Do the actions of federal judges constitute a conspiracy to interfere and deprive the petitioner of constitutional and civil rights?

ESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and other federal and state antidiscrimination laws make it unlawful for an employer to treat individuals differently in the terms and conditions of employment and/or take adverse employment decisions because of their race, color, sex, age and/or membership in other protected categories. In the 21** century, the operation of biases and prejudices are not always blatant, but as we all bear witness, various forms of discrimination are alive and well throughout American society. Given the realities of institutionalized racism, the well-documented “conservative judicial agenda” that has taken place since the Reagan administration and the historical, as well as modern-day, underrepresentation of federal judges of color on the bench, the pyramid of evidence supports that this glaring disparate impact, specifically against African Americans litigants, from having the merits of their civil rights cases decided by a jury, is not “accidental” or “due to chance.” As a result, Hicks-Washington’s petition presents the following questions: 1. Do the actions of federal judges Federico A. Moreno, Barry S. Seltzer and various appellate court judges in the Eleventh Circuit constitute a conspiracy to interfere and deprive HicksWashington of her constitutional and civil rights under the color of law? 2. If"federal courts were entrusted with ultimate enforcement responsibility" of Title VII, is it a constitutional violation of due process for the federal court to conclude that a petitioner failed to “exhaust administrative remedies” if the EEOC refused to conduct a complete investigation into all of the petitioner's claims of discrimination? 3. Is it a constitutional violation of due process for the court to deny claims of race, color and sex discrimination under Section 1981 and/or the FRCA for “failure to exhaust administrative remedies” if there are no “administrative remedies” to exhaust under the statutes in question? i 4. Ifa decisionmaker states to employees on more than one occasion that they are “getting older” and inquire about their replacements before terminating them months later, does this constitute direct and/or circumstantial evidence of age discrimination? 5. Under the ADEA, is it unconstitutional to conclude that a person can only be discriminated against “because of’ their age if they have membership in other protected categories? 6. Due to the realities of institutionalized racism and racism being a learned behavior, can any person classified as “white” living in the United States be given the presumption of not harboring racial biases? Ancillary Questions: 1. Can federal judges be allowed to ignore the realities of institutionalized white racism and/or implicit racial biases in race-based employment discrimination or civil rights cases? ; 2. Can a federal judge be impartial if s/he ignores and/or downplays the realities of institutionalized and individual white racism in a civil rights or employment discrimination case involving African Americans? 3. Does the historical and present-day overrepresentation of whites as Article III federal judges reflect the judiciary’s inherent racism as an institution? 4. Is it racist to deny and/or ignore the realities of institutionalized white racism in the United States of America? 5. Is a federal judge acting in a “judicial capacity” if s/he intentionally violates the Judicial Code of Conduct, his or her Oath of Office and/or the U.S. : Constitution to achieve an outcome not grounded in fact or law? 6. Is “race” a scientific reality or a myth? 7. Is the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity unconstitutional if it allows Article III federal judges intentionally violate his/her Oath of Office and the Judicial Code of Conduct and act above our nation’s antidiscrimination laws? it