Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ming Wei, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Civil Service Commission

Supreme Court briefJun 6, 2020

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 19-1373

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Ming Wei,

Petitioner.

Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission

(Pennsylvania Department of Health)

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the' Commonwealth Court ofTennsylvanth

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Ming Wei, Pro Se

3910 Silver Brook Dr

Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 • Phone: (717)732-2040

Email: mingweiebct@hotmail.com

RECEIVED

JUN 2 4 2020

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S .

QUESTION PRESENTED

Wei is a naturalized Asian American Epidemiologist who was dismissed by the Pennsylvania

Department of Health ("PADOH"). His duty was to

check for data errors to maintain the data integrity

and keep a vigil against the Epidemic. PADOH

claimed that it dismissed Wei because he failed to

complete converting HIV/AIDS HARS data that it

assigned him solely. Wei claimed that PADOH never

assigned him the task, never gave him an opportunity

to respond, and it terminated him for blocking his

ongoing search for more data errors after the others

converted HARS data. PADOH never gave Wei the

opportunity to respond before termination, it refused

to provide and present the key documents. The

Commission disallowed Wei from having an

interpreter in a civil service hearing, and credited all

PADOH stated but discredited Wei. The state court of

appeals .affirmed. Wei filed a case in a federal court

and uncovered the contemporaneous records later,

PADOH admitted it never assigned Wei to convert

HARS data in the federal court. When Wei used the

records to reopen this case, PADOH insisted that it

assigned Wei to convert the HARS data solely. The

state court of appeals stated that it didn't believe that

PADOH never assigned wei to convert HARS data

and it couldn't access the federal courts' records. The

questions presented are as follows:

Whether Wei's constitutional rights and due

process rights were violated in the state proceedings

Whether the court of appeals erred in that

PADOH didn't commit the fraud.

Whether the court of appeals erred in that Wei

could use PADOH's records in the initial hearing

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner is Ming Wei.

Respondent is the Pennsylvania Department of

Health("PADOH"), an agency of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania. The administrative hearing was

held under the Pennsylvania State Civil Service

Commission ("Commission")

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

United States District Court (M.D. Pa.):

Wei v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al

No. 11-cv-00688 (Final Judgement entered on March

28, 2019)

United States Court of Appeals (3d Cir.):

Wei v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et a/

No. 19-1705 (Denying rehearing on March 31, 2020)

The major reason to terminate Wei's federal case was the issue

preclusion, Wei will apply to appeal the case 19-1715 (3rd

Circuit Court in which a majority denied Wei's petition for

rehearing on March 31, 2020 later. Since Defendants didn't

release key documents until the federal case, the majority of

the records cited here are from Wei's federal case but have

been filed to the state tribunals for reopening.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVEED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX

Appendix A. Pennsylvania Supreme Court order

(Jan. 22, 2020)

... la

Appendix B. Commonwealth Court's Order (June

21, 2019)

Appendix C. Commonwealth Court Opinion (May

9, 2019)

Appendix D. PA State Civil Service Commission

Order (Sept. 20, 2018)

18a

Appendix E. Initial Commonwealth Court (Nov

25, 2008)

20a

Appendix G. The response of PADOH' to Wei's

Application for rehearing

35a

Appendix F. Wei's Application for Rehearing

36a

Appendix H. Reproduced Records

45a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill,

470 U.S. 532 (1985)

19, 20,22,23,25,37

Commissioner of Probation V. Adams,

65 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 737 (2006)

Fritz v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation,

468 A,2d 538 (Pa.1983)

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford -Empire a.,

322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944)

In Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)

In re Baker's Appeal,

409 Pa. 143, 185 A.2d 521 (1962)

Lewis v. Civil Service Commission,

518 Pa. 170, 175, 542 A.2d 519, 522 (1988)

Long v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania

Liquor Control Board,

112 Pa. Commw. 572, 535 A.2d 1233 (1988)

Matter of Neitlich,

413 Mass. 416, 423 (1992)

Shoemaker v. State Employes' Retirement Board,

688 A.2d 751, 753 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)

Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

179 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.1999)

Wei v. State Civil Service Commission,

961 A.2d 254 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008) ....13-18,20,

22, 26,30

Wei v. State Civil Service Commission

No. 263 C.D. 2015). (Pa. Cmwlth, 2016)

Wei v. State Civil Service Commission.

No. 1902 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Cmwlth, 2017).. 14,18,20

25, 27 33.

Wei v. State Civil Service Commission,

No 1321 CD 2018 (Pa. Cmwlth, 2019) 1,14,18,27

Constitution & Statute

28 U.S.C. § 1257

Pennsylvania § 81.4. Rules3.3

Pennsylvania Section 105.17 of the Rules of

the Civil Service Commission)

Pennsylvania Section 807 of the Civil Service

Act 71 P.S. § 741.807

US. Const. Amend. I

2, 21

U.S. Const. amend. XIV

2, 19,20,26 33

Whistleblower Law

2,23

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner Ming Wei ("Wei") respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment

of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

("Commonwealth Court").

OPINIONS BELOW

The judgment for which the review is sought is

the decision of the Commonwealth Court for Wei v.

State Civil Service Commission, No. 1321 CD 2018

(Pa. Cmwlth, 2019) ( Wei IV) (Appendix ("App.") C)

because the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Denied Wei's Petition for Allowance of Appeal on

Jan 22, 2020 (App. A).

Wei sought this Court to review the case also

because the Commonwealth Court stated Wei's key

evidence to reopen was from the records of his

federal case, but it couldn't access the federal

courts' records and PADOH never admitted the

evidence before the state tribunals. Therefore, this

Court should review this case because only this

Court can access the records of both the state and

federal cases.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to review the final judgment of

the Commonwealth Court.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVEED

The first amendment provides "Congress shall

make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or

the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and

to petition the Government for a redress of

grievances".

The fourteenth amendment provides "All

persons born or naturalized in the United States

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens

of the United States and of the State wherein they

reside. No State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

of citizens of the United States; 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".

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. Factual History of the Case

This case involves Petitioner's claim that

Respondent PADOH violated the Whistleblower

law, due process, and Pennsylvania civil service act

and illegally dismissed Wei with a fake cause.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania required

the agencies to document their business records,

and preserve the records for the anticipating

litigation(http://www.oa.pa. gov/Policies/Pages/m an

ual. aspx M210.1-M210.9).

PADOH held the employee's duties must be

written and updated in the position description

(App. 47a-49a, 76a). Wei's supervisor Veronica

Urdaneta ("Urdaneta") testified and wrote that she

tasked Wei in writing and with follow-up date (App.

47a, AX5309.

PADOH has collected AIDS cases into HIV/AIDS Reporting System ("HARS") database since

1980s.

With a median of 10 years from the initial HIV

infection to progress into the AIDS stage, Pennsylvania started a name-based HIV reporting on Oct.

18, 20022 to collect HIV cases at early (non-AIDS)

stage (App. 148a).

Wei, a naturalized Asian American with a

pulmonary lobectomy (now at age 62), was the data

manager of the HIV team in PADOH since Feb.

2001.

The major task of the whole HIV team which

had 15 positions in 2007 and a part of Bureau of

Information Technology ("BIT') were cleaning and

converting HIV reports, deduplicating them into

the potential cases (pre-HARS cases) (App. 50a).

In addition to the documents in the appendixes, Wei also cited some

documents with prefix "AX" or "AR" for those filed to the Circuit

Court and "DCD" for those filed to the District Court.

2 Philadelphia didn't join the action but started collecting the

non-name reports earlier

Then 16 field offices ("LMRO", App. 50a)

investigated those potential cases, and entered the

confirmed cases.

Based on PADOH's writing, Wei's job was

receiving the Deloitte (BIT's contractor)'s extracts

of the confirmed cases, reviewing their accuracy

and completeness in PA-NEDSS (App. 51a, 142a),

"his job is to analyze the data and pointout errors

he finds", how to fix them wasn't his work (App.

54a-55a). Wei also instructed to inform BIT

(Deloitte) when he found the errors (AX503, DCD

95-2, pp9- 10). PADOH claimed that Wei must be

punished strongly if he did the unassigned task.

PADOH also assigned Wei in charge of the

security within the HIV secured area (AX306).

a. Wei found the incompleteness in converting

HARS data

PADOH in 2002 initially declared its BIT

(and BIT's PA-NEDSS team with 42 IT staffers and

$8-10 million budget annually (App. 59a)) to

convert HIV lab reports. However, it assigned HIV

team doing the work as a temporary solution (AX515-6).

The HARS data were the last format (AR5)

of HIV/AIDS cases because the Federal and all

states used HARS as the sole tool to communicate

and count HIV/AIDS cases.

In April 2004, PADOH decided to use BIT's

PA-NEDSS to replace HARS as the active database

for Pennsylvania HIV/AIDS cases (AX220), In the

initial Charter (App.60a), BIT should convert all

HIV lab reports then using new BIT format for HIV

reports since Feb 2005 (App. 60), it also converted

the all HARS cases into PA-NEDSS by July 1,

2005, and then HARS remained as a passive

database only (App. 60a,146a). However, BIT

didn't complete either tasks on time.

Since 2006, Wei identified many inaccuracies

and incompleteness after the others converted

HARS data, the ongoing fixing saved Pennsylvania

$ multi-million annually. For example, his finding

led to correct HIV-onset date errors in 38,000 cases

(80% of total HARS cases) (App. 63a).

However, in 2006, Urdaneta revoked Wei's

right accessing PA-NEDSS (App. 52a), it impended

Wei's duty of checking the data errors in PANEDSS but the revocation was partially reversed

later.

PADOH claimed: it ordered several other

staffers to convert the Philadelphia HARS data,

they converted 362 records only in 4 months, the

task was incomplete due to the heavy workload

(App. 64a).

Wei identified about 10% of HARS converted

errors in some variables among these cases (App.

65a).

In 2006 - 2007, Wei found many errors in the

HARS converted data, for example, one was in race

field (App. 66a). After PADOH dismissed Wei, it

stated that it didn't fix the error yet (App. 67a).

Wei worked hard to maintain the data

integrity. Urdaneta and Godwin Obiri ("Obiri" was

Wei's supervisor from Aug 2005 to Nov 2006 and

Urdaneta's subordinate) have admitted that Wei

correctly identified the data errors (App. 68a69a).

b. Wei identified the incompleteness of

converting HIV reports.

PADOH wrote under oath: on Oct. 28, 2005,

it assigned Wei to spend 2 months exclusively to

help cleaning HA.RS data for conversion; while

other staffers to unify (convert) 2005 reports until

"By November 22, 2005, it became apparent to

PADOH that the conversion of the backlogged HIV

lab data was interfering with the conversion of

HA.RS data" (DCD,70-1,p7). They restarted with a

plan that BIT develops a format first so that the

HIV team converts raw reports directly into the

format (App. 62a, 72a).

Once Wei completed cleaning, he returned to

his major task of checking for the completeness and

accuracy of the cases weekly; PADOH instructed

Wei also to review the completeness of HIV reports

in PA-NEDSS (App. 51a). Wei wrote to Obiri that

he didn't see any backlog reports in PA-NEDSS yet

on Dec 22, 2005 (App. 75a).

In May 2006, Wei indicated the incomeplete

-ness in processing both 2005 and 2006 reports, he

asked BIT's lab report manager Robert Giallo

("Giallo") and cc Obiri about their progress (App.

78a).

Giallo responded that they fell behind in

processing them, but he had discussed the issue

with Obiri, and was drafting an updated Charter

for the 2005 reports but "the project was bigger

than originally anticipated, it required a complete

PA-NEDSS team effort for the project" (App. 78a).

When Wei re-indicated the incompleteness of

processing 2005 lab reports in November (App.

76a), Giallo wrote to Obiri that they would present

the updated Charter in the upcoming meeting to

respond Wei's question when and how they would

complete 2005 reports.

Then PADOH held a Dec. 2006 BIT meeting,

Giallo stated they didn't complete the task because

it was too big. The meeting accepted the Charter

but wanted: (1) HIV team did an estimate based on

an upcoming BIT draft format, then (2) the group

has next meeting to decide the formal format for

the conversion (App. 91a)

About 600,000 raw reports yearly were sent

to PADOH from 2003 to 2005 (App. 148a). The HIV

team processed up to 480,000 records annually

(App. 147a), while the PA-NEDSS team processed

up to 330,000 reports annually (App. 58a). New

Jersey needed 6 full-time employees ("FTE") to

process 60,000 HIV reports annually (App. 98a).

Therefore, the meeting decided the work would be

completed in 2008.

BIT and others circulated the draft format

since Jan 25 2007 (DCD 300-2, p26). Although

PADOH has claimed others were in charge of

cleaning, no one cleaned the reports for the format.

However, to do an estimate, a part of reports needs

to be cleaned, converted, and deduplicated.

Wei worked days and nights, did all steps

and got 158 potential cases (about 8% total cases)

for estimate. Then Giallo did a test and updated

email about the meeting to Wei was sent after the

meeting (AX279). Wei reported the discrimination

and defamation to the PADOH's Equal Employment Office ("EEO"). PADOH has admitted that

the other staffers including Urdaneta missed some

meetings. It has admitted no other staffer was

disciplined for missing a meeting (AX536).

Wei also reported that PADOH violated its

compensatory time policy (AX262) and denied his

compensatory hours for his overtime work while

others got the compensatory time (DCD 358-1).

EEO contacted his supervisor then told Wei that

Wei mustn't work for the PA government after 5

PM, but PADOH wouldn't compensate him for his

previous extra hours.

Urdaneta on April 9, 2007 suddenly ordered

Wei to complete converting all 2005 lab reports into

the draft format (AX297-8) though she in March

2007 had defined the draft format as being for

estimation only but useless for conversion (App.

91a).

PADOH has expended HIV team from 8

staffers in 2004 to 15 positions in 2007 (DCD 207-5)

while the data management reduced to Wei lonely

from 2.75 positions when PADOH defined the data

management as having "severe staffing shortfalls"

(App. 101).

PADOH required that the cleanup must be

done before converting (App.74a, AX246:2).

However, when Wei asked PADOH to arrange the

others doing their jobs and give him an assistant

(AX298), it rejected his requests (DCD 312, ¶131)

but ordered him to "set aside 2 hours" daily (App.

107a) from his routine to converting the lab data at

a May 2007 Pre-discipline conference ("PDC"). It

banned Wei to email the big file (App. 109a) and

required him to send the note to report his progress

(App. 106a), Wei did so.

PADOH in the updated Charter requires

that BIT develop the format first, and then the HIV

team converts "all raw files" of HIV lab reports into

the format (App. 72a, #3.2)". Since the formal

format was not available yet, converting the lab

data into the draft format was useless.

So Wei did the cleaning work first and then

converted. Wei worked extremely hard and got sick

and had a hearing problem (App. 110a).

Urdaneta's supervisor Stephen Ostroff

("Ostroff') instructed Wei that he was no longer a

part of the solution for the backlog lab data on July

2, 2007 (App. 111a). He should focus on his own job

of checking for data errors.

PADOH documented that Wei completed

400,000 reports by July 3, 2007 (App. 112a). Wei

also reported his processing of 550,000 reports in

an August 27, 2007 email to PADOH (App. 119a).

c. Other Events

Wei found the annually collected HIV (nonAIDS) cases since 2006 substantially decreased

after excluding 1,600 pre•HARS cases before 2005

(App. 126a) and Philadelphia cases.

According to the other states' experiences, the

cumulative HIV (non-AIDS-stage) cases should

dramatically increase in the first 5 years of HIV

reporting. Although the 2005 reports hadn't been

processed and PADOH had cumulatively collected

6,237 cases by Nov. 2005 (App. 124a), the cases

were 6,218 only by Dec. 2007 (App. 128a)3 .

44. On Aug 13, 2007, Wei reported that BIT and

others processed about 60,000 raw HIV lab reports

between Jan 2006 and Aug 10, 2007. He was

concerned that 50% of the collected living cases had

no HIV reports during this period, though the

AIDS cases were requested to test for virus load

and T lymphocyte CD4 quarterly (App. 129a).

PADOH never responded.

45. While PADOH didn't fix the birthplace errors

that Wei identified in March, Wei indicated the

other birthplace errors on July 30 (DCD 300-1,

p759) and Aug 22 (AX286). PADOH never responded but separated Wei from the data permanently

2 days later.

46. PADOH held an Aug 24, 2007 PDC. PADOH

had not informed Wei that it was dismissing Wei in

the PDC (App. 131a-133a).

47. Instead, after Urdaneta [Dr. U] accused Wei

of failing to complete the task assigned in a Dec.

2006 BIT meeting (App. 131a) and Wei disputed,

the HR official Tiffany Burnhauser ("Burnhauser")

orally suspended Wei for investigation.

48. Burnhauser instructed Wei to send an email

about his performance on or before Aug. 29, 2007

(App. 133a). She stated that Wei should leave his

3 about 3.5% HIV (non-AIDS) cases advanced into AIDS stage

annually in Pennsylvania (DCD 207-5, pp9-10) and about 2%

other attritions.

personal belongings in his office because this was

for an investigation only but not termination. In

2004, PADOH launched an investigation against

Wei but ended with an apology letter to him (App.

134a).

Wei reported his work in both handling the

data management and processing 550,000 reports

in an Aug. 27, 2007 email to Burnhauser and her

supervisor HR Director Kim Strizzi (App. 119a).

Before mailing the termination letter on

Sept 4, 2007, PADOH only communicated with Wei

one time: it mailed him a confirmed suspension

letter but the letter didn't list any facts (App. 144a).

PADOH wrote a vague cause of the backlog data in

the termination letter (DCD 300-2, pp4-5), but it

clarified the removal cause was failing to convert

the backlog HARS data (App. 130a) assigned at

Dec. 2006 BIT meeting later.

II. Procedural History of This Case

Wei appealed PADOH's dismissed decision to

the Commission; he requested to allow an

interpreter based on Pennsylvania law (App. 135a),

but the Commission denied his request (App.

136a).

The Commonwealth has documented "Wei is

Asian and his English is very broken" (AX250). In

the deposition of Wei's federal case, the District

Court required Wei to hire an interpreter to deposit

the Defendants PADOH et al.

Wei subpoenaed key PADOH's documents for

the hearing. PADOH filed a quash motion to

refused to release the documents (AX419). When

Wei asked the issue during the hearing, the

Commission stated that it considered later but

never ruled the issue.

54. PADOH refused to exchange evidence. It

didn't start returning Wei's belongings in his office

that contained emails and documents until June

2009 but never returned his notebooks (AX251-4).

Many documents that Wei filed to reopen wasn't

available at the 2007 Commission hearing.

PADOH insists "the uncompleting assignment from Dr. Urdaneta and which resulted in his

discharge was not given to him until December of

2006 [BIT meeting]" (DCD 343-1, p3). "In December 2006, Veronica Urdaneta, Wei's supervisor,

assigned Wei the task of converting the HARS

HIV/AIDS data files" "The task was solely Wei's

responsibility" Wei v. State Civil Serv. Comm n,

961 A.2d 254 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008) ( Wei I, (App.

E).

"Wei was terminated for not completing the

HARS HIV/AIDS assignment by July 31, 2007.

While the Department maintains that Wei was

given ample resources and time within which to

complete the assignment" but "Wei claims that it

was not his responsibility to convert the 2005

HARS HIV/AIDS data files" Wei I.

Although PADOH bears the burden of proof

and the Pennsylvania government has required to

preserve the business records in anticipation of

litigation, PADOH supported its removal cause

based on the oral testimonies with the "facts" never

talked to Wei even never exist in its records. Both

sides disagreed on almost everything, but the

Commission credited PADOH only.

After hearing, Wei provided the additional

documents and applied for reconsideration, PADOH claimed these documents were unverified,

the Commission struck his documents (App. 150a)

and denied his application (App. 44a).

Wei appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

PADOH insisted it assigned Wei converting HARS

data solely but the conversion was incomplete. The

Commonwealth Court affirmed Wei I.

Under the tremendous defamation, Wei was

severely ill. PADOH Ms continued to campaign

that Wei was insubordinate in failing to convert

HARS data. Once he got better, he approached the

EEOC then the federal court to try getting

PADOH's contemporaneous records and he got

them.

From 2014 to 2016 to 2018, Wei filed three

motions to reopen the cases according to the

after-discovered evidences that PADOH released

and verified in the federal court Wei v. State Civil

Service Commission (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 263 C.D.

2015 (Wei 11), and Wei v. State Civil Service

Commission. No. 1902 C.D. 2016 ( Wei I11), and Wei

In the state case, PADOH has insisted that it

assigned Wei to convert HARS data solely (App.

130a). it provided sufficient time to Wei to convert

HARS data but the conversion was unfinished yet

Wei I In the federal case, However, it admitted

BIT and other staffers rather than Wei were

assigned to convert HARS data; it never assigned

Wei to convert HARS data (App. 151). Indeed, it

actually assigned Wei to check the errors after the

others converted HARS data (App. 51a, 54a -55a).

In the state case, PADOH claimed "Wei was

charged with collecting and reporting HIV/AIDS

data accurately" Wei I. In the federal case, its

documents show Wei was charged with reviewing

the completeness and accuracy of the collected data

while others were charged with collecting and

reporting HIV/AIDS data accurately (App. 51a,

54a-55a).

In the state case, PADOH stated that Wei

didn't send the email about his performance by Aug

29, 2007, then it decided to dismiss him (App.

137a:16-25). In the federal case, however, its

documents show that it received Wei's email on

Aug 27, 2007 in which Wei updated his processed

reports from 420,000 (App. 112a) to 550,000 (App.

119a) and routine data management.

PADOH has admitted the others started to

clean and convert HARS data since 2004, the

converting 44,000 HARS records wasn't Wei's

business. It documented that the HIV team

processed up to 480,000 HIV reports yearly (App.

147a); PA-NEDSS team processed up to 330,000

reports yearly (App. 58a).

In the state case, PADOH claimed Wei stated

that "he was refusing to do it" in May 16, 2007

PDC. Wei I. In the federal case, PADOH

documented Wei stated that "I will try" in the PDC

minute (App. 107a).

In the state case, PADOH claimed "Urdaneta

transferred some of Wei's job responsibilities to

other staff members" Wei I. In the federal case, no

her email to transfer Wei's duty to others was

found. Instead, she emailed to assign more tasks to

Wei (AX343-9) and Wei completed all of them. For

example, Wei trained Obiri three times until Aug.

2007 (DCD 207-4, pp63-67).

68. In the state case, PADOH claimed "the

employer could not continue to wait for the

claimant [Wei] to make excuse and to stall the

progress of the project", so it terminated Wei (App.

138a). In the federal case, however, PADOH has

admitted that it didn't complete its priority of 2005

HIV reports by Sept. 2010 (App. 139a); it had no

record that the work was completed. PADOH also

claimed that it destroyed all hardware of 2007

computers (App. 150a).

69. In the state case, Urdaneta testified she

shared a story in July 3, 2007 PDC: After her

receiving Wei's July 2, 2007 5:23 email, she walked

[250 feet and open two secured doors] to Wei's office,

"he opened the computer and he showed me just

different files and different formats that he had",

but couldn't show a sample of 2007 draft format

(DCD 3001, pp506-11). Then they asked him

during the PDC to show the converted data, and he

wasn't able to do that (DCD 300-1, pp509). In the

federal case, neither PADOH's PDC minutes nor

any records documented Urdaneta 's visiting story,

her order, or PADOH's order. Instead, PADOH

documented that Wei had completed 400,000

records (App. 112a). It has admitted no such story

or order in the PDC (App. 141a). In one testimony,

Urdaneta admitted "I never saw the document

[Wei's email]" (App. 140a). In another testimony,

she admitted that she had no evidence to present in

Wei's office after 5:25 PM in the day (DCD 208-1,

p34).

70. In the state case, PADOH claimed when Wei

wanted Giallo testing 158 potential cases, "In a

response, Giallo informed Wei that he was getting

too deep into the process and reminded him that

the layout would probably change. Urdaneta also

testified that she never instructed Wei to test the

draft layout..." to portray Wei's insubordination

Wei I. In the federal case, However, PADOH in its

updated charter required to test a small sample

first (App. 74a, para. 7), Indeed, Giallo updated

draft guidelines ("format") to ask for "more detail"

(also cc to Urdaneta (App. 96a), no error even for a

comma "[The message constructions rules] must be

carefully adhered to in order for messages to be

interpreted correctly" (App. 156). However, he

changed the tone after Wei redid "more detail" as

he suggested.

In the state case, PADOH claims that e-mails

show that Wei was insubordinate in refusing for six

months to accept the duty of converting HARS data.

In the federal case, neither email nor record show

Wei refused to do so.

In the state case, PADOH claimed that Wei

could bring the data out of HIV secured area freely.

In the federal case, based on Pennsylvania law and

CDC HIV guidelines, HIV policy and requests must

be in writing, and the papers with identities

couldn't be brought out of the HIV secured area

(App. 153a -154a).

However, PADOH has insisted its initial

false story such as it assigned Wei converting

HARS data solely in the state tribunals. Wei I to

Wei IV (App. 130a).

The Commonwealth Court affirmed in Wei I

to Wei IV. In Wei HI the Commonwealth Court

chose to believe PADOH indeed assigned Wei to

convert HARS data by citing a PADOH's 2017

brief "Because it is a well-established fact that

Wei was tasked with converting HARS HIV/AIDS

files..." It also stated it couldn't access the

documents of the federal court so it treated Wei's

statements as the bald claims (footnote 8, Wei III).

In 2018, Wei filed his third motion to reopen

with the attached the copies of PADOH's

documents and admissions at the federal court, the

Commonwealth Court stated that it held the same

reasons as in Wei III and it disbelieved PADOH

admitted that it never assigned Wei to convert

HARS data Wei IV.

PADOH has distributed that Wei engaged in

disobedience and unsatisfactory work performance

in failing to complete converting HARS data to

block Wei's employment opportunity (AX507).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I. Wei's constitutional rights and due process

rights were violated in the state proceedings

Wei had raised the issue that his constitutional

rights were violated in his initial appeal to the

Commonwealth Court. However, PADOH denied

so and said Wei had no evidence to support his

claims. After Wei acquired the PADOH's

contemporaneous documents uncovered from his

federal case, he appealed to reopen the case.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Court erred in

ignoring the material evidence.

This Court held the Public employee had a property interest in the position and determined that

"[t]he point is straightforward: The Due Process

Clause provides that certain substantive rights —

life, liberty, and property — cannot be deprived

except pursuant to constitutionally adequate

procedure ". He (or She) is entitled to the notice of

the charges against him, an explanation of the

employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present

his side of the story Cleveland Board of Education

v. Loudermill 470 U.S. 532 (1985).

PADOH didn't start returning Wei's belongings

with some emails until June, 2009, and it never

retuned Wei's notebooks (AX251). Therefore, he

could not use them at the 2007 hearing. It

infringes Wei's rights of due process guaranteed

by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, even

based on PADOH's own records, it clearly violated

the due process Clause to terminate Wei:

The last meeting that PADOH with Wei was an

Aug.24, 2007 PDC, based on the PADOH's minute:

"Dr. U" [Urdaneta] accused Wei of failing to finish

the task of the Dec. 2006 BIT meeting (App. 131a),

Wei disputed her because the accusation was false.

Then Burnhauser decided to orally suspend Wei to

conduct an investigation.

Before dismissing Wei, PADOH communicated

Wei by mailing a letter for an investigation to

formalize the suspension only but the letter didn't

list any facts (App. 144a); It never gave Wei the

opportunity to present his side of the story before

termination, so it violated the Loudermill.

Then, PADOH sent a letter to terminate him

with vague cause of the backlog data though it

clarified as backlog HARS data later. However, the

backlog data included HARS data, pre-HARS data

and HIV lab data and so on, the vague violated the

Pennsylvania law that the just cause must be

unambiguous Lewis v. Civil Service Commission,

518 Pa. 170, 175, 542 A.2d 519, 522 (1988).

PADOH has insisted that the assignment was

converting 2005 backlog HARS data in this case

(App. 130a) Wei [IV Then the state tribunals

believed so. Therefore, all of Wei's defenses must be

futile.

However, in the federal court, PADOH has admitted that it assigned the BIT and others to convert

the HARS data but never assigned Wei to do so

(App. 151a). His job was checking the errors after

they converted HARS data. In addition, if Wei

converted the HARS data or claimed that he

converted HARS data, PADOH had stronger

reason to fire him Wei III. Clearly, it infringes

upon Wei's rights of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

PADOH refused to release the key documents

that Wei subpoenaed. It refused to exchange

evidence with Wei. So, many key documents that

Wei filed in his motion to reopen weren't available

for the 2007 Commission hearing.

As a foreign-born neutralized American with

limited English proficiency, Wei was entitled to

have an interpreter for pre-hearing conference

and hearing (App .135a). Nevertheless, the

Commission denied his request to allow an

interpreter (App. 136a). So, Wei's meanings

weren't documented correctly. it violated Wei's

free speech right to express what he wanted under

the U. S. Constitution's first amendment and

prejudiced Wei.

For example, the Commission claimed Wei

agreed that all documents would be concluded by

the end of the hearing day, it struck Wei's

additional evidence (App.150a) for impeaching

and rehearing. However, Wei's understanding

and agreeing was that the day's testimony in the

Commission hearing was concluded.

Furthermore, asking a limited-English layman

this question after about 4-hour hearing with full

adverse testimonies is illogical. Since Wei asked

to force PADOH to release the key documents

during the hearing and the Commission stated

that it would consider the matter later and We

also indicated that PADOH lied under oath, he

certainly waited for PADOH's documents and

tried to find the documents to support his claim

later.

Moreover, the Commonwealth documented "Wei

is Asian and his English is very broken" (AX250).

When Wei wanted to deposit the defendants in the

federal court, the Judge ordered his hiring an

interpreter.

However, the Commonwealth Court erred in

agreement with PADOH's argument that the

Commission wasn't a federal court, so it could

disallow an interpreter to Wei because it didn't

require the same standard as that in the federal

court. Wei I.

PADOH made several key falsifications in the

Commission's hearing that neither questioned Wei

nor were in its records before his termination. This

was in violation of Loudermill. For example,

PADOH has insisted that because it didn't receive

his email after Aug 24, 2007 PDC, then it made the

decision to terminate him (App. 137a). PADOH

insisted so in the federal court too until 2016 Wei

identified the same email among its documents

(App. 119a).

Another example: Urdaneta testify she shared a

story in July 3, 2007 PDC: After her receiving Wei's

July 2, 2007 5:23 email she visited Wei's office and

met Wei on the night of July 2, 2007, but Wei could

not show her a sample, then PADOH ordered Wei

to show the data during the PDC. However, neither

the PADOH's PDC minute nor any other records

documented Urdaneta 's visiting story or PADOH's

order, PADOH has admitted that neither Urdaneta

told her story nor PADOH ordered Wei for the data

in the PDC (App. 141a). Indeed, PADOH recorded

that "400,000 were completed" (App. 112a).

Even based on PADOH's new story in the federal

case, Wei's state case must be reopened. If a

deciding official is exposed to information affecting

the outcome without the public employee being

given the opportunity to present a defense against

it before the termination, then any opportunity to

respond is fundamentally flawed and fails to meet

the requirements set in Loudermill, see also Stone

v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 179 F.3d

1368 (Fed. Cir.1999).

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Court

ignored the important evidence of that Wei's

opportunity to respond was deprived; this

conflicts with the holding of this Court on the due

process issue in Loudermill.

In Loudermill, "the Board's Business Manager

informed Loudermill that he had been dismissed

because of his dishonesty in filling out the

employment application. Loudermill was not

afforded an opportunity to respond to the charge

of dishonesty or to challenge his dismissal". Then

he appealed to the Commission but failed. This

Court held the termination violated the due

process.

In this case, PADOH falsified that Wei failed to

convert the HARS data as its just cause though it

never informed Wei of this cause in any of the

PADOH's meetings. PADOH also has no record of

accusing Wei of doing so. This was in violation of

the laws set by Loudermill.

II. The Commonwealth Court erred in that

PADOH didn't commit the fraud

a. The violation of Whistleblower Law

In the initial proceeding, Wei claimed that

PADOH violated the Whistleblower Law by

suspending his PA-NEDSS password and

dismissing him for impeding his review of the

data errors especially the errors of the converting

HARS data.

PADOH argued that this wasn't Wei's business,

PADDOH assigned Wei to convert HARS data at

the Dec. 2006 BIT meeting solely so it could

terminate him for its incomplete conversion. Wei

claimed the meeting task was for the estimate and

Wei completed the task.

Now PADOH has admitted that the Dec. 2006

BIT meeting's assignment was for "an estimated

number" only (AX410) and documented "Estimate

was given by Dr. Wei" (App. 83) at the federal

court.

PADOH's documents show that PADOH tasked

Wei checking the completeness and accuracy of

PA-NEDSS data (including those converted from

HARS data) (App. 51a) and Wei did so weekly (App.

61a) but it never assigned Wei to convert HARS

data.

Urdaneta in 2007 wrote Wei's job was to do

quality control, "his job is to analyze the data and

point-out errors he finds", how to fix these errors

wasn't his duty (App. 54a-55a). She didn't write

that Wei had any duties on converting HARS data

or any data.

Urdaneta defamed Wei for harassing BIT and

criticizing the errors in PA-NEDSS to the local

health departments. This shows that PADOH

terminated Wei for the purpose of blocking his

checking errors. Nevertheless, PADOH admitted

that Wei correctly identified the data errors (App.

68a-69a). Therefore, Wei's actions weren't

harassing but were fulfilling his duty: maintaining

data integrity and providing vigilance against the

potential epidemic.

b. PADOH used an unassigned task to be the

removal cause

PADOH banned Wei to do the unassigned task.

PADOH wrote that it would have stronger reason

to terminate Wei if he did an unassigned task

rather than un-finishing an assignment Wei III.

However, it used the task assigned to the others

terminate Wei in this case.

Pennsylvania Section 807 of the Civil Service

Act 71 P.S. § 741.807, provides that no regular

employee in the classified service shall be

removed except for just cause. The appointing

authority bears the burden of proof to show just

cause for the removal of the employee and, in

addition, the substance of the charges underlying

the removal. Long v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 112 Pa. Commw. 572,

535 A.2d 1233 (1988).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the

function of an appellate court in reviewing the

discharge of a civil service employee is to ensure

that just cause for dismissal exists both factually

and legally. In re Baker's Appeal, 409 Pa. 143, 185

A.2d 521 (1962). That is consistent with

Loudermill.

As the initial decision of the Commonwealth

Court restated the PADOH's statement "In Dec

2006, [Urdaneta] assigned Wei the task of

converting the HARS HIV/AIDS data... The task

was solely Wei's responsibility", "Wei was

terminated for not completing the HARS

HIV/AIDS assignment by July 31, 2007." But,

"Wei claims that it was not his responsibility to

convert the 2005 HARS HIV/AIDS data files" Wei

However, PADOH has admitted it assigned

the BIT and other staffers rather than Wei to

convert HARS data before the federal court (App.

151a). As PADOH wrote, Wei's duty was

providing quality control after they converted

HARS data; and they rather than Wei had the

duty to fix the errors that he found (App. 51a,

54a-55a). So, PADOH should terminate them

rather than Wei.

Therefore, PADOH betrayed the public's trust of

the government, and created a false cause without

any evidence. It infringes Wei's rights of due

process and equal protection guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment.

Although the Commission, as a part of the

Defendants in the federal case, has known that

PADOH never assigned Wei to convert HARS

data, it failed to correct the material fact in the

Commission's decision (App. D). Therefore, it

violated Wei's rights of due process and equal

protection.

Wei repeatedly indicated that PADOH made the

false statements, the Commonwealth Court chose

to believe PADOH by citing a PADOH's 2017 brief

"Because it is a well-established fact that Wei was

tasked with converting HARS HIV/AIDS files... If

Wei was not given this assignment, and instead

chose to access private HIV/AIDS files without

the direction of his supervisors, the Department's

case for just cause becomes even stronger" Wei

III. It also stated it couldn't access the documents

of the federal court (footnote 8, Wei III).

However, when Wei provided a copy of that

PADOH's documents and admissions in his third

motion to reopen, PADOH still claimed Wei was

assigned to convert the HARS data solely in its

2019 response brief (App. 130). The Commonwealth Court stated that "Wei again asserts that

the Department admitted in the federal case that

he was never assigned the task of converting

HARS HIV/AIDS data files, We specifically

rejected this argument in Wei III and we do so

again here for the reasons articulated in Wei III'

Wei IV.

Therefore, this Court should review this case

because only this Court can access the documents

in both the state and federal cases.

c. The law to reopen the case

The Commonwealth Court also erred in siding

with PADOH in that Pennsylvania had no law to

reopen the administrative case and "the appropriate remedy for such was to file a petition for

rehearing" in the Commission after initial

decision.

First, under the Pennsylvania law Section

105.17 of the Rules of the Civil Service Commission, "(e) The procedure for reconsideration

contained in this subsection does not alter or

replace any procedures provided elsewhere for the

timely filing of appeals of Commission adjudica27

tions to appellate courts".

Second, Wei has filed additional documents and

a rehearing petition after the initial hearing to

the Commission but the Commission denied the

reconsideration (App. 44a).

Third, PADOH claimed that the Commission's

decision could be used to issue preclusion before

the federal court and has succeeded in doing so.

Therefore, the Commission's decision must be

allowed to reopen if it had material error. It

should be similar to other tribunals that have the

power to make the judgement. Otherwise, the

unconstitutional situation encourages the party

perjuring or concealing the evidence in the

Commission proceeding.

The Commonwealth Court erred in citing

Shoemaker v. State Employes' Retirement Board,

688 A.2d 751, 753 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997); Fritz v.

Commonwealth, Department of Transportation,

468 A,2d 538 (Pa.1983) for deciding this case

because the appellants didn't accuse opponents

making the false statements in both cases.

Therefore, their opponents weren't responsible for

the delay action of that the appellants filed

further evidence to vindicate.

Although Pennsylvania has no law to reopen an

administrative case, it has no law to ban to open

the administrative case too. Since PADOH clearly

committed the fraud in this case, it should be

under:

"equitable relief against fraudulent judgments

is not of statutory creation. It is a judicially

devised remedy fashioned to relieve hardships

which, from time to time, arise from a hard and

fast adherence to another court-made rule, the

general rule that judgments should not be

disturbed after the term of their entry has

expired. Created to avert the evils of archaic

rigidity, this equitable procedure has always

been characterized by flexibility which enables

it to meet new situations which demand

equitable intervention, and to accord all the

relief necessary to correct the particular

injustices involved in these situations."

Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford -Empire a.,

322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944).

"From the beginning there has existed

alongside the term rule a rule of equity to the

effect that under certain circumstances, one of

which is after- discovered fraud, relief will be

granted against judgments regardless of the

term of their entry". Id.

In Atlas Glass, the defendants' lawyer was the

true author of the spurious publication to support

their case. They therefore had a liability for which

the plaintiffs would file further evidence to vindicate later. The plaintiffs brought the issue to the

courts several years later and this Court held the

case should be reopened.

In Wei's case, PADOH and its lawyers have

falsified that converting HARS data was Wei's

duty solely for terminating Wei even in their 2019

brief. Therefore, Wei could ask to reopen after he

have the newly verified evidence, "The public

welfare demands that the agencies of public

justice be not so impotent that they must always

be mute arid helpless victims of deception and

fraud" Id.

d. PADOH's other frauds on Court

The lawyers had obligation to follow law 3.3 "A

lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to

correct a false statement of material fact or law

previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer".

However, PADOH's lawyers never corrected but

repeated the false statements in the state case.

If PADOH don't insist the fraud that it

assigned Wei to convert HARS data solely then it

terminated Wei for its incomplete conversion of

HARS data; Wei should be reinstalled in 2008.

PADOH also committed several key frauds to

win the case:

First, PADOH has insisted that it assigned Wei

to convert HARS data during a Dec. 2006 BIT

meeting. Now, PADOH has admitted the meeting

task was "an estimated number" (App. 91a); and

"Estimate was given by Dr Wei" (App. 83a). If

PADOH was telling the truth, it had no reason to

dismiss Wei.

Second, as mentioned above, PADOH falsified

that Wei failed to send his Aug 27 2007 email

about his performance as a key reason to dismiss

him (App. 137a). If PADOH was telling the truth,

the case could have been reversed.

Third. PADOH claimed "Wei was charged with

collecting and reporting HIV/AIDS data

accurately" Wei I. However, it wrote that Wei's

duty was reviewing the completeness and accuracy

of the collected data and providing his finding, he

had no duty to collect data or correct error (App.

51a, 54a-55a).

Fourth, PADOH has insisted that other staffers

didn't clean the lab data because Wei hadn't converted the data. However, PADOH has required

that cleaning must be completed before converting in the routine (see App. 146a, reconciling

=cleaning) and in the updated Charter (App. 74a).

If PADOH hadn't refuse to release its updated

Charter, the case should have been reversed.

Fifth, PADOH has admitted that Urdaneta didn't

tell her alleged story of the July 2 2007 night

visiting Wei's offices and PADOH didn't order Wei

to show his data during the July 3, 2007 PDC at the

federal court (App. 141a). In this case, however,

PADOH used the fake story as the material fact.

Sixth, while PADOH has admitted that it

assigned the BIT and other staffers rather than

Wei to convert HARS data in the federal court, it

changed its story to "Wei failed to complete the

assignment given to him of unifying [converting]

into a single format file the backlog of HIV

laboratory data so that it could be evaluated,

cleaned, and uploaded into PA NEDSS with the

rest of the HARS data" (App. 151a).

Although the new claim had no impact on Wei's

Commission case because it informed Wei after

his termination, however, it is false. PADOH in

the updated Charter required "If there is not

enough information to meet the PA-NEDSS

required fields [of BIT format], the data should

not be converted" (App. 74a). So, cleaning the

reports as perfect as possible must be done prior

to the conversion. Indeed, once the reports

converted into BIT's draft format (App. 157a), it

could not clean anymore. As PADOH admitted,

the other staffers were in charge of cleaning but

they didn't clean the lab data yet.

PADOH has banned converting HIV lab data

and any other data directly into HARS since Nov.

22, 2005 (App. 62a), only the extract from

PA-NEDSS was allowed to get into HARS, this is

one-way traffic (App. 146a). No 2007 HARS data

was allowed to be converted into PA-NEDSS.

To retaliated against Wei, PADOH in April 9,

2007 suddenly ordered Wei to "set aside 2 hours"

daily (App. 107a) converting the lab data into BIT

draft format. However, checking the accuracy and

completeness of the data in PA-NEDSS including

the converted HARS data still was his major task.

Nevertheless, Wei worked extremely hard and

processed (cleaned and converted) 550,000 reports

(App. 119a). Based on PADOH's records, the HIV

team could process up to 480,000 records yearly

(App. 147a), while the PA-NEDSS team could

process about 330,000 reports annually (App. 58a).

So, Wei's work was exceptional. However, PADOH

falsified that it didn't receive his email of the

performance report and dismissed him to interrupt

the progress.

Indeed, if the data was converted into the fit

format, a million records could be uploaded into the

target database less than an hour. Therefore,

PADOH asked Wei to convert 600,000 reports into

a useless draft format was for both wasting and

harassing purpose.

PADOH has admitted that it didn't complete

2005 HIV reports by Sept. 2010 (App. 139a). it

claimed it didn't start the project yet but still

defamed Wei for their failure (App.152a). Indeed,

PADOH required the raw reports was converted

into the upcoming BIT format directly (App. 72a),

any work to converting the data to other formats

was unnecessary or wasting.

Finally, processing all HIV reports as completely

as possible was the major duty of the HIV team and

BIT, not a selection. If Wei wasn't dismissed, he

would push PADOH to fix the incompleteness.

The due process clause of the Fourteenth

amendment provides that no state may "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."

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963),

In this case, PADOH falsified Wei to unfinish

an unassigned task for terminating Wei was a

severe violation of amend. XIV, this was especiallly true that PADOH also wrote that it has

stronger reason to terminate Wei if he did the

unassigned task Wei II/

This Court held "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has

requested it violates due process where the

evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of

the prosecution "Brady.

"Fraud on the court has been found in cases

where a party has perjured him or herself to the

court and the court has relied upon the fabrications when reaching a judgment. See Matter of

Neitlich, 413 Mass. 416, 423 (1992) (fraud on the

court where attorney made the false statement

with intent to deceive court) ..." Commissioner of

Probation v. Adams, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 737

(2006).

Because PADOH's lawyers fraudulently present

facts to the court that interfere with a just and

equitable decision-making process, therefore,

they committed the fraud.

III. The Commonwealth Court erred in that Wei

was able to use PADOH's records in the initial

hearing

The Commonwealth Court erred in agreement

with PADOH's argument that the Department's

business records upon which he now relies were

available to him at the time of the original

proceeding before the Commission, and Wei was

able to use these records in the initial hearing.

However, as Wei wrote in his application for

the reconsideration (App. G), Wei was unable to

present these records to dispute PADOH's

falsifications at the original hearing. Since Aug.

24, 2007, PADOH began suspending Wei for an

investigation, which permanently disallowed him

from accessing his PADOH's office where Wei

stored the documents.

"42. Then, PADOH sent a termination letter

to Wei a week later. However, it didn't start

returning Wei's belongings that contained

some key emails and documents until June

2009 through Wei repeatedly requested the

returning".

"44. PADOH in Nov. 2007 filed a Motion to

Quash Subpoena in part and for a Protective

Order in which it not only refused to release the

key documents that Wei subpoenaed but also

claimed Wei wasn't allowed to present these

relevant documents to the hearing (Doc. A,

If 52). PADOH also refused to exchange

evidence with Wei, many key documents that

Wei filed in his motion to reopen could not be

obtained to be presented to the 2007

Commission hearing".

In addition, PADOH had the burden of the

proof, it must present the records rather than only

oral testimony to justify its just cause. The

question should be: why did PADOH conceal these

documents and testify about them to the

opposition.

Even assuming Wei could get the documents

from his friends, that would be futile too. First,

the PADOH's falsifications were not presented to

Wei before the hearing, and Wei wasn't prepared

to dispute them before he heard the accusations.

Second, the hearing was wrapped up in about four

hours on the same day, with no time for Wei to

return home to prepare the documents to dispute

them.

Furthermore, as PADOH and the Commission

admitted, Wei filed the additional documents to

the Commission after the hearing, but PADOH

claimed the documents were unauthentic, so the

Commission struck them from the records (App.

150a).

Moreover, as the Commonwealth Court noted,

both sides disagreed on almost all of the facts.

However, the Commission credited the entirety of

PADOH's statements with discrediting Wei's

statements. For example, Wei showed his Aug 27,

2007 email but PADOH and the Commission still

insisted Wei failed to send the email. They

insisted so, even in the federal court, until Wei

identified the email (App. 119a) among their

documents to the federal court.

Indeed, PADOH and the Commission still used

"Defendants are unable to determine the

authenticity of Exhibits" to deny some of the

documents Wei presented at the beginning of the

federal case. However, they admitted these were

then documents after Wei identified them from

the documents that they provided.

For above reasons, these documents certainly

are "new" to this case, and Wei must have the

right to present these documents after PADOH

has admitted and verified them in the federal

court.

However, in the petition for review to the

Commonwealth Court, Wei also listed the key

evidence that Wei was not aware of in the initial

proceeding:

"49. (a) HR Director Kim Strizzi ("Strizzi")'s

August 27, 2007 email [App. 119a]. After

Strizzi and Burnhauser received Wei's August

27, 2007 email for his progress, Strizzi wrote an

instruction on the top of Wei's August 27, 2007

email to block his access to all of PADOH's data

to Burnhauser, Ostroff, and Urdaneta.

However, PADOH falsified that it did not

receive Wei's email. It shows that PADOH not

only receive Wei's email but also intentionally

disallowed an opportunity for Wei to present

his side of evidence and story as required in

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill,

470 U.S. 532 (1985).

(b) Giallo's and Obiri's Nov. 3, 2006

emails [App. 76a]. It clearly stated that they

arranged the upcoming Dec. 2006 BIT meeting

to discuss 2006 Project Charter for answering

Wei's questions [why they did not complete the

2005 reports and how they planned to complete

them], rather than anything to order Wei

converting HARS data.

Obiri (AX530). Urdaneta wrote that she would

assign Wei's task [in email] with the follow-up

dates (Also see AX391 for follow-up date). This

was consistent with Wei's statement that

Urdaneta stated to use the email to assign the

task to him. Therefore, the parties could easily

check when and what tasks that Urdaneta

actually assigned to Wei.

(d) Giallo's June 2007 response to

PADOH [App. 81a-97a]. Giallo wrote "Estimate

given by Dr. Wei" [App.83a]. Because Wei

actually provided his estimated number, and

no business record shows that Urdaneta or

Gallio disputed the number to him, therefore

Wei must be considered to complete the Dec.

2006 task by default.

53. (e) Stephen Ostroff ("Ostroff')'s July 2,

2007 email [to HR] [App. 111a]. Ostroff [wrote

that] he told Wei that Wei was no longer a part

of the solution for the backlog lab data. Because

Ostroff was Urdaneta's immediate supervisor

and could overrule her instruction, PADOH

couldn't use that Wei failed to process backlog

HIV lab reports to discipline Wei after the day.

Instead, they should fire the staffers that were

a part of the solution. Indeed, PADOH

suspended Wei without pay for a week and

approved his FMLA leave without pay for 6.4

days with total 85 hours in July 2007, Wei

certainly could not extract 40 hours to process

backlog HIV reports but focused on the urgent

current data management in July.

Because Wei was neither a receiver nor was

aware of above documents, these evidences

definitely to be after-discovered evidences that

should be allowed to reopen the case.

Wei also wrote in paragraph 55 "If PADOH still

claims that these documents were available to

Wei at the time of the initial hearing, please show

the evidence of who, when, where, and in which

way to give Wei on or prior to Dec. 3, 2007.",

PADOH didn't respond.

In addition, as PADOH and the Commission

wrote in the federal court, many business records

weren't available to Wei until the discovery of a

federal case [App. 155a, ¶¶89-90].

PADOH has all of the documents but still falsely

testified against its records, it made Wei's reason

of its fraud even stronger.

Conclusion

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully Submitted:

Ming Wei

3910 Silver Brook Dr.

Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Phone: (717) 732-2040

Email: mingweiebct@hotmail.com

06/19/2020

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.