Whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . 1. WHY WERE MY FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED BY BOTH THE DISTRICT ; AND 10TH CIRCUIT COURTS? 2. WHY WAS MY REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL AND ORAL ARGUMENT DENIED? 3. WHY WAS IT NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE COURTS THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE STATED THAT IN 3 YEARS IN THE SAME POSITION, THERE WAS NO WRITEN EVIDENCE OF REPRIMAND/WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERNS DOCUMENTATED TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE YET BOTH COURTS SIDED WITH THE DEFENSE GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT? . 4. WHY WAS IT NOT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE JUST CAUSE FOR ME TO BE NON-RENEWED BASED ON MY WORK PERFORMANCE WHEN | WAS TOLD THAT THE REASON FOR MY NON-RENEWAL WAS NOT BASED ON MY WORK PERFORMANCE? THE DISTRICTS POLICY#4173 CLEARY STATES THAT THERE ARE LEGAL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN PRIOR TO NON-RENEWING A PROBATIONARY TEACHER BASED ON WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERNS. WHY WAS THIS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE COURTS WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THESE STEPS WERE NOT AFFORDED TO ME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF ALLEGED CONCERNS. INSTEAD, THE COURTS ACCEPTED THAT t HAD AMPLE KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH ALLEGED SEVERE WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERNS BASED MERELY ON A SENTENCE OR TWO IN MY END-OF-THE YEAR EVALUATIONS FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS BUT NOTHING NOTED ON MY THIRD YEAR EVALUATION. THERE WAS THE ABSENCE OF ANY MEETING OR DOCUMENTATION TO SET EXPECTATIONS, NO IMPROVEMENT PLAN, NO ADDITIONAL SUPERVISION OR MENTOR IMPLEMENTED ATTHE START OF MY SECOND OR THIRD YEAR. | WAS LEFT TO MY OWN DEVICES AND MY OWN CURRICULUM FOR THE THREE YEARS | WAS EMPLOYEED AT HIGHLINE UNDER THOMPSON AND 3 DIFFERENT ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS. BOTH COURTS ALSO OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE ALLEGED WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERNS WERE IN MY THIRD YEAR, AFTER t SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE EQUITY WORK; WERE NOT REFLECTED IN MY FINAL EVALUATION BY WATANABE EVEN THOUGH HE PERJURED . HIMSELF BY STATING HE HAD CONCERS; WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE MID YEAR REVIEW WITH WATANABE IN DECEMBER 2018 WHERE HE PER!URD HIMSELF AGAIN NORIN THE NON-RENEWAL MEETING IN APRIL 2019 WITH THOMPSON; WERE NOT COCUMENTED FOR THE ENTIRE SCHOOL YEAR \N AND DID NOT SURFACE UNTIL AFTER | SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE EQUITY WORK AND THOMPSON IN A CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATION WITH WATANABE AND AFTER THE EEOC CHARGE WAS FILED AND THE DISTRICT SUBMITTED THEIR RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE, REINFORCING A REASONABLE CLAIM OF RETALIATION. 5. WHY DID THE COURTS NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DISTRICT'S DISREGARD TO THEIR USE OF DISCRIMINATING MATERIAL DURING EQUITY WORK THAT I WAS SUBIECTED TO. CCSD CONTRACTS , WITH PACIFIC EDUCATIONAL GROUP THAT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF LAWSUIT CLAIMS FOR PROMOTING RACISM PERPETUATING THE ERRONEOUS ASSOCIATION OF BLACK PEOPLE, REINFORCING A REASONABLE CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATION. ; 6. WHY WAS IT OVERLOOKED AND DISMISSED THAT THOMPSON, WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION OF : THE EEOC, TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH MY RIGHT TO PURSUE MY CAREER BY SABBATOGING THE ENTRY LEVEL ADMINISTRATION POSITION OF DEAN OF STUDENTS THROUGH AURORA PUBLIC , SCHOOL DISTRICT. THOMPSON INTENTIONALLY INFLATED MY ABSENCES, MAKING ME APPEAR UNRELIABLE EVEN THOUGH MY ABSENCES WERE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICTS OWN SICK LEAVE POLICY #4151, WAS NEVER COUNCILED OR DOCUMENTATED AS A WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERN, WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE MID-YEAR REVIEW/ FINAL EVALUATION WITH WATANABE . AND WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE NON-RENEWAL MEETING WITH THOMPSON. THIS CONCERN DID NOT SURFACE UNTIL AFTER THE EEOC CHARGE WAS FILED, AT THE END OF MY THIRD YEAR; THE SAME YEAR I SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE EQUITY WORK AND THOMPSON’S USE OF NEGATIVE RACE SPECIFIC STEREOTYPE LANGUAGE TOWARDS ME, REINFORCING A REASONABLE CLAIM OF TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE. : 7. WHY WAS MY EVIDENCE/STATEMENTS NOT GIVEN THE SAME CONSIDERATION AS THAT OF THE DEFENSE? IF GIVEN THE SAME CONSIDERATION, WHY WERE POINTS OF PERJURY; AFTER-ACQUIRED ACCUSATIONS; UNDOCUMENTED STATEMENTS AND UNDOCUMENTATED ACTIONS BY THE DEFENDANTS OVERLOOKED? ; , \V