Whether the Lower Courts' unconstitutional procedural departure conflicts with the prerequisite demand pursuant several holding of United States Appeals Court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Lower Courts’ unconstitutional procedural departure conflicts with the prerequisite demand pursuant several holding of United States Appeals Court, where judicial review of the merits of | an administrative decision is restricted to the “arbi_| trary and capricious” standard prescribed by the } Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the conflict pursuant the unconstitutional procedural departure renders the judicial proceeding null in void. 2. Whether the Appeals Court has enter a decision replete with conflicts with the Supreme Court of United States, the holding of United States Appeals Court, and in disaccord with Congressional intent renders the ruling a nullity, hence void judgment. 3. Whether the Appeals Court administrative decision on the face of its Order reveals, “Charles Simon | challenging the amount of monthly compensation he } was awarded in 1994 under the Inmate Accident Compensation Procedure 18 U.S.C. § 4126; Section 301.301 et seg., along with the termination of his payments in 2018.” said allegation in part show a blatant conflict expressed at documented evidence of fact at Exhibit D, reveal the COOQ’s discriminatory fraud policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301. The Appeals Court issued a political partisan decision rather than issue finding of fact and conclusion of law in the denial of Preliminary Injunction under (APA) 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., mandated by Simpson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61(1970) 4. Whether on the face of Exhibit-D, expressly cited and accompanied the Verified Complaint and Appeal Brief, evidence that ultimately prove obstruction , of justice imposed by the retired Chief Operating i Officer of Federal Prison Industries, fraud discriminatory policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301 said discriminatory policy require compensation recipient report Public Assistance Program evidence the clear distortion of Inmate Accident Compensation Procedure under 28 C.F.R. § 301.315(b) et seg., enacted by Congress. Said | COO’s policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301, freezes all : entitlement of the Inmate Accident Compensation Procedure 18 U.S.C. § 4126 attending sec. 301.314 et seq., enacted by Congress. 5. Whether the Lower Court’s ruling pursuant exhausting of remedy upon the illegal termination imposed by the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Prison Industries fraud discriminatory policy at 28 C.F.R. Part 301 conflict with the Inmate Accident Compensation Procedure enacted by Congress under 18 U.S.C. § 4126 attending 28 C.F.R. § 301.315(a), Section 301.314(b), Section 301.313. , 6. Whether the Appeals Court adopts the legal | point of law that conflict with the Supreme Court in , . Monel v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); 7. Whether the Declaratory Judgment and Preliminary Injunction should issue upon the Lower Courts’ . usurpation of Judicial authority hindered Due Process without cause blocking Pro Se Plaintiff from receiving and issuing summons on DOJ Attorney General thereby protecting the DOJ from mandatory injunction upon the COO’s fraud policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301, enjoin disparate impact imposed by Inmate Accident Compensation Procedure 18 U.S.C. § 4126 attending 28 C.F.R. § 301.314 et seqg., pursuant Title VII of Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e violations.