Whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the First Amendment allow federal employees equal protection and accountability for wrongful termination

The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members —though the number of justices has been nine in its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790. The issues are of exceptional importance because it involves an important question of the Equal Employment Opportunity Law. The law was first federal law designed to protect most US employees from employment discrimination based on that employee ’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin (Public Law 88-352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et.seq.). The current case concerns a Federal Government Employment being terminated from employment because she filed an EEO Complaint in June 2017 and was removed from Federal Service on January 18, 2018. This case exhibits obstruction of justice and thereby restricting the petitioners “Equal Access to Justice ” and violating her First, Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and further seeing other remedies of law for respective works when major companies are predicating the patterns of prior complaints during the current proceeding that restricts access to justice. See, Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, GA., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722 (Fifth Cir. 1975) See also, Equal Access to Justice Act. In the current case (1) fraud upon the court in the Merit System Protection Board prohibited the Court of Appeals Federal Circuit from issuing a decision with a full and fair opportunity as to litigation of the laws of citations when the facts of the case went missing from the Judge ’s Initial Decision as well as arguments made by the Petitioner in her closing brief. (2) The injured petitioner discovered that the Agency and the MSPB Judge were having exparte communications that the Petitioner was not privy to. The petitioner also discovered that the MSPB Judge changed the initial charge of Insubordination which includes the element of Intent to Failure to Attend a Meeting in order to give the Agency a win because the Agency could not prove the element of Intent. (A) Whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, allow Federal Government Employees to equal protection as federal employees and should the Federal Government be held ’ accountable for the wrongful termination of Roberta Lee. (B) Whether all of the abuse of discretion and fraud upon the court by and in the Merit System Protection Board Appeal and the Appeals Court of the Federal Circuit Court violated the petitioner ’s U.S. Constitutional rights of the First, Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh and Fourteenth intentionally to harm the case and should these infractions vitiate all appeal court of the Federal Circuit Court orders and restore the petitioner to make her whole again. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court should address questions of law that will assist in future areas of law for the public that are Equal Employment Opportunity covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (1) Whether the respondents and court of appeals Federal Circuit Judges intentionally violated the petitioners U.S. Constitutional rights aforementioned in (A) and when the respondents filed a Formal EEO Complaint the MSPB Judge and the Court of Appeals overlooked that the termination was a Reprisal because the Petitioner reported in June 2017 that she was being subjected to harassment, hostile work environment and discrimination. The Court of Appeals and the MSPB Judge overlooked the fact that I, Roberta Lee, Petitioner was assaulted by her second level supervisor and asked for a witness to attend the meeting with me because the same person that the Agency wanted her to go into a secluded area with had been removed from being her supervisor because of a previous EEO