Whether California State Bar can regulate the practice of law in federal
court.

Specifically, whether California's disbarment of petitioner fell below due
process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution (XIV Amend. U.S. Const. §1) requiring reversal or it was so
retaliatory after this ten-year saga that Ms. Albert may proceed under Ex parte
Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908) in federal court for damages.

Whether the State Bar Act (Cal. Bus & Prof Code § 6000, et seq.) can regulate
the practice of law in federal court, contrary to this Court's holding in Theard v. United
States 354 U.S. 278 (1957).

Whether California can disbar an attorney on violations that were not charged,
contrary to this Court's holding in Jn re Ruffalo 390 U.S. 544 (1968).

Whether California's use of internet social media pages to advertise an
attorney's disbarment violates the attorney's right to privacy or is an unusual and cruel
punishment because it is shamed based and not for the protection of the public under
the Tenth Amendment. X Amend. U.S. Const.

Whether California can make attorneys pay $27,055.00 to defend against
disciplinary charges and then use that money to pay the salaries of adjudicators,
investigators, and prosecutors as a punishment pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
6086.10 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.13, contrary to the holding in Tumey v. Ohio
273 U.S. 510 (1927).

Is the California State Bar immune from suit in federal court contrary to Van de
Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U. S. 335, 348 (2009) or Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,
Sec'y of Commerce 144 §.Ct. 2244 (2024)?

Whether California State Bar can regulate the practice of law in federal court and impose disbarment without due process