Gregory Melvin Haynes v. State Bar of California

I Does the California Reciprocal attorney discipline statute—Business and profession code 6049.1 - violate the standard set forth in Selling v Radford. 243 U. S. 46, 51 (1917) because it does not provide for a review of the discipline imposed by another jurisdiction for insufficiency of proof or for some other reason which would make the imposition of discipline unjust, where Selling v Radford. 243 U. S. 46, 51 (1917) requires infirmity of prove and any other reason that would make the imposition unjust as well as due process considerations . II Is the California Supreme Court’s imposition of reciprocal discipline in In RE Haynes in violation of Selling v Radford. 243 U. S. 46, 49 (1917) because the it imposed discipline base on a foreign jurisdiction imposition of discipline where the foreign jurisdiction—the United States District Court for the Northern District of California-- based its determination of discipline on a summary judgment record, as opposed to an evidentiary hearing, in violation of its local rules, which requires a findings of fact, and used a preponderance of the evidence standard where both the district court and California Court required a clear and convincing standard. Anderson v. Liberty lobby.Inc 477 U.S.242,257, (1986); Tolan v. Cotton. 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (per curiam) Parties The parties to this action the Supreme Court of the State of California and petitioner Gregory M. Haynes