Where there exists illegal practices in the workplace by a United States federal employer Census 2020-Department of Commerce

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Supreme Court has recognized in a variety of contexts that the judiciary's legitimacy and efficacy derives largely from the public's confidence in its fairness and fidelity to the law. Alden v. Maine, ; 527 U.S. 706, 752 (1999)Public confidence [is] essential" to the judicial branch. United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, ; 188 (1974 (Powell, J., concurring)). That public confidence is being eroded by activities such as those at issue in this case and in other cases like it . United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 468. Due process requires a fair trial before a judge without actual bias against the defendant or an interest in the outcome of his particular case. This case was filed in the Appeals Court Ninth Circuit under 28 US Code § 1292 interlocutory decisions. The confidence of the petitioner in the judiciary is truncated. 1) Where there exists illegal practices in the workplace by a United States federal employer Census 2020-Department of ; Commerce that includes Injuries to the character and welfare of the employee (today the petitioner) . Where the Department of Commerce, the umbrella of Census 2020 has defamed, persecuted and threatened the petitioner with deprivation of liberty and has illegally garnished wages. Where petitioner was not been backed up by former employer when requested help and was abducted by the local law enforcement while employed as a federal worker by Census ; 2020-Department of Commerce and terrorized with deprivation if liberty and deprivation of property by armed Hemet Gatekeepers Security guards. Where the district court has placed the character of the petitioner in false light in writing. ; Where the petitioner has been psychologically tortured in daily basis by Census 2020. 18 USC Ch. 113C: TORTURE p 7 ; 2 ‘ Where the United States Attorney's Office workers have defamed the petitioner and obstructed justice violating the Sherman Act Section 1. Where the appeals documents filed by petitioner were stricken by Magistrate District Court Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Where the appeals Court has erred failing to execute the Due process of law. May the Supreme Court recognize that the Due Process (4th and 14 amendment section 1) are applicable to this case where the innumerable violations to the rights of the petitioner include; 1. Violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 2. Violations to the Civil rights AAct of 1991 (EEOC) 3. Violations to the Equal pay Act of 1963 ; 4. Violations to the Sherman Act Section i 5. Violations to the ADA Act (42 U.S.C.S. section[s] 12101 et seq.) : 6. Violations to the Civil Rights Act 1991 7. Trespassing of the 28 U.S. Code § 1292 Interlocutory Decisions 42 U.S. Code § 1983 “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a ; declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress ; applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be . considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.” : PAGE BLANK BELOW 3 oe Boy