DID "THE COURT ' ERR IN NOT RULING THE ALJ 'S
DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THAT IT
WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, MATERIAL,
AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE WHOLE
RECORD WHEN HE JUSTIFIED GM'S AVOIDANCE TO
THE AGENCY 'S REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE FACT
FINDINGS REGARDING PETITIONER 'S EXIT WHICH
VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS
REGARDING WHEN GM WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIS
EXIT? MCL: 421.20 (a)(l)&(2); 421.32 (a-d) & 2; 421.29
(l)(a); 421.33(1); .24; & 24.306 (1) (a-f );.

DID "THE COURT " ERR WHEN THE AU PRACTICED
"WILLFUL BLINDNESS " CWB ") TO AVERT OBTAINING
FACTS FOR A FAIR HEARING ACCORDING TO MCL
421.33(1) AND IN VIOLATION OF MCL-SEC.24.306...
WHEN HE SUBJECTIVELY ALLOWED TESTIMONY IN
A MANIPULITIVE MANNER?

Whether the administrative law judge erred in not ruling GM's avoidance of agency requirements violated due process and lacked substantial evidence