Whether the EEOC and various defendants violated Mitchell's constitutional rights through discriminatory actions, media harassment, and procedural misconduct

1. Whether the current rules in place for Social Media, Media, etc. justify, destroying every aspect of an innocent person ’s life (Media Munchausen), taking away her Right to Work, cutting off her career at its bootstraps, destroying her relationships, her family, making her homeless, placing a target on her back for everyone with Mommie, racial issues, women issues, etc.) and even effecting the health care she receives. 2. Whether the date that an employee files her claim on the EEOC Portal is the charge date of her claim (Aug 2020), or the date of the interview with the EEOC (2021 because of Co vid 19), or date the EEOC makes a determination, or the date she receives a Letter to Sue or Not To Sue (which is usually well over a year later), is the date used for the Statute of Limitation that relates back for Court purposes to determine when and what is the actual Charge Date. 3. Whether the EEOC violated Mitchell ’s 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause by screaming and yelling at Mitchell during the interview, telling her it was not discrimination (hear tape they are refusing to turn over) to pay her less that the white employees she managed; by denying giving her a letter to Sue and by refusing to turn over a copy of the interview tapes. 4. Whether the 11th Amendment to the Constitution Sovem Immunity extends to an Arm of a State when it has substantial control over a non-employee ’s salary and position title (hear tape). 5. Whether these Defendants Violated Mitchell ’s 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause by implying Mitchell was unqualified (unfit) to be the Controller at Raytown Water Company, when it was not based on Mitchell ’s work performance, education or experience, but on what they read on the internet. 6. Whether these Raytown Water Company et, al. Defendants Violated Mitchell ’s 14th Amendment Equal Protection Right specifically Discrimination by stating they would be paying her less than the white employees she managed. 7. Whether Mitchell ’s 14th Amendment Due Process of Law was violated by unfair, bias (Stare Decision), in all cases she brought since 2004, due to the fact they confused Mitchell with her ex-husbands (Ellonzo Rico Lewis Sr.) 2nd wife (Renee King-Lewis). 8. Whether Mitchell ’s 5th Amendment Procedural due process ensures fairness in legal proceedings by requiring the government to provide notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decision-maker before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property when they confuse her with her ex-husbands (Ellonzo Rico Lewis Sr. ) 2nd wife (Renee King-Lewis), someone Mitchell has never met. viii 9. Whether Mitchell ’s the Judicial System violated Mitchell ’s 8th Amendment Right by inflicting Cruel and Unusual Punishment by confusing her with her ex-husbands ’ (Ellonzo Rico Lewis Sr.) 2nd wife (Renee King-Lewis) someone Mitchell has never met. 10. Whether Mitchell 5th and 14th Amendment Rights to Due Process have been violated by these Defendants and the Judicial system, when they believed the previous defendants and their Marketing firm(s) lies as the Holy Judicial Gospel without even a Sliver of Proof or Truth. ix