Is 29 C.F.R. § 1614 constitutional?

QUESTION PRESENTED Is 29 C.F.R. § 1614 constitutional where Defendant HUD contends that the results of Investigation made under 29 C.F.R. { 1614 (HUD-00037-2019) has no value in the federal court ; suit where HUD-00037-2019 shows that HUD discriminated on the basis of Age and Disability | ; according to the interpretation rules of 29 C.F.R. 1614; and where J 1614, used by all the federal “agencies, has no provisions for compliance with the due process guarantee of the Constitution _ (No impartial tribunal, etc.); and ¥ 1614 is suppose to cover discrimination in employment © applications, employment, etc.; all “discrimination” types covered being statutory rights. ; . , PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT : , ; . ABBREVIATIONS USED: : HUD. ..U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Defendant) | Court of Appeals ... U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia | | . District Court... U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia . ; HUD-00037-2019.. .HUD’s investigation: Plaintiffs evidence BASIS FOR JURISDICTION This Petition is timely filed within 90 days of the March 8, 2024 Order of the Court of . Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Apx pg.1). The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Petition under 28 U.S.C. 4 1651(a). . . _ REASON RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE IN ANY OTHER COURT . The issue stems from,a case (No. 1:21-¢v-02709-ZMF) now held by the District Court for the District of Columbia. That Court refuses to terminally decide the case so appeal was limited to the action for a writ to the Court of Appeals which went astray. , . STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a): The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions. and agreeable . to the usages and principles of law. ; 29 C.F.R. ¢ 1614: This C.F.R. is 12,878 words in length. Originated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); it describes the procedures and the Rules that Agencies must use in “Investigations” for the resolution of discrimination for Age and Disability, as in HUD-00037-2019, which is the center of this dispute. HUD-00037-2019; : interpreted, under Agency Rule 29 C.F.R. 1614, shows that Plaintiff (Petitioner) Jolley prevails. ; . 1