1. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R 1614.105 a(2) Does this C.F.R allow the petitioner or any Federal employee to file his or her complaint after they have clearly proven that they were unaware of the date and time the Discriminatory action had occurred against them, and after they have clearly asserted a defense of Estoppel.

2. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)(2) Does this C.F.R allow any agency to ignore and hot follow this C.F.R by never conducting an impartial investigation that is required of them and then falsely state and mislead the petitioner and the courts to believe that an investigation had been requested within the 180 day period that was given to them?

3. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R 1614.106(e)(2). Does this C.F.R allow an agency not to follow this regulation and conduct their own private non-impartial IRD investigation long after their 180-day timeline expired? Without any written agreement between both parties as is required and pursuant to this C.F.R.?

4. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R 1614.106(e)(2) Are the Respondents allowed to enter and use as evidence an, inadmissible, inaccurate, Bias IRD investigation report against the petitioner if the petitioner had no participation and had no say and had no right for rebuttal of the IRD investigation and no written agreement was ever made by both parties to extend the time period as is required in this C.F.R. ?

5. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 (a)(2). Are the U.S District court and the Fifth Circuit court of appeals allowed to ignore and not follow this C.F.R. Regulation They contradict themselves and raise inconsistencies in their ruling that affects the petitioner and would affect any other Federal employee. These Courts contradict the Fifth Circuit Court 's first decision and the relevant findings that were noted at Case No. 22-50411 Doc-00516732781 at 3 in their decision to reverse and remand the petitioner 's case back to the U.S District Court for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit referenced. Pacheco v. Rice, 966 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir.1992). "Relevant here the 45-day time limit is extended when the claimant shows that he or she did not know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, 29 C.F.R 1614.105(a)(2) ". I the petitioner did not know that the discriminatory matter, action occurred, and I had also asserted a defense of estoppel which allowed the time to be extended. Can violation of this C.F.R be allowed ?

6. Can the Petitioner lawfully be denied Injunctive relief in the way of compensatory damages, after he repeatedly requested Injunctive Relief through the Magistrate Judge to intervene by having the Respondents remove their inadmissible, inaccurate, Non-Impartial Investigation report from this case. The failure of the lower courts to never intervene and have the respondents remove their inaccurate, inadmissible, Bias investigation report after the Plaintiff repeatedly requested that they remove their report has intentionally caused the petitioner to suffer his right to a fair and impartial due process

Whether a federal employee can file a complaint after proving unawareness of discriminatory action and asserting estoppel under 29 C.F.R. 1614.105(a)(2)