Whether an exception or immunity to the Fifth Amendment allows reinvented segregation to continue within the United States

QUESTION PRESENTED Respondent, the United States of America (U.S.), pledged “global competitiveness” and “equal access” to education for all American students; nevertheless, for decades the U.S. allowed an entire generation of students with invisible petitioner—to be segregated and denied a legal education’. Petitioner Wije, alternatively, then took all the credit hours for another master’s degree, earned an “A” in all its coursework (except one with grading fraud’), and paid all the tuition plus fees. Respondent U.S. knew (or should have known) that—despite a decade of more segregated was the first and only male of color permitted , to integrate that flagship graduate program, perhaps, as a token gesture due to an imminent accreditation review; nonetheless, when petitioner was again denied another second graduate degree, respondent—in a repeating did nothing’. QUESTION: An exception to the Thirteenth Amendment‘ permitted slavery to : continue for an additional 80 years; likewise, will another exception or immunity OO to the Fifth Amendment! allow reinvented segregation to also continue within the . United States? | ' Please see the United States ‘Department of Education’s (USDE) “Overview and Mission Statement,” and especially . Respondent granted LSAC.org a monopoly for law school admissions. Then, USDE ignored discriminatory “flagging,” which not only violated HIPAA but also enabled de facto segregation (DFEH v. LSAC Inc.). a .? An excerpt from an earlier pleading detailed how the university professor’s grading scam functioned: “change the question (instructions) to match the answer,” (please see before and after Exhibits 3, 4, and 5). i. 3 Student loan debt cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, and the debt may even be garnished from one’s social security checks; therefore, petitioner is now in a six-figure, financial aid, debt bondage to respondent for an expensive master’s degree he rightfully earned but was denied because of longitudinal “deliberate indifference” to constitutional violations. Furthermore, since DFEH v. LSAC Inc., is applicable to petitioner, respondent can now capitalize . On its past failures: denying both petitioner and an entire generation of American students with invisible disabilities equal access to legal education directly results in an indigent pro se’s ignorance of the law. ; * The phrase “except as a punishment for crime” within the Thirteenth Amendment was the exception that enabled a system of peonage or debt bondage slavery to thrive for another 80 years after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. Please view omitted history, Slavery by "Another Name, (1 hour, 25 minutes). : > Both the Fourteenth Amendment (for states) and the Fifth Amendment (for federal) contain these exact 11 words: “[no one shall be] deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Equal protection is a substantive component of due process: “Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment” (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US. 1, 93 (1976); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975); Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 214-18 (1995)). ; ii