Whether the Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the Northern District of Illinois dismissed their claims with prejudice and denied them the same information provided to the two other plaintiffs

No question identified. : Role (4. (4) Que Shion Peesented Foe Reviews AY Dow comes An Ape ellant in this Cechocaci to ceynest these High “Teilunale to deteanine weethec The PocthwamDisteick of TlbiveiS over wssecred US aul hocity iad Fiest , Dismissing Plesndict / Acoallant 5 Gul actions with “Prejediee Sy Cram i tLe gelly Seecaiued evidence that vis luted. | ppallant S Cong Hhotioual cichts 4 bain Second , 083 laé tina Same intgemation te tyetwo chin Plo ntize/ A poellant Geom Gini Cosy fucker aeliens ond be lus paid eft oil of big io standin b fees th vw ceat lan mo Socom of tax on an Tach ‘ ent Detaiaces cole likey is hel dl these necovirtalele axe the ulAy etiovs Soshaned ond that ace donbinwal to this day, Lb mest also be iaoted dat He Evecutive Commitee “Ens owed * the. Pla Lnhite wrtwot a he aC Vin 0¢ npger tun. h why fo foe heacdy wilh the pre terbusas ot mn debvinees test donc Compovad ingly ita ¢ may ct 100 0% ag Whats test Pend oe dinly wi as the PL {LA PD Cos hes « loot dinky Cine Hine ‘ Sins ‘ ivwe a a ~toLumley loan of Hygitve aud leagrl Sopaced Dalle