1. “Whether the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a legal or declaratory remedy, consistent with Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, in an instance when the same individuals entrusted to enforce high ethical standards on behalf of a Federal bar commit acts and omissions in contravention to the Constitution and to the ethical standards they enforce and promulgate, where no other meaningful remedy has been available and the respondents have taken the position that none is cognizable wherein the petitioner may obtain the single document he has sought from the outset, where that document is known by the respondents to be necessary for the petitioner to defend himself in the ethics matter brought against him by that Federal bar authority, to be neither privileged nor confidential, and to be in their possession.” 2. “Whether a Federal ethics attorney simultaneously (a) is permitted to withhold evidence, known to be exculpatory, notwithstanding the disclosure mandate under Brady v. Maryland based on a rationale that the attorney is not functioning as a prosecutor because the matter is not criminal in nature, even if a liberty right to work in one’s field is placed at risk; and (b) is entitled to not only qualified immunity but absolute immunity, based on a rationale that the attorney is nonetheless functioning in a manner analogous to that of a criminal prosecutor; thereby eliminating a basic procedural safeguard in the ethics prosecution while simultaneously leaving the defendant without a remedy for the very misconduct that safeguard prevents, further enabling the continued withholding of the single necessary document.” 3. “Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may decline jurisdiction over the appeal in the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), where the Federal Circuit simultaneously deemed the claims to involve the same issues as those in a prior appeal concerning the disclosure of exculpatory evidence over which it exercised exclusive appellate jurisdiction, where the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit transferred the prior appeal to the Federal Circuit upon deeming the Federal Circuit to possess exclusive jurisdiction over those issues, where the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit made clear in Jaskiewicz v. Mossinghoffthat the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals relating to who may practice before the USPTO, where the Department of Justice on behalf of former USPTO principals indicated that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction, and where the Federal Circuit previously exercised its subject matter jurisdiction in the same appeal when considering a motion of the petitioner concerning unethical conduct and deemed those issues to be considered more appropriately together with the merits; whether the Federal Circuit may also deprive the Petitioner of any further right of appeal notwithstanding the import of the present issues, by making a determination concerning issue preclusion without subject matter jurisdiction; and whether absolute immunity applied with a broad brush divested the District Court of subject matter jurisdiction as indicated thereby, or the District Court instead retained subject matter jurisdiction for the purpose of declaratory relief.” 4. “Whether the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits an ethics prosecution based on a premise known to be false as well as a reciprocal ethics prosecution knowingly based thereon, as neither the Respondents nor any other party has denied in this matter or otherwise, and to which prosecution the Federal Circuit has acquiesced by deeming the instant matter to be estopped notwithstanding the unopposed allegations; and whether it permits such acquiescence when the Federal Circuit simultaneously avoided a duty to take appropriate action as prescribed by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges when confronted with ethics violations, which are unopposed and in plain view, in connection with the secreting of documents by other attorneys including the petitioner’s former attorney in the underlying North Carolina prosecution, which violations have interfered with the petitioner’s prosecuting the present matter, prior to proceeding further.”
