1. Whether the New York State Court of Appeals violated the U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV by dismissing an attorney's appeal based on the summary contention that "no substantial constitutional question is directly involved" even though the attorney had appealed disbarment by a subordinate New York court for statements in federal court filings (e.g., motions to reconsider or recuse or appellate briefing) that federal officers (judges) had lied (e.g., about evidence they had reviewed in camera) and committed federal offenses (e.g., in 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 371, 1001, 1512 or 1519) and no fact ever was stated or proved to show how any such attorney statement was false or otherwise violated any court rule or exceeded the scope of speech and petitioning secured by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and copious U.S. Supreme Court precedent thereunder.

Whether the New York State Court of Appeals violated the Fourteenth Amendment by dismissing an attorney's appeal without addressing substantial constitutional questions related to disbarment and free speech