1. WHY WERE MY FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATED BY BOTH THE DISTRICT
AND 10TH CIRCUIT COURTS?

2. WHY WAS MY REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL AND ORAL ARGUMENT DENIED?

3. WHY WAS IT NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE COURTS THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE
STATED THAT IN 3 YEARS IN THE SAME POSITION, THERE WAS NO WRITEN EVIDENCE OF
REPRIMAND/WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERNS DOCUMENTATED TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE YET BOTH
COURTS SIDED WITH TH E DEFENSE GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGEMENT?

4. WHY WAS IT NOT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE JUST CAUSE FOR ME TO BE
NON-RENEWED BASED ON MY WORK PERFORMANCE WHEN I WAS TOLDTHATTHE REASON FOR MY
NON-RENEWAL WAS NOT BASED ON MY WORK PERFORMANCE? THE DISTRICTS POLICY#4173 CLEARY
STATES THATTHERE ARE LEG AL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN PRIOR TO NON-RENEWING A PROBATIONARY
TEACHER BASED ON WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERNS. WHY WAS THIS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE
COURTS WHEN ITWAS POINTED OUT THATTHESE STEPS WERE NOT AFFORDED TO ME WITHIN 3
YEARS OF ALLEGED CONCERNS. INSTEAD, THE COURTS ACCEPTED THAT I HAD AMPLE KNOWLEDGE OF
SUCH ALLEGED SEVERE WORK PERFORMANCE CONCERNS BASED MERELY ON A SENTENCE OR TWO IN
MY END-OF-THE YEAR EVALUATIONS FOR THE FIRSTTWO YEARS BUT NOTHING NOTED ON MY THIRD
YEAR EVALUATION. THERE WAS THE ABSENCE OF ANY MEETING OR DOCUMENTATION TO SET
EXPECTATIONS, NO IMPROVEMENT PLAN, NO ADDITIONAL SUPERVISION OR MENTOR IMPLEMENTED
ATTHE START OF MY SECOND OR THIRD YEAR. I WAS LEFTTO MY OWN DEVICES AND MY OWN
CURRICULUM FOR THE THREE YEARS I WAS EMPLOYEED AT HIGH LINE UNDER THOMPSON AND 3
DIFFERENT ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS.

BOTH COURTS ALSO OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE ALLEGED WORK
PERFORMANCE CONCERNS WERE IN MY THIRD YEAR. AFTER I SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE EQUITY
WORK; WERE NOT REFLECTED IN MY FINAL EVALUATION BY WATANABE EVEN THOUGH HE PERJURED
HIMSELF BY STATING HE HAD CONCERS; WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE MID YEAR REVIEW WITH
WATANABE IN DECEMBER 2018 WHERE HE PERJURD HIMSELF AGAIN NOR IN THE NON-RENEWAL
MEETING IN APRIL 2019 WITH THOMPSON; WERE NOT DOCUMENTED FOR THE ENTIRE SCHOOL YEAR
AND DID NOT SURFACE UNTIL AFTER I SPOKE OUT AGAINST TH E EQUITY WORK AND THOMPSON IN A
CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATION WITH WATANABE AND AFTER THE EEOC CHARGE WAS FILED ANDTHE
DISTRICT SUBMITTED THEIR RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE, REINFORCING A REASONABLE CLAIM OF
RETALIATION.

5. WHY DID THE COURTS NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DISTRICTS DISREGARD TO THEIR USE OF
DISCRIMINATING

Whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated