Denial of formal hearing for Black and socially disadvantaged farmers on discrimination complaints

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : 1. Is it a violation of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment for the United States Department of Agriculture : to promulgate Rules and-regulations to create a . separate system for Black Farmers and other Social Disadvantaged Farmers (members of a protected class as defined by Congress in the 1991 ‘ Consolidated Farm Bill):to be denied a formal : hearing on the merits before the administrative law judge, that includes a mini trial, complete with running records provided to the complainant and representatives, on pending administrative discrimination complaints as afforded to similarly situated White farmers? The petitioner believes . the answer is yes. ; 2. When a private lender or bank enters into a guar; anteed contract with the Dept. of Agriculture, in which the affected Socially Disadvantaged Farmer is a third party, and the private lender or bank agrees to abide by all the rules and regulations, both current and future, that may include morato: rium relief by an Act of Congress or codified by the agency, is the private lender or bank subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and exhaustion requirements; if the answer is yes, if the private lender or bank forecloses on real property or calls in loans when the Secretary of Agriculture was required to act by Acts of Congress and the authority to resolve all claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1480 in the 180 day period pursuant to 5 US.C. § 706(1)(2) would the state court or district court judgment for foreclosure or any other adverse action be void? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued 3. Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals incorrectly determine that a judicial review was properly dismissed by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1891 when the mandamus action was brought where the petitioner resides pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1861 and 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b); further dismissed the mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) when in fact, the IFP was granted in the district and petitioner, respondent served by the US Marshal and paid the fee for the court of appeals, furthermore the district court did not do a substantial inquiry of the agency record or what claims was before the Administrative Law Judge? 4. When “in the nature of the mandamus” for unreasonable delay under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)(2), the agency was required to act by Congressional Acts, Federal Law and agency rules and regulations that provided moratorium relief, should the real property or offsets of affected Socially Disadvantaged Farmers be returned until a final determination of the agency or a court of competent jurisdiction has conducted a judicial review and all appeals have been exhausted? 5. When a district court has exclusive jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, can a sister circuit ~ provide relief to either party on injunctive relief such as foreclosure, offsets or enforcement action of the settlement agreement; should any relief provided by sister court be returned for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to FRCP 60(b)? The petitioner thinks the answer concerning the exclusive jurisdiction is no and if the relief provided by the sister QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued court is not within the jurisdiction of the sister court, the judgment should be void and the relief provided should be returned to adverse party.