Did the Oregon Supreme Court violate Long's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process prior to deprivation of his property interest where its order of disbarment:

a. Rests on uncorroborated testimonial evidence obtained by OSB attorneys' apparent felonious bribery of a witness in violation of ethical prohibitions on contingent payments to fact witnesses for testimony?

b. Followed 45 months of indefinite interim suspension (initiated by allegations that have since been dismissed), during which OSB attorneys announced their intent to see what we can do about getting [Long] disbarred," and then began to assemble the present case by offering payments to clients injured by the suspension in apparent quid pro quo for testimony that could justify disbarment?

c. Relies on the opinion of a trial-level adjudicator who was previously disqualified in the related (now dismissed) companion case for apparent bias against Long and had plainly omitted several of Long's evidentiary exhibits from the record?

d. Included the participation of Justice Thomas A. Balmer despite Long's motion to disqualify him for appearance of bias where then-Chief Justice Balmer alone signed the orders imposing and maintaining the indefinite suspension such that he should be presumed to have an interest in confirming his earlier judgment?

2. Does the Equal Protection Clause prohibit the Oregon Supreme Court from disbarring Long as a result of OSB's singular hostility toward him, which, without rational basis, was far more aggressive than in contemporaneous cases of similarly situated attorneys, such as one who discharged seven rounds from a weapon into an office building after driving "black-out drunk" to do so, was convicted of a crime, and was subsequently convicted of another crime for manufacturing illegal drugs in his basement, where OSB did not prosecute his violence and threats to clients and intentionally discouraged proof of violations similar to those on which Long was disbarred?

Did the Oregon Supreme Court violate Long's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process prior to deprivation of his property interest