Petition for Rehearing — Riccardo Green, Petitioner v. Washington State Employment Security Department

IN

No. 21-425

341 the

i§upreme Court of the Eittiteb i§tate5

Riccardo Green,

Petitioner,

v.

Washington State

Employment Security Department,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

Supreme Court of Washington

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Mr. Riccardo Green, MSA

Pro Se Litigant/Petitioner

Po Box 45181

Seattle, WA 98145

206-851-2687

Riccardogreen@yahoo.com

Mr. Peter B. Gonick

Attorney of Record, No.

25616; WA. State ESD

Respondent; 1125 WA.

Street SE; Po Box 40100

Olympia, WA 98504-0100

360-753-6245

Peter.gonick@atg.wa.gov

1

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The Corporate Disclosure Statement in the petition

for writ of certiorari remains unaffected.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

i, ii, 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS...

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

ii, iv

PETITION FOR REHEARING

ii, 1

PREAMBLE

ii, 1

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION FOR

REHEARING

I.

ii, 4

Reasons to Accept this Petition are Linked

to the Writ of Certiorari

ii, 4

Petitioner's Internal Complaints to

Union Staff SEIU 1199 NW

Established No Misconduct under

RCW 50.04.294(e)

ii, 4

Mr. J. W. Dishion Failed/ Refused to

File an Answer to Petitioner's PRC

pgs. 1-14 filed on May 31, 2019 under

RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) violated RPC 1.3,

8.4

ii, 5

II.

PFR filed in WA State Supreme Court

under RAP 13.4(a) should have been

granted under RAP 13.4(a)(b)(1-4) violated

111

Petitioner's substantive & procedural due

process rights & equal protection rights; &

violates the WA State Constitution Articles

I, XXV, XXVII, XXXI, & U.S. Constitution

1st, 5th , & 14th Amendments, & Articles III

§ 2 & VI § 2 .

iii,6

III. Unemployment cases the U.S. Supreme

Court, numerous State Court of Appeals &

State Supreme Courts reversed &

remanded unequivocally conflicts with the

WA State COA & WA State Supreme

Court's decisions in this case

iii, 11

CONCLUSION

iii, 18

Certificate of Counsel

iii, 19

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Case

Page(s)

Disbarment Cases

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against David Carl

Cottingham, 191 Wn.2d 450, 423 P.3d 818

(2018)

iv, 5

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Miller, 263 149

Wn.2d 262 (2003)

iv, 5

Washington State Appellate Cases

Cuesta v. Department of Employment Security, 402 P.3d

898, 200 Wn.App.560 (2017)

iv, 15

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

(1988)

iv, 3

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

647 P.2d 489 (1982)

iv, 15

Michaelson v. Employment Security Department, 187

Wn. App. 293, 298, 349 P.3d 896 (2015)

iv, 15

Shaw v. Department of Retirement Systems, 193 Wn.

App. 122, 133, 371 P.3d 106 (2016)

iv, 15

Smith v. ESD, 155 Wn. App 24, 32, 266 P.3d 263

(2010)

iv, 3

State v. Budd, 186 Wn. App. 184, 199, 347 P.3d 49

(2015), affd, 185 Wn.2d 566, 374 P.3d 137 (2016)...iv, 15

8. Stevens v. White Water Construction, Inc., No. 37414-9III (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2021)

v, 14

State Appellate Cases

American Federal of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations v. California Employment Development

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

193

v, 14

Ballard v. Director, Dept. of Workforce Services, 2021

Ark. App. 201 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021)

v, 14

Korkutovic v. Gamel Co., 284 S.W.3d 653 (Mo.App.

E.D.2009)

v, 16

Davis v. Transp. Sec. & Div. of Emp't Sec., 295 S.W.3d

594 (Mo.App. E.D.2009)

v, 16

State Supreme Court Cases

Olson v. Job Service North Dakota and E. W. Wylie

Corporation, 379 N.W.2d 285

v, 16

Operton v. Labor and Industry Review Commission and

Walgreen Co. Illinois, 894 N.W.2d 426, 375 Wis.2d 1,

2017 WI 46

v, 17

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017)....v, 2

People v. Dominguez (2007) 39 Cal. 4th 1141

v, 17

Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Ca1.3d 194, 124 Cal.

Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774 (Cal. 1975)

v, 14

Washington State Cases

vi

Arnett v. Seattle General Hospital, Washington State

Board Against Discrimination, 65 Wn.2d 22, 395 P.2d

503 (1964)

vi, 3

Browning v. Slenderella Systems of Seattle, 54 Wn.2d,

440, 442, 341 P.2d 859 (1959)

vi, 7

Curtis v. Interlake Realty, 62 Wn.2d 928, 385 P.2d 37

(1963)...

vi, 7

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

2003)

vi, 7

O'Meara v. WA State Board Against Discrimination, 58

Wn.2d 793, 798, 365 P.2d 1 (1961)

vi, 7

Spain v. ESD, 164 Wash.2d 252, 185 P.3d 1188

(2008)

vi, 3

Tapper v. ESD, 122 Wash.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494

(1993)

vi, 3

Washington State Board Against Discrimination v.

Olympia School District, 68 Wn.2d 262, 412 P.2d 769

(1966)

vi, 4

Federal Appellate Court Cases

Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F. Supp. 1252, 1261, 1262-63

(N.D. Cal. 1996)

vi,.6

Carter v. Division of Employment Security, 350 S.W.3d

482 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)

vi, 15

Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 765

Fed.Appx. 79 (5th Cir. 2019)

vi, 11

vii

4.

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

1974)

vii, 3

United States Supreme Court Cases

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

vii, 8

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

vii, 10

Balistrieri V. United States, 395 U.S. 710 (1969).....vii, 2

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

S.Ct. 650 (1954)

vii, 8

California Dep't of Human Res. Dev. v. Java, 402 U S.

121, 130 (1971)

vii, 13

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

vii, 10

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

vii, 8

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147-48

(1968)

vii, 10

EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 243 n.18

(1983)

vii, 6

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

vii, 3

11. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 166

(1978)

vi, 4

12.Forgett v. United States, 390 U.S. 203 (1968)

vii, 2

13.Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 387-88, 95 S. Ct. 533,

42 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1975)

vii, 13

viii

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

viii, 7

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 630 (1925)

viii, 17

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

viii, 2

Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 327 U.S.

812

viii, 2

18.Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S.

1 (1946)

viii, 1

Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of

Florida, et. al, 480 U.S. 136 (1987)

viii, 12

Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 122 U.S. 636 (1887)

viii, 1

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co, 419 U.S. 345, 351

(1974)

viii, 7

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 756 n.1 (1983)

viii, 17

Jones V. United States, 392 U.S. 299 (1968)

viii, 2

24.Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62

(2000)

viii, 10

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

viii, 7

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

viii, 7

Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 714, 95 S. Ct. 1893,

viii, 13

1899, 44 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1975)

28'. Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, (19-199)

140 S. Ct. 813, 813 (2020)

viii, 11

ix

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) ...

ix, 17

Schipani v. United States, 385 U.S. 372 (1966)

ix, 2

Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 791 (1981)......ix, 17

Selma, Rome & Dalton R.R. v. United States, 122 U.S.

636 (1887)

ix, 1

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

ix, 7

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

ix, 11

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

ix, 10

Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment

Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981)

ix, 12

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

ix, 6

United States V. Maryland For The Use Of Meyer, 382

U.S. 158 (1965)

ix, 2

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)

ix, 18

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

ix, 6

STATUES

State Rules of Appellate [RAP]

RAP 13.4(a)

ii, ix, 6

RAP 13.4(b)(1-4)

ix, 6, 8

RAP 13.4(a)(b)(1-4)

ii, ix, 6

WA State Supreme Court Rules

x

DRJ Rule 9(d)

,x, 8

DRJ Rule 9(d)(e)

x, 8

State Laws

RCW 34.05.526

RCW 34.05.570(4)(b)

x, 4, 8

ii, x, 5, 8

RCW 50.01.010

x, 2

RCW 50.04.294(e)

ii, x, 4, 5

RCW 50.32.150

x, 10

Federal Laws

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)

x, 1

45 U.S.C. § 231, et. seq

x, 11

Railroad Retirement Act

x, 11

OTHER AUTHORITIES

WASHINGTON STATE

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

fRPC1

RPC 1.3 [diligence]

ii, x, 5

RPC 8.4 [misconduct]

ii, x, 5

WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

LAWS

xi

Const. art. I, § 1 Political Power

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

xi, 5

xi, 2, 5

Const. art. I, § 3 Personal Rights

xi, 5

Const. art. I, § 5 Freedom of Speech

xi, 5

Const. art. I, § 10 Administration of Justice

xi, 5

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

Prohibited

xi, 6

Const. art. I, § 28 Hereditary Privileges

Abolished

xi, 6

Const. art. I, § 29 Constitution Mandatory

xi, 6

Const. art. I, § 30 Rights Reserved

xi, 6

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

States

xi, 6

Const. art. XXVII, § 1 Existing Rights, Actions, and

Contracts Saved

xi, 6

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

xi, 6

Const. art. XXXI, § 1 Sex Equality

xi, 6

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

Legislature

xi, 6

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

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

Clause

xii, 4, 7

xii

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

xii, 7

U.S. Const. amdt. V, § 1 Due Process

xii, 2, 3, 5

U.S. Const. amdt. XIV, § 1, cl. Due Process Clause

[Substantive & Procedural]

iii, xii, 4, 6, 8, 10

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

Clause

iii, xii, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12

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

Enforce

xii, 10

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 Extent of Judicial Power.....xii, 3

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

xii, 3

U.S. Bill of Rights

xii, 10

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES

Rule 10 (a) (b) (c)

xii, 1

Rule 44

xii, 1

Rule 44(2)

xii, 2, 19

1

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Preamble

By and thru, the Pet'r Riccardo Green, aka

"advocate" is the party that filed this petition in this Ct.

in timely manner. The Pet'r respectfully, diligently, &

urgently requests this Ct. to grant the Writ under Rule

10(a)(b)(c) & grant this Petition under Rule 44. The

Pet'r respectfully petitions this Ct. for a rehearing to review

the Order denying the Writ of Certiorari dated Nov. 15,

2021. The original petition requested this Ct. to review the

Order denying the PFR & Order denying the Mtn for

Reconsideration by the WA State Supreme Ct. case no.

99285-1. The Pet'r filed the Writ in timely manner under

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), Rules 10(a)(b)(c), & 13, & paid the

filing fee of $300. The Pet'r paid the rehearing fee of $200

under Rule 38(b). The Pet'r petitions the nine members of

this Ct. for a rehearing in this case. See Home Ins. Co. v.

New York, 122 U.S. 636 (1887); Selma, Rome & Dalton R.R.

v. United States, 122 U.S. 636 (1887); Halliburton Oil Well

2

Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946); Halliburton Oil

Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 327 U.S. 812; Forgett v.

United States, 390 U.S. 203 (1968); Schipani v. United

States, 385 U.S. 372 (1966); Balistrieri V. United States,

395 U.S. 710 (1969); Jones V. United States, 392 U.S. 299

(1968); United States V. Maryland For The Use Of Meyer,

382 U.S. 158 (1965). See Rule 44(2) states in part "Any

petition for the rehearing of an order denying a

petition for a writ of certiorari...filed within 25 days

after the date of the order of denial..."

The Pet'r filed an UIC with the state ESD on or

about Jan. 2019. The state ESD determined Pet'r was

qualified for UICB at about $18.434. Pet'r only utilized

about $9.892. The state ESD granted UICB to the Pet'r in

Jan. 2019 under RCW 50.01.010. Pet'r was forced to.pay

back $9.892 to the state ESD CU. In verse, the state ESD

still owes the Pet'r $9.892 plus $2.400 totals at about

$12.292 plus litigation costs. See Pena-Rodriguez v.

Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545

3

U.S. 524 (2005); Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202, 203 (1958);

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

The WA State Supreme Ct. & the U.S. Supreme Ct.

have a constitutional agreement expressed in the WA

State Const. Article I § 2 Sunreme 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

Sunremacv Clause states "This Constitution, and the

Laws of the United States...shall be the supreme Law

of the Land...Judges in every State shall be bound

thereby..." The U.S. Const. Article III § 2 Extent of

4

Judicial Power states in part "The judicial Power shall

extend to all Cases...under this Constitution..." The

'U.S. Const. 1st Amdt Free Speech & Free Exercise Clause;

5th Amdt 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 Amdt I Due

Process Rights and Eaual Protection that states in part

"All persons born or naturalized in the United

States... nor shall any State deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law..." See WA State Board Against Discrimination v.

Olympia School District, 68 Wn.2d 262, 412 P.2d 769

(1966). See RCW 34.05.526.

REASONS FOR GRANTING

THE PETITION FOR REHEARING

I.

Reasons to Accept this Petition are Linked to

the Writ of Certiorari

A. Petitioner's Internal Complaints to Union

Staff SEIU 1199 NW Established No

Misconduct under RCW 50.04.294(e)

5

The Pet'r reasserts all material facts and all

evidence referenced in the Writ of Certiorari in support of

this Petition. See RCW 50.04.294(e). 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).

B. Mr. J. W. Dishion Failed/Refused to File an

Answer to Petitioner's PRC pgs. 1-14 filed on

May 31, 2019 under RCW 34.05.570(4)(b)

violated RPC 1.3, 8.4

The Pet'r reasserts all material facts and all

evidence referenced in the Writ of Certiorari in support of

this Petition. See In re Discipl. Proceeding Against Miller,

263 149 Wn.2d 262 (2003); In re Disciplinary Proceeding

Against David Carl Cottingham, 191 Wn.2d 450, 423 P.3d

818 (2018). See RCW 34.05.570(4)(b).

6

II.

PFR filed in WA State Supreme Court under

RAP 13.4(a) should have been granted under

RAP 13.4(a)(b)(1-4) violated Petitioner's

substantive & procedural due process rights &

equal protection rights; & violates the WA State

Constitution Articles I, XXV, XXVII, XXXI, &

U.S. Constitution 1st, 5th & 14th Amendments, &

Articles III § 2 & VI § 2

The Pet'r reasserts all material facts and all

evidence referenced in the Writ of Certiorari in support of

this Petition. See RAP 13.4(b)(1-4). The 14th Amdt Equal

Protection 1 U.S. Const. states in part "...nor deny to

any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws." The Pet'r obtains personal

rights to a substantive due process because he has a

substantive interest in this case that involves money

owed to the Pet'r. 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 5 U.S. Const., states in part "power to

enforce...the provisions of this article." 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);

7

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

Relieion/Free Expression U.S. Const. states "Congress

shall make no law...the freedom of speech...to

petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Article 1 5 Freedom of Speech states "Every person

may freely speak, write and publish on all

subjects..." This is protected by the 1st Amdt Free

Speech & Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. See Garcetti

8

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).

Furthermore, the WA State Supreme Court's denial

of the PFR filed under RAP 13.4(b)(1-4), RCW 34.05.526,

RCW 34.05.570(4)(b), & 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. 1st, 5th, & 14th

Amdts., & Articles III § 2 & VI § 2. See DRJ Rule 9(d) &

RCW 34.05.526. The state Supreme Ct. obtains the

highest duty & oblieation to enforce state laws. The state

Supreme Ct. violated its own state Const. Articles I, XXV,

XXVII, & XXXI. See Article I § 1 Political Power states

"All political power is inherent in the people...are

established to protect and maintain individual

rights." Article I § 2 Supreme Law of the Land states

"The Constitution of the United States is the

9

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 § 10

Administration of Justice it states "Justice in all cases

shall be administered openly, and without

unnecessary delay." Article I & 12 Special Privileges and

Immunities Prohibited states in part "No law shall be

passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or

corporation...privileges or immunities..." See Article

& 28 Hereditary Privileges Abolished & Article I § 29

Constitution Mandatory. Article I § 30 Rights Reserved

states in part "...Constitution of certain rights shall

not be construed to deny others retained by the

people." Article XXV § 1 Authority of the United States

states in part "The consent of the State of

Washington...by the congress of the United States..."

See Article XXVII § 1 Existing Rights: Actions, and

Contracts Saved: Article XXVII § 2 Laws In Force

Continued: Article XXXI & 1 Sex Equality-Equality Not

10

Denied Because of Sex; & Article XXXI 2 Enforcement of

Power of Legislature. The state COA & state Supreme Ct.

failed/refused to enforce state laws against the Resp't

was an abuse of discretion/erred in judgement, thus

violated the Pet'r's procedural/substantive due process

rights & equal protection rights under the 5th & 14th Amdts

& Articles III § 2 & VI § 2 of the U.S. Const., & the WA

State Const. Articles I, XXV, XXVII, & XXXI. See Strauder

v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880); Allgeyer 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)

("holding the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against

the States"). The U.S. Const. amdt XIV, 5 Power of

Congress to Enforce assists in enforcement/protection of the

U.S. Const. 14th amdt substantial/procedural due process.

See RCW 50.32.150.

11

III. Unemployment cases the U.S. Supreme Court,

numerous State Court of Appeals & State

Supreme Courts reversed & remanded

unequivocally conflicts with the WA State COA

& WA State Supreme Court's decisions in this

case

The Pet'r reasserts that there are unemployment

cases the U.S. Supreme Ct., state Ct. of Appeals, & state

Supreme Cts. have reversed & remanded that

irrefutably 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 Ct. of Appeals

for the 5th Circuit Ct. Appeals case 18-60702, 5th Circuit

Ct. of Appeals 765 Fed.Appx. 79 (5th Cir. 2019), &.

remanded the case. Another example,

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

denied benefits by the state ESD because she refused to

12

work on Saturdays due to her religious faith. The U.S.

Supreme Ct. ruled that Sherbert's 1st Amdt Rights to Free

Speech, Free Exercise clause, & 14th Amdt Rights were

violated, thus reversed & remanded case. The Ct.'s

opinion states in part "...we have reached under the

First and Fourteenth Amendment...that the denial of

benefits also deprived her of the equal protection of

the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court

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 later applied for & was denied UICB because

he voluntarily quit his job. 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 Hobble v. Unemployment

Appeals Commission of Florida, et. al, 480 U.S. 136

13

(1987), the U.S. Supreme Ct. reversed & remanded case.

The Ct. found that the denial of UICB violated 1st Amdt

Rights to Free Speech & the 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

"Unemployment compensation programs...are

intended to operate without regard to need and be

available to a recipient as a matter of right."

Accordingly to the Employment Development

Department of California, it states in part that "The

Fourteenth Amendment "due process clause" applies

directly to states. When a governmental agency is

established to pay state or federal benefits, it may

not deprive someone of a property interest to which

he or she is otherwise entitled...denial will be

considered unconstitutional." 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).

14

Moreover, in Ballard v. Director, Dept. of

Workforce Services (E-20-319) 2021 Ark. App. 201 (Ark.

Ct. App. 2021), Mr. Ballard was denied UICB by the

Arkansas Board of Review. The Arkansas Court of Appeals

Division 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 "...person has a legally

enforceable right to receive a government

benefit...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...unemployment insurance

benefits are a type of property interest protected by

the due process clause." In Stevens v. White Water

15

Construction, Inc., No. 37414-9-111 (Wash. Ct. App. Jan.

19, 2021), Stevens was denied UICB by the Superior Ct.;

originally, the CRO granted the UICB to Mr. Stevens. The

Ct. of Appeals 5th division reversed the decision by the

Superior Ct. 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,

17

Labor and Industry Review Commission and

Walgreen Co. Illinois, 894 N.W.2d 426, 375 Wis.2d 1,

2017 WI 46, the Supreme Ct. affirmed the Appeals Ct.

decision & remanded case. The Ct.'s opinion states in part

"We conclude that LIRC incorrectly denied Operton

unemployment benefits..." In closing, if the petition &

writ are denied, the state ESD will be permitted

to force recipients to pay back granted UICB. This is

unequivocally unconstitutional. A gross miscarriage of

injustice & unfair prejudice in the administration of justice

would transpire against the Pet'r. The State Supreme

Ct. ruptured its constitution & constitutional agreement

with the U.S. Supreme Ct., thus deliberately deprived the

Pet'r of his constitutional rights. This case is suitable for

rehearing. See People v. Dominguez (2007) 39 Cal. 4th

1141; Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 791 (1981); Jones

v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 756 n.1 (1983); Santosky v.

Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Gitlow v. New York, 268

18

U.S. 652, 630 (1925); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300

U.S. 379 (1937).

CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons stated & others, the Court

should grant the Petition for Rehearing & the Petition

for Writ of Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

~Riocar$ Green, MSA

Pro Se Litigant

Petitioner/Advocate

Po Box 45181

Seattle, WA 98145

206-851-2687

Riccardogreen@yahoo.com

November 30, 2021

19

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

I, pro se litigant, hereby certify that this Petition for

Rehearing was brought in "good faith" and not to delay the

case and that it is limited to the grounds set out in Rule

44(2).

....---Mc-C14-do Green, MSA

Pro Se Litigant

Petitioner/Advocate

Po Box 45181

Seattle, WA 98145

206-851-2687

Riccardogreen@yahoo.com