1. Whether lower courts have a constitutional
duty to sua sponte assess all unlawful conduct and
harm to the public interest present in cases brought
before them and subsequently raise all viable claims
that may have been missed or inadequately pleaded
by a party, regardless of whether the party is
represented by counsel or proceeding pro se.

2. Whether a private settlement harms the public
interest when the underlying conduct that led to the
contract formation constitutes acts of felonies that
harm the public.

3. Whether the Second Circuit and District Court
erred in dismissing Petitioner 's disability
discrimination and emotional distress claims while
(1) refusing to define and conceptualize the integral
psychological condition and symptoms; (2)
disregarding the circumstantial evidence in the
record that demonstrates discriminatory intent; and
(3) requiring Petitioner to identify similarly situated,
non-disabled individuals who received better
treatment than he did.

Whether lower courts have a constitutional duty to sua sponte assess all unlawful conduct and harm to the public interest