Petition for Rehearing — Irving F. Rounds, Jr., Petitioner v. Maura T. Healey, Governor of Massachusetts, et al.

No. 22-1109

In The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

2

IRVING F. ROUNDS JR.,

Petitioner,

VS.

CHARLIE BAKER, GOVERNOR ET AL..,

Respondents.

@

v

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

¢

PETITION FOR REHEARING

,

v

IRVING F. ROUNDS, JR.

Petitioner (Pro Se)

48 N. Sturbridge Road

Apt. B

Charlton, MA 01517

781.504.8974

Email: roundsmechanical5@protonmail.com

RECEIVED

JUL 24 2023

“FICE OF THE CLERK

QhPAEME COURT, U.S.

| sve

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Has Irving Rounds, Jr. (hereinafter “Petitioner”)

been deprived of his due process rights under the 5th,

7th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the

United States where the lower courts:

A. Failed to properly weigh the evidence presented in the Massachusetts Superior,

Appeals and Supreme courts, Federal

District Courts in Boston and Worcester

MA, the United States First Circuit Court

of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the

United States Court and grant hearings

and place restraining Orders on the

named individuals?

B. Failed to provide him with the police department public records to stop irreparable harm to the Petitioner?

C. Failed to provide him with said Jury trial

on the facts of his case under the 7th

Amendment to the United States Constitution and provide injunctive relief?

D. In the instance of the Massachusetts Superior court (Campo, J.), failed to recuse

himself from the matter before him?

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented ............ccccceeeccceeeceesvesseueneceees if

Table of Contents ...........ccccccceccssssssseeeeceeeeseeseeeenen ll

Table of Authorities ............cccccccssssssesseeeeceeeeeeeeeees iv

Petition for Rehearing ..............cccceseseseeeeeeeeeeseeeees 1

Opinions BelowWisssessssuccusrsensersmaaxcecssomanmeeeocas 1

JULISCICHION 000... . ce eececccesseececeeeceeecsenseececeeenseceseesanee 2

Constitutional Provisions ..............ccccecceeeeesessserees 2

Statement of the Case ............cccccscsssssssessseeserenenen 3

1. The Petitioner’s legal efforts to report

(“Blow the Whistle”) on his former employer for violations of the Clean Air Act

to the U.S. EPA for illegally venting refrigerants were exercised in good faith........... 3

2. The Massachusetts Superior, Appeals and

Supreme Court’s Decisions..............:0::cc0 4

3. Massachusetts Federal District, Appeals

(First Circuit) and the Supreme Court of

The United Statesssccssascccercessarsoceuveccocwsctes 8

4. The US. Court of Appeals Decision........... 8

Reason for Granting the Writ.................ccccceeseeeee 9

Legal Rationale for Granting the Writ................ 11

ili

TABLE OF CONTENTS -— Continued

Page

To avoid erroneous deprivations of the right to

a jury trial and securing restraining orders

against the named individuals, this Court

should reconsider the decisions of the Massachusetts Superior, Appeals and Supreme

courts, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the US. District Courts in Boston and

Worcester, Massachusetts denying the Petitioner a jury trial

Conclusion. ............cccccsececsececesceeecceceseuvececeeceverseseces 13

lv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295

US. 654 (1935) ..... scsssesscussspussscasscawecensveasssecssiscesetess 11

Beacon Theaters v. Westover, 395 U.S. 500 (1959)....... 12

Dimick v. Shied, 293 U.S. 474 (1985) ......ccceeeeeeeeeeeees 11

McCoy v. Goldstein, 652 F.2d 654 (6th Cir. 2008)........ 12

Parsons v. Bedford, Breedlove and Robeson, 28

USS. (8 Pet. 483) (1830)... csssssessvsssvssevcssosssnsascenssacnsss 11

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) oo... cece eccceeseeees 14

Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971)........ 14

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1254 sssvsvssaaisescucansvanasiwnasanaseaiwanwsvavenireasitaises 2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

United States Constitution, Amendment V, VII,

XIV oo eccccccecssssenseeeeceececeseeesesssensenseseeeesees 2,11, 12,18

1

PETITION FOR REHEARING

The Petitioner is an individual who resides in

Charlton, Massachusetts, respectfully petitions this

Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgments

of the Massachusetts Superior, Appeals and Supreme

Courts, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

and the U.S. District Courts in Boston and Worcester,

Massachusetts and the Supreme Court of the United

States as provided in Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

4

OPINIONS BELOW

Rounds v. Baker, et al.

Rounds v. Environmental Protection Agency,

et al.

Rounds v. Environmental Protection Agency,

et al Rounds v. Koch et al.

Rounds v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.

The decisions by the Massachusetts Superior, Appeals, Supreme Courts, the U.S. District Courts in Boston and Worcester, Massachusetts, the United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the Supreme

Court of the United States denied the Petitioner’s Requests for hearings for Injunctive Relief as well as his

demand for a Jury Trial. These rulings and orders are

attached at original Appendix (“App.”) filed.

@

v

2

JURISDICTION

The Petitioner invokes this Court’s jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1254, having timely filed his original

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari within ninety (90) days

of judgment of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and

within twenty-five (25) days of the decision of the U.S.

Supreme Court relative to his original Petition for a

Writ of Certiorari.

4

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

United States Constitution, Amendment V

“The Fifth Amendment says to the federal

government that no one shall be ‘deprived of

life, liberty or property without due process of

law.’”

United States Constitution, Amendment VII

“In suits at common law, where the value in

controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the

right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and

no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States,

than according to the rules of the common

law.”

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV

“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

3

property, without due process of law; nor deny

to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws.”

@

v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. The Petitioner’s legal efforts to report

(“Blow the Whistle”) on his former employer

for violations of the Clean Air Act to the U.S.

EPA for illegally venting refrigerants were

exercised in good faith

In January of 1998 the Petitioner was employed

with Airtron Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., (herein

“Airtron”) formerly of Oldsmar, Florida. At this time he

reported his employer to Special Agent Daniel Green

of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the agency’s

Tampa, Florida field office relative to numerous violations of the Clean Air Act (2.e. illegal venting of refrigerants, mold problems with installations of HVAC

systems, etc.). The Petitioner was concerned with his

safety and that of his ex-wife having received death

threats; he requested witness protection and Agent

Green guaranteed it. Over the ensuing months, Agent

Green would renege on this promise. Group MAC, the

parent company of the Petitioner’s employer, Airtron,

was partially owned by Charles and David Koch (a/k/a

the Koch Brothers). During a period of subsequent

years and to the present, the Petitioner has been systematically threatened, harassed and intimidated by

agents and employees of Airtron, the Kach Rrothers

4

and the U.S. Department of Justice to the extent that

his health, his employment career and his privacy (including but not limited to all communications) have

been severely compromised (some activities are evidenced by court filings and documents included in the

Supreme Court of the United States Application

(22A1020) injunction relief filed on May 22, 2023.

2. The Massachusetts Superior, Appeals and

Supreme Court’s Decisions

The Petitioner filed a complaint with attached Request for Injunction on November 25, 2019. A subsequent hearing took place on December 3, 2019. At the

hearing the Petitioner presented factual evidence and

claimed a necessity to be provided with those public

records in order to secure a restraining order against

this one individual that had been threatening the Petitioner and physically harming him.

The Petitioner had provided two pictures of the individual threatening the Petitioner and the public with

what appears to be a pocket pistol firearm; he was going to discharge it at the Petitioner. Other evidence of

potential harm by the other individuals was also presented.

The Petitioner had also provided Judge Campo

with other evidence of the individual (Richard Ciruolo)

who almost struck the Plaintiff and his dogs with a motor vehicle. This man is presumed to be one of five managers involved in my ex-wife’s staged car crash on

March 5, 2015, in which the Petitioner met with the

5

State Police. It is presumed that the Massachusetts

State Police know that the DOJ perpetuated this

event.

The Petitioner had stated in email correspondence

that the reason these two individuals had potential

motives for threatening the Petitioner, is that they

could be potentially charged with their involvement in

my ex-wife’s staged car crash on March 5, 2015.

Because of all the inconsistencies with the Massachusetts Superior Court Clerk Melissa Doris Juarez,

Judge Tochka’s coincidental retirement along with

Judge Campo had been appointed by Defendant Baker

and how Judge Campo spoke to the Petitioner at the

March 25, 2021, hearing, to avoid erroneous deprivations of the right to due process, this court should reconsider the decisions of the Massachusetts, Superior

Appeals and Supreme Judicial Courts in Boston, Massachusetts denying the Petitioner due process by not

allowing a hearing, failing to properly weigh the evidence and failing to recuse. The Petitioner had also requested a hearing at a different venue at a different

Massachusetts County Superior Court. Both of those

requests were denied. On June 14, 2021, a hearing was

conducted on the Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. At that hearing the Petitioner had prepared the

Petitioner’s joint appendix for memorandum with his

motion for reconsideration. The Petitioner pointed out

that he had addressed the motion for reconsideration

on three matters: 1) that it was filed in the correct

county, 2) the motion for reconsideration from the public records division was filed in a timely manner, and

6

3) the Petitioner had filed the lawsuit specifically

against the three offices of the state which had authority over the Public Records Division. More specifically,

the Petitioner asserted that the records existed but

were not being released for whatever reason.

The Petitioner clearly stated that he was being

physically harmed by these individuals and that the

District Court in Clinton, Massachusetts required

these records in order to secure restraining orders

against these individuals. Both individuals were involved with my ex-wife’s staged car crash on March 5,

2015; the Petitioner also possessed a photograph of a

man running down the street after he had pointed a

firearm at him. Judge Campo then stated that if the

Petitioner felt he was being harassed in some way,

shape or form a Chapter 258 E filing is available to him

or a Chapter 209A Complaint is available to any family

member. The Petitioner then clarified with the court

that he was not being harassed, he was being threatened.

On June 16, 2021, Judge Campo denied the Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

The Petitioner then appealed the decision to the

Massachusetts Appeals Court. The Petitioner had made

numerous motions to the Court to request a hearing

after presenting evidence to the Court that the Petitioner was being continually threatened by these named

individuals in the injunctions (including at work over

the phone where the Petitioner is a schoolteacher) and

the Court never granted the Petitioner a hearing.

7

The Petitioner then appealed the decision to the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Petitioner

again had made numerous motions to the Court to request a hearing after presenting evidence to the Court

that the Petitioner was being continually threatened

by these named individuals in the injunclions (ineluding at work over the phone where the Petitioner is a

schoolteacher along with a video being threatened at

the Petitioner’s gym) and the Court never granted the

Petitioner a hearing. The Court didn’t even allow a

hearing and denied the application for further appellate review on April 18, 2023, just 17 days after the

mass shooting in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Petitioner has noted the destruction of public

records by the various defendants, the political influence defendants Baker and Healey along with defendant Healey’s wife (Gabrielle Wolohojian Associate

Justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court) also other

factors to not allow the Petitioner judicial unbiased in

all these courts.

The Petitioner noted to the lower Courts that he

has proven that there is no doubt that these public records exist and they are not being released for whatever

reason. The Petitioner has also proven through the voluminous exhibits presented to the lower Courts that

he is being threatened by these individuals involved

with his ex-wife’s staged car crash and by Charles

Koch’s agents that he met with twice then Sergeant

Bruce O’Rourke from the Massachusetts State Police

Detectives Unit in the year of 2015.

8

3. Massachusetts Federal District, Appeals

(First Circuit) and the Supreme Court of

The United States

The Petitioner has previously filed Complaints in

the United States District Courts in Boston and

Worcester, Massachusetts seeking redress against several agencies and representatives of the United States

Government as well as private individuals for these

threats, intimidation and harassment (see Appendix

originally filed). Included in these actions are the Petitioner’s various Motions seeking Injunctive Relief for

which the Petitioner specifically requested hearings

before the Court as well as his demand for a jury trial.

At no time did the District Courts (Hillman, J. and

Saylor, J.) allow the Petitioner an opportunity to be

heard and present his substantive and voluminous evidence before the Courts while seeking injunctive relief

nor did the Courts honor his demand for a jury trial.

Furthermore, these judges summarily dismissed the

accompanying Complaints without seriously entertaining the Petitioner’s Motions, granting his request

for a jury trial or properly weighing the evidence as

outlined in Petitioner’s Complaints and as substantiated in his materials submitted in those Courts.

4. The U.S. Court of Appeals Decision

The Judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals indicated that the Petitioner had “... fail(ed) to provide

any developed argumentation or legal authority in

support of his position” and alternatively that the

lower Court had not abused its discretion.

9

The Petitioner had filed with the Appeals Court

(as well as the District Court) extensive, factual material contained in his Appendix which substantiated his

allegations against the defendants. At a minimum, his

documentation, when weighed in its best light, supported the need for injunctive relief or alternatively, a

hearing where oral argument provided the Petitioner

with an opportunity to be heard. The ruling of the Appeals Court, particularly in its finding that the lower

Court had not abused its discretion, did lend misplaced

credence to the decision of the District Court(s) which

had ignored Petitioner’s justified plea for injunctive relief, a hearing on the merits and a Jury Trial on the

facts of the case.

. 4

REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

1. SCOTUS intentionally erred by not granting

the Application (22A1020) injunctive relief, which constitutes a violation of constitutional rights. The denial

of injunctive relief has resulted in the continued infringement upon the Petitioner’s rights. Also, SCOTUS

erred by not allowing the Petitioner the opportunity to

argue the case considering this was the second time to

SCOTUS and the voluminous evidence that the Petitioner has presented and is being physically harmed

(supported by various Medical Doctors) by these named

individuals and how they have been also threatening

the public and denying the Petitioners due process.

10

2. New Evidence of Threats: New evidence has

emerged, revealing threats made against the Petitioner and the Petitioners 14-year-old student, E.F.,

who attends Bay Path Regional Vocational Technical

High School. On June 5, 2023, the named individuals

in the injunction filed at SCOTUS on May 22, 2023,

threatened E.F. in Vermont. The woman approached E.F.

in a sinister way by saying that she was the Petitioners

former sister-in-law when she was not the Petitioners

former sister-in-law. This evidence demonstrates the

potential harm faced by the Petitioner, his students,

and the public.

3. Other New Evidence of Threats and Intimidation: The Petitioner started receiving threatening

texts and phone calls a few days before the ruling

at SCOTUS on June 22, 2023. It is crucial to note

that agents of the Department of Justice (DOJ) had

knowledge of a favorable ruling in advance, indicating

potential misconduct. One of the Petitioners Attorneys

private detectives has a whistleblower (source) in the

Boston MA, FBI Field Office. Moreover, on June 27,

2023, the named individuals hacked into the Petitioner’s Walmart account and engaged in unauthorized

activities then sent over 100 harassing emails and

signed the Petitioner up for multiple accounts to various agencies. Additionally, on June 29, 2023, one of the

named individuals, accompanied by a woman, exhibited threatening behavior towards the Petitioner while

driving to school. The Petitioner has the exhibits and a

photograph to support these allegations.

¢

11

LEGAL RATIONALE FOR

GRANTING THE WRIT

The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of

the United States was originally designed by James

Madison to restrict official or arbitrary power while

protecting the individual in the context of litigation

against political corruption The Amendment requires

civil jury trials only in the federal courts; it has often

been said that it protects the people from tyranny

within the judicial system. Consequently, trial by jury

has always been integral to our democratic society.

The Petitioner in this case filed his Complaint, a

civil common law action, in the Massachusetts Superior Court and the United States District Courts seeking monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

He did so in accordance with the matter of Parsons v.

Bedford, Breedlove and Robeson, 28 U.S. (3 Pet. 4383)

(1830), where the U.S. Supreme Court had determined that the term “common law” in the Seventh

Amendment meant at the time the common law of

England. (It would be decreed approximately one hundred (100) years later that the Amendment was to be

interpreted according to the common law of England

at the time the Amendment was ratified, that is, in

1791) (Dimick v. Shied, 293 U.S. 474) (1935)). Furthermore, the Court found during the same year in Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U.S. 654

(1935) that the Seventh Amendment “preserves” the

“substance of the right, not mere matters of form or

procedure.”

12

Here, the Petitioner's Complaint contains mixed

questions of law and equity (see Beacon Theaters v.

Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959)). The underlying rationale of the Seventh Amendment addresses the historic line which separates the responsibilities of the

jury from that of the judge in civil cases. The basic

function of judges and juries are made clear in the

Amendment: questions of law are within the province

of the judge while questions of fact belong with the

jury. That is, at the very least, the directive of the

Amendment although at times the two have been

known to cross over one another.

What is unmistakable, though, is that “Together

with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,

the Seventh Amendment guarantees civil litigants the

right to an impartial jury” (McCoy v. Goldstein, 652

F.2d 654 (6th Cir.) (2008). (Note: The Petitioner’s initial

prayer for a Writ of Certiorari along with his Petition

for Rehearing of same encompass these two constitutional requisites). His demand for a jury trial specifically included in his Complaint must be preserved and

honored in accordance with the Seventh Amendment

and the Bill of Rights (see FRCP, Rules 38 & 39).

* * *

The Petitioner’s demands for a hearing relative

to his claims for injunctive relief were summarily

dismissed in the Lower Courts. The Courts’ failure to

honor claims for a jury trial “fly in the face” of Rule

65 (Injunctive Relief) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (FRCP) as well as the Massachusetts Rules

13

of Civil Procedure (MRCP). FRCP at Rule 65(a)(2) protect(s) the right to Jury Trial in this circumstance:

“But the Court must preserve any party’s

right to a jury trial.”

Similarly, MRCP (b)(2) addresses requests for injunctive relief and more specifically the Petitioner’s

right to a jury trial:

“This subdivision (b)(2) shall be so construed

and applied as to save to the parties any

rights they may have to trial by jury.”

These Rule provisions of both State and Federal

Civil Procedure within the Courts incorporate the

mandate of the Seventh Amendment. There can be

little doubt that those who drafted these Rules were

keenly aware of the need to emphasize and highlight

the right to a Jury Trial and the Seventh Amendment.

@

v

CONCLUSION

There are very few provisions of the United States

Constitution which are more sacrosanct than a citizen’s

right to a Jury Trial in those instances where the law

allows. Over two hundred years of the evolution of our

constitutional law, this right has played a key role in

distinguishing American jurisprudence from that of

virtually the entire world. The Seventh Amendment

and all that it entails are not to be taken lightly nor is

the historical significance of the right to a Jury Trial to

be ignored.

14

Here, the Petitioner has been effectively stigmatized by his pursuit of justice despite the fact that he

has a right to avoid such an intrusion by the actions of

the defendants (Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480) (1980).

Where governmental activity has caused the stigma to

occur, the intrusion is particularly egregious and the

need for due process is paramount. As the Court mentioned in Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437

(1971), “Where a person’s good name, reputation, honor

or integrity is at stake because of what the government

is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard

are essential.” The Petitioner has been denied his constitutional right to a Jury Trial by the Judicial branch

of the American government: it would be a further injustice should the highest Court in the land follow the

decisions of the Courts below.

Wherefore, the Court should reconsider the decisions of the Massachusetts Superior, Appeals, Supreme

Courts, U.S. Court of Appeals as well as those of the

U.S. District Courts in Boston and Worcester, Massachusetts denying the Petitioner his right to a Jury

Trial.

Respectfully submitted,

IRVING F. ROUNDS, JR.

Petitioner (Pro Se)

48 N. Sturbridge Road

Apt. B

Charlton, MA 01517

781.504.8974

Email: roundsmechanical5@

protonmail.com

15

CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER

I, Irving F. Rounds, Jr., do hereby certify that I present the within Petition for Rehearing for Writ of Certiorari in good faith, not for delay and restricted to the

grounds in Rule 44 of the Rules of the Supreme Court

of the United States.

Dated: July 20, 2023.

IRVING F. ROUNDS, JR.

Petitioner (Pro Se)

48 N. Sturbridge Road

Apt. B

Charlton, MA 01517

781.504.8974

Email: roundsmechanical5@

protonmail.com