing Board ignored Petitioner 's credible
uncontradicted, unimpeached, logical, and irrefutable
evidentiary testimony at the hearing, and the Illinois
Supreme Court in tandem quashed all of Petitioner 's
subpoenas to compel witnesses in Petitioner 's defense.

4. Whether the seven Justices of the Illinois
Supreme Court did not deny the Petitioner a Fair
Hearing in 2021 by giving credence to IARDC 's un
sworn or unverified response to Petitioner 's verified
(sworn) Petition to unconditionally vacate the 2013
suspension of his law license where Illinois law, 735
ILCS 5/2-605(a), mandated that IARDC 's response to
Petitioner 's verified Petition be subjected to the Oath
as instrument of authentic verification.

5.

Whether the Illinois Supreme Court Justices are condoning racism and discrimination against the Petitioner