1. “Whether CAFC made an error in their decision to dismiss CAFC 2023-1213 (DC- 3443-22-0386-1-1) which was about Mr. Waschull not recuesing himself from the clearance investigation and revocation process in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and Conflict of Interest or Lack of Impartiality (due to collusion) since Mr. Michael Waschull worked for DIA immediately before MDA, and MDA for not directing Mr. Waschull to recues himself from the clearance investigation and revocation process because he worked for DIA immediately before MDA. Also it was a blatant and obvious conflict of interest not to recues himself, and a blatant and obvious lapse in leadership for MDA who failed in their duty to direct him to recues himself to insure a fair investigation and result.”
2. “Whether anyone or any organization can deny access to EEO records in a Discrimination Case, Complaint or Appeal. And whether MDA can intentionally withhold vital evidence they have in their possession that would change the outcome of the CAFC decision, such as the H: harddrive containing dates, times, and people for numerous instances of disparate treatment, discrimination and retaliation, the EEO records of the discriminators and the EEO records of the discriminating organization, and The FBI investigation that cleared Mr. Adams of any wrongdoing.”
3. “Whether CAFC can deny an Oral Argument Request for a case of this magnitude and have justice prevail. And whether Mr. Adams’ Sixth Amendment Rights were violated when CAFC disregarded/ignored my request for an oral argument, in effect, denying him of his right to be heard, and denying him of his right to face his accuser.”
