Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Hernandez v. Rice

| ame IO UR,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES——_..

OCTOBER TERM, 1989

ABEL 4. HERNANDEZ

V.

DONALD B. RISE

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

PETITION FOR A WRIT CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

PETITIONER (AS DEFENDANT)

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ

406 "H" STREET

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78220

(512) 333-1600

i. _

Question for presented for review

petition for reverse and remand

for Hearing . on Melin W. Cole V.

General Howard W. penny .The court

of Appeals was not force by Circuit

precedent to affirm with lower Court

STATUTE

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) page 3

42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5 page 5

2000e-4(e) page 12

AUTHORITIES

MELIN W. COLE V. GENERAL HOWARD W.

PENNY 531 F.2d-609 page 4

APPENDIX A 1A

APPENDIX B 13B

APPENDIX C 14C

a ra

= — a _— a? a

— - 7 eer. See eae a ssn — = 7

: : ra © var ae “y er,

on 7 ¢ 4

7 :

« as ) F

> a

: 4 ° - : -

x ‘1 |

a d

*

=ape -

Did the Fifth Circuit Court err in

refusing to reverse and remand Distr-

ict Court Judge Edward C. Prado E.X.

Agency legal advisor as EX. U.S.

Attorney . When Judge Prado concur

with U.S. Attorney ,HELEN MILBURN

EVERBURERG and JACK B. MOYNYHAN

assistance U.S. Attorney ,with the

legal advise of the Air Force

counsel David C. Divon, Major Trial

Attorney( investigator Attorney ).

General Litigation,Division office

of the Juudge Advocate General 1900

Haft Street,S.W.,Room 5142 Washing-

ton, D.C. 20324-1000 telephone (202)

475-2755 FTS 475-2755 . When they

agreed with Judge Prado's dismissal

of my title VII Employment rights

In the instructions to file a

title VII E.E.0O.C. complaint reciev-

2.

ed February 18,1988 . Sent to me by

the Director of the Dept. of the

Equal Employment Opportunity system

within the Air Force . Stella Guerra

(Hispanic) from San Antonio,Texas ,

at W.D.C. 2033-1000. She or her

secretary,sent me the wrong instruc-

tions for federal employees to file

a sue in the lower Court , were

William Session used to be the

Chief Judge ,the local federal lower

Court ,which He is now the Director

of F.B.I. Dept. Everytime a case

comes to federal Court,the F.B.I.

goes out and investigates the case.

In this case I have an Equal Employ-

ment Complaint in S.A.,TX. . On the

second paragraph it states . The

purpose of the right to sue letter

is to notify you of your rights and

which you may file a case . I auto-

*

maticly assumed I had 90 days in

which to file a sue in the local

District Court

As stated by the Fifth Circuit

Court HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE NO.88-

5506 page 2157 . There is currently

a divergence of authority among the

Courts of Appeals on wehter the

thirty day limitation period con-

tained in 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-16(c) is

a jurisdictional limitation or

wether the limitation is more akin

to a statute of limitation and there

fore subject to waiver, estoppel,

and equitable tolling. Tolling ( As

a State that charges a tolling to

cross its bridge ).

4.

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE (from now

on refer to as HERNANDEZ V. RISE ,

as we now have a new secretary of

the Dept. of the Air Force ,

[ Donald B. RISE ] .On page 2156,

Johnson, Circuit Judge, stated that

Cognizant of the unequitable result

which flows from our action today,

we nevertheless are compelled by

circuit precedent to affirm the

District Court's dismissal of

HERNANDEZ claim. See Melin W. Cole

V. General Howard W. Penny . 531F.2d

-609, Court remand for further

proceeding . The Court of Appeais

was not force by Circuit precedent

to affirm with lower Court

U.S. District Court Western

of Texas San Antonio Division .

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE Civil acton

NO: SA~88-CA-0237 Memorandum of

pionts and authority in support

of motion to dismiss . They stated

that petitioner as (defendant )

improperly alleged jursidictin under

42 U.S.C.2000e-5 . Did the lower

court and the fifth circuit court

fail to see, when the lower court

dismiss petitioner case and the fifth

circuit of appeals affirm with the

lower court . When clerk should

have given petitioner the proper

jursidictonal statute for alleged

violations involing employees of

the federal agencys is 42 U.S.C.

2000e-16 . Lower court fail to give

petitioner the proper jursidictional

statute .

See verbatm transcript docket NO:

360-87-O0066X agency F860159-0 .

E.E.0.C. HEARING Date 21,May, 1987

on page 24 ,petitioner stated . I

got 106 credit hours liberal arts

and science . See xehibit # 1

college transcripts . Also see

Education equal opportunity commis-

sion system .

On fifth circuit court HRNANDEZ V.

ALDRIDGE page 2157 circuit JUDGE JOHNSON

»STATED "U.S. Magistrate who on Mar. 29,

1988 granted HERNANDEZ"S request to

proceed in forma pauperis but later denied

HERNANDEZ's motion for appionted counsel -«

On July ,25,1988 timestudy case U.S.

District court Western District of SAN

Antonio Division HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

NO: SA-88-CA-237 . The U.S. Magistrate

heaters

a.

Judge Robert B. O'Conner of the lower

federal court of U.S. gov't ORDER .

On paragraph (12) U.S. Magistrate Judge

stated "the proof of plaintiff's claim

is not complicated and he should not

haven no difficulty propounding the

necessary questions to develope the

eidence pertaining to his allegaton

which was fully developed in an

administrivie Judge .

8.

See Brief to U.S. fifth Circuit

court of the appeals were petitiner

stated I'm a member of the ROSI-

CRUCIAN ORDER . See Exhibit # 2

On August,10, 1988, U.S. District

court Western District of Texas San

Antonio Division HERNANDEZ V.

ALDRIDGE CIVIL action NO:SA-88-CA-

237 . petitioner motion to represent him

self in court . See Moore Manual Fed.

Practice & Procedure . 13.02(2) Interst

of parties (2)-capacity of individual

actiing in a representive capacity of an

,In general .the capacity is to be deter

mined by law of the state in which the

district court is held , as provide in

the third sentence of rule 17(b) .

Vernon;s Texas rules of civil procedure.

Rule 7 May appear by Attorney . Any party

to a suit may appear and prosecute or

9.

defend his rights therein , either in

person or by an Attorney of the court

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE NO:88-5603 Fifth

states on page 2158 that petitioner has

not been neglient nor dilatory in any

manner in pursuing his title VII claim in

Federal district court -.Did fifth circuit

err , when it stated that I sue wrong

party , when I. tried to explain were the

fault was of untimely . And it was in the

lower court administration hands

Then U.S. district court Judge EDWARD

C. PRADO order that defendant motion to

Gismiss plaintiff title VII Employment

right's granted on August,30, 1988 ,.

Then tolling petitioner for their

{ untimely stategy of debate . Mar. 23,

1988, I received a letter from CHARLES

V. WAGNER Clerk og U.S. district court of

10.

Western district San Antonio Division

U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Clerk

M. Tomeny - New Oreans , Luisiana 70130

order that plaintiff pay to defendant the

cost on Appeals , to be Taxed by the Clerk.

Petitioner as moving party ask the Supreme

Court of the United States to reyguest from

U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit USDC#SA

-~88-CA-237 NO:88-5603 HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

STATEMENTS of FACTS of BRIEF . Submitted by

by Petitioner on OCT. 26 , 1988

November, 28 ,1988, defendant submitted

motion to substitute correct Brief to the

U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit ,

case NO:88-5603

I chaged name of defendant to new

Secretary of dept. of Defence DANOLD

B. RISE .HERNANDEZ V. RISE

li.

Petitioner request Supreme Court to

have Recommened Decision by EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIONER

DOCKET NO: 360-87-0066X agency NO: F.

870159-0 . To be send to U.S. SUPREME

COURT , by the U.S. Court Western

District of Texas San Antonio Division

February 18, 1988, I was going to

submitted a verbatim transcript to the

bistrict Clerk Charles W. Vagner, but

she said District Court already had a

copy in file . I request the U.S. Supreme

Court to have the verbabim transcript

send to the U.S. Supreme Court by the

District Court -U.S. Court House 655 E.

DURANGO BLVD . San Antonio , TX. 78206-1196

Verbatim transcript (docket NO: 360-87-

0066X ( agency NO: F860159-0 Hearing Date

May, 21, 1987 .

l2.

Certiorari to CONGRESS in accordens to

Statute 2000e-4(e) . [{ Report to CONGRESS

and the PRESIDENT on EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION COMPLAINT

See Affidavid to District Court

I contact Mexican American Legal defense

They said they could't represent American

Indians . See Exhibit #+ 4 of MALDEF

Petitioner prays as ( defendant ) that

U.S. Supreme Court GRANT WRIT of CERTIORARI,

for HEARING .

Respectfully Submitted

Ul bperanelay~

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ

JULY ,6 ,1989

13.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

HU Nhemenba,

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ

PETITIONER

406 "H" STREET

SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 78220

(512) 3331600

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I ABEL H. HERNANDEZ , DO HEREBY CERTIFY

THAT THREE COPIES EACH OF THE FORE

GOING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH

CIRCUIT WAS MAILED, ‘POSTAGE PREPAID,

TO SOLICITOR GENERAL , DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE , WASHINGTON ,D.C. 20530

AND U.S. ATTORNEY HELEN MILBURN

EVERBURERG AND JACK B. MOYNHAN

727 E. DURANGO BLVD. A-601

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78206

On the 6 day of July ,1989 .,

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ

APPENDIX A 1A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

Vv.

EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE, III, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

NO. 88-5603.

SUMMARY CALENDAR.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS,

FIFTH CIRCUIT.

MARCH 1. 1989.

Air force employee appealed from order

of the United statea District Court for

the Western District of Texas, Esward

C. prado,J., dismissing his Title VII’

employment discrimination action. The

Court of Appeals, Johnson, Circuit Judge,

held that 30-day period in which air for-

ce employee was required to file Title

VII employment discrimination suit in

federal district court after receiving

notice of Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission,s final decision and right-to

suit letter was jurisdictional.

AFFIRMED.

APPENDIX A 2A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

CIVIL RIGHTS

Thirty-day period inwhich air force

employee was required to file Title VII

employment discrimination suit in federal

district court after receiving notice of

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's

final decision and right-to-suit letter

was jurisdictional, precluding district

courtfrom exercising jurisdiction after

emplayee's complaint was filed outside

30-day period even though employee sub-

mitted hiscivil complaint alleging to

clerk of within 30-day period ,complaint

was not actually filed. Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 717(c), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

2000e-16(c).

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before CLERK, Chief Judges,

JOHNSON, and JOLLY,Circuit Judges.

|

APPENDIX A 3A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

JOHNSON,Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff ABEL HERNANDEZ brought the

instant suit alleging that he had been

discriminated against by the Department

of the Air Force after he received a

letter of reprimand from the Air Force

for falsifying official government doc-

uments. Ultimately, the district court

dismissed Hernandez’s discrimination :

complaint for lackof jurisdiction.

Cognizant of the unequitblie result which

flows from our action today, we neverthe-

less are complelled by Circuit precedent

to affirm the district court's dismissal

of Hernandez‘s claim.

-

The facts of the instant case straight

forward and undisputed. On October 15,

1985, Hernandez filed an informal compl-

aint of discrimination: against the Air

Force following his reprimand on October

10,1985, for falsifying official govern-

ment documents. Thereafter, Hernandez

filed a formal complaint of discrimination

on October30,1985.

APPENDIX A 4A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

Hernandez subsequently pursued his

administrative remedies and,on february

16, 1988, the Equal Employment Opportun-

ity Commission (EEOC) issued a final

decision concluding that the Air Force

had demonstrated legitmate nondiscrimin-

atory reasons for repr’ nanding Hernandez.

Hernandez than received notice of the

fimal decision of the EEOC and-his right-

to-sue letter on February 18, 1988.

Thereafter, on March 10, Hernandez sub-

mitted his civil complaint allegingdisc-

rimination to the United States District

Court Clerk which’ the District clerk

marked "received" *However,though the. com-

plaintwas submitted to the Clerk, the-

Clerk only marked it “received” and the

complaint was not actually filed at that

time. At the same time Hernandez submitted

his complaint to the DistrictClerk'’s Office

Hernandez also filed a motion to proceed

in pauperis and a motion for appointment

of counsel. The above motions were refer-

red to a United States Magistrate who,

on March 29, 1988,granted Hernandez,s

request to proceed in forma pauperis but

later denied Hernandez's motion for

appointed counsel. On the day Hernandez

APPENDIX A 5A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

moton to proceed in forma pauperis was

granted, March 29, 1988, the District

Clerk filed Hernandez’s complaint, forty

days after Hernandez receivednotice of the

final decision of the EE6O€ and his right-

to- sue letter. Thereafter, in response

to the Government's motion to dismiss

Hernandez‘'s claim pursuant to fed. R.Civ.

P, 12(b)(1), the district court dismissed

Hernandez‘'s complaint for lack of jurisd-

iction since Hernandez did not timely

file his federat complaint within thirty

daysof his receipt of the EEOC’s final

decision and his right-to-sue letter.

Il.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c), a

federal government employeeis afforded

thirty days from the receipt of notice

of theEEOC's final decision to file a Title

VII Employment discrimination suit in

federal district court. In the instant

case, Hernandez received notice of the

EEOC’s final decision and his right-to-

sue letter on February 18, 1988; thefore

Hernandez had until approximately March

18, 1988, to file his discrimination suit

in federal district court. As previosly

a

APPENDIX A 6A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIQGE

noted, however, Hernandez's civil compl-

aint was not filed in federal district

court until March 29,1988,thea date the

magistate granted Hernandez's motion to

proceed in forma pauperis.

Ther is currently a divergence of au-

thority among the courts of appeals on

whether the thirty day limitation period

contained in 42U.S.C. -2000e16(c) is a

jurisdictional limitation or whether the

liritation and therefore subject to wai-

ver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

See Martinez V. Orr,738 F.2d 1107,1110

(10th Cir.1984); Milam V. United States

Postal Service,674 F.2d 860,862 (llth -

Cir.1982); Saltz V.Lehman, 672 F.2d 207,

208(D.C.Cir.1982)(concluding that the day

limitation period in42 U.S.C. 2000e-16

(c) is subject to equitable tolling).

But see Sims V.Heckler, 725 F.2d 1143,

1145-6 (7th Cir.1984); Rice V. Hamilton

Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082,

1083 (9th Cir.1983) concluding that the

thirty day filing requirement is of jur-

sdictional weight). In Stuckett V. United

Postal Service, 469 U.S.898,105S.Ct. 274,

83 L.Ed.2d 210(1984), Justice Whte, joined >

by Justice Rehnquist, from the Court's

a

7 APPENDIX A 7A

: HERNANDEZ V. ALDEIDGE

denial of a petition for writ of

May 29, 1988.

certiorari in that case after recognizing

the differing pronouncements on this issue

among the Circuits. In his dissent, Justice

White noted that the Supreme Court had

receently resolved the conflict among the

Circuits regarding the jurisdictional sign-

ificance of the ninety day limitation for

private sector discrimination case in Zipes

V. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,455 U.S. 385

102 S.Ct. 1127,71 L.Ed.2da 234(1982), and

concluded that the Supreme Court shoulkd

Similarly address the thirty day limitation

applicable to federal employees. Id, 105

S.Ct.at 274-75.

This Circuit in Eastland V. Tennessee

Vakley Authority 553 F.2d 364,368(5thCir.)

,cert, denied, 434 U.S,985, 98 S.Ct.61l,

54 LEd2d 479 (1977), held that the thirty

day civil action filing limitaion for

federal employees is a jurisdictional

requirement; however,the above ruling

inEastland was later called in to question

by this Court in Antoine V. United States

APPENDIX A BA

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

Postal :Service ,781 F2d 433, 439 n. 6

(5thCir.1986). Specifically,the Antoine

Court questioned the validty ofthe

Eastland rulong due to the fact that the

Eastland decision relied heavily on a

series of cases holding that the ninety

day filing requirement in private sector

discrimination cases pursuant to 42 U.S.

C. 2000e-16(c) was ajurisdictional requ-

irement. the Antoine Court thennoted that

» subsequent to the Eastland decision,

this Court, as well as the Supreme Court

in Zipes, concluded that the ninety day

filing requiremrnt for civil actions in

private sector cases was in fact not

jurisdictional in nature; thus;, the

Court in Antoine called into question the

validity of the Eastland rule. Id. Since

the Antoine decision, thisCourt has de-

finitive concluded that the thirty day

filing requirement contained in section

2000e-16(c)is a jursdictional requirem-

ent which is not subject to equitable

tolling or equitable estoppel. See Bell

V. Veterans Administation Hospital, 826

F.2d 357,36061 (5th Cir. 1987); Brown

V. Department of Army, *54 F.2d 77, 78

n. 1 (5thCir. 1988). Therfore, bound by

the law of this CirCuit, we are constr-

APPENDIX A 9A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

ained to affirm the district Court's

dismissal of Hernandez‘’s complaint for

failure to timely file his complaint in

federal district court.

In doing so, however, it should be noted

that if ever therwas a case which the

principles of equity would dictate should

be reversed, this is such a case as Hern-

andez does not appesr tohave been negligent

or even dilatory in any manner in pursuing

his Title VIIclaim in federal district

court. By contrast,in Bell V.Veterans

Administration, the plaintiff Bell named

and sued the wrong party in his complaint.

Therefore, despite the fact that the

district court personnel assured Bell that

they would effect service of his complaint,

equilty did not compel a result in that =

case which would effectively hold the

DistrictClerk's Office culpable for results

vnat arise when a plaintiff sues the wrong

party. Similarly,in Brown VY. Department of

Army, the plaintiff Brown named the wrong

defendants in his federal complaint. In the

instant case, huwever, Hernandez, apro se

plaintiff, submitted his civil complaint

containing allegation of discrimination

to the United States District Clerk On

APPENDIX A 10A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

March 10,1988, well within the thirty

dayfiling limitation contained insection

2000e-16(c). Further, it was onthe exact

day that Hernandez's motion to proceed in

forma pauperis was granted by the magis-

tratethat Hernandez‘’s civil complaint was

technically "filed" by the Federal Dist-

rict Court Clerk. Certainly, the District

Court Clerk. Certainly, the District Clerk’

actions can be construed as "lulling”

Hernandez into inaction and laeding Her-

nandez into believing that he done every

thing that he had done everything required

to initiate a timely complaint in federal

court. See Antoine, 781F.2d at 439.

As noted by the Tenth Circuit in Mart-

inez V. Orr,

Section 2000e-16 was added to Act in

1972 in orderto correct the ‘entrenched

discrimination in the Federal service’

and to insure ‘the effective application

of uniform, fair and strongly enforced

policies." The legislative history of

the amendment indicates that in extending

the coverage of Title VII to federal empl-

oyees, Congress intended togive them ess-

entially the same rights and remedies

as had been private sector. In view of

the principle that Title VII ‘is a

APPENDIX A 11A

HERNANDEZ V. ALDRIDGE

: remedial stute to be liberally construed

; in victims of discrimination,’ we concude

that the thirty-day time limitation of

section 2000e-16(c)is not jurisdictional

and may be subject to equitable tolling

in appropriate cases.

738 F2d at 1110 (ciations and footnote

omitted). Despite these compelling argv-

ments for concluding that the thirty day

filing requirement in seetion 2000e-16

(c) is not a jurisdiotional prequisite,

we are compelled by Circuit precedent

to affirm the district court in the instant

case. Perhaps,however,the time has come

for this Court to consider anew its deci-

sion in this area so as to avoid inequit-

able results such as the one suffered by

Hernandez in the instant case.

see 8° ose & €s Mw —

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ae,

NO. 88-5603

SUMMARY CALENDAR

D. C. DOCKET NO. SA-88-cVv-237

TIME CASE STUDY--RECORD TIME SPEND BY

JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE---U.S. COURT---FILED

- =“ MARCH 1 1989---GIBERT F. GANUCHEAU CLERK

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ

VERSUS

. EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE, III

{ SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT REF ENDANT

THE AIR FORCE,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

~APPELLEE

FILED MARCH 28,1989

CHARLES W. VAGNER, CLERK

BY J.J. DEPUTY

Appeal from theUnited States District

Court for the western District of Taxes

Before CLERK, Chief Judge,JOHNSON, and

JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard on the

record on appeal and was takem under

submission on the brief on file. -

APPENIX p 13B

ON CCNSIDERATION WHEREOF, It is now here

orderd and adjudged by this Court that

the judgment of District Court in this

cause is affirmed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERD That plaintiff-

appellant pay to defendant-appellee the

costs on appeal, to be taxed by the Clerk

of this Court.

March 1, 1989

ISSUED AS MANDATE: MAR 23 1989

A true copy

Test GIBERT F /'-GANUCHEAU

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit

By M. TOMENY

DEPUTY

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISANA

MAR. 23,1989

OP-JDT-9C

Rev. 4/85

APPENDIX C 14C

TIME STUDY CASE---RECORD TIME SPENT BY

JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ,

PLAINTIFF,

Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-

88-CA-237

EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE, JR.,

Secretary of the Air Force,

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

On this date came on to be considered

the Judgment to be entered in the above

styled and numbered cause.

Consistent with the Order of the Court

entered in this cause on this same date,

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED that Defendant;s Motion to Dismiss

Pursuant to Rule 12,F.R. Civ. P. GBANTED

such that plaintiff;s Complaint and in

this cause of action against Defendant

are DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12

(bd) (1).

a Re pine

APPENDIX C 1§C

Sign and ENTERED this 30 th/ day of

AUGUST, 1988.

EDWARD C. PRADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EXHIBIT #1 (1)

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO

Centro de Ensenanza para Extranjeros

Constancia Estudios realisados por-

ABEL HERNANDEZ HERRERA

DURANTE 1978-1984 EN LA

ESCUELA PERMANENTE DE EXTENSION EN

SAN ANTONIO , TEXAS

CURSO-NUM.-MATERIAS-CALIFICACIONES CREDITOS

203ESP CONVERSACION II1,1978, B 3

303ESP CONVERSACION 11,1979, B 3

210ESP ESPANOL II ,1983, B+ 4

ESP ESPANOL III, 1983, B ot

307ESP ESPANOL PARA BILGUES ,1984, B +

CENTO DE ENSENANZA PARA EXTRANJEROS

SERVICIOS ESCUELARES

EXHIBIT # 1 (2)

ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

ST. PHILIPS COLLEGE

SAN ANTONIO ,TEXAS

ACADEMIC RECORD

NO: TITLE OF COURE SEM. HRS. GR. PTS

SPING SEMESTER 1975

300 English 3 3 C 6

101 ORIENTATION 1 1 Cc 2

300 DLEVL READING 3 3 B 9

FIRST SEMESTER 1975

302 PRINC OF ECONOM 3 7.9 C 6

306 BASIC MATH 3 7.5 ¢ 6

FIRST SUMMER SESSION 1984

300 BASIC TYPE WRIT 3 6 C 6

200 BASIC VIOSE 2 2-5 A 8

FALL SEMETER 1984

1312 APPIED PSYCH 3 3 C 6

1403 HUM ANAT.&PHY. 4 3 D a

ABEL H HERNANDEZ 406 "H" ST.S.A.TX.78220

EXHIBIT #1 (3)

PERMENENT RECORD CARD .NORTH TEXAS

UNIVERSITY, DENTON,TEXAS DEGREES:-

CERTIFICATES

NO: TITLE OF COURE SEM HRS GR PTS

07-12-1975-to 08-16-1975.

204 Americ Gov's 3 F

110 Bus Speaking 3 ss €¢ |

Acadamic Probation

CREDITS FOR SERV TRN 12 10

08-27-1975 To 12-20-1975

132 COMP & RHET 3 - © @

ANER GOV't 3 F 3

101 ELEM SPANISH 4 F 4

304 PERSUATION 3 3 B 9

ACADEMIC SUPENSION SPRING 1975

ABEL H.HERNANDEZ 406 "H" ST.S.A.TX.

78220

aovwoccsceo ao —lUch

COOKE COUNTY COLLEGE

GAINEVILLE, TEXAS SPRING 1976.

NO: TITLE OF COURE SEM HRS GR PTS

2023 ORAL COMMUNI 3 3 C 6

1133 PERSNL/GRTH 3 3 B 9

1023 DEV READING 3 2 A 12

1023 GRAM COMP 3 3 Cc 6

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ 406 "H"ST.S.A.TX.

78220

EXHIBIT # 1 (5)

BEE COUNTY COLLEGE

NO: TILTE OF COURSE SEM HRS GR PTS

301 US HIST BEFOR 1965 3 OW C

164 WEIGHT TRAINING 3 ee

351 AMER GOV'T a ae

302 READING STUDY SKILLS 3 C2

353 AMERI MINORITIES z * es

402 SPANISH 3 Cc 4

SCHOLASTIC PROBATION

172 WRESTING 3 B 1

SPING SEMESTER 1977

402 GENERAL BIOLOGY 3 D 4

302 US HIST AFTER 1865 [72

351 STATE GOV'T & FED. 3 ch

351 ADV SPANISH 3 e. 2

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ 406 "H":ST. S.A.TX.

78220

—_—-

| EXHIBIT # 1 (6)

ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO,TEXAS ACADEMIC RECORD

SPRING SEMESTER 1978

NO: TITLE OF COURSE SEM HRS GR PTS

315 History og U.S. 3 - 23

308 Argument & Debat 3 » dD 3

600A Algebra 0 oe

-612B Spanish II Soe £2 6

ENFORCE SCHOLASTIC WITHDRAWAL

MUST PETITION TO RE-ENTER

PETITIONED ADMISSIONS COMMITTY-1/79

SPRING SEMESTER 1979

600 INTRO ALGEBRA 3 a

CONTINUED SCHOLASTIC PROBATION

SPRING SUMMER 1979

602A TOPICS CONTEMP 0O 7.5WF O

601A ENGLISH COMPOS 0 7.31P QO

601A ENGLISH COMPOS 3 > 2 2

ABEL H. HERNANDEZ 406 "H" ST. S.A.

TX. 78220

I AM

ORDER

A MEMBER OF

EXHIBT

THE ROSICRUCIAN

(1)

EXHIBIT 3

XHIBIT # (1)

INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE TRAINING

SCHOOL : P.O. BOX 4352

WASHINGTON D. C. 20012

SEPTEMBER 23 ,1981

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

- RE: ABEL H. HERNANDEZ

NO: 4036

The above name person is a graduate

of THE INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE TRAIN-

ING SCHOOL , having completed our Home

STUDY COURSE IN DETECTIVE TRAINING

with an average grade of 86 per cent

While enrolled as a student in our

SCHOOL , he fulfilled all responsibilities

to our entire satifaction . The student was

EXHIBIT #3 (2)

conscintious , painstaking and punctual in

the work prescribed

I found him industrious , careful in

fellowing instructions ,and eager both

to please our instructors and to learn

the maximum from the subject matter

furnished

From my experience in working with

the subject , I feel he will prove a

every satisfactory employee in any

position for which his education and

experience might qualify him andI ,

personally , will appreciate any

consideration shown to him

EXHIBT + 4 (1)

100-INFLUENTIALS THEY ARE THE ELITE

OF THE NATIONAL HISPANIC COMMUNITY.

BUT WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE ? AND WHAT

DO THEY WANT ?

ORGANIZATIONS . There are many

Hispanic organizations , but which

ones best represent the national

Hispanic community ? According to

the influentials , the MEXICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE FUND ( MALDEF) , WHICH first

opened its doors in 1968 ,is munber

one . Close on MALDEF'S heels is the

LEAGUE of UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZEN

(LULAC) , which dates back to 1929

Third place went to the WASHINGTON ,

D.C. based National Council of LA RAZA

,a social issues advancement group

Fourth plase belongs to the UNITED STATES

, which was begug at the close of world

war II. It is fellowed by fifth ranked

EXHIBIT # 4 (2)

UNITED STATES HISPANICS CHAMBER of

COMMERCE (USHCC) , sixth ranked LATIN

BUSINESS ASSOCIATION (LBA) , seventh

ranked Hispanic Asociation on Corporate

responsibilities ( HACEER) ., eight ranked

Camara de comercio Latina de Los Estados

Unidos (CAMACOL), and ninth rank Latin

American Manufacturers Asociation (LAMA )