Whether the administrative law judge erred in not ruling GM's avoidance of agency requirements violated due process and lacked substantial evidence

I DID “THE COURT ’ ERR IN NOT RULING THE ALJ ’S DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THAT IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, MATERIAL, AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE WHOLE RECORD WHEN HE JUSTIFIED GM’S AVOIDANCE TO THE AGENCY ’S REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE FACT FINDINGS REGARDING PETITIONER ’S EXIT WHICH VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS REGARDING WHEN GM WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIS EXIT? MCL: 421.20 (a)(l)&(2); 421.32 (a-d) & 2; 421.29 (l)(a); 421.33(1); .24; & 24.306 (1) (a-f );. II DID “THE COURT ” ERR WHEN THE AU PRACTICED “WILLFUL BLINDNESS ” CWB ”) TO AVERT OBTAINING FACTS FOR A FAIR HEARING ACCORDING TO MCL 421.33(1) AND IN VIOLATION OF MCL-SEC.24.306... WHEN HE SUBJECTIVELY ALLOWED TESTIMONY IN A MANIPULITIVE MANNER? 3 | P a g e LIST OF ALL PARTIES [ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [X] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page, a list of all