Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Haas v. United States Postal Service

Supreme Court, U.S

} | |

No.

1B5+ 1 94 JUN 2 6 1995

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TERM, 1995

DAVID HENRY HAAS

Adjunct Professor, J.D.

VS.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

c/o General Mail Facility

Pittsburgh, PA

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TOTHE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

PE’ TTION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

David Henry Haas, J.D.

Pro-se

P.O. Box 342

Oakmont, PA 15139

(412) 828-6760

QUESTION PRESENTED? ? ?

This specific question is one of a matter of nations’ and

personal attention for the overall well being of national an? per-

sonal safety, health and welfay ’ of one and all, promulgated by the

U.S. Postal Service personnel within.

1. Tomy overwhelming surprise and logical jurisprudence

and basic common sense issue before us all, Honorable Justices, in

this grave matter of concern. The Appellant allegations and facts,

eye-witnesses and connections of overwhelming concern of justice

has not been afforded sound Constitutional connection sin the

matter of the First, the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment of our

U.S. Constitution. An overshadowing overlay of bad faith and

omission of dissimilation of affects of foregoing substitutive due

process. This caused the Appellant to be a reciprocate of fraud,

slander, and affirmations of direct bad faith issues, in, out and

around. Based upon statutes Title VII and above mentioned

provisions of civil rights within the Constitution.

2. The Appellant is basing his merited considerations on

specific and significant argwrnents which are well document

throughout this advertment, namely that of (omitted for oral argu-

ment) and other mentioned ones. A warranted consideration to

multi-various claims, opinions, facts and overwhelming evidence

has to be rebutted and distributed information must be presented

to date upon argument. This is a strong Constitutional discovery

for the Appellant that needs prudent discernment in severe dis-

criminatory practices coupled by and with proper redress of war-

ranted concerns that the injured worker, Appellant, can recapitu-

late the damages from the U.S. Postal services (cause and effect).

3. My basic civil rights and affirmative action under the law

ADA and Title VII is at the absolute threshold of implicit and

primary considerations for a favorable decision to the Appellant.

Not just for my sake, Honorable Justices, but for all disabled people

throughout this land that have disabilities to cope with. I am

coming to you as a disabled Viet Nam veteran, a U.S. qualified

citizen, and a disabled worker under the A.D.A. Henceforth now

this adoption of verbatim form requires (anew) for the Appellant

that the U.S. Post Office and its personnel for failing to exercise

prudent care to the injured worker in times of great need, coupled

with the intentional great harm against the Appellant in regards to

ADA laws.

4. The risk of harm due to the injuries is the harm suffered

of other intentional afflictions caused by the U.S. Postal Service to

me from third parties, such as the Post Master, Mr. Richard Rome.

For such wanton gross and intentional evil undertakings of such

great harm, the Post Master must be accountable and responsible

for his actions.

Meanwhile, the duty of good faith representation is now a

matter of contractal agreement to aid and assist a work scope

injured person. It is a matter of known law to do such. In

completeness, Honorable Justices, good faith and honest policies

must be practiced in order to avoid arbitrary connections and

conditions of lawsuits. Simply stated, because this is fair and

honest doings to respond to the injured worker's needs. Thus this

is deemed and warranted. This is a major and very important fact

of compensation law. However, now, there has been in this case a

il

serious breach of mistrust implications of fraud and the like occur-

ring to the Appellant in form of extreme discriminatory practices

and bad faith connections coupled with slander, libel, and obstruc-

tion of justice.

Other considerations of public forum of restrictions and

willful mocking of my religious beliefs are and have been abated

and abused by such people such as Mr. Richard Rome of the U.S.

Postal Service. Tinker vs. DesMoise Independent School District

393 U.S. 503, 506, 1969, First Amendment issue.

Henceforth the Appellant has strong reduction of his ex-

pression of freedom or speech to express his religious beliefs which

the Appellant is expressing to the courts that his Constitutional

rights were infringed upon. Tinker ID at 512 13.

Gentlemen: An update of such gross affairs not that only of

a singularity but that of a qualified U.S. citizen, Viet Nam veteran,

and injured worker has been denied his Constitutional rights for

proper redress into the courts for proper review and conclusion of

law. Acommon sense issue. The Appellant has a strong grounded

merits connection of evidence ever so present. This question has to

be dealt with again, not just for my sake, but forall future concerned

personnel within the Postal Service. I am appealing to the U.S.

Supreme Court not just for my sake, but for justice for one and all.

We cannot allow ourselves to discriminate in multi fashions based

upon all these major infractions abridging my Constitutional and

civil rights. To me this is a severe restriction of my Constitutional

rights as a U.S. citizen. Such sanctions without full examination of

recovery of any and all assembled data needs to be properly and

presentedly adjudicated by law. The First Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution guarantees us free speech in, out and around the law

lll

Title VII Statute and School Board of Wassau vs. Allude 480 US 273

Public Law No. 100-259 USC and 7068 vs. Pull No. 100-43 42 USE

and 3604 F9 Sec. 503 of the law prohibits retaliation and conversion

against the Appellant. As a Viet Nam Veteran, American citizen

and injured worker ADA.

Because of all the needless harm and anxiety | have suf-

fered, | ask you to consider this case so that workers will not be

saiiiail ticle ia *)

lV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED Pages 1 - 20

CASES

Borling vs. Sharpe 347 US 497-74 Sec. 693 (p. 6)

Schneider vs. Rusk 377 US 163, 84 Sct. 1187 (p. 6

Rocco vs. Heakler 826 F 2D 1348, 1350 Third Circuit Court 1987

(Pp. 9)

Podedworioy vs. Harris 745 F2D 210217-8 Third Circuit Court 1984

(p. 9)

Gillilawed vs. Heakler 786 F2D 178, 183 Third Circuit Court 1986

(p. 9)

No. 45 Boston US vs. Rev 1317 1965 (p. 13)

Gertz vs. Welch, 41865323 1974 (p. 13)

Smith vs. Wade 461 US 30 1983 (First case to award yeciress damage

for such actions) (p. 13)

Sheuer vs. Rhodes 461 US 232 , 23 69 44 Sct 1686, 40 LED 2d 90 1974

(p. 15)

Conley vs. Gibson 335 US 4145, 78 Sct 99 102 2 LED 2d 80 1957

(p. 15)

Ang vs. Proctor and Gamble Corporation 932 F2d 5405446 CC 1991

(p. 15)

Mekeadd vs. Kingsley Area School 727-Supp 335, 338 (WD

Michigan) 1989 (p.15)

Kent vs. Joanson 821 F2d 12 20 12 23 (6) Circuit Court (p.15)

Brooks vs. Seitter 779 F2d 1177 1180 (6) Circuit Court (p. 15)

US Supreme Court No. 482 US 901 10f Sct 2475 96 LED 2d 368 and

thus granting certiorari No. 704 (9) (p. 15)

Peckman vs. Scranton 1957 SA7 ILL 241 F2d 761 United States exre

(p. 16)

Johnson vs. Specter (1967 Ed. PA) 262F Supp 113 (p. 16)

U.S. Supreme Court No. 482 U.S. 901, 107 Sct 2475 (p. 17)

Tinker vs. DesMoines Independent Schoo! District (393 US 503, 506,

1969 p. 20 ID 506 ID 512-13]

Chapel vs. Center Moriches Union Free School District 113 Sct 2141

1993 (p. 20)

Shaprio-Thompson 394,US 618, 89 Sct. 1322 #6-7

STATUTES

No. 42 USC 2000 (e) Section 703 (a) and No. 61 Civil Rights Act

(p. 14)

No. 28 USC 2210-2202 (p. 3)

No. 28 USC 1981 Rule #42 1985 -86 with emphasis page 3

No. 18 USC #1905 and #516 (p. 3)

No. 28 USC and No 4254 (1) (p. 4)

No. 42 USC S (in) 1985 (3) (p. 7)

No. 401 US at 432 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991 (p. 8)

No. 742 USCS and 2000 (e) 3(a) 1970 (ed) Supp Third Provaos (p. 15)

No. 76 Commands Against Discriminatory Practices ID 45 1945S ct

1021 (p. 17)

OTHERS

sec. 523 Under Title VII (p. 14)

No. 503 (b) (p. 10)

Sec. No. 5034 Code of Regulations and Laws (p. 10)

Title VIIS 1745 and 107(A), 37 (pp. 5 and 8)

No. 137 Congress Rec. No. S 15475-76 Oct. 1991 p(p. 4-5)

ADA (pp. 2 - 4)

ADA #28 CFR Part No. 3335 APPA No. 35130 FN 14 (p. 4)

No. 35.130 Unbridged No. 28 CFR and No. 35 1030 (p. 4)

FRAP No. 36 (p. 14)

DEF No. 69 Harvard Law Review No. 875906-08 1956 (p. 13)

American Law Institute No. 4-580 Reinstatement of Torts 1934

(p.13)

Civil Rights Act 187142 USCA 1983 (p. 13)

FN 8158 US APP 6L at 152 48 5 F2d 931 FCR ACT (p. 16)

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

U.S. Constitutional Amendment No. 5and 14 (pp. 14-16-5-12-13-16)

U.S. Constituional Amendment No. 1, 5, and 14 (pp.12-13)

Amendments 5, 14 and 1 (p. 13)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITES

SECTION II

(pages 21 - completion)

CASES

School Board of Wassau vs. Allude 480 US 273 1987 P.L. No. 100-259 USC

and 7068 vs. Pull No. 100-43 No. 42 USC and 36 0419 (p. 25)

Easley vs. Snider 36F 3 c | 297, 300 Third Circuit Court 1994 (p. 26)

Father Flanagan's Boys' Home vs. Goerk No. 224 Nov. 731-40 (1) LO 2d 461

and oase No. b22 1987 US Supreme Court (p. 28)

Harris vs. Misty Lounge Inc. No. 220 Nebraska MEB 678, 371 N Wrd Geb

WEG Rev STrt No. 84-918 No. 2 Cumsupp 1992 (p. 28)

Dobrowsky vs. Calfano No. 606 FED 403 Third Circuit Court (p. 28)

Kane vs. Heckler No. 776 F2d 1130, 1132 Third Circuit Court 1985 (pp. 29-

30) Grids

Stunkard vs. Heckler No. 873509 (3 Cir Files Feb. 24 1988) p. 29

Rocco vs. Heckler No. 826 F2d 1348 1350-1 Third Circuit Court 1987 (p. 29)

Dobrowolsky vs. Califaino No. 606 FIRT No. 403 Third RD Circuit 1979

(p. 29)

Torres vs. Schweiker 667 F (ed) 1029 1030 75 Fourt Circuit Court (p. 28-29)

Waharton-Thomas vs. US 72 (FED 922 Third Circuit) 1983 (p. 29)

Beadow vs. Heckler No. 368 FED 547 553 Third Circuit Court 1985 (p. 30)

Hanson vs. Harralis, 675 P No. 243 94 (Nevada) US Supreme Court Ruling

Centerpiece (p. 30)

Walters vs. Minter I n T 758 FED 73 (3d) (p. 30)

** Fraudlent Acts-- Seveille Industry Machine Corporation vs. S. West

Machine Corporation No. 742 F2d 786 Third 1984 (p. 30)

STATUTES

No. 42 USCA 1231-12134 (p. 21)

Sec. of the Laws No. 42 (p. 11)

No. 28 USC and 2210 - 2202 (p. 3-21)

No. 28 USC and 1981 (p. 21)

No. 28 USC and 1985-86 with emphasis (p. 3)

Title 18 US Code and 18 USC 241 (p. 21)

Title 1 (p. 25)

Title II ADA 42 USC and 1231-12 (p. 26)

Title 42 USC No. 12 34 (a) (p. 26)

Title No. 28 USC 1361 (p. 27)

Title No. 28 Scl No. 636 6, 1, Article 3 Judge Abridged to Appellant

(p. 29)

Title No. 42 USC and 1985 3 Dol No. 10 Pax

™ Title No. 18 USC and 1905 (p.31) GAL 16-7 removal of personnel

[ Mr. Richard Rome and associates]

OTHERS

P.I. 1990 and 201-204 (p. 24)

Rule No. 18 USC and 1905 (p. 516) (p. 21)

ADA No. 28 CFR Part No. 33335 AP A and No. 35130 En No. 14

(p. 21)

No. 35. 130 (cl) UUNBEV. No. 28 (p. 22)

CFR No. 35 130 (p. 22)

Sec. 504 ino 407 in reverse (p. 24)

Sec. No. 503 5 W Sec. (a) (b) (p. 25)

ADA and Civil Rights No. 7 Title of the Law (p. 14)

Sec. 5 al reh. act (fn12) (p. 26)

Sec. No. 202 Title (p. 26)

Sec. No. 503 Mandates Relief (pp. 25-27)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

OPINIONS BELOW

ho

dye se vk.v-se ees ee ie 8

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED....... rat A

2 and 4 supplement

STATEMENT OF THE CASE... | ere Pe ree 5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT. 4

ew 8! 9 |. | 32

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A_ Opinion of District Court of Western Penn

sylvania. Dismissed for grave omission of

Law. Equal Protection denied. Substantive

Due Process

Appendix B_ Opinion of United States Court of Appeals.

For Rehearing.

Appendix C Opinion of United States Court of Appeals.

Rehear ing Denied.

Appendix D Amendment I, V, & XIV to United States

Constitution.

Appendix E Original En-Bauc Denied in Light of Subtive

(IVE) due process and equal protection

SUPPLEMENTARY INSIGHTS

ADA (pp. 1 and 2)

ADA #28 CFR Part No. 3335 APPA No. 35130 FN 14 (p. 2)

DEF No. 69 Harvard Law Review No. 875906-08 1956 (p. 7)

American Law Institute No. 4-580 Restatement of Torts 1934 (p. 7)

Civil Rights Act 187142 USCA 1983 (p. 7)

FRAP No. 36 (p. 6)

No. 1317 Congress Rec. No. S 15475-76 Oct. 1991 (pp. 4-5)

204(9) Title 7 42 USCS and 2000 (e) 3(a) 1970 ed Supp. 3rd Provaos

Appendix A. To this Petition, there appears to be an unpublished

written opinion of the U.S. District Court of West-

ern Pennsylvania set forth by Magistrate Benson.

This case was summarily dismissed by gross omis

sion of Law. Due Process and Equal Protection

denied.

Appendix B. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit Appellant Petition for Enlargement. This

motion was granted by Judge Mansmann.

Appendix C. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit Appellant Petition for Rehearing — Denied

without comment or opinion.

Appendix D. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit — Judgement Order. Judgement of District

Court Affirmed.

Jurisdiction

The appellant filed the original case in the U.S. District

Court on or about June 3 8, 1993. Western District Court denied the

Petition in June, 1994. Appellant filed appeal to the Third Circuit

in June, 1994 -- Petition granted on or about August, 1994. Court En

Banc was held March 17, 1995. On or about March 31, 1995, Court

En Banc affirmed the judgement of the Circuit Court. On or about

May 24, 1995 Court En Banc denied Petition for Rehearing.

The appellant now seeks to invoke This Court's jurisdiction

under Title VII & 704 (9) 42 USCS and 2000 (e) 3(a) 1970 ed Supp. 3rd

PROV AOS.

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions In-

volved

Amendments I, V, and XIV of United States Constitution

thus granting full substantive due process to the appellant for

proper adjudication

Title VII & 704(9) USCS and 2000 (e)3(a) 1970ed Supp. 3rd

PROV AOS

Statement of the Case

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals erred in holding and

released judgement orders that preempt the appellant's right to

due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the

United States Constitution and substantive due process with re-

spect to violations of Civil Rights

NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Term 1995

David Henry Haas, Adjunct Professor, J.D., Petitioner

VS.

United States Postal Service

c/o General Mail Facility

Pittsburgh, PA

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

“To One and All of the Justices in the Supreme Court

of the Unites States of America"

Allegations, Facts, and Other Scenarios

Petitioner, David Henry Haas, Adjunct Professor, J.D., re-

spectfully prays for a writ of certiorari of exceptional importance in

matters of NATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ofall concerned,

of grave importance. To be issued for review in completeness from

the onset to the judgement and opinions of the United States Courts

of Appeals for the Third Circuit on grave and concern matters of

SEs

great distinction of not properly allowing redress for sound mer-

ited evidence of facts and overwhelming damage and evidence to

the petitioner in regards to constructive fraud, slander, libel, felo-

nies,and multi-severe disabilities of the said petitioner. Insubstitive

of and in the language of law. Coupled with the respects and

dignity of_a U.S. American citizen, a veteran, and a severely

disabled person (A.D.A.), of the said petitioner, is seeking redress

for the multiplicity of overwhelming wrongs to the totality of

circumstances and substitive due process of the law in the Fifthand

Fourteenth amendment, not following form or fashion in respect

thereof. A grossand unjustifiable tool of unrighteousness has been

bestowed to me, in out and around. One cannot be in total

agreement of analysis without full information data and substan-

tial grounds of extraction of all the findings without full substitive

due process of the respondent's communicative analysis of and in

the scope of law. To respond and be able to act upon the laws of the

courts or the defendant's scope of authority, in, out and around the

law, while meaningful substantive due process is sanctioned to its

absolute limits.

OPINIONS BELOW

There is nothing made but what can be received, restored,

recast, refinished, rebuilt, reclaimed, refurnished, and remade by

proper and skillful jurisprudence to redress the overwhelming

iniquities done to the appellant over and over again, Sirs. The

challenge has to be done, not just for my sake and safety, but for the

safety and health of other employees within the United States

Postal Service. Henceforth, thus bringing an absolute resolution

i

and revelations to the truth with good faith and liberty to all

Americans. In abolishing this overwhelming circumstances in

favor to the Appellant within due substitive of the laws and truth,

so help me God. While not begetting any more intentional severe

inequities to me again. | am praying for restoration favor and

recreation of sound and honest jurisprudence by the overwhelm-

ing facts within law. After all this grave and gross, wanton

influence of evil upon my life to date. Something has to be done

now. Here, now, by the grace of God comes myself, Adjunct

Professor, David Henry Haas, as an instrument of understanding

and awareness with keen personal insight. As to all past

advertments, suggestions, and indicative absolute unrighteousness

of the Defendants toward the Appellant to date is totally uncalled

for in a prima facia category of law.

After all administrative law recourse was established and

exhausted I filed a complaint to the U.S. District Court in June of

1993 and thus they dismissed the case due to the laws of full due

substance, due process, were eradicated by unjust means as indi-

cated by Title 42 Section of the Jaw and No. 28 U.S.C. and No. 2210-

2202 and No. 28 U.S.C. and No. 1981, coupled by Rule 42 U.S.C. and

1985 1986 with emphasis.

Henceforth, now, No. 18 U.S.C. and 1905 Obstruction of

Justice page no. 516 as indicated by a follow through of past

advertment per reading on in this complaint. The Appellants’

prayer for justice in the Third Court of Appeals was not fully

warranted or thus afforded due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment in the substance due process considerations of the

United States Constitution.

There is no comparison between truth and falsehood. The

truth can and will stand on its own merits in spite of these over-

i>

whelming inequities by the Defendants in question. Indignations

and turbulence misconstruction of wrongs done to the Appellant

in, outand around this whole scenario of civil and criminal turmoils

within this whole case. This appeal began in June of 1994 and thus

ended by refusal to rehear a warranted and sound merited case.

The court in banc was held on March 17, 1995 and thus | re-

petitioned the courts forarehearing and was denied the findings on

May 24, 1995. This is why | am petitioning the United States

Supreme court fora writ of certiorari under No. 28 U.S.C. and No.

1254(1) by and through a U.S. citizen with multiple disabilities

which qualifies this petitioner to be afforded redress to the law as

citizen of the United States of America. Under the law of A.D.A. No.

28CFRPART3335 (APPA...35130FN14) mandates sections of No.

35.130(cl) unbridged No. 28CFR No. 351030 with strict prohibitions

against discrimination of a disabled person. Here we see the law of

the U.S. Congress and Past President George Bush regulations and

laws and it strongly and overwhelmingly appears that the U.S. Post

Office is in fact the greatest offenders of the is law, in fact. This is

not just a personal matter, but a national one, Sirs.

Public insight into California. Chi | New | ,

to name a few, are the prima facia considerations, Sirs, Honorable

Justices. Perhaps the violence in these post offices is evidence of

hostility within the post office and its management of personal

accountability not being responsible thereof for said damages.

There is a serious question of public health and welfare of

the people and personnel here at stake, in this well established

scenario of affairs that needs strict accommodations and required

limits of actual sanctioned laws and security within the basis and

ne

bar of the structure and boundaries. A mandate is deemed and

fully warranted and thus demanded to be in place now. Not on

mere conjecture, but absolute 100% facts of the Appellant prima

facia indications here within the case. For it now to be shifted to the

U.S. Postal Service and the courts and thus not to impair and

impede the justice of one, and the count, the cost of all concerned

here, present, past, and future considerations. This is an authentic

public knowledge, Honorable Justices, and to mention this I'm sure

you are quite aware, as everyone else, is aware, that there is a

definite problem within the Postal Service. My case states it all.

p L of thi ie if / ‘onal } hould |

Lf bake police liatelv. G.A. 16.7 :

aS a ee, re bile fesaticee: Six

EQUAL PROTECTION

The Federal Courts of Appeals gravely and grossly erred in

holdings and released judgments preempt to the Appellant's rights

of due forth process of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment thereof, in substitive, due process. The Claimant is

now exacting and thus submitting for a judicial review that is

normally accorded within the scope of law. Thus the Appellant is

seeking redress for the merits, protections on the grounds to not

withstand the approcriation of findings of which I have not fully

received and thus inconclusive by the Court of Appeals, Third

Circuit, on March 31, 1995 on Case No. 94-3388 enclosed within and

witnessed. The hearing date was March 17, 1995. A petition for

rehearing was notified by the Appellant as stated by FRAP 40 inthe

Third Circuit LAR 35 and 10P chapter 9, and not even signed by P.

Douglas Sick, Clerk, or either by Kathleen O'Toole, Deputy Clerk

os

for court of in bac cite that of March 17, 1995 and May 24, Decision

in fact. A simple common sense issue, here, Honorable Justices.

This is an essential in discovery and fact finding in question. A

statute is raised to indicate and appropriate suspect class and

serious fundamental interest for a significant and rational legisla-

tive actions are strongly welcomed and warranted by the Appellant

and by the U.S. Supreme Court in excessive exercise of proper

judgment calls here is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH ISSUES before

us today in reference toward public/personal personnel health,

safety and welfare. This is the question of serious consideration

before us all today. No doubt at all in this connection.

A Constitutional challenge test of clear and present danger

here, Sirs, thus civil remedies and evidence of prime preponder-

ance of evidence thus shows a distinct and wanton intentional

harm and negligence to the Plaintiff in form and fashion of due

evidence to actual damages that were bestowed to me in this whole

scenario to my economic, social, and disability of concern plus

gross libel and slander which are redressable in punitive damages

and actual harm. The courts of the United States of America shows

the Fifth Ammendment contains no equal protection clause. It

should in this specific case, due to the substitive due process of laws

not properly afforded to the Appellant. However, now it strongly

indicates that the A.D.A. forbids discriminatory tactics that are so

unjustifiable in this case to be in direct violation of the Fifth and

Fourteenth Ammendment in full contrast to all other harms done,

in, out and around.

Suchas this cite Bolling vs. Sharpe - 347 LS, 497,74, Sct. 693;

Schneider vs. Rusk - 377 U.S. 163, 84, Sct. 1187; Shapiro vs.

}

if

Thompson -- 394 U.S. 618, 89, Sct. 1322; henceforth discriminatory

practices to the Appelant is well documented. Even the findings of

Administrative Law in applicability of my federal civil rights

actions under No. 42 U.S.C.S. and 1983 of those who conspire and

thus abate me from a trial by selection of honest jury decision are

absolutely redressable under No. 42 U.S.C.S. in 1985 (3). Thus

providing a remedy to the injured Appelant by intentionally con-

spiring to deprive me of my civil rights to the activity of a single

corp or to aconcert activity of its directors employees, agents, and

the like. No. 52 ALR. Fed (106) with the power of Congress to

prohibit and punish such conspiracies to deprive a person of his

civil rights in matters of due process of the law. What ashame here.

A key position of FULL CONSTITUTIONAL TEST AND

INTEGRITY of laws are warranted to the Appellant. A standard (a-

new) of review is strictly warranted in absolute consideration by

qualified facts and not mere conjecture to aid and seizea proper and

favorable jurisprudent consideration with the strong merits of this

case, Honorable Judges. It is so overwhelmingly demanded, war-

ranted, by the Appellant for all past advertments and multi severe

disability and discriminatory practices of the United States Postal

Service in the scope of law and due justice. Here, today, a claim a

prima facie evidence in fact now is ina position of shifting all these

liabilities that are included in strict and precarious concentrations

towards the U.S. Postal Service TO ARTICULATE THE

UNDERMINDEDNESS, CAUSES, AND EFFECTS FORSUCH EVIL

ACTIONS WITHIN AS TO CAUSE GREAT AND INTENTIONAL

INFLICTION OF GREAT HARM TOTHE APPELLANT TO DATE

DUE TO THE DURATION OF RISK AND NATURE AND SEVER-

4

;

4

ITY OF ALL THIS NEEDLESS AND POTENTIAL HARM AND

LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE HARM TO OTHER PARTIES, HAS

TO BE STOPPED FOR THE PERSONAL HEALTH AN WELFARE

OF ALL, in, out and around the Postal Service.

This i

conjecture, Honorable Judges.

JURISDICTION

A business necessity was written up in falseness about the

Appellant and thus fraud was written on such reports against the

Appellant. However, now the total shifted business necessity is

being placed to the United States Supreme Courtand the U.S. Postal

Service to show a relationship doesn't exist towards its discrimina-

tory practices and inappropriate interests to reduce my civil rights

in complete falseness while no manifestation of realization of actual

redress to Mr. Richard Rome was acted upon in such overwhelm-

ing and severe unrighteousness of fraudulent reports against the

Plaintiff in a constructive fraud basis. It ismy agreement of interest

and relationships toward overall authoritative interpretive guid-

ance is now again well merited and needs proper adjudication for

a business necessity. Not just for my personal welfare and care, but

for that of future considerations under the guidelines of No. 401

U.S. at 432 Civil Rights Act of 1991. See 137 Congress REC. No.

S15475-76 October 1991. Coupled by the ADA standards and tests

of law under Title No. VII. I have responded of and to this disparate

impact based upon fraudulent conveyances which obviously was

written by Mr. Richard Rome of the U.S. Postal Service and its direct

associates to be null and void against the Plaintiff in falseness. This

is deemed and a very unlawful employment practice to deal with

is

+ ($1745 and 1U7(A), 137 Congress recorded. Treating physician

| reports should and will be caring great weight, specifically and

especially when the reports carry and reflect expert medical judg-

ment calls based upon continuance observation of the patient's

conditions and overall prolonged periods of time and duration and

standings of such conditions for a period of five years, with onsets

of casual work relationships and interactions of accidents, dates of

10-18-85 and 8-31-89 as indicated by past advertments, cites and

readings thereof.

Rocco vs. Heakler 826 F2D 1348,1350. (Third Circuit Court,

1987). Podedworioy vs. Harris 745 F2D 210217-8 (Third Circuit

Court, 1984). Gillilaned vs. Heakler 786 F2D 178,183 (Third Circuit

Court, 1986). No jurisprudence officer of the court can ignore the

opinion of competent, informed treating physicians for which state

there is a casual relationship of my work scope related disabilities.

Here | stand in the middle of hostility by the United States Postal

Service employer/manager in total disarray of sound medical

standards, not being properly applied and thus caused more in-

creased intentional harm, and prolonged the Appellants due forth

compensation in matters of said disabilities and onsets. This was a

gradual process an thus accelerated itself to this great extent of

harm, in, out and around.

Here we all are standing on character and extension of the

Appellant's severe disabilities and all past discriminatory practices

of the United States Postal Service and third parties. Henceforth

obvious witnessed observations of extreme bad faith to a postal

employee is unwarranted. The trauma, injury, and persistence of

disability is a lot to cope with and to contend with daily, Honorable

9.

1

Justices. This is a prescription of severe inequities, coupled by

absolute facts witnessed of a disabled person in severe physical

disarray and disabilities, unable to work due to the severity of my

disability, from the very onset till | could not work anywhere, from

November 7, 1990 to the present time; irreversible damage for life.

See Section No. 5034 (Code of Regulations and Laws) in strict

prohibition against an employer to retaliate and cause coercion to

an injured worker. This is a grave and unlawful act and charge

against the U.S. Postal Service to afflict on the injured worker.

Gross and wanton medical standards not being properly applied

and adjudicated, No. 503 (b).

It is also very unlawful to intimidate, threaten, or interfere

with any individual in the exercise and enjoyment of freedom of

speech, and thus causing a violation of my full expression of

religious freedoms without any undue intimidation or acts of

freedom to abate me from freely expressing my full religious

beliefs. | was mocked and abused for my religious beliefs. (IF IT

IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE CONGRESS TO START THE DAY

OFF WITH PRAYER, IT ISGOOD ENOUGH FOR ME, TOO. THIS

IS A PREJUDICIAL ISSUE FOR MY CIVIL RIGHTS AND PRI-

VATE RESERVE PARTAKING OF IRRESPONSIVNESS AND

REPROOF OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE EM-

PLOYER/MANAGER STANDING TO SPEAK THE WORD OF

MOCKERY OF MY FAITH IN FACT.)

I believe the word of God has to be spoken with the

faith in God and with authority and justification. A redress of

preliminary discord concerning the certainties of rights in our well-

formed Constitution is in direct violation of my freedom of speech.

This is a bona fide reproach issue against a U.S. citizen, a Viet Nam

-10-

eee See ee ee ee Se eee Lee ei aw

Sirti nde eee a cel ee lh a i

en ae es

Pawel

ox i

veteran who fought for his country, and a disabled worker. Hence-

forth this obsession of the U.S. Postal Service has to be stopped,

simply by someone or other who cares to see this through. Redress

is a necessity to secure and maintain uniformities in this connec-

tion, as per cites, cases, and clauses (omitted to oralargument). This

issue here of a writ of certiorari involves a question of exceptional

importance of absolute facts, in, out and around in decisive deci-

sion-making of national importance, safety, health and welfare of

all concerned. This overwhelming intentional civil rights violation

and discriminatory practices coupled with intentional torts to the

Claimant overwhelmingly and surprisingly identifies interests of

NATIONAL IMPORTANCE to the cause and effect of safety,

health and security considerations to one and all. No one is

immune to tragedies. You could be perhaps the next victim.

Considerations and scrupulous protection will no be suffice. This

isan exceptional First Ammendment, Fifth Amendment, and Four-

teenth Ammendment Constitutional challenge that has to be met.

The Appellant is thus entering a clear and defined determi-

nation of what specific differential opinions of the courts are basing

their opinion on without full conclusion of the laws and judgments

and findings within. Not withstanding a written objectionable

substance of opinion that I was not afforded to date in action of

FRAP No. 36 entering of judgment, the Appellant's proportional

connection was not apparent in regards to the signature of the clerk

or the Appellant's civil rights and affirmative actions are not being

met or challenged within the law with undue malice. The Appel-

lant needs proper restoration to his life for this overwhelming

ee

Stare eh? 931, et A ete

paar) wallet RRS a is es 8 BAR

1... ua

-

oN AEA hy EEE | od edee

consideration by facts witnessed. Ambiguities, opinions are not

suffice to a course of direction when the Appellant needs proper

redress. There is across reference of rights and privileges secure to

the Appellant by law. They have been breached by civil rights and

federal constituticnal provisions and approcriations in thus man-

dated in having to exercise such rights it is prudent and lawful for

such considerations of the First, the Fifth, and the Fourteenth

Amendment.

Through the civi! rights actions and due forth Constitu-

tional amendments of the Fifth and Fourteenth of our beloved

United States of America with substance due process of the laws

within the courts to do so.

Blended in considerations of facts, laws, evidence within

the federal Constitution of rights and privileges within law does

not decree any legal and longstanding consideration towards the

Appellant. Based upon a continuous flow of severe inequities and

warranted entitlement of benefits due forth. These are a over-

whelming and stormfull issue to contend with. They will not

interface with the absolute facts of this case to include proper and

fair standards of truth and integrity of the Appellant at hand, as per

items of this advertment and consideration that have not been

properly adjudicated according to the law and substlitive due

process of the law. The privilege few under the Constitution of the

law of the U.S. is not warranted. It is the U.S. Supreme Court action

to undertake a U.S. citizen to engage in full cooperation of truth that

will overwhelmingly outweigh the falseness and conspiracy of all

parties concerned to abate the Appellant from standing and affirm-

ing the facts, allegations and other scenarios that are necessary in

the needs and intentions of business necessity to act upon as to

he deprive me, the Appellant, of my civil rights as a veteran,

disabled U.S. citizen, and injured worker. This must be adjudicated

«12-

i

and affirmed by all who are concerned here, Honorable Justices.

Whenever a man, post master, Mr. Richard Rome, pub-

lishes in falseness he thus conveys his pevil development in law in

form and fashion towards defamation acts. Def. 69 Harvard! Rev

875906-08,, 1956, American Law Institute reinstatement as expres-

sion of prevailing American law, as illustrated by 4-580 of reinstate-

ment of torts, 1934. While actual and reality of malice lives on with

reckless disregard of truth of falsities of issues of grave concern.

Please see ELEGANT and INSIGHT exposition in fraudulent con-

structive dilemmas 45 US Boston UC REV 1317, 1965. Cites of Gertz

vs. Welch, 41865323, 1974, henceforth the balance thus shifts back

to the causation of the Defendant, Mr. Richard Rome, and the U.S.

Postal Service should be and will be in favor of the victim. Employ-

ment, HEALTH AND SAFETY issues here, coupled with federal

civil rights act of 187142 USCA (1983). The voices from Washing-

ton, D.C. have so declared this as overwhelming and conclusive

punitive damages awards should be made to the victim. Smith vs.

Wade 461 US 30 1983, first case of award to redress damages to such

actions. A close and literal construction of Constitutional provi-

sions for the health, safety of all is the prima facia safeguard for us

all. This is to be considered with and in explicitly or implicitly to

deny such truth upon sound merited evidence must be redressed

and continued favor for the Appellant for such grave and unjust

wrongs caused by the United States Postal Service.

The Appellant's determination of precipte of the Fifth and

Fourteenth Ammendment and First coupled with the ADA laws

and prime civil rights issues for all this wanton and gross inten-

s.-

ee

tional harm caused by the United States Postal Service. I am

extremely qualified for such actions and enforcements of such

rights by law, in, out and around. | am surprisingly overwhelmed

by their injustice and inappropriateness of the courts and the U.S.

Postal Service to heip an aid an injured worker with such casual

relationships. This is outright fraud and criminal actions that need

strict enforcement of law backed by Sec. 523 of the law back pay

under title No. 7 of the law, based upon obvious fraud in construc-

tive modes, and proof of it, Honorable Justices. Preponderance is

accounted for.

Please do not treat these advertments as idle chit chat. This

effects me personally, as well as others nationally.

Henceforth the court should act upon such authentication

of facts under Sec. No. 42 USC 2000 e and Sec. 703a designed to

overcome existing evils. And No. 61 Civil Rights Action that the

court holds explicitly and implicitly that my full due process of the

law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment was grossly

suppressed by the courts and the U.S. Postal Service in conspiracy.

Any or all scopes of injustice of the law in redress not only

hurts me, but all future considerations to others. This is ajustifiable,

merited action here of accountability, for such needs warrant

considerations of law coupled with national safety, health and

welfare of all other third parties and personnel. A new standard of

review has to take precedence over the old. No motion, indigna-

tion, or like should be issued if not properly adjudicated and

balanced by an appropriate challenge by the Appellant through

just ways and means with integrity. | am not discouraged, Sirs, but

strongly encouraged now to do something prudent in this grave

matter of grave intentional harm. Whenever an Appellant will

- 14-

ultimately prevaii by offered preponderance of supportive evi-

dence, this cite is offered to you. Sheuer vs. Rhodes 416 US 232

23694SCT 1683, 1686, 40 LED2D90 (1974). Henceforth now to and

on this motion of past court actions to dismiss is an unqualified

determination of absolute abatement of full substitutive due pro-

cess of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitu-

tion, under fire against the Appellant. Whether on grounds of lack

of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a cause of action to

allegation should warrani favorably to the Appellant when over-

whelming evidence is obviously present and accounted for, suchas

Conley vs. Gibson 355 US 4145, 78SCT 99 102 2LED 2D 80 1957. Ang

vs. Procter and Gamble Company, 932 F2D 5405446 Circuit Court

1991. Such grave and wanton dismissals of severity and ongoing

complaints filed under civil rights law and statutes are very well

scrutinized with special care and emphasis. Mekeadd vs. Kingsley

Area Schools 727 F SUPP 335,338 [WD MICHIGAN 1989]. Also

citing Kent vs. Johnson 821F2D 12201223 6 Circuit Court. Brooks

vs. Seitter 779 F2D 1177 1180 6 Circuit Court.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT: Henceforth

now the Appellant has more than enough sufficiency of evidence of

notification of this injustice not being properly adjudicated to date

with proper accountability of the U.S. Postal Service which has not

been assured to their objectivity of why they tried to destroy me,

while allowing some others due care and consideration to their

injuries in good faith. The US Supreme Court No. 482 U.S. 901,10f

Sct 2475 96LED 2d368 and thus granting certioirari in section no.

704 (9) of the title of law 7 42 USCS and 2000 (e) 3 (a) 1970 ed Supp

third Provaos. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL IN EMPLOYMENT

PRACTICES FOR AN EMPLOYER TODISCRIMINATE AGAINST

ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES OR APPLICANTS AND FOR FUTURE

sie

EMPLOYMENT (affirmative action laws). Fn8158 US App (dc) at

152485f2d931 federal civil rights of the Appellant has shown con-

tinued constructive fraud, slander, libel, etc., while the willingness

to coffer evidence for injunctive or declaratory relief of the courts

was not fully sanctioned. Peckman vs. Scranton 1957, Sa7 (ILL)

241f2d761 UNITED STATES ex rel Johnson vs. Specter (1967 ED

PA) 262f Supp 113. This discharge of employment engagement of

concert activities is in direct retaliation and discriminatory employ-

ment practices of the U.S. Postal Service, thus jointly working to

abate me from my full substitive due process of the laws and

statutes, thus causing economic reprisal with respect to impose

unlawful discrimination against an absolutely blameless injured

worker (work scope related), Honorable Justices. This is a cause of

grave wanton labor practices also constituted as 100% proof posi-

tive in absolute form of direct violations of Title VII civi! rights and

federal civil rights coupled with the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth

Amendment of the US Constitution. Our US Constitution must not

enslave ourselves to and for totalitarianism by any government

entity or agency thereof while abridging the Appellant's freedom

or abducting themselves through arbitrary ways and means. Per-

sonal] intercommunications practices such as these have been done

in a gross magnitude against the Appellant. This is a highly

discriminatory practice to be allowed to happen within the limits of

the Bill of Rights and cited arguments are admitted due to oral

argument when the time comes. Today we must be vigilant in our

past constitutional freedoms proven. This is a merit of vital interest

and issue that what is expected to be done and accomplished and

adhered to. Compensation attendance to law must be sanctioned

thus bringing everything together while self control arbitrary deci-

sions of the U.S. Post Office must be eradicated for one and all while

a"

trying not to engage yourself or endure such practices yourself

within the scope of law. The Appellant wants relief of bad faith

dealings and dishonest arbitrary conduct. THE DUTY OF THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS TO ALLOW FOR SUCH

WRONGNESS TO BE DEALT WITH IN COMPLETE FAIRNESS

TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPELLANT FOR WHICH THE

LAWS WERE NOTSANCTIONED PROPERLY BY LAW FORTHE

APPELLANT'S REDRESS OF THESE SERIOUS INTENTIONAL

TORTS. A SERIOUS BREACH OF LAW CONDUCT TOWARDS A

SEVERELY INJURED WORKER WITHOUT DUE FORTH COM-

PENSATION IS A SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTION OF DECEIT

AND FRAUD AND UNDERTAKINGS OF COMPLETENESS AND

DUE FORTH UNWARRANTED DAMAGES IN BAD FAITH OP-

ERATIONS.

There is no misrepresentation of facts. The US Postal

Service did absolutely perform constructive fraud against me.

(Cite omitted by oral argument). As to adhere for hearing properly

or rehearing of my serious grievances. The US Supreme Court No.

482 US 901, 107 Sct 2475 again stated. Whenever a discriminatory

practice such as this connection of bad faith injures one, this cause

of action initially injures all in due time, simply because the US

Postal Service must pay for the damages caused within under the

guidelines of TitleVII it is basically a concern with individuals

rights within the scope of law. Again, Title VII Strictues are

absolute and thus present a Congressional inquiry. No. 76 com-

mands that each employee be free from discriminatory practices.

ID 45194 Sct at 1021. This should facilitate involvement of the US

Supreme Court for good faith equity of employment laws and due

forth action to the Appellant in restoration of dignity and justice for

all.

owes

The totality of damages and danger should be obviously

overwhelming enough for proper consideration in all past prac-

tices of all US Postal Service undermindingness and its

managemental vindictiveness against a severely injured worker,

(work scope related).

Threats were issued in direct connection towards the Ap-

pellant, witnessed (oral argument pending). There is a history of

obvious hostility present here, and a cause of action to specific

individuals who initially caused this intentional harm, namely,

MR. RICHARD ROME, asa very obvious present, future danger to

one and all. If he has done it to me, he is going to do it to someone

else again, since it is his behavior pattern.

THE FORESEEABLE IS BEING SHIFTED OVER TO THE

U.S. SUPREME COURT TO DEAL WITH THESE SPECIFIC IS-

SUES OF GRAVE DANGER. THE APPELLANT HAS PER-

FORMED HIS DUTY AS TO ALLOW YOU TO RECOGNIZE THIS

PROBLEM. A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO

DECIDE, RETREAT, OR RATIONALIZE ON THIS SUBJECT

MATTER BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Increase risk of criminal

activity torts and various other claims for acts within the Postal

Service against me. While failing to protect and provide protection

for such gross, wanton negligence and abuse. Anything which

facilitates expectable attack and does not take a reasonable means

or measure to protect when fully aware are consequently bounded

as to actual trespassing against the Appellant's rights, resulting

liability and breach of prevalent strict liability as well as vicarious,

is strongly indicated here. A new and whole new relationship is

now well grounded and thus recapitulated to all concerned now,

in, out and around, laws, morals and ethics, a basic common sense

issue of determinative duty in existence of long standing consider-

4 2

ations of the Appellant not being fully sanctioned. The Appellant

suffered injury while the closeness of this connection between the

US Postal Service, Defendant, conduct and injury to the suffering

and wanton intentional conduct of MR. RICHARD ROME has to be

eradicated as soon as possible. The Postal Service thus again is

engaged in obviously presenting future harm to another third

party while allowing Mr. Richard Rome the privilege of not being

disciplined. The Appellant, however, extends the burden of

accountibility and responsibility and consequences thereof to the

US Postal Service of and to this fact, thus the Appellant is imposing

a duty to one and all, a duty of proper jurisprudence and exercise

of care is in order for the Appellant. The injured worker has

suffered gravely from these results, from such gross, wanton

intentional torts. An excellent recapitulation of facts and factors

must be considered for national health, safety and welfare and

proper jurisprudence for the injured worker.

Appellant Statement: Allegations, facts, evidence, of all

past advertments and other such conditional scenarios have to be

dealt with. The Appellant has overwhelming gross injustice of law

and statutes. This is a slap boxing match. The Appellant is

warranted for proper adjudication with certainty and proper juris-

prudence management. The engagement of eye witnesses and

status classification in premise liability case here. No time for

generalized duty of accountability here, Sirs. Again, reasonably

jurisprudence is the only alternative left for such forseeability of

hurt and harm that I have suffered throughout this Postal Service

ordeal. Again, the Appellant has suffered enough now and the

involved risk of responsibilities has shifted to the Supreme Court

for a petition to address such wanton gross intentional issues here.

Adequate remedy against all damages is well warranted deemed

and characterized. Thus holdings of anything other than favorable

. -

in the severity of this issue would be a direct violation of my First,

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of substitutive due process. A

coalesced in the Apellant's favor as an invitee of undue and wanton

harm done within the scope of work, in, out and around the law.

We are now heading for a head-on collision course of forseeability

of great harm. I am appealing not just for my self, Honorable

Justices, but for all future and past damages of unexpected wrongs

to be redressed. It is my belief and strong indication that there are

no more alternative theories left. We must and should consider

only the gross and willful misconduct claims and intentional harm

presented to me by all U.S. Postal Service directly involved.

Additional insight to the First Amendment Tinker vs.

DesMoines, Indendent School District 393 US 4503, 506 1969 and

Chapel vs. Center Moriches Union Free Schoo! District 113 Sct 2141

1993 ID at 506 and ID 512-13.

FOR SUCH UNDETERMINED EVIL THE APPELLANT

SUSTAINED DURING HIS BRIEF COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

WHILE HE WAS RETOLLING HIS EDUCATIONAL LIFE, AND

NOW ISCOMPLETELY UNABLE TO WORK DUE TOHISSEVER

DISABILITIES. The Appellant is 100% absolutely blameless in the

entrustment of false allegations, false evidence, and writs em-

ployed by the US Postal Service schemes and operations thereof.

Employees should be protected from such overt discriminatory

practices. It is the employee's right to have such non-discrimina-

tory treatment based upon law. Congress prohibits this action

against any or such other principle.

Additional considerations of said interest to the Appellant

are also of grave concern here, Honorable Justices, as stated accord-

ingly.

- 20 -

Henceforth now achance to recover damages or thus secure

equitable relief or other relief. Thus any act of Congress has

provided a safeguard in civil rights ... case and point.

A. 28 USC and 2210-2202

B. 28 USC and 1981

C. 42 USC and 1985-86

D. 42 USC and 1985 - 1986 “Again with emphasis"

Again the Plaintiff is an American citizen and has an un-

qualified right based by Constitutional rights within law. In, out

and around, Sir. Coupled withaccess and rights tothe courts. Thus

action such as this and all parties of concern; only precluded the

Plaintiff of lawful access to the courts.

Henceforth denying my civil rights by a trial by selection of

jury .. and now comes allegation of felonies under Title #18 US

Code. This is punishable as a principal (18USC) 241 Conspiracy

against a disabled person of right and access to courts; as a veteran

and an American citizen.

Again: Rule #18 USC and 1905 obstruction of justice page

516. This is extremely unconscionable and highly unwarranted

consideration to allow to an American citizen, veteran, and se-

verely disabled person. Where has justice and truth gone to?

A place of uncaring personnel, Sir. Here I have been

seriously damaged for life, Honorable Sirs. Coping and knowing

what is really going on here is absolute abatement of justice. Who

really cares? Obviously they don't, Sirs.

ADA #28 CFR Part 33335, App. A and 35130 FN 14 Man-

x. 2

dates sanctions of 35.130 (cl) Unbev 28 CFR and 35130 prohibition

against discrimination. No ambiguity here, Sirs.

The onsets of injuries dates of consideration: 10-18-85 ...

struck from behind (and witnessed). Seen by U.S.P.O. Infirmary

and thus treated by acting nurse. Post Office fully aware of injury.

Seen by Dr. James Samuel Lapecvic Ph.D., D.O., F.D., J.D.,

and a host of other degrees, for additional medical follow-up, for

cervical injury and rexabation of TMJ Syndrome. Continued care

long-standing and progressive damage in nature; established in-

jury connection and witnessed reports and thus, Sirs, afforded

proper care for injuries substained, Plaintiff blameless.

Entrapment of hand (left side). Date of injury 8-30-89

witnessed. Progressive damage and loss of 40% + of motor strength.

Cause and effect Dr. Jeffery Lumaugh states a causal relationship of

accident in reference to chronic pain. He sanctions sound medical

tests such as nerve study test, M.R.I. Scans, and associates Dr.

Ronald Paldwich onset impression.

After accident Mr. Richard Rome, P.M.>, failed to seek

medical attention toward Mr. Haas’ workscope injury, witnessed.

My left hand was slammed against, Sirs, and entrapment

occurred and thus reexasberated all of my musculoskeletal dys-

function to be further aggravated and injured.

I had to fight for my absolute right of compensational

paperwork. He tried to abate me from this absolute consideration.

A 300 pound steel door was pinned against my hand, Sir.

Mr. Richard Rome, Post Master, wrote up a constitutive

fraud writ about me and conveyed two complete pages of absolute

fraudulent reports about my character in falseness. His scheme

was to obviously abate me from lawful compensation (witnessed)

as absolute truth and "not relevant."

Thus Plaintiff was completely terminated by this writ and

thus released from work by constructive fraudulent bases. Dr.

Carodo wrote a requisite of a problem of Mr. Haas based upon the

fraud of Post Master Richard Rome (wittnessed). Hence they

retaliated against me and fired me while off work on a workscope

disability, Sirs. Additional and great harm, 100+% proof positive,

witnessed.

This course of action was challenged by the Plaintiff as

outright deceit and thus seen by Hon. Law-Judge Butler. He used

fraudulent petition against Plaintiff. Isogertic damage and further

cause of more and increased pain, Honorable Justices.

Retaliation here, Sirs, multi-fraud against Plaintiff as ob-

served and reinstated as per judge's order.

Compensation of Plaintiff for continuous care by

(O.W.C.C.P.) sought and thus denied in sequence ongoing affair for

all claims, Sirs. Compensation denied based on absence of said

doctor's reports. Fraudulent acts as to constructive as to incidents

again further and greater harm isogentic effect to Plaintiff. An

ongoing merry-go-round system of fraud (witnessed). A dual

discriminational issue at hand that of a disabled veteran, Viet Nam

War, and a workscope disability of prime distinction. They will-

fully used aservice connected disability against me and a workscope

disability one too.

The charge of a mental problem was noted. | was labeled

neurotic and not mental. A big difference, Sirs. | received a direct

blow to my face, with 1" scar left side. A misdiagnosis T.M.].

8.

Syndrome for which I had to tutor V.A. physician on. Well onsetted

in the dental chair onactive duty. A physiological bases supersedes

a nervous condition based upon physiological origins and onset.

The T.M.]. caused the nervous condition. Subluxation of mandible

came first, Sirs, that led toa neurotic condition. This is absolute and

a matter of record, seen and witnessed by American Legion.

This is again additional discrimination practices and retali-

ation of U.S.P.O. namely Mr. Richard Rome, P.M.,and his tag along

associates. What a shame, here, Sirs.

All of the additional stress relationships are extremely

unwarranted by all personnel of U.S.P.O.

As by law now the burden is on the employer to show and

thus state in good faith. To be shifted to defendant. Why this type

of behavior was allowed and sanctioned in the blind, no checks and

balances. By law and observation of fact Mr. Rome is the threat and

it plainly shows of his heart and intentional harm, ADA onset of

public law warrants prime consideration under Sec. 504 to 407

Disability Law, Sirs, compliance in reverse.

Mr. Richard Rome is hostile and antisocial behavior against

a multi-severe disabled person. Unwarranted (inequity) of the

twisted truth of said postmaster, Sirs. A sad commentary and

afflictions of outright “evil.”

Admission of overwhelming evidence is static and statisti-

cal grounds for a grievance like this, has to be challenged by law.

Plaintiff seeking remedy and redress as an American citi-

zen, veteran, disabled worker through the Constitutional merits of

the United States of America, Sir.

Mr. Richard Rome and associates do and have ascertained

P

to be an ongoing threat to my health and or safety. Great wanton

harm to me is well indicated and established by law.

Hence ADA Disability Act and Safety Defence SEC. #Fpg

20:25 warrants my health has been damaged by extreme anti-social

behavior patterns of Postmaster Rome.

By all pasted and prevent considerations of the men’s rae of

Richard Rome, P.M., has to be stopped now. (This isa case of itself,

Sir, to allow such behavior as insane an unwarranted behavior.

They must sanction this scope of action and behavior by giving him

a promotion and firing a blameless and innocent man.)

A grave and significant risk is right before your eyes, Sirs.

He is going to hurt someone. It is a matter of time. | am deeply

concerned. He needs authentic help right now.

A promulgated action of and by EEol under Title #1, a reverse

position of additional and wanton harm again (witnessed).

A definition used of a direct threat is a codification of

unwarranted behavior articulated by U.S. Supreme Court in the

case of:

School Board of Wassau vs. Allude 480 US 273 1989 Public

Law #100-259. USC and 706 8 v. Pull No. 100-43 42 USE and 3604(9).

Who is going to be the next victim, Sir? This has to be dealt

with as soon as possible.

No sound basis of discipline towards Postmaster Richard

Rome and last none of my knowledge. They gave hima promotion

instead, Sirs.

A shifted case and response is now being shifted over and

shifted into Defendant's area and that of the courts. Section #503

prohibits retaliations and conversion against me/Plaintiff. Very

blameless 5W Sec (a) and (b). Thus Plaintiff merits and is favorably

<a.

accepted to have a sanction of law because of three phases of

disability, that of (1) Viet Nam veteran; (2) ADA Title in variance as

applied to law; (c) civil rights act.

(1) Plaintiff has/is been severely disabled since November

7, 1990, Sirs, and thus became unable to work ona continuous basis

due to gross instability of super herneation of disk multi in fashion.

(2) Claimant has not engaged in any substantial gainful

activity since November 7, 1990.

(3) Severe spinal impairments and chronic pain coupled

with T.M.J. Syndrome (Mandibular Joint Dysfunction).

(4) Plaintiff total record supports claimants subjective alle-

gations of severe disability pain.

(5) Plaintiff functional capacity has been “recalled to show

below a sedentary level and completely unable to perform work of

in this state of concern."

(6) Claim of severe disabilities is 100+ absolute, “witnessed”

as multi severe.

(7) Not one ounce of compassion was shown to and to assist

a witnessed workscope related problem. They only added addi-

tional isogenic harm of a great magnitude. Thus further aggravat-

ing this condition. How is a person to heal properly under severe

life stress, caused by uncaring U.S.P.O. personnel, Sirs?

Calculation of weights and facts also Title II ADA 42 USC

and 1231-12 Non-discriminational principles of Sesc. 5al Rehabili-

tation Acts (fn12) Easley v. Snider 36F 3cl 297,300 (3rd Cir 1994)

Section 202 Title #11 42 USC 1234 (a).

This connection of unlawful, wanton, unfair labor prac-

tices, thus only caused greater harm to Plaintiff. A specific signifi-

cance in a mandated order for complete reversal and remand is

extremely warranted to be absolute and ripe now to do so, Honor-

able Justices.

This is not a harmless error but absolute grave and inten-

tional damage displayed upon Plaintiff. There is the letter of the

law that was not observed in compliance for all of this blatant

damage. But as this case unfolds, the Plaintiff is in strong favor that

the spirit of the law was also above absolute. 100+ provable in form

and fashion witnessed.

The burden of law shifts strongly toward the court of

appeals and all responsible parties within the U.S.P.O. for their

retaliation against an injured worker. How would you feel if you

were me? No job, no health, no financial compensation; this is 100+

totally and completely unconscionable in reference to pertain to

any job.

To my knowledge and fact this is an insurrection of outright

criminal activity of the U.S.P.O., Sirs. The facts speak for them-

selves.

SEC #503 mandates relief under section of the law #28 USC

#1361. Workmen's compensation, witnessed ADA 102 UCCA c

121120 Section of applicable # laws. Outright intentional torts and

proof 100+ of it, Honorable Justices.

Legal petition filed to U.S.P.O. and thus was found for

consideration, Sirs. Denied and also submitted for reconsideration

and thus denied again and given the right to file suit, federal courts.

Shifted burden leans heavily on U.S.P.O. on proof positive

on a weil-grounded case of strongly merited actions and not idle

chit chat or flibous case of actions. Multi-discriminations practices

7.

and criminal activity going on here, Sirs.

(a) Father Flanagan and Boys Home v. Goerk #224 Nov.

731-40 (1) W2D 461 and OASE # B22-1987 U.S. Supreme Court.

(b) Harris v. Misty Lounge Inc. #220 NEB MEB 678 371 N.

Wrd GEb Neg. Rev. Strt #84-918 2 Cum Supp. 1992.

Plaintiff did not receive standard practices of medicine

upon prior mental evaluation of a workscope relationship of con-

cern. A statutory Review of authority and scope of review section

# 205G as in District Courts Review is limited to substantial

evidence and prime considerations of other legal questions.

Dobrowsky v. Calfano 606 FEd 403 (3rd Cir.) The appellate

briefs and references to and toward district courts w hen argumenial

that substantial evidence supports your position that it is impera-

tive to rebative all legal issues.

A prima facie case is well established grounds for redress by

overwhelming facts, witnesses, medical reports, constructive fraud.

The letter and spirit of the law are very imperative here,

Honorable Justices, by and beyond any reasonable doubt in fact

when the Plaintiff has substantial evidence ina strong merited case

of prime consideration here to be properly addressed.

Again, Sirs, overwhelming evidence is the only main issue

here, within this case at hand. Grossly unwarranted discrimina-

tional practices here, and it plainly shows a basic common sense

issue.

On July 26, 1990 the year of our Lord, the ADA American

with Disabilities Act came into being and thus made law to public.

- 28 -

POEL Tat ER I. TON ELEM ID 4 te ALTIUS et Hee Tee I Me fa RPRE RR NG SA

It is again quite apparent they completely violated multi number

laws and thus used them against me, Sirs, obviously so. Facts speak

loud and clear.

Again burden now shifts towards U.S.P.O. and Mr. Richard

Rome, P.M. (Again, Ray Charles can see this blatant connection of

blatent affairs. )

Case and point of view

(I) Kame v. Heckler 776 Fnd 1130, 1132, 2rd Cir. 1985.

(II) Stunkard v. Heckler #873509 (3rd Cir. Files Feb. 24th

1988).

(III) Rocco v. Heckler, 826 F2d. 1348, 1350-I (3rd Cir) 1987.

Dobrowolsky v. Califano #606 Firt 403 3rd Cir. 1979 CAse

of 4 scope of review and section II and 8 Supra. For power of the

courts. Thus appellant briefs, references to district court recordand

pertinent pages of administrative manuscripts are very essential,

Honorable Sirs. AS in District Court when arguing that the sub-

stantive evidence supports your position.

Also for additional evidence that the appellate courts are to

consider submission of additional evidence as to a motion for

remand in District Courts.

Torres v. Schweiker, 667 FEd 1029, 1030, 75 (4th Cir) Legion

connection /Longarin stature.

Also please consider 28 USC #636,6,1, copy of magistrature

reports attached. This practice as withstood a challenge that it

‘violates claimants constitutional right" ~ a final judgment by an

article III Judge.

Wharton- Thomas v. US 72 Fed 922 3rd 1983.

Additional considerations of ADA or 1990 PL 101-336 104

STAT 327 419-421 1990 and 12202.

Prima Facie case in fact. 42 USC and 1985 3 Doc #10 Pax 45

> 2

.

shifted burden on of proof positive toward USPO. Once burden

shifts - Kane v. Heckler 776 Fed 1130,132, 3rd Cir. 1985 and

guidelines of (grids) Baedon v. Heckler 368 FEd 547, 553 3rd Cir

Court 1985.

The postal authorities in what was a systematized form of

emotional abuse, psychological abuse and physical abuse and

financial abuse. Absolutely so cared “not" whether Mr. Haas

suffered. Absolute retaliation against the law. ADA and title VII

Viet Nam Readjustment Act of civil rights. Basic laws. I was guilty

before proven innocent, Sir, and we live ina democracy, absolutely

un-American.

Work related — slander, libel, multi abusive of various

kinds, insurrection of criminal authority, severe structural damage

to spine, multi operation and medical procedures TMJ Rex, subli-

mated ribs, and they wanted me to work. This is insane, Sirs.

After all of these workscope related injuries, plus different

types of severe abuse that was grossly and flagrantly thrusted upon

Mr. Haas, your Honors. You will plainly see absolute truth positive

without any reasonable doubt upon your review of facts as they are

presented to you, Sirs. You will find in our favor beyond any sort

of reasonable doubt. No misconduct on my behalf, blameless.

Additional cites and Supreme Court ruling as per item:

a) Hansen v. Harrahs 675 p. 24 394 (NEV) (US) Supreme

Court ruling employment-at-will rule (Centerpiece)

b) Walters v. Minter/International 758 Fed 73 (3d) Bodily

harm due to emotional distress; isogenic in nature (wrongful

discharge).

c) FRAUDULENT ACTS -- SEVEILLE INDUSTRIAL MA-

CHINERY CORP V. SOUTHWEST MACHINERY CORP 742 F2d

786 (3rd cir) 1984.

=:

Relief requested:

(a) A declaratory judgment that all of the defendants acts,

policies, past and present practices described herein directly vio-

lates Plaintiff rights under the United States Constitution -- "As

absolutes”.

(b) Compensatory damage in the amount of $50 million for

all influence of constructive and act right related within discrimina-

tion.

(c) Additional positive damages of grave suffering, chronic

pain, isogenic harm as stated and observed by proof positive. The

sum of $40 million due to needless stressful and unwarranted

anxiety.

(d) A shifted and prime responsibility of United States Post

Office of issues in conspiracy to abate trial by selection of jury

coupled with no compassion, a court cost. They caused this miss.

(e) The sum of $23 million dollars.

(f) An order mandating all defendant/actions at USPO

indicate Mr. Richard Rome and his direct associates. Employment

consonant coupled by laws #18 USC and 1905 which requires and

provides in part that they shall be removed from office of employ-

ment. GA 16-7 reports and saving principle with good applica-

tions. That redress and righteous judgment is done for the better-

ment of all to insure that this course of action is not repeated.

ee

CONCLUSION:

For these multiple and valid reasons and strong merited

positions of the Appellant coupled with preponderance of evi-

dence set forth by law and thus requesting for the above advertments

a writ of certiorari must be issued to reverse and revise the judg-

ment and opinions of the courts in their motion of unjust jurispru-

dence for the safety, health and welfare of our postal service and

personnel. A national attention in this connection of affairs must be

approcriated by law in this matter of grave concern. Who knows

who will be the next victim of the Postal Service?

Respectfully submitted,

David Henry Haas, Adjunct Professor, J.D.

Pro-se

P.O. Box 342, Oakmont, PA 15139 (412) 828-6760

“** If this court elects not to gda vital issues at the very

present time of this wrjt;ff is requésted that the writ issue and that

the matter be remand€d to the Courts of appeals for re-determination

in light of the Court's Opinions, inconclusiveness, and civil rights

issues dealing with the First, the Fifth, and the Fourteenth Amend-

ment. Iam not only representing myself, but unfortunately may be

a representative of others who have had, or will have, the same

experiences and needless pain and anxiety due to excessive cause

precipitated by the U.S. Postal Service and their management

thereof. The facts speak for themselves.

>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PROF. DAVID HENRY HAAS, J.D. _)

Plaintiff ) Civil Action No. 93-901

v. ) JUDGE LANCASTER

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE

C/O GENERAL MAIL FACILITY, _) BENSON

PITTSBURGH, PA, )

Defendant )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On June 25, 1993, this case was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Benson for pretrial proceedings in

accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636 (b) (1) (A) and

(B), and Rules 3 and 4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

The magistrate judge's report and recommendation, filed

on June 8, 1994, recommended that defendant's motion to dismiss

(Docket #9) be granted, and that its motions for more definite

statement (Docket #3 and #9) be denied as moot. The parties were

allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections.

Service was made on plaintiff by certified mail delivery on June 9,

1994, and on counsel for defendant by first-class mail on June 8,

1994. Objections to the report and recommendation were filed by

plaintiff on June 15, 1994 (Docket #15), and on June 27, 1994, a

supplement to plaintiff's objections was filed (Docket #16). After

de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the

APPENDIX A

case, together with the report and recommendation and objections

thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this day of , 1994;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion

to dismiss (Docket #9) is granted, and the motions for more definite

statement (Docket #3 and #9) are denied as moot.

The report and recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Benson, dated June 8, 1994 (Docket

#13), is adopted as the opinion of the court.

GARY D. LANCASTER

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Honorable Kenneth J. Benson

United States Magistrate Judge

Prof. David Henry Haas, Pro se

P.O. Box 342

Oakmont, PA 15139

Paul E. Skirtich, Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney

633 U.S. Post Office & Courthouse

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Shiela J. Callahan, Esquire

Law Department

Philadelphia Field Service

P.O. Box 40595

Philadelphia, PA 19197-0595

os

April 25, 1995

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No, 94-3388

Haas v U.S. Postal Service

Present: Mansmann, Circuit Judge

1. Motion by pro-se appellant for enlargement of page limitation

for petition for rehearing.

2. Also enclosed is copy of petition for rehearing, sent for your

information only.

Kathleen O'Toole

Deputy Clerk

Direct Dial: 597-5846

The foregoing Motion is/are granted

By the Court,

Circuit Judge

Dated: May 03, 1995

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 94-3388

PROF. DAVID HENRY HAAS, J.D.

VS.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

c/o GENERAL MAIL FACILITY, PITTSBURGH, PA

DAVID HENRY HAAS,

Appellant

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge

BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG,

HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO,

ROTH, LEWIS, MCKEE and SAROKIN,

ircul S.

The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above

entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated

in the decision of this court and to all other available circuit judges

of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred

in the decisions having asked for rehearing, and the majority of the

circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted

for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is

denied.

BY THE COURT,

Circuit Judge

May 24, 1995

APPENDIX C

Amendment .....#I, V, and 14to United States Constitution

Respectfully ...........

Appendix D

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 94-3388

PROF. DAVID HENRY HAAS, J.D.

V.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

c/o GENERAL MAIL FACILITY, PITTSBURGH, PA

DAVID HENRY HAAS,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 93-cv-00901)

District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1 (a)

March 17, 1995

Before: MANSMANN, HUTCHINSON and LEWIS, Circuit

Judges.

JUDGEMENT ORDER

After consideration of all contentions raised by the appel-

lant, it is

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED? that the judgment of the

district court be and is herby affirmes.

Costs taxed against the appeliant

BY THE COURT,

Circuit Judge

Certified as a true copy and issued in lieu

Attest:: of a formal mandate on June 1, 1995

Teste:

P. Douglas SIsk, Clerk

May 31, 1995 Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit

APPENDIX E

References to Unites States Constitution

lst Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of reli-

gion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the

freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government fora redress

of grievances.

Sth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise

infamous, crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand

jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the

militia, when in actual service, in time of war, or public danger; nor

shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in

jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case,

to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

Property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be

taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United State, and subject to

the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the

State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws