Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Riccardo Green, Petitioner v. Washington State Employment Security Department

Supreme Court briefAug 19, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

il. ... .

No.

AUG IS 2021

2I-VJ5

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

3ln tfie

Supreme Court of tfje ®ntteli States

Riccardo Green,

Petitioner,

Washington State

Employment Security Department,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

Supreme Court of Washington

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Mr. Riccardo Green, AA, BSNHS, MSA

Pro Se Litigant/Petitioner/Advocate

Po Box 45181

Seattle, WA 98145

206-851-2687

Riccardogreen@yahoo.com

Mr. Jacob William Dishion

Attorney of Record

WSBA No. 46578

Washington State Employment

Department

Respondent

Assistant Attorney General

Attorney General of

Washington; Licensing and

Administrative Law Division

800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000

Seattle, WA 98104

206-389-3826

Jacob.Dishion@atg.wa.gov

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether or not the Washington State Supreme Court erred in judgement & abused

discretion when it failed/refused to grant the Petition for Review under RAP

13.4(b)(l-4). RCW34.05.570(4Hhl & RCW 34.05.526 violate the Petitioner s

Substantive & Procedural Due Process Rights & Equal Protection Rights, & violate

the Washington State Constitution Articles I § 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 28, 29, 30; XXV § 1;

XXVII § 1, 2; XXXI § 1; & the U.S. Constitution 5th & 14th Amendts.; & Articles III §

2 & VI § 2?

2. Whether or not the Washington State Supreme Court erred in judgement & abused

discretion when it failed/refused to grant the Motion for Reconsideration under

DRJ Rule 9(d)(e) violate the Petitioner’s Substantive & Procedural Due Process

Rights & Equal Protection Rights, & violate the Washington State Constitution

Articles I § 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 28, 29, 30; XXV § 1; XXVII § 1, 2; XXXI § 1; & the U.S.

Constitution 5th & 14th Amendts.; & Articles III § 2 & VI § 2?

3. Whether or not the Washington State Supreme Court erred in judgement & abused

discretion when it failed/refused to enforce Washington State Laws against the

Respondent & Mr. Jacob W. Dishion violate the Washington State Constitution

Articles I § 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 28, 29, 30; XXV § 1; XXVII § 1, 2; XXXI § 1; & the U.S.

Constitution 5th & 14th Amendts.; & Articles III § 2 & VI § 2?

4. Whether or not the Washington State Supreme Court erred in judgement & abused

discretion when it failed/refused to enforce Sanctions & RPC violations including

but not limited to RPC 1.3, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, 8.4 against the Respondent & Mr. Jacob W.

Dishion violate the Washington State Constitution Articles I § 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 28, 29,

30; XXV § 1; XXVII § 1, 2; XXXI § 1; & the U.S. Constitution 5th & 14th Amendts.; &

Articles III § 2 & VI § 2?

5. Whether or not the issues presented in the PFR under RAP 13.4(c)(5) & issues

related to the “assignments of error” in the Appellant Brief filed in the Washington

State Court of Appeals Division One under RAP 10.2(a) resolved by Washington

State COA Division One or by the Washington State Supreme Court?

iii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner

Riccardo Green was the Petitioner in King County Superior Court. He was the

Appellant in the Washington State Court of Appeals Division One. He was the

Petitioner in Washington State Supreme Court. He is the Petitioner in the United

States Supreme Court.

Respondent

The Washington State Employment Security Department “state ESD” was the

Respondent in King County Superior Court. The state ESD was the Respondent &

Appellee in the Washington State Court of Appeals Division One; & the Respondent

in the Washington State Supreme Court. The state ESD is the Respondent in the

United States Supreme Court.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

There are related proceeding under Rule 14.1(bHiiil:

•

Riccardo Green v. Washington State Employment Security Department, No.

19-2-19168-6, King County Superior Court. Judgement entered on Nov. 18,

2019. The court dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal & denied Petitioner’s

motion for jury demand, motion for sanctions, & motion for consolidation.

•

Riccardo Green v. Washington State Employment Security Department, No.

19-2-19168-6, King County Superior Court. Judgment entered on Dec. 12,

2019. The court denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

•

Riccardo Green v. Washington State Employment Security Department, No.

80975-0-1, Washington State Court of Appeals Division One. Judgement

entered Nov. 11, 2020. The court reversed & remanded case in favor of

Petitioner.

•

Riccardo Green v. Washington State Employment Security Department, No.

80975-0-1, Washington State Court of Appeals Division One. Notation

Ruling by Commissioner Jennifer Koh of the Court entered on May 27, 2021,

regarding Appellant’s Cost Bill. The Court awarded the Petitioner’s cost bill

in the total amount of $675.

•

Riccardo Green u. Washington State Employment Security Department, No.

80975-0-1, Washington State Court of Appeals Division One. Order Denying

Motion to Modify the Commissioner’s ruling entered on July 26, 2021.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

There is not one parent or publicly held company that owns 10 percent or more of a

corporation’s stock that the disclosure which is required under Rule 29.6.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

VI, Xll

A. Abbreviations/Terms

vi. xxn

City of Seattle Third Party Government Agencies

Washington State Third Party Government Agencies......vi, xxii

Federal Third Party Government Agencies

vi, xxm

SHS Executive/Managerial/Supervisory Staff at FH

vi, xxm

SHS Linen Staff at FH

VI, XXIV

PHS Executive/Managerial/Supervisory Staff

VI, XXVI

SEIU 1199 NW Staff.

VI, XXVI

Washington State Employment Security Department

Staff.

B. Miscellaneous Abbreviations/Terms

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JURISDICTION

VI, XXVI

Washington State Office of the Attorney General

Staff.

OPINIONS BELOW

vi, xxn

VI, XXVll

vi, XXVll

vi, 1, 29

vi, 1

vi, 2, 3, 7, 22

vii

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

vii, 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

vii, 3

A. Introduction

vii, 3.

B. Procedural Background.

vii, 4

C. Factual Background

vii, 7

1. Petitioner’s reasserts all including but not limited to undisputed material

facts, additional undisputed material facts, laws, pleadings, legal

authorities, legal arguments, dockets, evidence, & exhibits referenced in

the Petitioner’s Opening Trial Brief pgs 1-40 & Reply Brief pgs 1-9 filed in

KCSC, Appellant Brief pgs 1-50 under RAP 10.2(a), Reply Brief pgs 1-25

under RAP 10.2(d), Trial Exhibit List pgs. 1-18, Exhibits 01-280, &

Verbatim Report of Proceedings Transcript from KCSC pgs. 1-39 filed in

State COA.

.vii, 7

Sustained contradiction in written statements between PS NEC Eka

Otu, SHS HRM E. Howard, & SHS LM W. Schafer recklessly,

willfully, & wantonly violated state/federal laws, violated SHS

termination/retaliation policies, & violated SEIU C.B.A failed to

establish misconduct,

vii, 10

Wade Allen Schafer’s, Ethan C. Howard’s, & Eka Otu’s testimonies

in State OAH on April 02, 2019 failed to establish misconduct

vii, 15

1) Wade A. Schafer - SHS Linen Manager Testimony

vii, 15

2) Ethan C. Howard - SHS HR Manager Testimony,

vii, 18

3) Eka Otu — PS NEC Appeals Representative Testimony

vii, 18

4) ALJ C. Thomas Statements during the Admin. Hearing,

vii, 19

Petitioner’s internal complaints to union staff SEIU 1199 NW

established no misconduct under RCW 50.04.294(e)................... vii, 19

2. Petitioner’s findings of facts, conclusions of law, & order filed in KCSC

should have been granted

.vii, 19

3. Petitioner’s motion for sanctions, motion for jury, motion in limine

“omnibus,” motion to admit additional evidence, & motion for

reconsideration should have been granted by KCSC.......................... vii, 19

viii

4. SHS/PS NEC failed/refused to participate in the investigation & provide

additional information to the State ESD investigator Mr. Jacob Rainey in

January 2019 violated RCW 50.20.190, RCW 50.29.021(6)

viii, 20

5. Additional undisputed material facts of Mr. J. W. Dishion’s pattern/trend

in conduct/litigation similar, equal to, and/or same in overpayment case

no. 80975-0-1 supports motion for sanctions in this misconduct case no.

81225-4-1

viii, 20

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.

viii, 21

Issues presented in the PFR under RAP 13.4(c)(5) & issues related to the

assignments of error in the Appellant Brief filed in State COA under RAP

10.2(a) have not been resolved by the WA State COA or by the WA State

Supreme Court,

viii, 21

II.

PFR filed in WA State Supreme Court under RAP 13.4(a) should have

been granted under RAP 13(a)(b)(l-4); & WA State Supreme Court has a

legal duty & obligation to enforce WA State laws & prevent a gross

miscarriage of injustice and/or unfair prejudice in the administration of

justice protected by the WA State & U.S. Constitution, & U.S. Bill of

Rights

viii, 21

III.

WA State Supreme Court denial of the PFR under RAP 13.4(b)(l-4), RCW

34.05.526, & RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) & denial of the motion for

reconsideration under DRJ rule 9(d)(e) violated Petitioner’s substantive &

procedural due process rights & equal protection rights; & violates the

WA State Constitution Articles I, XXV, XXVII, XXXI, & U.S. Constitution

5th & 14th Amendments, & Articles III § 2 & VI § 2

viii, 23

IV.

KCSC, WA State Appellate Court, & the WA State Supreme Court

intentionally denied motions, abused discretion, & erred in judgement, &

failed/refused to enforce WA State laws, disciplinary actions, & sanctions

against the Respondent

viii, 25

Unemployment cases the U.S. Supreme Court, numerous State Court of

Appeals & State Supreme Courts reversed & remanded conflicts with the

WA State COA & WA State Supreme Court’s decisions in this

case

viii, 26

CONCLUSION

viii, 29

APPENDIX

VOLUME I

Appendix A

Cover Letter attached to the Opinion of the Washington State

Court of Appeals Division (Nov. 23, 2020)

Pet. App. 2a

Appendix B

Opinion of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division

One (Nov. 23, 2020)

Pet. App. 4a

Appendix C

Cover Letter attached to the Opinion of the Washington State

Court of Appeal Division One, No. 80975-0-1 (Nov. 23,

2020)

Pet. App. 11a

Appendix D

Opinion of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division

One, No. 80975-0-1 (Nov. 23, 2020)

Pet. App. 13a

Appendix E

Order Denying Petition for Review from the Washington State

Supreme Court (April 07, 2021)

Pet. App. 19a

Appendix F

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration from the

Washington State Supreme Court Order (April 22,

2021)

Pet. App. 21a

Appendix G

Mandate Order from the Washington State Court of Appeals

Division (May 03, 2021)

Pet. App. 23a

Appendix H

Corrected Mandate Order from the Washington State Court of

Appeals Division One (May 07, 2021)

Pet. App. 25a

Appendix I

Cover Letter attached to the Order Denying Motion to Modify

from the Washington State Court of Appeals Division One, No.

80975-0-1 (July 26, 2021)

Pet. App. 27a

Appendix J

Order Denying Motion to Modify from the Washington State

Court of Appeals Division One, No. 80975-0-1 (July 26,

2021)

Pet. App. 29a

Appendix K

Order Notation Ruling Regarding Cost Bill by Commissioner

Jennifer Koh of the Washington State Court of Appeals

Division One, No. 80975-0-1 (May 27, 2021)

Pet. App. 31a

Appendix L

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration from the King

County Superior Court, No. 19-2-19168-6 (Dec. 12,

2019)

Pet. App. 34a

Appendix M

Order Denying Motions, & Dismissing Petition for Judicial

Review Complaint from the King County Superior Court, No.

19-2-19168-6 (Nov. 18, 2019)

Pet. App. 37a

Appendix N

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, & Order filed in the King

County Superior Court (Dec. 31, 2019)

Pet. App. 40a

Appendix O

Report of Proceedings, Verbatim Transcript of the Audio

Recording of Proceedings on Appeal, Volume I, & pages 1

through 39. Heard before the Honorable Susan H. Amini (Jan.

16, 2020)

Pet. App. 61a

Appendix P

Notice of Appeal attached with King County Superior Court

Orders filed in the King County Superior Court (Feb. 10,

2020)

.Pet. App. 101a

VOLUME II

Appendix Q

Letter from J. Dishion Acknowledged Receiving Petition for

Judicial Review Complaint filed in King County Superior Court

(June 04, 2019)

Pet. App. 115a

Appendix R

Motion to Admit Additional Evidence filed in the King County

Superior Court (Nov. 04, 2019)

Pet. App. 117a

Appendix S

Motion for Sanctions filed in the King County Superior Court

(Dec. 31, 2019)

Pet. App. 133a

Appendix T

Petition for Review filed in the Washington State Supreme

Court (Dec. 04, 2020)

Pet. App. 164a

Appendix U

Motion for Reconsideration filed in the Washington State

Supreme Court (April 20, 2021)

Pet. App. 206a

Appendix V

Excerpts from the Washington State Constitution Articles I,

XXV, XXVII, & XXXI

Pet. App. 250a

Appendix W

Excerpts from Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct

RPC 1.13, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, &

8.4

Pet. App. 276a

Appendix X

Excerpts from Washington State Rules for Enforcement of

Lawyer Conduct ELC 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.5, 5.3, 6.2,

6.3, 10.3, 10.4, 10.7, 10.13, 10.16, 12.5, 12.9, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3,

13.4, 13.5, 13.7, 13.8, 14.2

Pet. App. 292a

Appendix Y

U.S. Supreme Court Order 589, Thursday, March 19,

2020

Pet. App. 317a

Appendix Z

U.S. Supreme Court Order 589, Wednesday, April 15,

2020

Pet. App. 320a

Appendix AA U.S. Supreme Court Order 594, Monday, July 19,

2021

Pet. App. 323a

VOLUME III

Appendix AB Daniel Kelly, Substantive Due Process: The Trojan Horse of

Judicial Legislation, 51 J. Marshall L. Rev. 261 (2018), pgs

261-277

Pet. App. 326a

Appendix AC Edward J. Eberle, Procedural Due Process: The Original

Understanding, 4 Constitutional Commentary 339 (1987), pgs

339-362

Pet. App. 346a

Appendix AD J. Roland Pennock, Unemployment Compensation and Judicial

Review, 88 Univ. of Pennsylvania L. Rev. 137 (1939), pgs 137155

Pet. App. 371a

Appendix AE Jospeh Tussman & Jacobus tenBroek, The Equal Protection of

the Laws, 37 Cal. L. Rev. 341 (1949), pgs 341381

Pet. App. 391a

Appendix AF Michael Bindas, Seth Cooper, David K. DeWolf, & Michael J.

Reitz, The Washington Supreme Court and the State

Constitution: A 2010 Assessment, 46 Gonzaga L. Rev. 1 (2010),

pgs 1-55

Pet. App. 434a

Appendix AG Patricia L. Proebsting, Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment:

It Says What It Means and It Means What It Says, 8 Univ. of

Puget Sound L. Rev. 461 (1985), pgs 461-484.

Pet. App. 490a

Appendix AH Virginia T. Vance, Applications for Benefits: Due Process,

Equal Protection, and the Right to Be Free from Arbitrary

Procedures, 61 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 883 (2004), pgs 883927

Pet. App. 516a

xii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case

Page(s)

Disbarment Cases

1. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against David Carl Cottingham, 191 Wn.2d 450, 423 P.3d

818 (2018)

2. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Gillingham, 126 Wash. 2d 454, 896 P.2d 656

(1995)..................... ......................................................................................................................

3. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McGrath, 174 Wn.2d 813, 818, 280 P.3d 1091

(2012).............................................................................................................................................

4. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Miller, 263 149 Wn.2d 262

(2003)..........................................................................................................

5. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt, 149 Wash. 2d 707, 716, 72 P.3d

173 (2003)........................................................................................................................

Washington State Appellate Cases

1. Cuesta v. Department of Employment Security, 402 P.3d 898, 200 Wn.App.560

(2017)...................................................................................................................................

2. Gibson v. ESD, 52 Wn. App. 21 1, 758 P.2d 547 (1988)

3. Goldberg v. Sanglier, 96 Wn.2d 874, 880, 639 P.2d 1347, 647 P.2d 489

(1982).....................................................................................................................

4. Michaelson v. Employment Security Department, 187 Wn. App. 293, 298, 349 P.3d 896

(2015)

5. Shaw v. Department of Retirement Systems, 193 Wn. App. 122, 133, 371 P.3d 106

(2016)........................................................................................................................................

6. Smith v. ESD, 155 Wn. App 24, 32, 266 P.3d 263 (2010)

7. State v. Budd, 186 Wn. App. 184, 199, 347 P.3d 49 (2015), affd, 185 Wn.2d 566, 374

P.3d 137 (2016).............................................................................................................................

8. Stevens v. White Water Construction, Inc., No. 37414-9-III (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 19,

2021)..............................................................................................................................................

State Appellate Cases

xiii

1. American Federal of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. California

Employment Development Department, (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 811, 152 Cal.Rptr.

193

2. Ballard v. Director, Dept, of Workforce Services, 2021 Ark. App. 201 (Ark. Ct. App.

2021)............................................................................................................................................

3. Korkutovic v. Gamel Co., 284 S.W.3d 653 (Mo.App. E.D.2009)

4. Davis v. Transp. Sec. & Div. ofEmp't Sec., 295 S.W.3d 594 (Mo.App.

E.D.2009)..........................................................................................................

State Supreme Court Cases

1. Olson v. Job Service North Dakota and E.W. Wylie Corporation, 379 N.W.2d

285

2. Operton v. Labor and Industry Review Commission and Walgreen Co. Illinois, 894

N.W.2d 426, 375 Wis.2d 1, 2017 WI 46................................................................................

3. Peha-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017)

4. Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal.3d 194, 124 Cal. Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774 (Cal.

1975)...........................................................................................................................................

Washington State Cases

1. Arnett v. Seattle General Hospital, Washington State Board Against Discrimination, 65

Wn.2d 22, 395 P.2d 503 (1964)

2. Browning v. Slenderella Systems of Seattle, 54 Wn.2d, 440, 442, 341 P.2d 859

(1959)..................................................................................................................................

3. Curtis v. Interlake Realty, 62 Wn.2d 928, 385 P.2d 37 (1963)

4. Eggleston v. Pierce County, 64 P.3d 618, 622 (Wash. 2003)

5. Marquis v. Spokane, 130 Wn.2d 97, 100-01, 922 P.2d 43 (1996)

6. O'Meara v. Washington State Board Against Discrimination, 58 Wn.2d 793, 798, 365

P.2d 1 (1961)................................................................................................................................... 22

7. Spain u. ESD, 164 Wash.2d 252, 185 P.3d 1188 (2008)

8. State ex rel. Foster v. Wash. State Bar Assn, 23 Wn.2d 800, 805, 162 P.2d 261

(1945)..................................................................................................................................

9. Tapper v. ESD, 122 Wash.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993)

xiv

10. Washington State Board Against Discrimination v. Olympia School District, 68 Wn.2d

262, 412 P.2d 769(1966)................................................................................................................. 4

Federal Appellate Court Cases

Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F. Supp. 1252, 1261, 1262-63 (N.D. Cal. 1996)

Carter u. Division of Employment Security, 350 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. Ct. App.

2011)...........................................................................................................................

Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 765 Fed.Appx. 79 (5th Cir.

2019)......................................................................................................................

Wyatt v. Aderholdt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974)

United States Supreme Court Cases

1. Adair v. U.S, 208 U.S. 161, 174-175

2. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897)

3. Barsky v. Univ. of the State of NY, 347 U.S. 442, 472 74 S.Ct. 650

(1954)............................................................................................................

4. California Dep’t of Human Res. Dev. v. Java, 402 U.S. 121, 130 (1971)

5. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)

6. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)

7. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147-48 (1968)

8. EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 243 n.18 (1983)

...22

9. Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202, 203 (1958)

10. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 166 (1978)

3, 22

11. Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 387-88, 95 S. Ct. 533, 42 L. Ed. 2d 521

(1975).........................................................................................................................

12. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)

13. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)

14. Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, et. al, 480 U.S. 136

(1987).................................................................................................................................

15. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co, 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974)

3, 22

16. Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000)

17. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)

18. New York u. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

19. Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 714, 95 S. Ct. 1893, 1899, 44 L. Ed. 2d 525

(1975)..........................................................................................................................

20. Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, (19-199) 140 S. Ct. 813, 813

(2020)..............................................................................................................

21. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)

22. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)

23. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880)

24. Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707

(1981)............................................................................................................................

25. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 7 (1915)

26. Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1885)

STATUES

State Rules of Appellate TRAP!

1. RAP 2.1(a)(1)....

2. RAP 2.2...........

3. RAP 3.1...........

4. RAP 4.1(a)(b)(l)

5. RAP 5.1(a)........

6. RAP 5.2...........

7. RAP 6.1...........

8. RAP 10.2(a)......

5, 6

9. RAP 10.2(c)......

5, 6

10. RAP 10.2(d).....

5, 7, 19, 20

11. RAP 12.4(c)......

xvi

12. RAP 13.4(c)(5)...............................

2, 8, 21

13. RAP 13.4(b)(4)...............................

14. RAP 13.4(b)(2)...............................

15. RAP 13.4(b)(1)...............................

16. RAP 13.4(a)(b)(l-4)......................

7, 19, 20, 21, 25

WA State Supreme Court Rules

1. DRJ Rule 9(d)(e)

1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 23, 25

State Laws

1. RCW 2.48.170.

2. RCW 2.48.220.

3. RCW 9.46

4. RCW 9.46.010

5. RCW 9.46.0249

6. RCW 18.130.180(1)

7. RCW 19.16

8. RCW19.16.110

9. RCW 19.16.210,

10. RCW 19.16.250

11. RCW 24.03

12. RCW 24.03.266

13. RCW 24.03.271

14. RCW 24.03.276,

15. RCW 34.05

16. RCW 34.05.518.

17. RCW 34.05.526

1, 3, 8, 22, 23, 25

18. RCW 34.05.570

xvii

19. RCW 34.05.570(3)

20. RCW 34.05.570(4)(b)

1, 8, 20, 23

21. RCW 41.59.060

9, 13

22. RCW 41.59.140,

9, 13

23. RCW 47.64.130

24. RCW 49.17.160

9, 13, 22

25. RCW 49.44.090

9, 13

26. RCW 49.60

21, 24

27. RCW 49.60.180

9, 13, 22

28. RCW 49.60.210

9, 13, 22

29. RCW 50

30. RCW 50.01.010,

31. RCW 50.04.294.

32. RCW 50.04.294(e)

7, 9, 10, 19, 21, 22, 24

33. RCW 50.20.066

34. RCW 50.20.190

5, 8, 20

35. RCW 50.29.021(6)

5, 7, 8, 20

36. RCW 50.32.120,

3, 20, 22

37. RCW 50.32.150.

22, 25

Federal Laws

5U.S.C. §552

15 U.S.C § 1692(a-p)

18 U.S.C. § 1955(a)(b)(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)

2,6

45 U.S.C. § 231, et. seq

xviii

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Railroad Retirement Act,

STATE REGULATIONS

WAC

WAC 182-526-0390(l)(2)

WAC 192-150-200

WAC 192-150-205

7, 21

OTHER AUTHORITIES

WASHINGTON STATE

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

TRPC1

RPC 1.3 [diligence]

RPC 3.1 [meritorious claims & contentions]

x, 20

RPC 3.2 [expediting litigation]

x, 20

RPC 3.3 [candor toward the tribunal]

i, x, 20

RPC 3.4 [fairness to opposing party]

x, 20

RPC 4.1 [truthfulness in stmts to others]

RPC 4.3 [dealing with person not represented by a lawyer]

RPC 4.4 [respect for rights of third person]

RPC 8.4 [misconduct]

x, 1, 6, 20

i, iv, x, 14, 20

i, x, 6, 14, 20

WASHINGTON STATE RULES FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF LAWYER CONDUCT

(ELC)

ELC 1.1

x, 20

ELC 1.2

x, 20

ELC 1.4

x, 20

ELC 1.5

x, 20

xix

ELC 2.1

x, 20

ELC 2.2

ELC 3.5

x, 20

ELC 5.3

x, 20

ELC 6.2

x, 20

10. ELC 6.3

11. ELC 10.3

x, 20

12. ELC 10.4

x, 20

13. ELC 10.7

x, 20

14. ELC 10.13

x, 20

15. ELC 10.16

,x, 20

16. ELC 12.5

x, 20

17. ELC 12.9

x, 20

18. ELC 13.1(a)(1)

x, 20

19. ELC 13.2

x, 20

20. ELC 13.5

21. ELC 13.7

22. ELC 13.8

23. ELC 14.2

x, 20

WASHINGTON STATE RULES OF EVIDENCE

TState ROE or ER1

1. ER 401 [relevant evidence]

2. ER 402 [relevant evidence admissible; irrelevant evidence not admissible]

15, 17, 21

3. ER 403 [probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice]

4. ER 404 [character evidence or trait of character not admissible]

15, 17

5. ER 801 [admissible: [a] stmt; [1] oral or written; [b] declarant]

15, 21

6. ER 802 [hearsay not admissible]

15, 17

7. ER 806 [credibility of witness]

15, 21

8. ER 904 [admissibility of documents]

15, 21

WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

1. Const, art. I, § 1 Political Power.

2. Const, art. I, § 2 Supreme Law of the Land

2, 23

3. Const, art. I, § 3 Personal Rights

4. Const, art. I, § 5 Freedom of Speech

5. Const, art. I, § 10 Administration of Justice

6. Const, art. I, § 12 Special Privileges and Immunities Prohibited.

7. Const, art. I, § 28 Hereditary Privileges Abolished

8. Const, art. I, § 29 Constitution Mandatory

9. Const, art. I, § 30 Rights Reserved,

10. Const, art. XXV, § 1 Authority of the United States

11. Const, art. XXVII, § 1 Existing Rights, Actions, and Contracts Saved

12. Const, art. XXVII, § 2 Laws In Force Continued.

13. Const, art. XXXI, § 1 Sex Equality

14. Const, art. XXXI, § 2 Enforcement of Power of Legislature

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

1. U.S. Const, amdt. I Free Speech, cl. Free Exercise Clause

2, 23, 26, 27

2. U.S. Const, amdt. I, Religion & Freedom of Expression

3. U.S. Const, amdt. V, § 1 Due Process

22, 26

i, viii, 2, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

4. U.S. Const, amdt. XIV, § 1, cl. Due Process Clause [Substantive &

Procedural]

i, viii, 3, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

xxi

5. U.S. Const, amdt. XIV, § 1, cl. Equal Protection Clause

i, viii, 3, 6, 22, 23, 24, 26

6. U.S. Const, amdt. XIV, § 5 Power of Congress to Enforce

7. U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2 Extent of Judicial Power,

8. U.S. Const, art. VI, § 2, cl. Supremacy Clause

9. U.S. Bill of Rights

.viii, 21

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES

1. Rule 10(a)(b)(c)

2,3

2. Rule 10(a)

3. Rule 10(b)

4. Rule 10(c)

5. Rule 13

6. Rule 13(1)

7. Rule 14.1(b)(iii)

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ORDERS

Court Orders

Order no. 589, March 19, 2020

x, 6

Order no. 589, April 15, 2020

x, 6

Order no. 594, July 19, 2021

x, 6

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION RULES

(ABA)

Rule 10(A)(1)

Rule 1.3

Rule 8.4

A. Abbreviations/Terms

1. City of Seattle Third Party Government Agencies

xxii

1) Seattle Office of Civil Rights - SOCR

2. Washington State Third Party Government Agencies

1) Washington State - WS. WA state, WA State

2) Washington State Attorney General ■ state ATG. state AGO

3) Washington State Bar Association - WSBA. WA State Bar Association

4) Washington State Commissioner Review Office - state OCR, state CRO.

state OCR/CRO. WA state CRO

5) Washington State Court of Appeals Division One - WSCA-1. state COA. WA

state COA

6) Washington State Department of Health - state POH. WA state DOH

7) Washington State Department of Labor/Industries - state POSH, WS

POSH. WA state POSH

8) Washington State Employment Security Department Collection Unit - state

ESP CU. WA state ESP CU

9) Washington State Employment Security Dept. - state ESP, WA state ESP

10) Washington State Human Rights Commission - WS HRC. WSHRC. state

HRC.WA state HRC

11) Washington State Office of Administrative Hearing - state OAH. WA state

OAH

3. Federal Third Party Government Agencies

1) United States Department of Justice - US DOJ

2) United States Department of Labor - US POL

3) United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - US EEOC

4) United States Federal Trade Commission - FTC

xxiii

5) United States Occupational Safety Health Administration ■ OSHA

4. SHS Executive/Managerial/Supervisorv Staff at FH

1) Ethan C. Howard ■ HRM E. Howard, HR Manager. He became the HRM at

FH in about 2017. He retained employment at SHS at FH in 2018, &

thereafter.

Gregory [Greg] May - L/ED G. May. Linen/Environmental Services Director.

He became Linen/EVS Director at FH in about 2015 or 2016.

3) Kristen Fox - VP HR K. Fox. Chief VP of HR Officer.

4) Margaret Krueger ■ HRD M. Krueger. HR Director.

5) Robert [Bob] Bernard - LM R. Bernard. Linen Manager/EVS Manager. He

became Linen Manager in about 2014 at FH after S. Massong retired. He

retained employment at SHS at FH in 2018, & thereafter.

6) Ruben Guy Hudson - CEO R. Hudson. Chief Executive Officer CEO.

1) Steven J. Massong ■ LM S. Massong. Linen Manager. He was employed by

SHS at FH for 35 to 40 + yrs. He was the former LM at FH over 20 yrs. Pet’r

worked under S. Massong since 2008 till about 2014. Pet’r gave direct

advice/suggestions/recommendations to S. Massong since about 2008 to 2014

related to the improvement of health/safety of linen staff, work assignments,

etc. in the linen dept. & in the hospital.

8) Toni Sorenson - T. Sorenson. Executive Assistant to the CEO.

9) Tracey Fugami - HRM T. Fugami. HR Manager. She was the former HRM

till about 2017.

10) Wade Allen Schafer ■ LM W. Schafer. Linen Manager. He was hired as

Linen Supervisor at FH in 2015, promoted to LM in about 2017 at FH

xxiv

despite being part of directly/indirectly employment discrimination &

health/safety complaints to third party government agencies since about

2015. He retained employment at SHS at FH in 2018, & thereafter.

5. SHS Linen Staff at FH

1) David Russell [last name may be incorrect] ■ D. Russell. Linen attendant.

He was employed by SHS at FH for about 35 to 40+ yrs. He retired in about

2011 or 2012.

2) Haidie Del Castillo - H. Castillo. Linen attendant. She is employed by SHS

at FH. She was hired in Dec. 2016 & started work in the linen dept, at FH in

Jan. 2017. She may have been promoted to Linen supervisor in about 2020

or 2021. She retained employment at SHS at FH in 2018, & thereafter.

3) Hiang Somsack - H. Somsack. Linen attendant. He is employed by SHS at

FH for about 20+ yrs. He retained employment at SHS at FH in 2018, &

thereafter.

4) James Duangprasaert - J, Duangprasaert. Linen attendant. He is

employed by SHS at FH for about 20+ yrs. He retained employment at SHS

at FH in 2018, & thereafter.

Jean D. Venant - J. Venant. Linen attendant. He is employed by SHS at

FH for about 10+ yrs. He retained employment at SHS at FH in 2018, &

thereafter.

6) Jeremy Joseph App - J. App. Linen attendant. He was employed by SHS at

FH since about 2009 for 5 + yrs. Voluntarily quit in about Nov. 2015/Dec.

2015.

XXV

7) Joseph Earl Spangler - J. Spangler. Linen attendant. He is employed by

SHS at FH for 30 to 35+ yrs. He retained employment at SHS at FH in 2018,

& thereafter.

8) Mark Domingo - M. Domingo. Linen attendant. He was employed by SHS

at FH. He was hired in about Dec. 2016 & started in the linen dept, at FH in

about Jan. 2017. Voluntarily quit in about 2017.

Mogos Woldemicael - M. Woldemicael, Linen attendant. He was employed

by SHS at FH for about 20+ yrs. He retained employment at SHS at FH in

2018, & thereafter. He potentially retired in about 2020 or 2021.

10) Warren M. Hawkins - W. Hawkins. Linen attendant. He is employed by

SHS at FH for 25 + yrs. He retained employment at SHS at FH in 2018, &

thereafter.

11) Wayne Ticknor - W. Ticknor, Linen attendant. He was employed by SHS at

FH for 40 to 45 plus yrs. He retired in about 2017.

6. PHS Executive/Managerial/Supervisorv Staff

1) Jon Flowers - SR HRM J. Flowers. Senior HRM. He is/was the Senior HR

Manager for PHS in 2018.

7. SEIU 1199 NW Staff

1) Additional SEIU staff may have been identified in exhibits filed in this case

that are not disclosed in this petition.

2) Carmencita Smith - SEIU C. Smith. Union Agent [Union Delegate]. She

was the union delegate for the Petitioner in the union grievance meetings.

3) Darius Smith - SEIU D. Smith. Union Agent. He was the union agent in

2018.

xxvi

4) Will Vargus ■ SEIU W. Vargus, Union Agent. He was the union agent in

2018.

8. Washington State Employment Security Department Staff

1) Mr. Jacob Rainey - Mr. J. Rainey. He is the UICB or UIC claim

investigator.

2) Mr. Robert Page - Mr. R. Page. He is the Supervisor of the Records

Management Unit-Records Officer.

3) Ms. Gena Uuereb - Ms. G. Uuereb. She is the Assistant Records Officer.

9. Washington State Office of the Attorney General Staff

1) Mr. Jacob William Dishion, WSBA no. 46578 - Mr. J. W. Dishion. Mr.

Dishion. J. Dishion. Dishion. He is the defense attorney. He is employed

thru the Washington State Attorney General Office.

2) Ms. Lisa M. Petersen, WSBA no. 30372 - Ms. L. M. Petersen. Ms.

Petersen. She is the defense attorney. She is employed thru the Washington

State Attorney General Office.

B. Miscellaneous Abhreviations/Terms

1) Administrative Agency Record - AAR

2) Administrative Agency Record Exhibit - exhibit AAR or ex. AAR

3) Administrative Law Judge - ALJ

4) Amendment - Amdt

5) Amendments - Arndts

6) American Bar Association - ABA

7) Appendix - Ann.

8) Article - Art.

xxvii

9) Brief - Br.

10) Cherry Hill - CH

11) Clerk’s Papers ■ CP

12) Collective Bargaining Agreement - C.B.A

13) Constitution - Const.

14) Court - Ct.

15) Department - Dent.

16) Designation of Clerk’s Papers - DCP

17) Designation of Clerk’s Papers Index - DCP IPX

18) Designation of Clerks Papers - DCP or CP

19) Disciplinary - Discinl.

20) Docket — Dkt.

21) Documentary evidence - Doc. Evidence

22) Employment Security Act - ESA

23) Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct - ELC

24) Evidence - Evid.

25) Environmental Services - EVS

26) Exhibit - Ex.

27) Exhibits ■ Exs.

28) Fair Labor Standards Act - FLSA

29) First Hill ■ FH

30) Forward - Fwd or Fwrd.

31) Identity - Id.

32) KCSC Hon. Chief Judge Julie Spector - Chief Judge J. Snector

xxviii

33) KCSC Hon. Judge Marshall Ferguson - Judge M. Ferguson

34) KCSC Hon. Judge Susan Amini - Judge S. Amini

35) King County Superior Court — KCSC

36) Linen Director - LD

3 7) Linen Manager - LM

38) Linen Supervisor - LS

39) Local Civil Rules - LCR

40) Management ■ Mngement

41) Miscellaneous - Misc.

42) Motion - Mtn or Mot.

43) New York - NY

44) Originally ■ Prig.

45) PeopleSystem Inc. NEC Appeal Representative Eka Otu - PS NEC E. Otu

46) Petition for Judicial Review Appeal Complaint - Petition for Review

Complaint or PRC

47) Petition for Review - PFR

48) Providence Health Services ■ PHS

49)PS NEC-PS NEC

50) PS NEC Inc. - PS NEC Inc.

51) Report of Proceedings - ROP

52) Respondent - Resp’t

53) Response - Resp.

54) Revised Code of WA - RCW

55) SEIU 1199 NW - SEIU

xxix

53) State CRO Hon. AL Judge John M. Sells - ALJ J. Sells

57) State CRO Hon. AL Judge Shana L. Oliver ■ ALJ S. Oliver

58) State OAH Hon. AL Judge Christopher Thomas - ALJ C. Thomas

59) State OAH Hon. AL Judge Micah Larripa - ALJ M. Larripa

60) Statement - Stmt

61) Swedish Health Services - SHS

62) Transcript - Tr.

63) Trial Readiness Form - TRF

64) Unemployment insurance - UI

65) Unemployment insurance claim ■ UIC

68) Unemployment insurance compensation benefits — UICB. UI Benefits

67) United States - U.S.

68) United States Code - U.S.C.

69) United States Postal Services - USPS or U.S. Postal Services

70) Washington State Administrative Code ■ WAC

71) Washington State Administrative Procedure Act - APA

72) Washington State Bar Act - WA State Bar Act. WS state Bar Act

73) Washington State Court of Appeals - WA COA. state COA

74) Washington State Rules of Evidence - state ROE. ER. WA state ROE

75) Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct - WA state RPC. RPC

76) Washington State Rules of Unprofessional Conduct - WA state UPC. UPC

77) Washington State Supreme Court - WA State Supreme Court/Ct.. state

Supreme Court/Ct.

■*>

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Pet’r Riccardo Green respectfully petitions this court for a Writ of Certiorari to

review the Order denying the Petition for Review and Order denying the Motion for

Reconsideration of the Washington State Supreme Court in Riccardo Green v. Washington

State Employment Security Department, No. 99285-1.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division One (Pet. App. A 2a,

& Pet. App. B 4a-9a) is unpublished. The relevant orders of the Washington State Supreme

Court (Pet. App. E 19a & Pet. App. F 21a) are unpublished. The relevant orders of the

Washington State Court of Appeals Division One are unpublished (Pet. App. C 11a, Pet.

App. D 13a-17a, Pet. App. G 23a, Pet. App. H 25a, Pet. App. I 27a, Pet. App. J 29a, and Pet.

App. K 31a-32a). The relevant orders of the King County Superior Court (Pet. App. L 34a35a, Pet. App. M 37a-38a, and Pet. App. P 101a-113a) are unpublished.

JURISDICTION

The Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the King County

Superior Court on Nov. 23, 2020, see Pet. App. A 2a & Pet. App. B 4a-9a. A timely petition

for review was filed in the Washington State Supreme Court on Dec. 04, 2020 RAP

13.4(b)(l-4), see Pet. App. T 164a-197a. The petition for review was denied on April 07,

2021 by Chief Justice Gonzalez, see Pet. App. E 19a. A timely motion for reconsideration

was filed in the Washington State Supreme Court on April 20, 2021 DRJ Rule 9(d)(e), see

Pet. App. U 206a-248a. The motion for reconsideration was denied on April 22, 2021 RAP

12.4(a), see Pet. App. F 21a. This court obtains jurisdiction invoked under 28 U.S.C. §

1257(a), Rule 10(a)(b)(c), Rule 13(1), & U.S. Constitution Articles III § 2 & VI § 2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Washington State Supreme Court & the United States Supreme Court have a

constitutional agreement that is expressed in the WA State Const. Article I S 2 Supreme

Law of the Land states “The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law

of the land.” The WA State Const. Article I § 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 28, 29, 30; Article XXV § 1;

Article XXVII § 1, 2; & Article XXXI § 1. The U.S. Const. Article VI § 2 Supremacy Clause

states

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States...under the Authority

of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges

in every State shall be bound thereby...”

The U.S. Const. Article TIT S 2 Extent of Judicial Power states in part

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases...arising under this

Constitution, the Laws of the United States...under their Authority...”

The U.S. Const. 1st Arndt Free Speech & Free Exercise Clause: 5th Arndt S I Due Process

Rights that state in part “...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law...” The U.S. Const. 14th Arndt § I Due Process Rights and Equal

Protection that states in part

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the

United States and 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...”

See Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co, 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974); Flagg Bros., Inc. v.

Brooks 436 U.S. 149, 166 (1978). RCW 34.05.526 states in part “An aggrieved party

may secure appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court...by

the supreme court or the court of appeals...”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Introduction

Petitioner Riccardo Green, aka the “advocate” is the party that filed this petition in

this Ct. The Pet’r respectfully, diligently. & urgently requests this Ct. to grant this

writ under Rule lOfalfhlfc). By & thru, the Pet’r filed this Writ of Certiorari on time. The

Pet’r filed the mtn for reconsideration pgs 1-25 on time, on or about Tues., April 20.

2021 to the WA State Supreme Court under DRJ Rule 9(dHel. Pet’r filed the PFR under

RAP 13.4(aHbHlW2K3W41. RAP 13.4(a) within 30 days pursuant to ESA RCW

50.32.120. & APA RCW 34.05: 34.05.570: 34.05.570(31: 34.05.526: & 34.05.518 & on/about

Dec. 04. 2020. & paid the filing fee of $200. This Ct. obtains jurisdiction in this matter

under U.S.C. S 1257(a) & Rule lOfaHbWcl. This Ct. obtains iudicial power &

authority over the State OAH, State CRO, State ESD, KCSC, State COA, & State

Supreme Ct. The Resp’t’s attorney for both appeal cases 80975-0-1 & 81225-4-1 is Mr.

Jacob William Dishion, RCW 2.48.170: See State ex rel. Foster v. Wash. State Bar Ass’n, 23

Wn.2d 800, 805, 162 P.2d 261 (1945). Further, the Pet’r was employed by SHS since about

Mav/June 2008 to Aug. 31. 2018. SHS PHS, & SEIU are non-profit

corporations/enterprises Non-Profit Corporation Act under ROW 24.03 metaphorically as

“corrupt business partners” subject to dissolution under RCW 24.03.266. 24.03.271.

24.03.276, Pet’r worked FT as a linen attendant w/ full benefits at SHS at FH for 10 plus

yrs. under laborious conditions. He was wrongfully terminated from employment on Aug.

31. 2018: 1] same dav LM W. Schafer removed his new “10 min rule” from the linen

dept, staff excluding Pet’r; 2] same dav W. Schafer forced linen staff to change personal

lockers to the new smaller/half-size co-ed locker room on B floor due on Fri., Aug. 31,

2018; 3] same dav Pet’r onnosed/advocated against sustained employment

discrimination, retaliation, managerial harassment/abuse, & perceived health/safety

violations in the workplace; & 4] same dav W. Schafer engaged in intentional

employment discrimination in the workplace; thus Pet’r was ultimately retaliated.

punished. & terminated. See WA State Board Against Discrimination v. Olympia School

District, 68 Wn.2d 262, 412 P.2d 769 (1966). Before termination, Pet’r filed multiple

external complaints to state/federal 3rd party gov. agencies & internal complaints to

SHS/SEIU/PHS staff including but not limited to LM W. Schafer & HRM E. Howard as

protected activities before the Pet’r was recklessly & swiftly removed from the

employment premises before the end of his work shift. Lastly, the state ESD originally

granted UICB to the Pet’r on or about Jan. 2019.

B. Procedural Background

The Pet’r filed an UIC with the state ESD on or about Jan. 2019. The state ESD

determined Pet’r was qualified for maximum UICB at $18.434. Pet’r only utilized about

half of the UICB at about $9.892. Pet’r participated in the investigation & submitted

additional evidence & responses via email to the state ESD investigator/adjudicator Mr.

Rainey upon request, & thus the state ESD originally granted/authorized UICB under

RCW 50.01.010 to the Pet’r. The state ESD UICB that was originally granted was

reversed by the state OAH ALJ C. Thomas & affirmed by the state CRO ALJ J. M. Sells

in the misconduct case [063297 & 2019-1345]. The overpayment case was affirmed by the

state OAH AU M. Larripa & state OCR ALJ S. Oliver, thus the Pet’r was forced to pay

back $9.892 to the state ESD CU to this date as an abusive tactic that violates the

State/Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act RCW 19.16 & 15 U.S.C S 1692(a-p). In

verse, the state ESD still owes the Pet’r $9.892 plus $2.400 totals at about $12.292 plus

interest, an award of sanctions & related fees incurred in litigation. SHS/PS NEC

failed/refused to submit additional information evidence upon request from the

adjudicator/investigator Mr. Rainey, thus the overpayment should have been waived

under RCW 50.20.190. RCW 50,29.021(61. & not collected by the state ESD CU under

RCW 19.16.110, RCW 19.16.210. RCW 19.16.250. The order affirming the Resp’t’s

“findings of facts..dismissing case was affirmed by KCSC Judge S. Amini, & 1] mtns for

sanctions, 2] mtn for reconsideration, 3] “omnibus” mtn in limine, 4] mtn to admit

additional evidence, & 5] mtn for jury demand were gjj. denied by the trial court, see dkts

21, 34, 35, 36. Pet’r filed the notice of appeal on time under RAP 2.1(al(ll. 2.2. 3.1.

4.1(aHbHT). 5.1(a). 5.2. 6.1 in KCSC on Feb. 10, 2020, & received by the state COA on

March 13, 2020. Pet’r filed Appellant Br. at pgs 1-50 under RAP 10.2(a): & filed Appellant

Reply Br. at pgs 1-25 under RAP 10.2(cD. Pet’r filed mtn to consolidate both appeals under

RAP 3.3(b) on/about April 2020 & was denied. Resp’t filed mtn to extend time to file Resp.

Br. on April 09. 2020 by Ms. Petersen on behalf of Mr. Dishion, & was granted. In this

mtn, Resp’t used the “COVID -19 outbreak” as reason[s] towards its failure/refusal to

file a timely Resp. Br., RAP 10.2(c). In case 81225-4-1. Resp’t filed a similar mtn to extend

on the same dav Resp. Br. was due under RAP 10.2(c) & used the exact same/similar

reasons “COVID -19 outbreak.” Both frivolous mtns filed were used to “camouflage” his

willful RPC violations RPC 1.3. 8.4. The state COA granted mtn on/about July 01. 2020.

Resp. Br. was filed Aug. 20. 2020. Pet’r filed Reply Br. on Sent. 18. 2020. COA filed its

opinion on Nov. 23. 2020 to the decision of KCSC affirming the judgement. Pet’r filed

PFR under RAP 13.4(a) on/about Dec. 04. 2020. The Resp’t filed frivolous mtn to extend

time on Jan. 04. 2021 in State Supreme Ct. The court granted the mtn on Jan. 04, 2021.

Resp’t filed answer to the PFR on or about Feb. 02. 2021. State Supreme Ct. denied the

PFR on April 07. 2021. Pet’r filed a mtn for reconsideration pgs 1-25 under DRJ Rule

9(dUe) in state Supreme Ct. on time within 14 davs on or about Tues., April 20. 2021. On

or about April 22. 2021 state Supreme Ct. denied the mtn. The Pet’r filed this Writ of

Certiorari in timely manner in this Ct. under U.S.C. $ 1257(ab Rules 10 & 13. & paid the

fifing fee of $300.

Furthermore, Rule 10(a1 states in part “...writ of certiorari is not a matter of

right, but of judicial discretion...granted...compelling reasons.” Rule 10(h) states

“a state court...conflicts with the decision of another state court...” Rule 10(c)

states “a state court...conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.” Rule 13 states

in part “...writ of certiorari...timely...filed...90 days after entry of the judgment...”

However, orders 589 & 594 extended the number of days to 150. thus the petition was filed

on time. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) allows this Ct. to obtain jurisdiction. It states in part

“(a) Final judgments...highest court of a State... may be reviewed...by writ

of certiorari...statute of the United States is drawn in question... statute of

any State is drawn in question...repugnant to the Constitution...laws of the

United States...”

The petition is not frivolous. The petition involves very important state/federal

constitutional questions related to substantive/procedural due process, equal protection, &

constitutional violations that the state Supreme Ct. & state COA failed/refused to give to

Pet’r. See Peha-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.

524 (2005); Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202, 203 (1958); Wyatt v. Aderholdt, 503 F.2d 1305

(5th Cir. 1974).

C. Factual Background

Pet’r filed this petition because the state Supreme Ct. & the state COA

misapprehended, overlooked, rejected. & ignored Pet’r’s entire court record

including Pet’r’s evidence submitted under RAP 12.4(c). Pet’r reasserts all undisputed

material facts & evidence referenced in the PFR filed in state Supreme Ct. under RAP

13.4(a)(b)(l-4). Appellant’s Br. pgs 1-50 under RAP 10.2(a) & Reply Br. pgs 1-25 under

RAP 10.2(d). & Pet’r’s testimony pgs 1-39 under WAC 182-526-0390(11(21 filed in state

COA & used in support of the PFR & this petition.

Petitioner’s reasserts all including but not limited to undisputed

material facts, additional undisputed material facts, laws, pleadings,

legal authorities, legal arguments, dockets, evidence, & exhibits

referenced in the Petitioner’s Opening Trial Brief pgs 1-40 & Reply

Brief pgs 1-9 filed in KCSC, Appellant Brief pgs 1-50 under RAP

10.2(a), Reply Brief pgs 1-25 under RAP 10.2(d), Trial Exhibit List

pgs. 1-18, Exhibits 01-280, & Verbatim Report of Proceedings

Transcript from KCSC pgs. 1-39 filed in State COA

Pet’r reasserts all undisputed material facts, dkts, exhibits, pleadings, mtns, &

evidence referenced in the PFR filed in state Supreme Ct. under RAP 13.4(a)(b)(l-4).

Appellant’s Br. pgs 1-50 under RAP 10.2(a) & Reply Br. pgs 1-25. under RAP 10.2(d). &

Pet’r’s testimony pgs 1-39 under WAC 182-526-0390(l)(2) filed in state COA & used in

support of the PFR. SHS/PS NEC’s appeal to the state ESD was absolutely frivolous. &

failed/refused to submit evidence to the state ESD & participate during the

adjudication/investigation, thus fwded zero evidence on appeal to state OAH case 063297

under RCW 50.29.021(6). Furthermore, the Pet’r was terminated expeditiously at 1:51

pm. Pet’r was not allowed to clock out at the completion of his wk shift at 2:30 nm. Pet’r

received termination letter in W. Schafer’s office on B floor in the presence of E. Howard &

W. Schafer on same dav he was terminated see AAR exs 205-213. AAR ex 111. AAR ex

112. Pet’r’s PRC pgs 1-14. & AAR exs 200-204. 251-255. Pet’r was removed

expeditiously from linen dept. & escorted to the new smaller/half size co-ed semi

locker-room on B floor by E. Howard/W. Schafer to remove his personal items that he

recently transferred to that afternoon by the due date of Fri., Aug. 31, 2018, see AAR

exs 113. 205-216. Pet’r was escorted off the employment premises by E. Howard/W.

Schafer metaphorically as a “criminal” half way thru hallways on B floor by W. Schafer &

then to the exit/entrance doors on 1st floor by E. Howard. Before termination, the Pet’r

filed & sent via USPS two written complaints to 3rd party state/federal gov. agencies

such as WSHRC, US DOJ, US EEOC, etc. on or about Aug. 23. 2018 & Aug. 28. 2018. see

AAR exs 65-84. 85-90. Complaints involved SHS staff 1] LM W. Schafer, 2] LM R.

Bernard, 3] HRME. Howard, & 4] other SHS staff see AAR exs 65-84. 85-90. Pet’r sent

copies of the internal/external complaints pgs 1-9 dated Aug. 28. 2018 via email to 1] W.

Schafer, 2] R. Bernard, 3] E. Howard, 4] SHS staff, & 5] SEIU staff see AAR exs 125-127.

AAR ex 125 states in part “...letter of request for immediate actions and internal

complaint against...Wade Schafer and Robert Bernard pages 1-9...” Before

termination Pet’r sent another internal complaint via email to 1] E. Howard, 2] W.

Schafer, 3] SEIU staff, & 4] SHS staff on Aug. 31. 2018 at 12:10 pm. see AAR ex 215.

See Spain v. ESD, 164 Wash.2d 252, 185 P.3d 1188 (2008); Smith v. ESD, 155 Wn. App 24,

32, 266 P.3d 263 (2010); Tapper v. ESD, 122 Wash.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993);

Gibson v. ESD, 52 Wn. App. 21 1, 758 P.2d 547 (1988); & Arnett v. Seattle General

Hospital, WA State Board Against Discrimination, 65 Wn.2d 22, 395 P.2d 503 (1964).

Minutes before termination on Fri.. Aug. 31. 2018 Pet’r sent another internal complaint

via email at 1:44 nm. see AAR ex 214 sent to 1] E. Howard, 2] SHS staff, & 3] SEIU staff

as protected activities under RCW 50.04.294(e). 49.60.210. 49.60.180. 49.17.160. see

AAR exs 65-217. 221-234. 249-268. 49-268. Further, the state ESD’s letter dated Jan.

18. 2019 cited state laws under RCW 50.20.066. 5Q.04.294. WAC 192-150-200 & 192-150205. see AAR exs 49-50. 52-53 that states in part “We don’t know why your employer

decided to fire you. Your employer fired you for a reason that we don’t consider

misconduct.”

SHS/PS NEC Eka Otu’s evidence submitted to the state OAH minutes before the

state OAH on about April 2019 obtains zero allegations of misconduct in the months of

July 2018. Aug. 2018. Aug. 30. 2018 see AAR ex 115. or on Aug. 31. 2018 before

termination, see AAR exs 123-124. 218-237. Pet’r responded via email sent on June 30.

2018 at 4:33:39 pm tg 1] W. Schafer, 2] E. Howard, 3] SHS staff, & 4] SEIU staff, see AAR

exs 85-90. 101-109.123-124. 110-268. Pet’r’s response via email sent to the state ESD

adjudicator/investigator Mr. Rainey see AAR exs 65-91. 205-213 states in part

“I do not know why I was terminated. I was NOT provided

with any reasons by the employer in writing prior to

termination that allowed me to respond in writing to any

alleged incident[s] against me...All I did was work on that day

[i.e. Friday, Aug. 31, 2018]...and transferred my personal

contents from my former locker on C floor to my new locker on

B floor that was due by Friday, Aug. 31, 2018...”

Pet’r engaged in protected activities under RCW 50.04.294(el see AAR exs 49-268

& was a SEIU member at time of termination, see AAR exs 49-268. SEIU willfully

breached their fiduciary duty & CBA & retaliated against the Pet’r, thus violated state

unfair labor laws RCW 41.59.140. 41.59.060. 49.44.090. Pet’r filed employment

discrimination & health/safety complaints to SHS/PHS/SEIU staff via email & via U.S

postal mail to 3rd party gov. agencies 1] Mav 20. 2018 see AAR exs 91-100. 2] July 17.

2018 [against W. Schafer /R. Bernard] see AAR exs 85-90. 3] Aug. 23. 2018 [against E.

Howard, R. Bernard, W. Schafer, & Seven Managerial Staff] see AAR exs 75-84. & 4] Aug.

28, 2018 [against E. Howard, L/ED G. May, W. Schafer, & R. Bernard] see AAR exs 6574. RCW 50.04.294(e) states in part “...However, an employee who engages in

lawful union activity may not be disqualified due to misconduct.” Moreover, the

Pet’r submitted PFR to the state CRO/OCR on or about April 11. 2019 to this case 063297

WAC-192-04-170 to the Initial Order from the state OAH ALJ C. Thomas dated April 02.

2019 against Pet’r see AAR exs 200-217. 239-247. Pet’r respectfully requests this Ct. to

review all evidence AAR exhibits 1-268 including the entire court record related to this

case. The state OAH instructions received see AAR exhibits 266-268 states in part “If

you did not file the appeal, and you fail to call in, the Administrative Law Judge

will a make decision on the evidence presented at the hearing.” SHS/PS NEC

failed/refused to submit any responses to both PFR complaints filed by the Pet’r to the

state OCR/CRO in about April 2019. See AAR exhibits 49-268.

a. Sustained contradiction in written statements between PS

NEC Eka Otu, SHS HRM E. Howard, & SHS LM W. Schafer

recklessly, willfully, & wantonly violated state/federal laws,

violated SHS termination/retaliation policies, & violated SEIU

C.B.A failed to establish misconduct

SHS/PS NEC Eka Otu filed a frivolous anneal to the state ESD on Feb. 19, 2019

see AAR ex 51 that was deceptive & defamatory. Written stmt by SHS/PS NEC

absolutely contradicted the written stmt by W. Schafer on Aug. 31. 2018 & his

testimony at the state OAH hearing in about April 2019.

See AAR ex 112 that states in part “Effective immediately, Aug. 31, 2018 you are

being terminated from your position of Linen Attendant. The termination of

employment is based on your misconduct in the workplace.”

See AAR ex 21 pg. 19 that states in part

Judge C. Thomas:

“And could you tell me, uh, why was he terminated?”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“Um, repeated exhibition of insubordination and

aggressive behavior.”

This written stmt absolutely contradicted written stmt by E. Howard dated Aug. 30.

2018 see AAR ex 115 that states in part

“...If you experience or witness behavior that you perceived is

retaliatory, in violation of Swedish’s policy you must immediately report

the behavior, either to me, any Human Resources team member, any

member of the management team...”

Written stmt absolutely contradicted written stmt by Mr. Dishion in Resp. Br. filed in

KCSC see dkt 12 CP pgs 76-87. Pet’r sent response via email to E. Howard & PHS/SHS

staff on Aug. 30. 2018 at 1:59 nm. see AAR ex 185 that states in part

“I absolutely disagree with HR management’s internal investigation

regarding discrimination and retaliation, and will continue to oppose

now and in the future both linen dept, managers...[i.e. Wade S. and R.

Bernard]...sustained favoritism and protection of whites and/or persons

with white skin color in the linen dept.; and protection for both linen

managers.”

Pet’r sent via email internal complaints see AAR exs 140-171 & was

expeditiously terminated on Aug. 31. 2018 at 1:51 pm. Written stmt dated Aug. 31.

2018 by W. Schafer was given to the Pet’r before & on the same dav as termination

absolutely contradicts/violates SHS’s own termination/retaliation policies & SEIU’s

own CBA see AAR ex 111 it states “You are presence is required at 1:30pm for a

meeting at the HR center located at 1101 Madison 11th floor. This is not an

investigatory meeting and your union delegate is not needed for this meeting.

Thank you.” Pet’r sent an email to E. Howard, W. Schafer, two SEIU staff, & SHS staff

on Aug. 31. 2018 at 12:11 pm: see AAR ex 215. Minutes before termination the Pet’r

sent a 2nd internal complaint at 1:44 nm via email see AAR ex 214 against W. Schafer &

E. Howard sent to E. Howard, SHS staff, & SEIU staff that states in part

“At this time, I am being intentionally harassed and retaliated against by

either you...and/or Wade S. for opposing sustained employment

discriminatory practices that violate anti-discrimination laws...needs to

cease.”

E. Howard letter dated Aug. 30. 2018 sent to the Pet’r via email failed to allege

any misconduct against Pet’r before expeditious termination, see AAR exs 115.122. 140.

141. SHS failed/refused to submit any reply to state CRO & submit substantial evidence

to the state ESD, state OAH, or state CRO see AAR exs 111. 219 dated 2017. AAR ex 220

dated 2017. & AAR exs 49-268. Pet’r sent internal complaints to W. Schafer on about

June 30. 2018 see AAR exs 221-234. On about Feb. 28. 2018 fwded to E. Howard on

about March 05. 2018 see AAR exs 230-232. Pet’r emailed internal complaint to W.

Schafer on about Sun.. Aug. 26. 2018 at 7:08 am about linen carts stored on floor A by

Haide C. See AAR ex 184 states in part

“On Sat, Aug. 25, 2018 I noticed linen carts stored on A floor for the next

day Sun, Aug. 26, 2018 by the person assigned the new work assignment

A-Haide C. I believe she was finished with work assignment around 10

am to 11 am. Total no. of linen carts not delivered 8. Total no. of linen

supply locations not delivered 12.”

On about Mon.. Aug. 27. 2018 Pet’r emailed an internal complaint about the “10 min

rule” to W. Schafer see AAR exs 120-121 that states in part

“You notified me this morning that I am late around 6:15 am. I

informed you I clocked in on time...I absolutely oppose and

will continue to oppose your new “10 minute” rule as a

sustained employment retaliatory, discriminatory, and racist

practice...”

Pet’r emailed the first internal complaint to LM W. Schafer about the “10 min”

rule on about Feb. 2018 approx, six months before termination & in about June 30. 2018.

see AAR exhibits 221-234. These internal complaints were fwded to HRM E. Howard on

about March 05. 2018: see AAR exhibits 230-232 that states in part

“...I believe this request to meet with you is discriminatory

and retaliatory, as a sustained form of unfair targeted

discriminatory treatment, managerial harassment, managerial

abuse, managerial neglect, and abuse of employment

position...you have been engaging in unfair discriminatory

treatment between co-workers within your newly

implemented “10 minute” rule.”

Further, SHS/PS NEC Eka Otu, & Mr. Dishion reason[s] for the termination diverted

multiple times that absolutely contradict from one reason to the next see AAR ex 112.

AAR ex 51 & AAR exs 44-47. 49-268. thus explanations are 1] NOT worthy of credence; 2]

absolutely bogus. & defamatory; 3] violated state laws not limited to RCW 50. 49.60.210.

49.60.180. 49.17.160. 49.44.090. 47.64.130. 41.59.140. 41.59.060: See Marquis v. Spokane,

130 Wn.2d 97, 100-01, 922 P.2d 43 (1996); 4] violated SHS’s/PHS’s own

retaliation/termination policies see AAR ex 115: & 5] violated SEIU’s own CBA; & thus

SHS/PS NEC’s explanations breed metaphorically as a “cancerous disease of racism.”

SHS/PS NEC Eka Otu defamatory reason[s] for termination absolutely contradicts 1]

E. Howard written stmt sent to Pet’r on Aug. 30. 2018 see AAR ex 115 that states zero

allegations of any misconduct, & 2] W. Schafer’s letter of termination see AAR ex 112 fails

to state zero allegations of any misconduct. PS NEC stated on appeal to the state ESD in

Feb. 2019 see AAR ex 51 states in part

“...on behalf of Swedish Medical Center, ER # 950050100, for

whom we have power of attorney...& we disagree. We wish to

appeal further & respectfully request a hearing. The claimant

was insubordinate when he refused to follow dependability

rules as required by all employees. The claimant was not

being asked to follow rules not ask of others to follow...”

Dana Blav’s faxed statement to state ESD was absolutely contradicted by Mr. Dishion’s

defamatory/misrepresented stmts in the Resp. Br., see dkt 12 CP pgs 76-87. CP pg 76

stated in part

“...fired from his job at Swedish Health Services for insubordination and

violation of his employer’s policy prohibiting the use of profanity and

threats of violence in the workplace...”

Resp’t/Mr. Dishion willful defamatory statements violated RPC 4.1. 8.4. The

reasonfsl of the termination was confirmed by the Judge C. Thomas and SHS’s appeal

rep. Mr. Otu at the state OAH, thus any other reasonfsl is/are outright defamatory,

retaliatory, irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay, & absolutely bogus.

See AAR ex. 16 pg. 14

Judge C. Thomas:

“...to an appeal filed on behalf of Swedish Health

Services. It looks like somebody named Dana Blay filled

this out, uh, or signed this letter and sent it back to the

Department on the 19th of February this year. Does that

look accurate to you?”

Mr. Otu:

“Yes.”

See verbatim ROP pg. 23 at lines 13-17 that states in part “...I think it was on the 31st and indicated it’s not an investigation meeting. So how can there be misconduct

if there’s no investigation meeting?”

W. Schafer & E. Howard willfully failed/refused to inform the AU C. Thomas in

the hearing that himself, E. Howard, & SHS/SEIU staff were notified about the illegal

gambling [i.e. sport bets] conducted on the employment premise by linen & environmental

“evs” staff that was condoned/tolerated by SHS at FH/CH for many years, & probable

cause that W. Schafer [who worked at CH] was directly/indirectly involved in the sport bets

by probable use of his “10 min” rule by deception & use of his office metaphorically as a

“casino & bank,” thus violates RCW 9.46. 9.46.010. 9.46.0249. & 18 U.S.C. S

1955(aHbHc). SHS/PHS breached the implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing

between the employee & employer; & breached the implied contract between the

employee & employer relationship. See Schneider v. Equibank, 744 F. Supp. 106, 108 (W.D.

Pa. 1990); Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 292 N.W.2d 880, 885 (Mich. 1980);

Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081, 1087 (Wash. 1984); Roberts v. Atlantic

Richfield Co., 568 P.2d 764, 768-69 (Wash. 1977); Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 618, 782

P.2d 1002 (1989); Amoco Oil Co. v. Ervin, 908 P.2d 493, 498 (Colo. 1995). Pet’r reasserts

the absolute truth is that there was NO misconduct committed by Pet’r, but an “outright

retaliatory lash out filled with absolute hatred & definite jealousy” that caused the

expeditious termination on Fri.. Aug. 31. 2018.

b. Wade Allen Schafer’s, Ethan C. Howard’s, & Eka Otu’s

Testimonies in State OAH on April 02, 2019 failed to establish

misconduct

W. Schafer’s, E. Howard’s, & Eka Otu’s testimonies were conspired, inflamed,

irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay, not credible, not trustworthy, biased, intentionally

misleads, mischaracterization, deceptive, defamatory, & horrendous; not supported with

evidence to substantiate allegations, but unproven/unfounded. Character evidence in

testimony by all three witnesses is/are inadmissible hearsay & irrelevant evidence ER 402.

403. 404. 801(d), 802 [irrelevant], & 806. & 904. thus should have been rejected by

state COA & must be rejected by this Ct. In verse, all three testimonies of E. Howard, W.

Schafer, and E. Otu openly acknowledge the sustained discriminatory, harassing, &

retaliatory treatment & actions by SHS staff.

1) Wade A. Schafer - SHS Linen Manager Testimony

See AAR ex 21 pg. 19 that states in part

Judge Thomas:

“All right. Thank you, sir. You are under oath. Mr.

Schafer, will you swear or affirm to tell the truth at this

hearing?”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“I do.”

See AAR ex 21 pg. 19 that states in part

Judge C. Thomas:

“All right. Mr. Schafer, um, did you discharge Mr.

Green, was he laid off due to a lack of work, or did he

quit his job?”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“He was terminated.”

See AAR ex 22 pg. 20 that states in part

Mr. W. Schafer:

“...He then stated that he will continue to oppose that

work rule in that same email.”

See AAR ex 24-25 pg. 22-23 that states in part

Judge C. Thomas:

“For identification purposes, page 101 of 151 is an email

to you, Mr. Schafer, from Mr. Green. It says, Wade, you

notified me this morning that I am late around 6:15 a.m.

I informed you that I clocked in on time. Is that the

email you’re referring to?

Mr. W. Schafer:

“Uh, yes, sir.”

Judge C. Thomas:

“...absolutely oppose and will continue to oppose your

ten minute rule as sustained employment retaliatory,

discriminatory, and racist practice, embedded in a

sustained including but not limited to managerial abuse,

managerial harassment, and it goes on...”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“Yes, sir.”

See AAR ex 30 pg. 28 that states in part

Mr. W. Schafer:

“...I have assignments written up on the board in our

department...”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“...he came in and wrote the word discriminates with an

arrow up to my name.”

See AAR ex 37 pg. 35 that states in part

Mr. W. Schafer:

“...he referred to another - one of my colored, um,

employees, he referred to him as a slave from Africa.”

W. Schafer stated absolute defamatory statements without evidential proof under

oath in the state OAH hearing on about April 02, 2019. W. Schafer committed perjury

under oath & violated RCW 9A.72.020(11. Pet’r responded to each & every discriminatory,

retaliatory, & harassing disciplinary form written against the Pet’r by R. Bernard or W.

Schafer: & thus must be rejected by this Ct. His statements are considered hearsay &

character evidence inadmissible under state ROE 402. 404. 802.

See AAR ex 36 pg. 34 that states in part

Judge C. Thomas:

“Um, do you have any idea as to why Mr. - Mr. Green

opposed this rule, or why he wouldn’t want to report to

you prior to starting the shift?”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“I - I - I really don’t. Um, he just - he just thought that it

was harassing and discriminatory, and just absolutely

opposed it.”

See AAR ex 37 pg. 35 that states in part

Judge C. Thomas:

“...or have you yourself ever seen or - or observed Mr.

Green doing so; whether verbally or in an email or - ”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“Mr. - yes, absolutely. Mr. Green would always refer to

me as discriminating, harassing...”

See AAR ex 40 pg. 38 that states in part

Mr. E. Otu:

“...Are you the only individual, uh, which Mr. Green

categorized as being discriminative or harassing?”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“He’s referred to Mr., uh, Howard, myself, and, um, my another manager, uh, Bob - Robert Bernard.”

Mr. E. Otu:

“Has he ever referred to any of his coworkers as being

discriminative or harassing?”

Mr. W. Schafer:

“Yes, he has...”

See AAR ex. 42 pg. 40 that states in part

Mr. W. Schafer:

“And, uh, my lead, uh, she is female, she’s just absolutely

progressing so much better &, um things have really

improved.”

2) Ethan C. Howard - SHS HR Manager Testimony

See AAR ex. 20 pg. 19 that states in part

Mr. E. Howard:

“It was a represented union position.”

See AAR ex 42 pg. 40 that states in part

Mr. E. Otu:

“Mr. Howard, can you hear me okay?

Mr. E. Howard:

“Yes, I can hear you.”

See AAR ex 43-44 pg. 41-42 that states in part

Mr. E. Howard:

“Um, if you look at some of the corrective actions that

were issued and look at his response (inaudible) myself,

Wade, and another manager, Robert Bernard,

(inaudible) responses to the corrective action.”

Mr. E. Otu:

“And you’re referring to, um, his handwritten responses

on the corrective action?

Mr. E. Howard:

“That is correct.”

Mr. E. Howard:

“I am referring to, um, page (inaudible). That is the

written (inaudible). It would be his response where he

mentions, um that it’s discriminatory.”

Mr. E. Howard:

“If you move on to the, um - the final warning, and you’ll

see where he once again goes on (inaudible) racist.”

Mr. E. Otu:

“...were their a time that Mr. Green was issued a

warning and did not have the responses that he was

being discriminated against or that people were racist

or what - was there ever a time that he accepted,

whether graciously or - or not, that - that he was getting

a warning and didn’t make these type of comments that

you are aware of?”

Mr. E. Howard:

“Not that I’m aware of.”

3) Eka Otu - PS NEC Anneals Representative Testimony

See AAR ex. 16 pg. 14

Judge C. Thomas:

“...to an appeal filed on behalf of Swedish Health

Services. It looks like somebody named Dana Blay filled

this out, uh, or signed this letter and sent it back to the

Department on the 19th of February this year. Does that

look accurate to you?”

Mr. Otu:

“Yes.”

4) ALJ C. Thomas Statements During the Admin. Hearing

See AAR ex. 12 pg. 10

Judge C. Thomas:

“The Department concluded that Mr. Green had been

discharged, but for reasons other than misconduct.”

See AAR ex. 19 pg. 17

Judge C. Thomas:

“...I - and I have read them. Um, most of these are

statements from Mr. Green.”

c. Petitioner’s Internal Complaints to union staff SEIU 1199 NW

established no misconduct under RCW 50.04.294(e)

Mr. Otu confirmed grievances to ALJ C. Thomas.

See AAR ex. 46 pg. 44 that states in part

Mr. Otu:

“...send emails making those type of grievances...”

Petitioner’s findings of facts, conclusions of law, & order filed in

KCSC should have been granted

Pet’r filed “Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, & Order” on/about Dec. 31. 2019

pgs 1-20 with Judge S. Amini Ct. at KCSC, see Pet. Add. 40a

Petitioner’s motion for sanctions, motion for jury, motion in limine

“omnibus,” motion to admit additional evidence, & motion for

reconsideration should have been granted by KCSC

Pet’r reasserts all undisputed material facts & evidence referenced in the PFR

under RAP 13.4(al(bHl-4L Appellant Br. pgs 1-50 under RAP 10.2(al & Reply Br. pgs 1^

25 under RAP 10.2(d). KCSC erred in judgement/abused discretion & recklessly denied

all mtns submitted by the Pet’r in KCSC except for the mtn protection order that was

granted. Pet’r’s mtns should have been granted.

SHS/PS NEC failed/refused to participate in the investigation &

provide additional information to the State ESD investigator Mr.

Jacob Rainey in January 2019 violated ROW 50.20.190, RCW

50.29.021(6)

Pet’r reasserts all undisputed material facts & evidence referenced in the PFR

under RAP 13.4(a)(b)(l-4). Appellant Br. pgs 1-50 under RAP 10.2(a). & Reply Br. pgs 1;

25 under RAP 10.2(d). SHS/PS NEC failed/ refused to participate in the initial

investigation with the state ESD violated RCW 50.20.190. RCW 50.29.021(6). &

RCW 50.32.120

Additional undisputed material facts of Mr. J. W. Dishion’s

pattern/trend in conduct/litigation similar, equal to, and/or same in

overpayment case no. 80975-0-1 supports motion for sanctions in this

misconduct case no. 81225-4-1

Pet’r reasserts all undisputed material facts & evidence referenced in the

PFR under RAP 13.4(aHb)(l-4h Appellant Br. pgs 1-50 under RAP 10.2(a) & Reply Br.

pgs 1-25 under RAP 10.2(cD. He failed/refused to file answers to both complaints filed in

KCSC in about 2019 under RCW 34.05.570(4Wbh 18.130.180(11 see dkts 2-36 CP pgs 1571, thus zero answer exists in KCSC dkts or CP dkts. He stated defamatory statements

that absolutely contradicted SHS/PS NEC statements, testimonies, & vice versa, thus

he violated RPC 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.4, 8.4; ABA 1.3, 8.4, ABA 10(A)(1); & ELC 1.1,

1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.3, 3.5, 5.3, 6.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.7, 10.13, 10.16, 12.5, 12.9, 13.1(a)(1), 13.2,

14.2; thus he must be disbarred under RCW 2.48.220. See In re Discipl. Proceeding

Against Miller, 263 149 Wn.2d 262 (2003); In re Discipl. Proceeding Against Cottingham,

191 Wn.2d 450, 423 P.3d 818 (2018); In re Discipl. Proceeding Against McGrath, 174 Wn.2d

813, 818, 280 P.3d 1091 (2012); In re Discipl. Proceeding Against Gillingham, 126 Wn.2d

454, 896 P.2d 656 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt, 149 Wash. 2d 707,

716, 72 P.3d 173 (2003).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRTT

Issues presented in the PFR under RAP 13.4(c)(5) & issues related to the

assignments of error in the Appellant Brief filed in State COA under RAP

10.2(a) have not been resolved by the WA State COA or by the WA State

Supreme Court

The “issues presented” in the PFR (see Pet. App. 164a) RAP 13.4(c)(5) filed on or

about Dec. 04. 2020. see pgs 2-3 questions 1-3 have not been resolved by this Ct. The

“issues related to assignments of error” questions 1-16 in the Appellant Br. under RAP

10»2(a) see pgs 19-21 filed on or about Mav 2020 have not been resolved.

II.

PFR filed in WA State Supreme Court under RAP 13.4(a) should have been

granted under RAP 13(a)(b)(l-4); & WA State Supreme Court has a legal

duty & obligation to enforce WA State Laws & prevent a gross miscarriage

of injustice and/or unfair prejudice in the administration of justice

protected by the WA State & U.S. Constitution, & U.S. Bill of Rights

The PFR filed in state Supreme Ct. is valid & should have been granted under

RAP 13.4(a)(b)(l-4) to prevent a gross miscarriage of injustice or unfair prejudice in the

administration ofjustice against the Pet’r that is secured by the WA State Const. Articles

I, XXV, XXVII, XXXI, the 1st, 5th, & 14th Arndts to the U.S. Const., Articles III § 2 & VI § 2,

& preserved in the U.S. Bill of Rights regardless of pro se status or advocacy. RAP

13.4(b)(1) applies to this case. The state COA opinion dated Nov. 23. 2020 is in conflict

with this Ct. because it does not acknowledge the Pet’r’s protective activities under RCW

49.60. 49.17. 50.04.294(e). & Pet’r’s evidence filed with the state ESD, state OAH, KCSC,

state COA, or Pet’r’s testimony WAC 182-526-0390(1)12). & evidence under state ROE ER

401. 402. 801. 806. & 904. RAP 13.4(b)(2)(3) applies to this case. Moreover, the WA

State Const. & U.S. Const, laws, & individual rights are involved. There is a significant

question of J aw that applies to the Pet’r that is related to the WA State Const. & U.S.

Const. The 14th Amdt Equal Protection S 1 U.S. Const, states in part “...nor deny to any

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Procedural due

process in summary is when a person obtains a right to receive a fair procedure &

impartial trier of fact that affects that person’s life, liberty, property, & justice. This

case involves UICB & money owed by the Resp’t. See Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct.

7 (1915); Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1885). The 14th Amdt, S 5 U.S. Const, states in

part “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation...” See EEOC v. Wyoming, 460

U.S. 226, 243 n.18 (1983); Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F. Supp. 1252, 1261, 1262-63 (N.D. Cal.

1996); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.,

419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974); Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks 436 U.S. 149, 166 (1978). The 5th Amdt

§_1 U.S. Const, states in part “...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law...” See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Eggleston v. Pierce

County, 64 P.3d 618, 622 (Wash. 2003); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976);

Browning v. Slenderella Systems of Seattle, 54 Wn.2d, 440, 442, 341 P.2d 859 (1959);

O'Meara v. WA State Board Against Discrimination, 58 Wn.2d 793, 798, 365 P.2d 1 (1961);

Curtis v. Interlake Realty, 62 Wn.2d 928, 385 P.2d 37 (1963). The 1st Amdt Religion/Free

Expression U.S. Const, states “Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free

exercise...freedom of speech...to petition the Government for a redress of

grievances.” RAP 13.4(b)(4) applies to this case. This case is of substantial public

interest because it involves a protected activity laws enforced by state employment &

health/safety anti-discrimination & anti-retaliation laws RCW 49.60.210. 49.60.180: &

RCW 49.17.160. RCW 34.05.526 [effective June 11, 1946] 5 U.S.C. § 552; RCW 50.32.120.

50.32.150 & RCW 50.04.294(e): & the WA State Const. Article 1 S 5 Freedom of Speech

states “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being

responsible for the abuse of that right.” This is protected by the 1st Arndt, Free

Speech & Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410

(2006); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983); Adair v. U.S., 208 U.S. 161, 174-175; Barsky

v. Univ. of the State of NY, 347 U.S. 442, 472 74 S.Ct. 650 (1954).

III.

WA State Supreme Court denial of the PFR under RAP 13.4(b)(l-4), RCW

34.05.526, & RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) & denial of the motion for reconsideration

under DRJ rule 9(d)(e) violated Petitioner’s substantive & procedural due

process rights & equal protection rights; & violates the WA State

Constitution Articles I, XXV, XXVII, XXXI, & U.S. Constitution 5th & 14th

Amendments, & Articles III § 2 & VI § 2

The WA State Supreme Ct.’s denial of the PFR filed under RAP 13.4(bWl-41.

RCW 34.05,526. RCW 34.05.570f4Hb). & the denial of the mtn for reconsideration under

DRJ Rule 9(d)(e) violated the Pet’r’s substantive & procedural due process rights, & equal

protection rights under the U.S. Const. 5th & 14th Arndts., & Articles III § 2 & VI § 2. DRJ

9(d) states in part “The decision of the Supreme Court becomes final 14 davs after

the decision is filed...” DRJ 9(e) states in part “...A party...must file a motion for

reconsideration within 14 davs after the decision of the Supreme Court has been

filed.” RCW 34.05.526 states in part “An aggrieved party may secure appellate

review of a ny final judgment of the superior court...by the supreme court or the

court of appeals...” The state COA/state Supreme Ct. refused/failed to enforce state

laws against the Resp’t/Mr. Dishion. Additionally, the state Supreme Ct. violated its own

state Const. Articles I, XXV, XXVII, & XXXI. Article I $ 1 Political Power states “All

political power...established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Article I S

2. Supreme Law of the Land states “The Constitution of the United States is the

supreme law of the land.” Article I § 3 Personal Rights states “No person shall be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Article I S 10

Administration of Justice it states “Justice in all cases shall be administered openly,

and without unnecessary delay.” Article T $ 12 Special Privileges and Immunities

Prohibited states “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of

citizens...privileges or immunities...” Article T $ 28 Hereditary Privileges Abolished

states “No hereditary emoluments, privileges, or powers...granted or conferred in

this state.” Article I $ 29 Constitution Mandatory states “The provisions of this

Constitution are mandatory...” Article I S 30 Rights Reserved states “The

enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny

others retained by the people.” Article XXV $ 1 Authority of the United States state in

part “The consent of the State of Washington...by the congress of the United

States...” Article XXVII § 1 Existing Rights. Actions, and Contracts Saved states in part

“No existing rights...but all shall continue as if no such change had taken

place...” Article XXVII S 2 Laws In Force Continued states in part “All laws now in

force in...Washington, which are not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain

in force...” Article XXXI S 1 Sex Eaualitv-Eaualitv Not Denied Because of Sex states

“Equality of rights...shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.” Article

XXXI § 2 Enforcement of Power of Legislature states “The legislature shall have the

power to enforce...”

Furthermore, the Resp’t owes the Pet’r money & UICB. This is substantive

property rights of the Pet’r protected by substantive due process rights of the 5th & 14th

Arndts of the U.S. Const. The state COA/state Supreme Ct. failed/refused to acknowledge

the Pet’r’s internal/external complaints as protected activities under RCW 49.60. 49.17.

50.04.294(e). The state Supreme Ct. denial of the PFR under RAP 13.4(b)(l-4)

established judicial biases, protection, & favoritism to the Resp’t/Dishion that violated the

Pet’r’s procedural/substantive due process rights & equal protection rights under the 5th &

14th Arndts & Articles III § 2 & VI § 2 of the U.S. Const., & the WA State Const. Articles I,

XXV, XXVII, & XXXI. The state COA/state Supreme Ct. failed/refused to enforce state

laws against the Resp’t/Dishion was an abuse of discretion. The state Supreme Ct. erred in

judgement, abused of discretion, violated state Const. & the U.S. Const. 1st, 5th, & 14th

Arndts when it failed/refused to grant the PFR under RAP 13.4(aHbUl-41 &

RCW 34.05.526: & denied the Pet’r’s mtn for reconsideration under Rule 9(dUel. The U.S.

Const. Arndt XIV $ 5 Power of Congress to Enforce, assists in enforcement of the U.S.

Const. 14th Arndt substantial/procedural due process.

IV.

KCSC, WA State Appellate Court, & the WA State Supreme Court

intentionally denied motions, abused discretion, & erred in judgement, &

failed/refused to enforce WA State laws, disciplinary actions, & sanctions

against the Respondent

The KCSC, state COA, & the state Supreme Ct. intentionally denied Pet’r’s mtns,

abused discretion & erred in judgement, thus the Cts due process was a gross

miscarriage of injustice to the Pet’r. State COA/state Supreme Ct. failed/refused to

enforce state laws against the Resp’t/Dishion under RCW 50.32.150, thus violated the WA

State Const. Articles I, XXV, XXVII, & XXXI; the U.S. Const. 1st, 5th, & 14th Arndts., &

Articles III § 2 & VI § 2. See Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880); AUgeyer v.

Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997); Kimel v.

Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147-48

(1968). RCW 50.32.150 that states in part “...commissioner...correctly construed the

law, the decision...shall be confirmed; otherwise, it shall be reversed or

modified...”

See verbatim ROP pg. 31 lines 18-19 that states in part “Also, there is no answer to the

petition for re-complaint.” See verbatim ROP pg. 32 lines 1-20 that states in part

“...There is no answer filed...any arguments...the respondent has raised be

denied...! have engaged in protected activity under the law...”

Unemployment cases the U.S. Supreme Court, numerous State Court of

Appeals & State Supreme Courts reversed & remanded conflicts with the

WA State COA & WA State Supreme Court’s decisions in this case

There is unemployment cases the U.S. Supreme Ct. have reversed & remanded that

unequivocally conflicts with the state COA/state Supreme Ct.’s decisions in this case.

For instance, in Salinas v. U.S, Railroad Retirement Board, (19-199) 140 S. Ct. 813, 813

(2020), the board denied Mr. Salinas unemployment railroad insurance application under

the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231 et seq. The U.S. Supreme Ct. reversed the

judgment of the 5th Cir. COA case 18-60702, 5th Circuit COA, 765 Fed.Appx. 79 (5th Cir.

2019), & remanded the case. In the Ct.’s opinion it states in part “...a petitioner may

obtain review of certain final Board decisions in federal circuit courts.” Another

example, in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), Sherbert was denied UICB by the

state ESD because she refused to work on Saturdays due to her religious faith. The U.S.

Supreme Ct. ruled that Sherbert’s 1st Arndt Rights to Free Speech, Free Exercise clause, &

14th Arndt Rights were violated, thus reversed & remanded case. The Ct.’s opinion states

in part “...under the First and Fourteenth Amendments1 guarantee of free exercise

of religion...the denial of benefits also deprived her of the equal protection of the

laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment...is reversed and the case is

remanded...” Additionally, in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment

Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981), the claimant was transferred to another dept,

involuntarily. He quit & applied for & was denied UICB. The Ct. in its opinion stated in

part “...disqualification from benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause of the

First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moreover, in Robbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida, et. al, 480 U.S. 136

(1987), the U.S. Supreme Ct. reversed & remanded the case. The Ct. found that the

denial of UICB violated 1st Arndt Rights to Free Speech & Free Exercise Clause. In

California Dep’t of Human Res. Dev. v. Java, 402 U.S. 121, 130 (1971), the Ct.’s opinion

stated in part “the issue concerned whether a suspension or denial of benefits

already granted, resulting from an employer appeal, was violative of the due

process clause...unemployment compensation programs...are intended to operate

without regard to need and be available to a recipient as a matter of right.” See

Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 387-88, 95 S. Ct. 533, 42 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1975); Philbrook

v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 714, 95 S. Ct. 1893, 1899, 44 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1975).

Moreover, there are unemployment cases in numerous state COA & state Supreme

Cts. that have been reversed & remanded that conflicts with the state COA’s/state

Supreme Ct.’s opinions in this case. For instance, in Ballard v. Director, Dept, of Workforce

Services (E-20-319) 2021 Ark. App. 201 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021), Mr. Ballard [pro se litigant]

was denied UICB by the Arkansas Board of Review. The Arkansas COA Div. 2 reversed

& remanded an award of benefits to Mr. Ballard. In Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15

Cal.3d 194, 124 Cal. Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774 (Cal. 1975), the Ct.’s opinion stated in part

“...this right constitutes a property interest protected by due process.” Another

example, in American Federal of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v.

California Employment Development Department (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 811, 152 Cal.Rptr.

193, the Ct.’s opinion states in part “Procedural due process involves the deprivation

of a "liberty" or "property" interest...It is clear . .. that unemployment insurance

benefits are a type of property interest protected by the due process clause.” In

Stevens v. White Water Construction, Inc., No. 37414-9-III (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2021),

Stevens was denied UICB by the superior court; originally, the state CRO granted the

UICB to Mr. Stevens. The 5th COA div. reversed the decision by the superior court. The

Ct.’s opinion states in part “Since the employer carries the burden of proving

misconduct, we could hold that White Water Construction failed to establish that

Fred Stevens dishonestly inflated work hours...” For instance, in Cuesta v.

Department of Employment Security, 402 P.3d 898, 200 Wn.App.560 (2017) the Ct.’s opinion

states in part “This court reviews the commissioner’s fact findings for substantial

evidence in light of the whole record.” In Michaelson v. Employment Security

Department, 187 Wn. App. 293, 298, 349 P.3d 896 (2015), the Ct.’s opinion states in part

“We review the ESD commissioner’s decision, not the ALJ’s decision or the

superior court’s ruling.” See Shaw v. Department of Retirement Systems, 193 Wn. App.

122, 133, 371 P.3d 106 (2016); Goldberg v. Sanglier, 96 Wn.2d 874, 880, 639 P.2d 1347, 647

P.2d 489 (1982); State v. Budd, 186 Wn. App. 184, 199, 347 P.3d 49 (2015), affd, 185 Wn.2d

566, 374 P.3d 137 (2016). Another example, in Carter v. Division of Employment Security,

case no. 73538, 350 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011), the Missouri COA, Western District

reversed & remanded for the award of benefits. Carter was denied UICB by the Missouri

Div. of Employment Security. The Ct.’s opinion states in part “...denying Claimant

unemployment benefits on the basis that she left work voluntarily is reversed,

and the case is remanded for entry of an award of benefits to Claimant...” See

Davis v. Transp. Sec. & Div. of Emp't Sec., 295 S.W.3d 594 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) by the

Missouri COA; Korkutovic v. Gomel Co., 284 S.W.3d 653 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). For instance,

in Olson v. Job Service North Dakota and E.W. Wylie Corporation, 379 N.W.2d 285, the

District Court of Cass County affirmed denial of UICB to Olson. The North Dakota

Supreme Ct. reversed & remanded case. The Ct.’s opinion states in part ‘We reverse

the decision of the district court which affirmed Job Service’s denial of benefits

and remand...” Another example, in Operton v. Labor and Industry Review Commission

and Walgreen Co. Illinois, 894 N.W.2d 426, 375 Wis.2d 1, 2017 WI 46, the Supreme Court

affirmed the appeals court decision & remanded case. The Ct.’s opinion states in part

“...LIRC incorrectly denied Operton unemployment benefits... we...remand to

LIRC...unemployment compensation Operton is owed.”

CONCLUSION

For all of the above reasons, the petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

TaA, BSNHS, MSA

C_——PrtfSe Litigant/Petitioner/Advocate

Po Box 45181

Seattle, WA 98145

206-851-2687

Riccardogreen@yahoo.com

Executed on September 09, 2021

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.