Petition for Rehearing — Thomas E. Freeman, Jr., Petitioner v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

No. 18-139

In The

'uprem (court of the Uniteb 'tatt.

THOMAS E. FREEMAN, JR.,

PETITIONER,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

RESPONDENT.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Thomas E. Freeman, Jr.

Pro se

P.O. Box 11084

Durham, NC 27703

(919) 423-2965

LEGAl. PRINTERS LLC, Washington DC • 202-747-2400 • Iega1printers.com

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

In the United States, constitutional rights are

derived from the people themselves and are protected

primarily by the enumerated amendments to the U.S.

Constitution. Persons may also have constitutional

rights protected by the constitution of a State. In this

case, there appears to have been a deprivation of the

petitioner's rights. The questions presented are:

May deciding officials of a State agency charge

a permanent State employee with a disciplinary

action, then deprive the citizen of "Due Process of

Law" that is protected by the 5th and 14th

Amendments of the United States Constitution?

May an independent, quasi-judicial agency,

such as the North Carolina Office of Administrative

Hearings, deprive a citizen of "Due Process of Law"

that is protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments of

the United States Constitution?

May subsequent Courts, such as the North

Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of

North Carolina, deprive a citizen of "Due Process of

Law" that is protected by the 5th and 14th

Amendments of the United States Constitution?

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented ...................................................i

Introduction.................................................................1

Reasons Why The Re-Hearing Should Occur-------------2

Conclusion...................................................................5

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Case Law:

Board ofRegents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)..........3

Cleveland Boards v. La udermill, 470 U.S., 532

(1985)......................................................................3

Goldberg v. Kelley, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).....................3

Constitutional Provisions:

U.S. Const. Amend. V .................................................3

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV .............................................3

Statutes

NC Gen. Stat. 150 B (Articles 3 and 3A)....................3

Title 26, Chapter 3 of the North Carolina

Administrative Code..............................................3

Rules:

Supreme Court Rule 44 ..............................................1

Other Authorities:

NC DHHS Disciplinary Policy G.S. 125-35................3

NC DHHS Directive Number 111-8.............................3

The State of North Carolina Grievance Policy

(Chapter 7) ..............................................................3

111

The State Personnel Act (Chapter 126) .....................3

Whitaker PRTF Policies and Procedures ................2, 3

lv

TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF

THE UNITED STATES:

Thomas E. Freeman, Jr., Pro Se, respectfully

petitions the Supreme Court of the United States to

issue a rehearing of writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule

44 of the Supreme Court of the United States to

review the order of dismissal with prejudice of the

Honorable Donald W. Overby, Administrative

Hearings Law Judge, North Carolina Office of

Administrative Hearings dated 14 December, 2016

the order of dismissal of the Honorable Judge McGee,

Honorable Judge Dillon and Honorable Judge Stroud,

North Carolina Court of Appeals dated 5 December,

2017; and the order dismissed Ex Mero Motu of the

Honorable Justices, Supreme Court of North Carolina

dated 11 April, 2018 and in support of this petition

shows the following:

INTRODUCTION

When I became a Boy Scout, I learned from the

Official Boy Scout Handbook, scoutmasters, patrol

leaders and family that it is important to America and

myself that I become a citizen of fine character,

physically strong, mentally awake and morally

straight. As a scout. I learned the meaning of the

Scout Oath or Promise and that I have a duty to my

country (United States of America).

It is my understanding, unless I have been

misinformed, that The United States Constitution

embodies the fundamental laws and principles by

which the United States is governed. I understand

1

that I have a duty to support and defend the U.S.

Constitution and that the most fundamental doctrine

of American Law is procedural "Due Process".

It is my understanding, unless I has been

misinformed, that due process of law is the just and

correct treatment through the normal judicial system.

Especially as a citizen's entitlement.

It is my understanding, unless he has been

misinformed, that any action denying the process that

is "Due" would be unconstitutional.

This case is an ideal opportunity for this Court

to resolve whether or not the North Carolina

Department of Health and Human Services, the

North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings,

the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme

Court of North Carolina fulfilled the constitutional

requirements of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the

United States Constitution. This Court should grant

re-hearing of the petition and hold that it does.

REASONS WHY THE RE-HEARING SHOULD

OCCUR

The petitioner has reason to believe that he

was subject to the arbitrary and capricious exercise of

government power, when the NC DHHS (Whitaker

PRTF and Central Regional Hospital) deprived the

petitioner of "Due Process" that is protected by the 5th

and 14th Amendments of the United States

Constitution in this case.

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const., Amend. V.

U.S. Const., Amend. XIV.

With the intervening circumstances of the

deciding officials suspected failure to follow "Due

Process" in determining the disciplinary action and

subsequent suspected failure to follow "Due Process"

by denying an appeal proceeding to the petitioner, did

fulfillment of 5th and 14th Amendments of the United

States Constitution occur? Whitaker PRTF Policies

and Procedures; The State Personnel Act (Chapter

126); The State of North Carolina Grievance Policy

(Chapter 7); NC DHHS Disciplinary Policy G.S. 12535; NC DHHS Directive Number 111-8

The petitioner has reason to believe that the

deciding officials of the North Carolina Office of

Administrative Hearings failed to fulfill the

constitutional requirements of the 5th and 14th

Amendments of the United States Constitution. Title

26, Chapter 3 of the North Carolina Administrative

Code; NC Gen. Stat. 150 B; Board of Regents v. Roth,

408 U.S. 564 (1972); Cleveland Boards v. Laudermill,

470 U.S., 532 (1985); Goldberg v. Kelley, 397 U.S. 254

(1970).

Did the intervening circumstances of the

decision by the Administrative Law Judge to deprive

the petitioner the right; to present evidence and argue

orally; to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, fulfill the constitutional requirements of

3

the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States

Constitution in this case?

Did the intervening circumstances of the

decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals

deprive the petitioner of the right; to present evidence

and argue orally; to confront and cross examine

adverse witnesses, fulfill the constitutional

requirements of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the

United States Constitution in this case?

Did the intervening circumstances of the

decision by the Supreme Court of North Carolina

deprive the petitioner of the right; to present evidence

and argue orally; to confront and cross examine

witnesses, fulfill the constitutional

adverse

requirements of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the

United States Constitution in this case?

Since October 28, 2015, was the petitioner

subject to harm as a result of the suspected arbitrary

and capricious exercise of government power and

deprivation of rights that are protected by the 5th and

14th Amendments of the United States Constitution?

CONCLUSION

Was the petitioner granted the right to a

hearing proceeding at the administrative level and

the right to argue orally at the judicial level?

El

Because this case has so far departed from the

accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in

the lower courts, the petitioner calls for an exercise of

this Court's supervisory power.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas E. Freeman, Jr.

P0 Box 11084

Durham, NC 27703

(919) 423-2965

10

CERTIFICATION OF PRO SE PETITIONER

UNDER U.S. SUPREME. COURT RULE 44(2)

As provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, the

undersigned Pro Se Petitioner, certifies, under

penalty of perjury, that the accompanying Petition for

Rehearing is based upon "other substantial grounds

not previously presented" in Petitioners' earlier

Petition for Certiorari within the meaning of Rule

44(2); that such Petition for Rehearing is presented in

good faith; and that such Petition has not been

interposed for purposes of delay.

I certify that the foregoing is true under penalty of

perjury.

Is!

THOMAS E. FREEMAN, JR.

Dated: October 23, 2018

CERTIFICATION OF PROSE PETITIONER UNDER

U.S. SUP. CT. R. 44(2)

As provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, the

undersigned Pro Sc Petitioner, certifies, under

penalty of perjury, that the accompanying Petition for

Rehearing is based upon "other substantial grounds

not previously presented" in Petitioners' earlier

Petition for Certiorari within the meaning of Rule

44(2); that such Petition for Rehearing is presented in

good faith; and that such Petition has not been

interposed for purposes of delay.

I certify that the foregoing is true under penalty

of perjury.

I

'Mi1t1',

E. FREEMAN, JR.

Dated: October 23, 2018

THOMAS