Whether the First Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act protect a student with cognitive disabilities from being denied access to public university printing and computer facilities based on content or disability status

No question identified. : FACTS: On Vaughn: Curtis Vaughn, is a 2022 graduate of Missouri State University. In 2022—he was a student of Missouri State University— and broke from studies to focus on the court case—but intends a return to Missouri State University to finish the second bachelor’s degree. Vaughn has multiple debilitating cognitive, communication disabilities. He lives with high functioning autism, severe adhd, writing disabilities, depressive anxiety disorder, learning disabilities—and the effects thereof, not less than inhibit executive functioning, planning ahead, focus, organization, dependable progress, organizing his thoughts, organizing his thoughts onto paper, organizing thoughts, ideas, words, onto paper in an understandable way, does not always understand social ques, the unspoken, shuts down from time to time, cannot see errors, cannot always know, cannot guarantee if from mind to conveyance of accuracy, finds time wasted by stemming, incapacity to focus, restart, has difficulty with mind to hand coordination and poor handwriting, and other issues. These issues have plagued all of the Vaughn cases, Vaughn v Flannery et al and appeals, Vaughn v. Ashcroft et al at appeals, Vaughn v. Missouri et al and appeals, Vaughn v. Proctor et al and appeals—and on the basis of these disabilities, Vaughn has faced a gauntlet, from denial of protections of laws, to denial of privileges and immunities of the United States—in United States jurisdiction—and abridgments of conscience, press, speech, due process, protections from excessive fees, security in papers and effects, fair redress, equal protections of the laws—perhaps citizenship itself. Vaughn will need to consider a writ of certiorari in this case, alongside an injunction—and a writ of Certiorari in on of the Vaughn v Ashcroft cases on candidate, voter freedom of conscience and due process—a full review on certified questions from a judicial misconduct proceeding— and probably a mandamus for full review, alignment with law, of all Vaughn cases. ON TIMING, EXTENSION Vaughn requests two months’ time extension of filing the writ of fir 23-2462 certiorari, or the most Just consideration, in light to the barriers, the laws, withholdings of fundamental by the lower courts. For authority, see Judicial Conference 255, fifth amendment, ninth amendment, fourteenth amendment. Vaughn v. Flannery, 23-2962, was decided on October 13%, 2023— Vaughn believes, without extension, he currently has until January 10%, 2024 to file writ of certiorari with the court. Argument-1. Vaughn lacks equal protections of laws, due process, privileges and immunities of the United States, first amendment, fourth amendment, fifth amendment, eighth amendment, ninth amendment, fourteenth amendment, and Congressional Laws, in United States jurisdiction: A. The lower courts upheld controversy of the abridgment of press on content, topic, purpose, and controversy of abridgment of speech on content, topic purpose at the public computer labs, public printers, public library of Missouri State University— allowing the defendants to bar from Vaughn, the free press, and the free speech (as cash, coin, currency to pay for the free press)—at the public library, public printers, public computer labs, public university, of Missouri State University—and autistic, severely adhd, writing disabled Vaughn is now, broadly, without the first amendment right to print, nor to with first amendment liberty, pay for the print, as free speech, at the public facilities. Without this right, Vaughn, is now to hand petition, write, for redress to the United States Supreme Court, without the protections of the first amendment, the fifth amendment, the ninth, nor the fourteenth amendment, or privilege, immunity of the United States. . The lower courts, refused to allow equal protections, applications of the laws, due process of Judicial Conference 255, refused communication accommodations, before judgments, no communication acc