Was decisions under Title VII also recognize that a person claiming that he has been the victim of intentional discrimination may make out a prima facie case by relying solely on the facts concerning the alleged discrimination against him?

QUESTION PRESENTED IS: A. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HOLDING IN BATSON V. KENTUCKY, ALONG WITH COMPANION CASE PEOPLE V. MOTTON, THAT A ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX RASTAFARIAN CONVICTED OF CRIMES BY. AN ALL WHITE JURY, DRAWN FROM AN ALL WHITE. VENIRE CANNCT BE SENTENCED TO THIRTY TWO YEARS, EQUATING TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT GIVEN THE AGE OF THIS PETITIONER WITHOUT TESTIMONY OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. UNLESS THERE iS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER? B. DOES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THAT THE PETIT JURY BE SELECTED FROM A POOL OF NAMES REPRESENTING A GROSS. SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY? C. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HOLDING IN FED. R. CRIM. P.21. THAT THE COURT MUST SHOW PRESUMPTIVE OR ACTUAL PREJUDICE AS A DEMONSTRABLE REALTY NOT MERELY AS A MATTER OF SPECULATION. AS VENUE IN A CRIMINAL ACTION PROPERLY BELONGS IN THE PLACE WHERE THE CRIME ALLEGED AND THE ARREST WAS MADE. THUS VENUE CAN ONLY BE PROPER WHERE JURISDICTION ALREADY EXIST? D. PRESUMPTIVE PREJUDICE CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS A CIRCUS-LIKE ATMOSPHERE : THAT PERVADES BOTH THE COURTHOUSE AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. VOIR DIRE iS THE PRIMARY TOOL FOR DISCERNING ACTUAL PREJUDICE? E. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HCLDING IN ROBINSON V. VIA AND COMPANION CASE LEE V. SANDBERG, THAT THE RIGHT TO NOT BE ARRESTED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE IS A CLEARLY ESTABLISH RIGHT, ‘THAT AN ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PARTICULARLY THE PERSON OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED UNLESS THERE IS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES :APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER? : F. DOES THE SUPREME COURT HOLDING THAT RETALIATORY ARREST IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND SEARCHES CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL BY JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE, ARE PER SE UNREASONABLE UNDER THE FORTH AMENDMENT SUBJECT ONLY TO A FEW SPECIALLY ESTABLISH WELL DELINEATED EXCEPTIONS. THE EXCEPTION ARE SAID TO BE JEALOUSLY AND CAREFULLY DRAWN. UNLESS THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER? G. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE HOLDING IN McCOY V. LOUSIANA, IN WHICH THE COURT ADDRESS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DEFENCE COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES, AND HELD THAT AN ATTORNEY DENIAL OF A CLIENTS AUTONOMY TO DECIDE THE OBJECTIVE OF HIS DEFENCE IS PER SE PREJUDICIAL? H. IS IT THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, STATE SUPREME COURT, DISTRICT COURT, COURT OF APPEALS TO FOLLOW THE DECISIONAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT? I. DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, APPLY ON REVIEW THAT PETITIONER IS WHOLLY INNOCENT, AND IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OR TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES? J. THEY'RE AUTOMATIC ADJOURNMENTS WHICH YOU ARE ENTITLED TO, UNLESS THERE IS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES? K. THAT A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE CANNOT BE SENTENCED TC IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE SWORN TESTIMONY UNDER OATH BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT UNLESS THERZ IS CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, APPLY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW TO PETITIONER? L. SIXTH AMENDMENT RIG