Charles Simon v. Department of Justice, et al.

Whether the Lower Courts’ unconstitutional procedural departure conflicts with the prerequisite demand pursuant several holding of United States Appeals Court, where judicial review of the merits of an administrative decision is restricted to the “arbi­ trary and capricious” standard prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the conflict pursuant the unconstitutional procedural departure renders the judicial proceeding null in void.

Whether the Appeals Court has enter a decision replete with conflicts with the Supreme Court of United States, the holding of United States Appeals Court, and in disaccord with Congressional intent renders the ruling a nullity, hence void judgment.

Whether the Appeals Court administrative decision on the face of its Order reveals, “Charles Simon challenging the amount of monthly compensation he was awarded in 1994 under the Inmate Accident Compensation Procedure 18 U.S.C. § 4126; Section 301.301 et seq., along with the termination of his payments in 2018.” said allegation in part show a blatant conflict expressed at documented evidence of fact at Exhibit D, reveal the COO’s discriminatory fraud policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301. The Appeals Court issued a political partisan decision rather than issue finding of fact and conclusion of law in the denial of Preliminary Injunction under (APA) 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., mandated by Simpson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61(1970)

Whether on the face of Exhibit-D, expressly cited and accompanied the Verified Complaint and Appeal Brief, evidence that ultimately prove obstruction of justice imposed by the retired Chief Operating