Whether the illegal denial of 'Due Process' to Petitioner and the harm being persistently inflicted upon him, violates the rights promised by the U.S. Constitution's Amendment V and Amendment XIV

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the illegal denial of ‘Due Process’ to Petitioner and the harm being persistently inflicted upon him, violates the rights promised by the U.S. Constitution’s Amendment V and Amendment XIV by his former government employers, by State and Federal organizations, or” even by the Courts, if not, does this not violate the ‘Rule of Law? Pages 12 to 16 herein, ECF 63,Page 9,9 36 (iv) ECF 63,Page 9, J 36 (iv). Is the Fourth Circuit in conflict with the Supreme Court that has held that courts of appeal are required to “consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervened” since the disputed decision was issued, pursuant to Patterson v. Ala. and Watis, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca Di Navigazione, when Circuit Court denies new and decisive evidence? Pages 28 to 29 herein, ECF63,Page16. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1772 Doc:33, Page 2. Pet. App. 3 and Pet. App. 4. Whether the highest Court finds it in the Public Interest to punish an innocent person? Specifically, when Respondents’ documents prove that there was no ‘Due Cause’ (no Complaint against Petitioner, when UM’s Title [IX Coordinator also records there was no Complaint, even the so-called victim’s sworn EEOC Charge does not even mention Petitioner, and now when VA BREF also asserts there was no Complaint), is it not proper for the Court to rule that there was not even a Complaint and rectify this prolonged and grave injustice? Page 31 and Pet. App. 6, Page 3 herein. ECF5,Page37,71133, ECF16.7,Page2, ECF63-7 Whether the Supreme Court finds it in the“national interest’ to needlessly punish a vulnerable foreigner from a friendly country and a time-tested ally of the United States when it is obvious i that it is because of Petitioner's nationality, that Respondents can continue to needlessly inflict ; harm on him persistently that is ongoing and egregious, as stated by him from the onset of his Complaint? It is a widely known fact that India treats American citizens in its country very well, what about ‘reciprocity’? Pages 32, 33, jt and Pet. App. 6, Page 3 herein. ECF5-13,Page8,9]48. Whether it is in the interest of U.S. ‘national security’ when a person who submits evidence to the “Office of Accountability & Whistleblower Protection (OAWP) of a Federal agency in Washington D.C.” is retaliated against? Also, would this be in ‘Public Interest’ when it becomes widely known how a person who voluntarily submitted evidence is treated, then forget foreigners, would even American citizens be hesitant to come forward to do so? Pages 32, 33, 34 herein and Pet. App. 6, Page 3 attached herewith [USCA4 Appeal: 22-1772 Doc: 36], USCA4 . Appeal: 22-1772 Doc: 33, Pages 30, 31, EG@F20-2, Pages 3, 4, [[19, 20, 21. 22, 24, 38, 39 and ECF9-12., ECF 63.1. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1772, Doc: 16, Pg: 36. Whether both the Decisions of the Circuit Court are in conflict with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when its orders clearly perpetuate ongoing harm despite the rules of Respondents as well as the law require that termination on account of sexual harassment must be done only after the involvement of Title [IX Coordinator, why are laws being broken when it comes to a vulnerable brown-skinned Indian national? And where the statement of the State University’s . “custodian of Title [IX records” directly Sgntradicts its own University Title IX Coordinator, when Respondent is funded by taxpayers, making its position untenable? Pages 3, 4, 5, 27, 28 herein and Pet. Apps. 1, 2, 3 and 4. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1772 Doc: 33, Pages 6, 8, 16, 22, 32, 33, 37. ii : oO . :