# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Haas v. United States Postal Service > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386002_1593%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1995 - **Citation:** 516 U.S. 914 ## Text 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 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386002_1593%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.