Robert J. Murphy v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel

To the Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court

1. Whether petitioner, Robert Murphy, had fair warning as to reach of disciplinary proceedings and precise nature of charges that petitioner’s adminis­ trative and extraordinary Workers’ Compensation recusal proceedings in pending contested Workers’ Compensation proceedings in 2010 (hereinafter recu­ sal proceedings) based on Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act 77 P.S. Section 2504 violated Penn­ sylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 8.2(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) based on Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s erroneous retroactive application of its newly enacted 2014 Judicial Code which is plainly effective only on and after July 1, 2014 involving only elected judges in violation of petitioner’s fundamental constitu­ tional rights including due process and equal protection guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amend­ ments to the United States Constitution.

2. Whether Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s co­ mingled accusatory and adjudicative functions based on pre-determined conclusion that petitioner’s subject recusal proceedings and other alleged unrelated non­ existent ethical violations violate petitioner’s funda­ mental right to due process and equal protection.

3. Whether Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s final biased fiat order entered 12/19/2019 denying peti­ tioner’s petition for review pursuant to Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board’s arbitrary, irrational and biased recommendations involving ODC’s continuous, inten­ tional, egregious prosecutorial misconduct suspend­ ing petitioner from Pennsylvania Bar for a period of