Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Wei Qui, Petitioner v. Anderson County Board of Education
Supreme Court briefJul 1, 2024
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FILED
JUL 01 ®
1a-m
li fijv ^ |Jjui ,4i m-.\ /'
|v
ftij "! ^ ■•! V,\A -| /
liwyij M;
No.
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
Petitioner Wei Qiu
Wei Qiu
v.
Board of Education of Anderson County, KY
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U. S. 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals for Its Denial of Qiu’s
Appeal of Her Employment Discrimination Case
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Wei Qiu
2398 Heather Way
Lexington, KY 40503
859 797 3859
wqiu2000@gmail.c0m
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 2024
supreme m-hm
:~u
Petitioner Qiu respectfully asks that a writ of
certiorari be issued to review Order D 18 of the U. S.
6th Circuit filed on April 3, 2024 and Order DN 59 of
the U. S. Eastern District Court of Kentucky filed on
8/28/23.
OPINIONS BELOW
Order D18 was issued from the U.S. Court of
Appeals For the 6th Circuit which affirmed the order
from the district court on April 3, 2024. The petition
to rehear was denied on April 25, 2024. Order D 18
is attached as Appendix B.
Order DN 59 issued from the U. S. Eastern
District Court of Kentucky which denied Qiu’s
summary DN 45 on 08/28/23. Order DN 59 was
attached as Appendix A.
JURISDICTION
Order D 21 which denied Qiu’s petition to rehear
was entered on April 25, 2024, in the 6th appeal
court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), the instant case is in
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Order D 21
is attached as Appendix C. The letter dated September
4, 2024, commands the last day for this case was
November 3, 2024.
1
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,
STATUTES, AND POLICY AT ISSUE
The Rule of Law, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER
LAW, no one is above the law.
AMENDMENT XIV of the Constitution Section
l. Rights
.... nor shall any State deprive any person, of life,
liberty, or property , without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703] (a) Employer practices It
shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin;
If an employment practice which operates to exclude
Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job
performance, the practice is prohibited. GRIGGS v.
DUKE POWER CO., 401 U.S. 424 (i97i)-
2
16 KAR 2:120: qualified teacher” means a teacher
who holds the appropriate certification for the
position.
KRS i6i.O20(i)(a): No person shall be eligible to hold
the position of... teacher, ...for which certificates
may be issued, or receive salary for the services
rendered in the position, unless he or she holds a
certification of legal qualifications for the position,
issued by the Educational Professional Standards
Board.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Introduction of the Case Procedure
Qiu first depicts the events before introducing
the filings.
Qiu was an American citizen of Chinese origin.
Qiu landed in the U.S. in the early 90s when she was
29 that she spoke with an accent. Qiu was a certified
high school chemistry teacher possessing the
recognition of excellence of chemistry Praxis.
Anderson interviewed Qiu for the chemistry
position in the spring of 2020. After the interview,
Qiu kept on asking Associate Principal White to hire
her. White held Qiu wait. Anderson hired Sutherland
3
on the day interviewing her that Qiu’s waiting was
over.
Qiu filed the discrimination happened to her
with the EEOC. Anderson did not settle the case
administratively. The EEOC issued the Right to Sue.
Qiu sued Anderson in the federal court Eastern
District of Kentucky under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 based on Qiu’s race, color, national origin.
After discovery, each plaintiff Qiu and defendant
Anderson filed summaiy motion. Order DN 59
granted Anderson’s summary. By granting Anderson’s
summary, Order DN 59 denied Qiu’s summary. Qiu
appealed to the 6th Circuit Court, and Order D18
affirmed Order DN 59 of the district court. Qiu is
appealing to the Supreme Court.
The filings of the case are in the dockets:
Wei Qiu v. Board of Education ofAnderson County,
KY, 3:21 cv 00027, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky.
Wei Qiu v. Anderson County, KY Board of Education,
23-5888, U. S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
The critical filings in the district court were:
1. DN 45, Qiu’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
DN 46 is the amendment added to DN 45.
4
2. DN 47, Anderson County’s Response to Qiu’s
Summary DN 45 and DN 46.
3. DN 50, Qiu’s Reply to DN 47.
4. DN 48, Anderson County’s Cross Motion for
Summary Judgment. Same as DN 47, the
Response.
5. DN 49, Qiu’s Response to DN 48. DN 51 is the
amendment added to DN 49.
6. DN 52, Anderson County’s Reply to DN 49 and
DN51.
7. DN 59, Order grants DN 48, Anderson
County’s Summary.
8. DN 61, Qiu’s Recuse.
9. DN 63, Order Denies DN 61.
10. DN 62, Qiu’s 59(e) motion.
11. DN 64, Order Denies DN 62.
The critical filings in the circuit court were:
1. D 12, Qiu’s brief
2. D 15, Anderson’s brief
5
3. D16, Reply by Qiu
4. D 18, Order affirmed the district court’s order
B. Statement of Facts
The job was teaching chemistry. Page ID# 322 in
Qiu’s summary DN 45.
Qiu’s qualifications for the chemistry teaching
job: Qiu was a certified chemistry teacher. Qiu
achieved the excellence of Praxis chemistry. Qiu’s
chemistry was at Professor Bush’s level at the
University of Kentucky. Qiu was a passionate educator
who was able to maintain, and even instill, high
standards in students. Qiu’s chemistry teaching was
outstanding. Qiu’s personality and dedication to
students made her classroom a safe place for students
to learn. Qiu handled NTI (teaching online) better
than most of other teachers. Page ID# 315, 328-337 in
Qiu’s summary DN 45.
Qiu emailed Associate Principal White to ask to
be hired after the interview every week. White held
Qiu wait. When White found the English speaker
white Sutherland was available, White hired
Sutherland on the day. Page ID# 316, 338-342 in
Qiu’s summary DN 45.
Sutherland was not certified for teaching
chemistry. Sutherland had no chemistry education in
6
her resume. Sutherland had no experience in teaching
chemistry in her resume. Page ID# 314, 324, 325-326
in Qiu’s summary DN 45,
Anderson hired Sutherland over Qiu on
Sutherland’s interview day having been holding Qiu
wait. Page ID# 316, 338-342 in Qiu’s summary DN 45,
By Kentucky laws 16 KAR 2:120 and KRS
i6i.020(i)(a), Anderson illegally hired Sutherland
and paid her to teach chemistry because Sutherland
held no chemistry certificate. Page ID# 407,429-430
in Qiu’s response DN 49.
Anderson’s counsel Lawyer Chenoweth had
Drury the certificate expert of Anderson tell the open,
direct material lie that Sutherland was properly
certified to teach chemistry courses to solve the
qualification problem of Sutherland to set up the fact
of his summary. Page ID# 402 in Anderson’s
summary DN 48. Based on Druey’s open, direct lie as
his fact, Lawyer Chenoweth filed Anderson’s
summary. Lawyer Chenoweth knew he was filing his
summary of the open, direct lie because he was an
education lawyer. Lawyer Chenoweth filed the false
document Anderson’s summary into the federal
court’s docket which was a crime.
Lawyer Chenoweth triumphed with his summary
of the lie while Qiu argued with Sutherland’s
certificate, the Kentucky laws 16 KAR 2:120 and KRS
7
i6i.020(i)(a) to prove Drury’s lie. Page ID# 411-412,
423-430 in Qiu’s response DN 49. The fact that
Anderson’s summary was granted suggests the
professional lawyer had known his summary of the lie
would triumph in the district court that he dared to
file his summary motion of lie. The court and
Anderson were in the conspiracy.
REASONS FOR
GRANTING THE PETITION
PROBLEMS OF FACT AND LAW
The Qualifications of Sutherland and Qiu for
the Chemistry Teaching Position
The two Kentucky laws ruled the qualification of a
public school teacher:
16 KAR 2:120: qualified teacher” means a teacher
who holds the appropriate certification for the
position.
KRS i6i.020(i)(a): No person shall be eligible to hold
the position of... teacher, ...for which certificates
may be issued, or receive salary for the services
rendered in the position, unless he or she holds a
certification of legal qualifications for the position,
8
issued by the Educational Professional Standards
Board.
By the two Kentucky laws, Anderson illegally
hired Sutherland who held no chemistry certificate for
the chemistry teaching position and paid her salary.
Page ID# 324 in Qiu’s summary DN 45, Sutherland’s
teaching certificate. Sutherland was unqualified for
the chemistry teaching position factually (zero
education in chemistry, see her resume) and legally
(held no chemistry certificate, see her certificate).
Page ID# 314, 324, 325-326 in Qiu’s summary DN 45,
Sutherland’s certificate and resume. Anderson
violated Kentucky laws 16 KAR 2:120 and KRS
i6i.020(i)(a) to hire Sutherland and pay her salary in
the chemistry position because Sutherland held no
chemistry certificate. Anderson hired Sutherland to
teach chemistry illegally.
Qiu was certified to teach chemistry. Page ID#
328 in Qiu’s summary DN 45, Qiu’s certificate. By the
two Kentucky laws, Qiu was qualified to teach
chemistry. Further, Qiu achieved the excellence of
chemistry Praxis and other high qualifications of a
chemistry teacher: Qiu’s chemistry was at Professor
Bush’s level at the University of Kentucky, Qiu was
outstanding teaching in her chemistry classroom, Qiu
was able to maintain, and even instill, high standards
in students, Qiu handled NTI (teaching online) better
9
than most of the other teachers. Page ID# 315,
328-337 in Qiu’s summary DN 45.
Anderson hired Sutherland over Qiu for the
chemistry teaching position.
Anderson Discriminated against Qiu, and
Lawyer Chenoweth had Drury the Certificate
Expert Tell the Open, Direct Lie as His Facts
for His Summary Motion
Knowing Qiu was an accented Chinese, Anderson
held Qiu wait after Qiu’s interview. Qiu asked to be
hired after her interview, Associate Principal White
held Qiu wait to continue interviewing to search for a
new applicant. On the day Sutherland was available to
White, White hired the unqualified English speaker
white Sutherland over the qualified accented Chinese
Qiu. Page ID# 338-342 in Qiu’s summary DN 45, the
email exchanges of Qiu and Associate Principal White.
Based on the qualifications of Sutherland and Qiu
for the chemistry teaching position, Anderson made
the decision to hire the unqualified Sutherland on the
day Sutherland was available after holding the
qualified Qiu wait. Anderson made the hiring decision
based on the race, color, and national origin of
Sutherland and Qiu at the moment when Anderson
found Sutherland, being driven by its racism.
10
Anderson disparately treated Qiu from Sutherland
because of their race, color, national origin. Anderson
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES SEC.
2C>ooe-2. [Section 703] (a)(i).
Anderson discriminated against Qiu under the
McDonnell Douglas framework. The first three
elements of the McDonnell Douglas framework were
undisputed. Page ID# 390 in Anderson’s summary
DN 48. Anderson disputed the 4th element which was
about the qualifications of the applicants for the
chemistry position.
Anderson’s counsel Lawyer Chenoweth had Druiy
the certificate expert of Anderson tell that Sutherland
was properly certified to teach chemistry courses to
solve the qualification problem of Sutherland to set up
the fact of his summary. Page ID# 402 in Anderson’s
summary DN 48. Drury materially lied under oath
openly and directly because his affidavit was against
the two Kentucky laws. Based on Druey’s open, direct
lie as his fact, Lawyer Chenoweth filed Anderson’s
summary. Lawyer Chenoweth knew he was filing his
summary of the open, direct lie because he was an
education lawyer. Lawyer Chenoweth filed the false
document Anderson’s summary into the federal
court’s docket which was a crime.
11
Lawyer Chenoweth triumphed with his summary
of the lie while Qiu argued with Sutherland’s
certificate and the Kentucky laws 16 KAR 2:120 and
KRS i6i.020(i)(a) to prove Drury perjured openly
and directly under oath. Page ID# 407-408,411-412,
423-430 in Qiu’s response DN 49, Page ID# 530-537
in Qiu’s amendment response DN 51. The fact that
Anderson’s summary was granted suggests the
professional lawyer had known his summary of the lie
would triumph in the court that he dared to file his
summary motion of lie. The court and Anderson were
in the conspiracy: Lawyer Chenoweth put Anderson’s
summary into the docket that the district court could
and would grant it. Anderson’s summary was a step of
the teamwork of Anderson and the court.
Order DN 59 from the District Court was a Lie
to be on Anderson’s Side
Raising the Kentucky laws, Qiu argued Drury
perjured in her response. Page ID# 407-408, 411-412,
423-430 in Qiu’s response DN 49. Raising the laws,
Qiu argued Drury perjured and faked documents to
cheat the Education Professional Standard Board in
her amendment response DN 51, Page ID# 530-537Drury’s under oath affidavit that Sutherland was
properly certified to teach chemistry to the fact that
Sutherland held no chemistry certificate directly
conflicted with the Kentucky laws. Order DN 59 took
12
Drury’s lie that Sutherland was properly certified to
teach chemistry. Page ID# 594 in Order DN 59;
Second half in Page 35 in Appendix A.
Order DN 59 misexplained the Kentucky laws:
That statute does not identify which certifications are
required to teach which courses. Page ID# 594 in
Order DN 59. Bottom two lines in Page 35 in
Appendix A. There is insufficient evidence to show
that a chemistry certificate is required to teach
chemistry. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue
over whether Ms. Sutherland was qualifiedfor the
position. Page ID# 595 in Order DN 59; Middle in
Page 36 in Appendix A. By misexplaining the laws,
the district court legalized the illegal that Sutherland
taught chemistry holding no chemistry certificate. By
misexplaining the laws, the district court qualified the
unqualified Sutherland.
Sutherland was not certified to teach chemistry,
has no education in chemistry, and has no experience
to teach chemistry were nude facts in Sutherland’s
certificate and resume. Page ID# 324, 325-326 in
Qiu’s summary DN 45, Sutherland’s certificate and
resume. Order DN 59 falsified the nude facts of
Sutherland as Qiu believes. Page ID# 593 in Order DN
59; Second half in Page 33 in Appendix A.
Having falsified the nude facts of Sutherland as Qiu
believes, Order DN 59 did not have to make the
decision based on the facts of Sutherland.
13
Order DN 59 brushed Qiu’s qualifications:...
presented references, evaluations, an award, and test
scores. Page ID# 593 in Order DN 59; First half in
Page 34 in Appendix A. Qiu’s chemistry was at
Professor Bush’s level in one of the references; the
evaluation was 4.47; the award was the excellence of
chemistry Praxis, the test score was her highly scored
physics and math Praxis. The district court abated
Qiu’s qualifications.
Having falsified the qualifications of Sutherland
and Qiu, the district court took Anderson’s pretext
that the uncertified white Sutherland with zero
chemistry education was more qualified for the
chemistry teaching position than the certified Chinese
Qiu with excellence of chemistry Praxis to grant
Anderson’s summary. Page ID# 595 in Order DN 59;
Beginning in Page 37 in Appendix A.
Therefore, Order DN 59 was a true lie of fact and
law to be on Anderson’s side. The district court
violated Qiu’s Constitutional right to Due Process and
equal protection of the laws under Section 1 of
Amendment XIV.
Order D18 from the Circuit Court Which
Affirmed Order DN 59 was similar to Order
DN 59
14
Order D18 cherrypicked the facts to affirm
Order DN 59. The nude fact that Sutherland had NO
education in chemistry which was in her resume. Page
7, 22-23,47-48 in Qiu’s brief D12. Qiu’s qualifications
were in Page 8, 50-55 in Qiu’s brief D 12 and Page 3-4
in Qiu’s reply D 16. The foregoing material facts
of Sutherland and Qiu were not in Order D 18.
Order D 18 did not hear Qiu from the beginning to the
end. In other words, Sutherland had no education in
chemistry and Qiu’s qualifications as a chemistry
teacher were not in Order D 18. Order D 18 did not
even mention Qiu was a certified chemistry teacher.
Order D 18 was errors of fact by cherrypicking to
affirm Order DN 59. When Sutherland had no
chemistry education was mentioned and Qiu was a
certified chemistry teacher with excellence of
chemistry Praxis were presented, Order D 18 could
not affirm Order DN 59.
Qiu argued Sutherland was not qualified to teach
chemistry and Drury perjured raising the Kentucky
laws. Page 11-14, 63-68 in Qiu’s brief D 12, Page 1-3,
7-9,13-14,17-24 in Qiu’s reply D 16. Order D 18 did
not hear Qiu. Order D 18 opinioned that Sutherland
was qualified to teach chemistry with her biology
certificate which was against the Kentucky laws
negatively and harmfully. Page 3-4 in Order D 18;
Page 46-47 in Appendix B. Order D 18 was errors
of fact and law to be on Andersons’ side to affirm
Order DN 59.
15
Therefore, the circuit court violated Qiu’s
Counstitutional right to Due Process and equal
protection of the laws under Section l of Amendment
XIV.
Order DN 59 and Order D 18 were against the
Supreme Court’s Decision GRIGGS v. DUKE
POWER CO., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)If an employment practice which operates to exclude
Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job
performance, the practice is prohibited. GRIGGS v.
DUKE POWER CO., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)- See also
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct.
2296, 45 L.Ed.2d 245 (1975)- The spirit of Griggs was
that only job related performance was considered to
decide if discrimination happened. White v. Columbus
Metropolitan Housing Auth, 429 F.3d 232, 243, 244,
245, 247, 248 (6th Cir. 2005) was the same soul as
Griggs in the hiring situation. To against White is to
against the Supreme Court’s Griggs. White only
considered the qualifications of the applicants to
perform the job to decide if discrimination happened
that Title VII was violated. By White, only the better
qualified applicant was hired that discrimination did
not happen. Orders DN 59 and D 18 did not compare
the qualifications of Sutherland and Qiu to perform
the chemistry teaching job like White did. The Orders
DN 59 and D 18 conflicted with White because they
16
granted and affirmed the hiring of the unqualified
with no chemistry education Sutherland over the
qualified with the excellence of chemistry Praxis Qiu
for the job of teaching chemistry as discrimination did
not happen.
Anderson was impossible to proffer any reason to
cover its discrimination against Qiu because it could
not increase Sutherland’s chemistry knowledge to
perform the job of teaching chemistry. To solve the
problem of the qualification of Sutherland, the courts
screwed or ignored the Kentucky laws that the courts
put Anderson above the two Kentucky laws. The
courts violated the Rule of Law, EQUAL JUSTICE
UNDER LAW, no one is above the law. The courts
were against the spirit of the Constitution which set
the equal foundation of every citizen.
The orders did more against White. The orders
took the stuff which White declined as Anderson
satisfied its burden. The courts took Sutherland was
an ex-employee and other staff which could not help
Sutherland increase her chemistry knowledge to teach
chemistry. Page ID# 592-593 in Order DN 59; Page
32-33 in Appendix A. Page 4 in Order D 18; First
half in Page 47 in Appendix B. White declined to
consider such stuff. White v. Columbus Metropolitan
Housing Auth, 429 F.3d 244, 245, 246 (6th Cir. 2005)
17
The courts took Anderson’s attack on Qiu which
was not Qiu’s qualifications to teach chemistry. Page
ID# 593-594 in Order DN 59; Middle in Page 34 in
Appendix A. Page 3 in Order D 18; Second half in
Page 45 in Appendix B. White declined to consider
even a criminal background. White v. Columbus
Metropolitan Housing Auth, 429 F.3d 244, (6th Cir.
2005).
Therefore, the orders conflicted with White in
every aspect to favor Anderson that the orders were
against the Supreme Court’s Griggs. The orders were
errors of law because of conflicting with Griggs. The
orders should be reversed to purge the negative and
harmful challenges the orders did to Griggs.
More Evidence that The District Court and the
6th Circuit Court were on Anderson’s Side
Anderson proffered its reason attacking Qiu.
Page ID# 384-385, 391, 396-398 in Anderson’s
summary and response DN 48. Qiu proved Anderson
pretexted and lied to cover its discrimination. Page
ID# 408-410, 414-416, 431-452 in Qiu’s response DN
49. The district court only took Anderson’s attack on
Qiu not hearing Qiu’s argument that Anderson
pretexted and lied. Page ID# 593-594 in Order DN 59.
Middle in Page 34 in Appendix A. Therefore, the
district court was on Anderson’s side.
18
Anderson did the same attacking on Qiu in the
6th Circuit Court in its brief. Page 13-15 in Anderson’s
brief D 15. Qiu proved Anderson lied in her reply and
applied/a/sus in uno. Page 12-13 in Qiu’s reply D 16.
The 6th Circuit Court did not hear Qiu’s proof that
Anderson’s attack on her were lies to fail Qiu’s proving
that Anderson pretexted to hide its discrimination.
Page 3 in Order D18; Second half in Page 46 in
Appendix B. The 6th Circuit Court was on
Anderson’s side.
Therefore, the courts violated Qiu’s
Constitutional rights to Due Process and equal
protection of the laws under Section 1 of Amendment
XIV.
QUESTIONS
Is it illegal to select an uncertified applicant
over a certified applicant for a public position?
Qiu asks the Justices to answer YES to this
question to purge the toxin the judges released from
federal court which would become the caselaw to
harm the whole country if not reversed.
Without the chemistry certificate, Sutherland who
had no education of chemistry got into the chemistry
classroom to teach chemistry which she did not know
19
herself. The harm Sutherland did to the education of
chemistry of the students in the public school did not
erupt immediately, but a space missile would explode
when a position is filled with an unqualified person
like Sutherland. The waste Sutherland did to the
public could be avoided in the presence of the certified
chemistry teacher Qiu, but Vice Principal White hired
Sutherland the white to satisfy his own racism at the
cost of the public. Qiu asks the Justices to make the
law that it is illegal to hire an uncertified applicant
over a certified applicant to forbid corruption like
White did.
The orders must be reversed to prevent it from
becoming the caselaw that it is legal to hire an
uncertified applicant over a certified applicant in a
public body. The federal judges legalized anyone to be
in a public classroom to fool for money all over the
country like Sutherland did even at the presence of a
certified applicant. Because Orders DN 59 and D 18
were from federal courts, the toxin the judges
generated will ooze all over the states.
The abuse of public resources for personal
interest in the instant case will even infect beyond
discrimination if not reversed. For example, a
principal will legally put his uncertified daughter like
Sutherland into a classroom to get salary only because
he wants his daughter to have an income by this case
as his law, refusing the certified applicants. Worse,
20
once such a situation happens, the nasty corruption
will be free of law that the harm to the public will be
no cure. Therefore, Orders DN 59 and D 18 must be
reversed to impede the vast detriment to the public of
the states. In the AI time, people will find out the
orders the judges issued in this case to apply to
legalize their corruption. Order DN 59 and Order D 18
must be reversed to cease the corruption of
satisfaction of personal interest at the cost of the
public.
Therefore, Order DN 59 and Order D18 must be
reversed to cease the harm they will do to the whole
country. Qiu asks the Justices to make it clear that it is
illegal to hire an uncertified applicant over a certified
applicant in a public body.
Did the Orders conflict with the Supreme
Court’s Griggs on an employment
discrimination case?
The orders conflicted with the Supreme Court’s
Griggs in every aspect. The orders did not consider
the qualifications of the applicants to perform the job.
The orders considered the staff which could not be
used to perform the job of teaching chemistry. The
orders must be reversed for the negative and harmful
challenges to the spirit of Griggs which was
fundamental to guard the federal law Title VII.
21
Qiu asks the Justices to iterate that only the more
qualified applicant to perform the job is hired that
discrimination does not happen. Only by such clear
statement of the law of the Supreme Court that the
federal law Title VII can be securely guarded, or the
Title VII violators will use Order DN 59 and Order D
18 as their precedence to give every kind of reasons to
satisfy their burden for their violation of Title VII.
Should a party be defaulted or dismissed when
telling lies to win a case?
The courts granted and affirmed Anderson’s
summary which was based on Drury’s open, direct lie
that the courts uprooted falsus in uno which was
crucial to maintain the hygiene of courts. Very few
cases could go so far to the Supreme Court with
standing out lies. Qiu asks the Justices to take the
opportunity to make the caselaw that the party tells a
material lie will be defaulted or dismissed for the
efficiency of justice and justice itself.
Did the courts violate Qiu’s Constitutional
right to Due Process and equal protection of
laws under Amendment XIV?
Only by falsifying the facts and screwing the laws
could the courts conclude that the uncertified
22
Sutherland with no chemistry education was more
qualified for the chemistry teaching position than the
certified Qiu with the excellence of chemistry Praxis.
So did the courts. For example, the district court
misexplained the Kentucky laws to legalize and
qualify Sutherland to teach chemistry holding no
chemistry certificate. For example, the 6th Circuit
Court avoided the fact that Sutherland had no
chemistry education and did not mention Qiu’s
qualifications for teaching chemistry. Therefore, the
courts were on Anderson’s side to falsify the facts and
screw the laws to grant Anderson’s summary. The
courts violated Qiu’s constitutional right to Due
Process and equal protection of the laws under
Section 1 of Amendment XIV. The courts were against
the Rule of Law and EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.
Because Order DN 59 and Order D 18 violated the
Constitution, Qiu asks the Justices to reverse the
orders.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant
this Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Respectfully submitted.
23
Wei Qiu
&: * PC't-i'i/'Loiy
2398 Heather Way, Lexington, KY 40503
859 797 3859
waiu2000@gmail.com
24
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.