Whether affording no process, no process whatsoever satisfies the due process requirement where a protected property interest is involved, here a public education?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; ; The questions presented are: 1. Whether affording no process, no process whatsoever satisfies the due process ; requirement where a protected property interest:is involved, here a public education? 2. Whether petitioner was entitled to a hearing? : 3. Whether Student bill of rights was followed? 4, Whether academic dishonesty policies were ‘ | followed? i 5. Whether academic honesty policies were followed? : . 6. Whether students at public colleges and universities are protected under a state law; : here RIGL 16-81-1 (C) which explicitly affords . students the following in any decision of the _ governing body: An appeal,.Due Process, A ee prompt hearing, Opportunity prior to the hearings to review any evidence supporting the evidence? 7. Whether petitioners Trespass notice which cites RIGL 11-44-26.1 has validity when no criminal charge filed in a court of proper jurisdiction? . 8. Whether petitioner's decisions are e. Sanctions , J. Revocation of Admission in Student ; Handbook? ; : 9. Whether an allegation outweighs the statutory : requirements available to students at public colleges or public institutions? 2 10. Whether an allegation is evidence? 11. Whether petitioner's decisions are e. Sanctions ; J. Revocation of Admission in Student Handbook? : 12. Whether petitioners Trespass Notice are e. : ; . Sanctions O. Trespass in Student Handbook 13. Whether students at public college or : universities are protected under the public ; . colleges or universities internal policies which explicitly include “admissions policies”? 14. Whether respondents complied with any | requirements in RIGL 16-81-1 (C) ? Whether respondents fully complied with RIGL 16-811 (c) which affords petitioner an appeal, a prompt hearing, evidence that will be used against petitioner, right to review any evidence supporting the allegation, and a written decision setting clearly the grounds for ~~ the action of the school? : : 15. Whether respondents qualify as impartial decision makers under RIGL 16-81-1 (c), especially where respondents made the decisions? ' ° RIGL is RHODE ISLAND GENERAL LAW 16. Whether the First Circuit court of appeals decision in Gorman v. University of Rhode Island citing this ; court and other court decisions is applicable? 3 t . : .