employment-contractual-due-process-property-rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. My employment contractual due process property rights were deprived without due process by all defendants violating the 5" and 14 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. 2. Minnesota State judicial officers are trained professionals at law and do not honor the U.S. Constitution and all laws pursuant to stating many times in their filings that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to and has no force in Minnesota or any State in the Union in violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution and their oaths or affirmations to the U.S. Constitution even after being informed by me in my filings many times from the Minnesota District Court on up to the Minnesota Supreme Court demonstrating these judicial officers agents of the State of Minnesota required to inforce the will of the State of Minnesota deliberately acting outside their judicial capacities or in complete absence of jurisdiction violating the 5th and 14th Amendments for due process and equal protection of . the laws. ; 3. Minnesota State judicial officers stated many times in their filings that the Minnesota Constitution does not apply and has no force in the Minnesota Courts violating the 5" and 14** Amendments for due process and equal protection of the laws. . : Page lof 5 4. Federal and State Courts cannot assume legislative powers. Courts of Minnesota and defendants have numerous erroneous case laws both State and Federal. Just because something is intended to be a widelyaccepted-rule does not change the fact that is not in this case violating Articles 1 and 6 of the U.S. Constitution as stated throughout my filings. 5. Minnesota Courts claim that 42 USC 1983 is not a law that they have to enforce and are not obligated and will not honor in their courts violating Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. 6. Allen v. Hennepin County, 680 N.W. 2d 560, at 563 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) 90 day limitation from the Uniformed Arbitration Act cannot be extrapolated to apply to this case by the courts where arbitration was not allowed by contract/(Governing Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA]) violating the 5th and 14th Amendments for due process and equal protection of the laws. 7, As\| stated numerous times in my filings that the Minnesota State judicial officers assumed to interpret the Governing CBA contractual language misinterpreting the clear and explicit language of the Governing CBA violating Article 15* of the U.S. Constitution which states that States cannot pass any law impairing the obligations of contracts. Judicial officers have no authority to interpret the clear ; and explicit language of any contract doing so violates due process and equal protection of the laws according to the 5 and 14'* Amendments of the U.S. . ; ; | Page 2 of 5 Constitution further proof of these judicial officers acting outside their judicial capacities or in complete absence of jurisdiction. 8. As stated numerous times in my filings that | had a protected interest in continued employment see all my filings and, Article 16 Sections 1 and 3 also Article 12 Section 10 D of the Governing CBA, including my Probationary Appointment Letter all submitted in my initial Minnesota District Court Complaint defendants violating the 5 and 14" Amendments for due process and equal protection of the laws. My contractual property right stated that the only reason | for was if | could not perform (output and accuracy) which is the same reason for all employees which was never needed to be submitted in my Personnel File as required by the Governing CBA) Minnesota Department of Human Services (MNDHS) defendants only made false claims of being unprepaired. 9. As stated numerous times in my filings that | had a cognizable claim under the | Americans with Disabilities Act since | initiated an ADA claim with the MNDHS as required by 29 CFR App. 1630.9(1998) which is another violation of the 5‘ and 14* Amendments for due process and equal protection of the laws. 10. Minnesota Appellate Court uphe