Whether Younger and its progeny permit federal courts to abstain, on the basis of general principles of comity and federalism, from hearing Constitutional Amendment challenges that seek Justice, Fair Due Process against biased unjust unfair, & unconstitutional state agency proceeding?

QUESTION PRESENTED @) Petitioner, QP with Decades of Practice Experience, SEED rier Seal court aa to CED's QPS in Sealed hearing QE ; GREED) pursuant to Sealed QR vestigative QA at is still current and active today , ene 2153 3¢<255111') passed all required certification medical licensing exams in 2017, successfully completing all required : Reentry medical Practice 2017-2019, successfully completing required Continuous Medical Education Credits <i, {appear is p> ->': hearing qe WEI, declining to consider hae ee: , denying all proofs of medical Competency and violating his constitutional : rights putting him in position to obstruct justice iolate the laws and criminal proceedings in state proceedings that otherwise allows to conic AA en Gee Petitioner seeking justice, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress this irrevocable harm. Creating an acknowledged and irreconcilable split with the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and also splitting with the Ninth & Second Circuit, both of which have held that federal courts should not abstain from hearing constitutional challenges seeking : Justice , Fairness in Due process, freedom of Harm and at least the minimum of being fairly heard ina state proceeding G0: obstruction of justice .—sisY _ protection filings, and fairness in reviewing his application without prejudice . The Seventh Circuit held . that federal courts should abstain from some constitutional rights hearing such as First Amendment . claims of this type pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (197 1) and its progeny. The Seventh Circuit’s decision was grounded not in any clearly defined category of Younger cases in which this ; Honorable Court has stated abstention is appropriate, but rather in general principles of “equity, comity, and federalism.” The questiggsp 2 resented jjssthus: Whether Younger and its progeny permit federal courts to abstain, on the basis of general principles of comity and federalism, from hearing Constitutional Amendment challenges that seek Justice, Fair Due Process against biased unjust unfair, & unconstitutional state agency proceeding? ; psy ) IS IT POSSIBLE TO A US CITIZEN TO PRESERVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTED RIGHT? The prior QI! handling PlaintifiqgEBBH earings ,not only once but twice. is more than enough evidence of why Plaintiff is seeking QMMMEMMof his constitutional granted rights Fitth amendment protection,& Fair due process : The Board is asking a Federal court to simply dismiss Plaintiff claims just because qi! have his fair chance and will be given all thé opportunity to be heard and then if he does not like it then he can go to the same state courts to be heard :" well let us assume that plaintiff is going again <a »°:: then fet us examine this future alleged anticipated fair hearing that the board will allow Plaintiffo have and to see iP that will give even any chance of a successtul due process hearing” : | 1, First :As The Honorable Judge @ijigabad stated in his aIREMEMPorder status of the Ti : QT 0 the government ,in both civil & crimitial prosecution QBS (UNDER SEAL : ; 2.Second : As Plaintiff will have the burden on him (o show his eligibility (0 qq 3.Third : As this means that the Plaintiff has to (" Under Oath in a state agency public hearing" } to . expose Federal court order sealed.filings QE that Granted hin qe, 4. Fourth : As, This means that plaintiff will be in violation of both Federal and state laws in terms of | obstruction of justice in current active Oe federal investigations , not only but interfering these ongoing , | investigations SE: GEE vision In | The SD CUMS. SRNR & 0: Regardless how much plaintiff will ry showing eligibility in any fou pesring in a closed ‘hearing as permitted under VA statue ("_Virginia statue rules VA Code 2.2-3711 “Closed Meeting | authorized for certain purposes that include’ nd when the fF th ouldbe — . The Board simply will insist on conducting an open public hearing where when asked as twice ha