Whether a federal employee can file a complaint after proving unawareness of discriminatory action and asserting estoppel under 29 C.F.R. 1614.105(a)(2)

Petitioner Pro-Se respectfully presents his ques tions and respectfully requests that the U.S Supreme court intervene to help preserve the Rule of Law the 5th and 14th Amendments. The Right to due process and fairness. All People are equal before the Law in reference to violations of C.F.R ’s “Codified Federal Regulations ”. These Rules are considered legally binding just as any statute and are backed by our U.S Constitution. Published in the Federal Register and governed by the Administrative Procedure Act “APA ” These C.F.R ’s are set in place to protect all Federal Employees from any unfair, non-impartial due process. Any individual or Agency that violates any C.F.R must be held accountable to maintain a fair justice system for everyone. Agencies and courts should not be allowed to ignore and not follow what a C.F.R states. C.F.R. Violations impact all Federal employees bringing forth their case and unfairly prevent and deprive them from having the ability to receive his or her Civil Procedure rights to justice and the ability to defend themselves fairly without prejudice or bias in accordance with the C.F.R Regulations. An action denying the process that is due “would be unconstitu tional ”. Process is due if rights are involved. 1. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R 1614.105 a(2) Does this C.F.R allow the petitioner or any Federal employee to file his or her complaint after they have clearly proven that they were unaware of the date and time the Dis criminatory action had occurred against them, and after they have clearly asserted a defense of Estoppel. 11 2. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)(2) Does this C.F.R allow any agency to ignore and hot follow this C.F.R by never conducting an impartial investi gation that is required of them and then falsely state and mislead the petitioner and the courts to believe that an investigation had been requested within the 180 day period that was given to them? 3. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R 1614.106(e)(2). Does this C.F.R allow an agency not to follow this regulation and conduct their own private non-impartial IRD investi gation long after their 180-day timeline expired? Without any written agreement between both parties as is required and pursuant to this C.F.R.? 4. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R 1614.106(e)(2) Are the Respondents allowed to enter and use as evidence an, inadmissible, inaccurate, Bias IRD investigation report against the petitioner if the petitioner had no participation and had no say and had no right for rebuttal of the IRD investigation and no written agreement was ever made by both parties to extend the time period as is required in this C.F.R. ? 5. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 (a)(2). Are the U.S District court and the Fifth Circuit court of appeals allowed to ignore and not follow this C.F.R. Regulation They contradict themselves and raise inconsistencies in their ruling that affects the petitioner and would affect any other Federal employee. These Courts contradict the Fifth Circuit Court ’s first decision and the relevant findings that were noted at Case No. 22-50411 Doc-00516732781 at 3 in their decision to reverse and remand the petitioner ’s case back to the U.S District Court for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit referenced. Pacheco v. Rice, 966 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir.1992). “Relevant here the 45-day time limit is Ill extended when the claimant shows that he or she did not know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, 29 C.F.R 1614.105(a)(2) ”. I the petitioner did not know that the discriminatory matter, action occurred, and I had also asserted a defense of estoppel which allowed the time to be extended. Can violation of this C.F.R be allowed ? 6. Can the Petitioner lawfully be denied Injunctive relief in the way of compensatory damages, after he repeatedly requested Injunctive Relief through the Magistrate Judge to intervene by having the Res pondents remove their inadmissible, inaccurate, NonImpartial Investigatio