I. Whether Discrimination/Duty of Fair Representation violated by the Labor International Union 269 under Title VI I42 U.S.C. 2000(e) {Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (1987) and section 1981, Harassment and Segregation under 42 U.S.C. 1981 {Jones v. R.R, Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 569 (2004) statute of limitations supersedes the limitations of the "hybrid " 301/unfair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) 29 U.S.C. 185 7

A. Plaintiff-Petitioner "Weingarten Rights " were Violated fey Employer after Denying Him Representation Under Direct Threat, Duress, Coercion, The Union Participated by Not Responding.

B. Plaintiff-Petitioner was Wrongfully Terminated Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2087b{ 1 )The Whistle blower Protection Act 1989.

C. The Court of Appeals 7th Circuit Incorrectly Affirmed District Court Judgement on Duty of Fair Representation 42 U.S.C. 2000(e) Title VII Act, Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 160(h).

II. WTiether the district court order that denying the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. 1915 violated petitioners 5th, 6ffi, 7"*, and 14th Amendment of his Civil Human Constitutional Rights, and clarification of procedural dne process of a "Person " that cannot afford counsel.

III. Whether unofficial "pretextual** papers written statements without the correct times, dates, locations, or signatures, and wwithout declaration 1* under the penalty of perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1623. United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) should have been excepted as admissible "material " evidence to form a conclusion against Buford in this case.

A. Whether Laborer 's Union Local 269/1 WG employee 's "Obstructed of Justice ", through its attorney Robert S. Cervone 's Candor...

IV. Whether the district court allowed Robert S. Cervone and David P. Lichtman to violate Buford 's "Article 12 and 9th Amendment right to Privacy " by inviting Timothy Moore (269 Business Agent) and Brin R. Kelsey to be present at Buford 's depositions.

A. Whether attorney Cervone and Kelsey violated a direct court order pursuant CCP2025.420(b) (12) by inviting Brian R* Kelsey (1WG attorney) to the second session, and thereafter the district court allowed him the privilege of violating his Candor.

B. Whether the district court violated Buford 's uArticle 5 and 8th Amendment Right to Freedom of fines or unusual punishment " for his right pursuant to 30(d)(3).

V. Title VII discrimination claims alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(c) by a union are not subject to the requirements and limitations applicable to a claim that a union violated its

Whether Discrimination/Duty of Fair Representation violated by the Labor International Union 269 under Title VH 42 U.S.C. 2000(e)