1. Whether a federal appeals court has the power
to disbar an attorney by denying the attorney an evidentiary hearing (which the attorney requested) based
on judges' cursory conclusory contention that the attorney's "arguments" are "largely frivolous and conclusory."

2. Whether a federal appeals court has the power
to disbar an attorney based on nothing more than
judges' mere conclusory contention that some unidentified "evidence" of some unidentified attorney "misconduct" merely was "set forth" in inadmissible
hearsay in a prior "order."

3. Whether federal judges have the power to create (or imply) an evidentiary privilege for judges to allow judges to avoid testifying (under oath subject to
cross-examination) when judges' hearsay is the purported "evidence" used to justify disbarring an attorney.

4. Whether a federal court may disbar an attorney based on a prior court's purported disciplinary action without affording such attorney notice identifying
particular purported misconduct and all facts material
to proving such misconduct and affording such attorney a reasonable opportunity to respond to such notice.

5. Whether a federal court may disbar an attorney without issuing a decision identifying the attorney's purported misconduct, stating findings of
material facts and identifying clear and convincing evidence of each such fact.

6. Whether a federal court may punish an attorney because such attorney stated in federal court filings that a judge (while presiding over court
proceedings) asserted falsehoods the judge knew were
false and committed federal offenses (e.g., 18 U.S.C.
241, 242, 371, 1001, 1348, 13849, 1512(b) or 1519) before
the disbarring court shows or identifies clear and convincing evidence of all facts material to proving that
the attorney statements were factually false, i.e., the
judge did not assert such lies or commit such crimes.

Whether a federal appeals court has the power to disbar an attorney