QUESTION ONE:
WHETHER AN APPEALS COURT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY IN ERROR RETAIN
AUTHORITY OVER SUMMARY JUDGMENT ACTIONS THAT INCLUDES MOOT
EXCLUDED HEARSAY CLAIM CONTENT THAT CANNOT QUALIFY AS A
" UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION II, OF THE UNITED STATES"CLAIM
OR CONTROVERSY
CONSTITUTION AND TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, DUE TO LACK OF
JURISDICTION AND OBITER DICTA REFERENCE TO MOOT HEARSAY ON THE
RECORD.

QUESTION TWO:
WHETHER THE APPEALS COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONCLUDING
APPELLANTS CLAIMS UNDER TITLE VII PARTICIPATION AND OPPOSITION
DID NOT CONSTITUTE PROTECTED ACTIVITY FOR APPELLANTS FAILURE
PENDING EEOC CHARGE PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN EMPLOYER'SCLAUSE
TO FILE A
INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, HEARING, OR PROCEEDING IN ANY MANNER
UNDER THE STATUTE.

QUESTION THREE:
WHETHER THE APPEALS COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY DISMISSING
APPELLANTS APPEAL BASED ON AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF TITLE VII LAW,
SECTIONS 2000E-3 (A) AND 42 U.S.C. 2000E- 2 ( A) OF THE OPPOSITION42U.S.C.
AND THE PARTICIPATION CLAUSE PROTECTING EMPLOYEE'S WHO SPEAK-OUT IN
employers internal investigation of allege retaliatory harassment
UNDER THE PARTICIPATION CLAUSE OF TITLE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

QUESTION FOUR:
WHETHER THE APPEALS COURT ERRORED IN APPELLANTS CASE WAS BASED
ON AN INCORRECT STANDARD OF REVIEW, AS OPPOSED TO THE CORRECT
CLEARLY ERRONOUS STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE, BUT FOR, CAUSATION
AND THE PROPOUNDER OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD.REQUIRED TOTEST,
PROVE RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION.

QUESTION FIVE:
WHETHER THE APPEALS COURT OVERLOOKED IN ERROR THE MATERIAL FACTUAL
OR LEGAL MATTER OF EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE ALLOWING OF PUNITIVE
DAMAGES IN TITLE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, FOR MALICIOUSLY FRAUDLENT,
RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE OF AGGAVATING FACTOR OF FRAUDULENT
INDIFFERENCE IN A CONSTRUCUIVE DISCHARGE CLAIM.

whether-appeals-court-retain-authority-over-moot-claims