Question not identified.

No question identified. : “I came to complete not to refute. I came light to the World.” Jesus Christ TO THE HONORABLE AMY CONEY BARRETT, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Applicant Mark Bochra, pro se, tried his best to describe this complex case of discrimination and retaliation not just by Florida Coastal School of Law (FCSL) but by Office for Civil Rights (OCR) under Kenneth Marcus leadership who was working as an agent on behalf of Israel without registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), used the IHRA definition without the department’s senior leadership awareness to personally grants Zoa’s appeal; ECF No. 54 page 4 in Bochra v. U.S. Department of Education (1:21-cv-03887). The IHRA definition injects religion and the name Jesus Christ into it by dictating that “Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ” which is an endorsed government view point discrimination and is being used on the Department of Education website in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, ef seq. Applicant on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated people, filed a lawsuit in two parts, (1) seeking an injunctive and a declaratory relief against the Defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551, ef seg., and (2) styled his complaint in a form of a class action lawsuit under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the district court permits it because the outstanding questions before it affects the entire education system; either way, a nationwide injunctive and declaratory relief or certifying a class action lawsuit will remedy the complaint at hands and bring solace and rescue to America’s entire Education system including Mark Bochra who suffered valid and clear injuries by Defendants’ own misconducts. See Exhibit “A” Mark’s response to the Justice Department. On September 12, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of standing and without setting a scheduling order for the case, while failing to factor in the 6 raised Counts with in-depth analysis including a request for injunction and the removal of the IHRA from the Department of Education website and declaring it unconstitutional by adequately challenging it under the Administrative Procedure Act (“the APA”) on four bases: (1) arbitrary & capricious, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); (2) “contrary to a constitutional right, power, [or] privilege,” id. § 706(2)(B); (3) exceeding statutory authority, id. § 706(2)(C); and (4) promulgated “without observance of procedure required by law,” id. § 706(2)(D). See Exhibit “B” of the