Robert L. Jarrett, Jr. v. State Bar of California

QUESTION NUMBER ONE How does this Court resolve the absence of appellate jurisdiction in the proceedings in which the attorney misconduct is alleged to have occurred, even when, this Court did not previously find appellate jurisdiction was lacking? QUESTION NUMBER TWO Does the legislative intent and interpretations of California Code of Civil Procedure § 391 et seq. that holds those found to be vexatious litigants to what they have said in court filings differ from California Business Professional Code § 6068 (d) where bar members may say one thing in filings and thereafter change course, and if so, on what legislative basis? QUESTION NUMBER THREE What constitutes conflicting decisions of this California Supreme Court and is there an obligation imposed on this Court to resolve conflicts in this i Court’s and every other Courts precedent and if not, why not? i QUESTION NUMBER FOUR Does the legislative intent govern in California sui generis proceedings, and if not, why not? Page 2