Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Watson v. First National Bankcard Center

Supreme Court, US. -

; FILED

98 862 SEP 28 19%

NO. OFFice OF THE CLERK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1998

CONSUELO M. WATSON, Petitioner

Vv.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK/

FIRST BANKCARD CENTER, Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UN: TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

CONSUELO WATSON, Pro Se

11718 Norwick Plaza #34

Omaha, Nebraska 68164

(402)493-8121

sciapaaaccaeiaaaeecammaamameen

i. If Prima Facie and the Burden of Proof showing deliberate

Retaliation has been established in a Title VII Civil Rights Act

of Discrimination and Retaliation, ultimately leading up to the

Petitioner’s termination of employment, is Summary

Judgment a true and justified rendered decision?

2. Moreover, if during the Petitioner’s employment, she realizes

a serious connection between the employer and its’ hidden

“behind the scene”, 3 party Law Enforcement Entity,

causing additional harassment toward the Petitioner, is it

prudent then, for the Supreme Court to decide, if the lower

courts refuse to see the serious activity of harassment and

retaliated violations against the Petitioner?

3. Most Importantly, when deciding the case, if the extraneous

details involved in the case are secretive, intimidating, and in

some cases, life threatening, from the result of OUTSIDE

INFLUENCE: Law Enforcement Groups, Organized

Satanic Groups, Various Racial Groups, and World-Wide

Media Entertainment Groups, causing a member(s) of the

bench to persuade and conclude with “personal biases” toward

the case, isn’t it wise, just and FAIR, then, for the Supreme

Court to intervene and render the final judgment without the

interference of OUTSIDE Persuasion?

LIST OF PARTIES

The parties to the proceedings below in the 8" Circuit Court

were the Petitioner, Consuelo Watson, Pro Se, and the Respondent,

First National Bank/First Bankcard Center, represented by

George C. Rozmarin.

a aca arate a aca cea ae aia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. .........-+-+-+++0eeereeeeereereerees® i

LIST OF PARTIES. .........-2cescscceesereceserseneeceerecereeseees il

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. ........---00-sceeerereeereerserere re iv

OPINIONS BELOW. ........--.-:-ceeeeceeeeeeeeeesreseseenee senses l

JURISDICTION. ...........000eeceeceeeeeeerecseeesnceecsenerssceees l

STATUTE INVOLVED. ........-0.:seceeeeeeeneerer essen es neescee l

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ......------0s0eeeeerrrererersene 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.......-.---2:2-:508 14

A. Due to non-investigation of the Petitioner’s case,

in its’ entirety, by the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission.

B. The Legal Requirements for Discrimination and

Retaliation charges were satisfied.

C. Other Casual Connections while under the employ of

First National Bank/First Bankcard Center.

CONCLUSION. ....0..cccccvccccecssssccccccsceverccseesenenesserrors 19

APPENDIX

Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals For the

Eighth Circuit .............ssseseseseserseeseceeesersesesees® App. |

Memorandum and Order In The United States District

Court For The District Of Nebraska........-..-+-++++++++ App. 2

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Statute

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...................0e00

28 USC §1254 (1)

Pee

ae ee

re - -

The Petitioner, Consuelo Watson asks the Supreme Court of the

United States of America, the nation under God, to review the

judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit,

entered on July 6, 1998.

OPINIONS BELOW

The court of appeals for the Eighth Circuit had no opinion, and the

decision is reprinted in the appendix. The decision of the United

States District Court of Nebraska is typeset in the appendix.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On July 7, 1998, the district court of

Nebraska granted Summary Judgment to the Respondent. On July 6,

1998, the Eighth Circuit Affirmed the decision of the district court.

The Jurisdiction to review judgment of the Eighth Circuit is invoked

under 28 USC § 1254 (1).

STATUTE INVOLVED

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides in part: It shall be

an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate

against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or act and

origin.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A.

The Petitioner brought a Civil Rights Title VII action against

the Respondent for Discrimination and Retaliation, after the Petitioner

inquired with Frank Kelly, Manager of the Bankcard Center (BCC)

Fraud Department of First National Bank (FNB), and Michelle Leo

(newly appointed assistant to Kelly), about their decision for a

promotion between two workers, Vivian Hart, and African American,

and Adrienne Miller, a Caucasian American.

The action also includes harassment, manipulation and abuse

from the "secret" work of Federal Agents against the Petitioner while

under the employ of the Respondent, thereafter and currently.

The Petitioner had been employed with FNB from January

1987 to May 1995 and began her Investigative career in the BCC

Fraud Department in April 1992. Two weeks after the Petitioner

started her new position, Sr. Investigator K.J. Kuchta had accepted a

position as a manager in Oklahoma City after receiving and acting

upon a Headhunter/Recruiter's telephone call, searching for someone

to fill the position.

As a result, the Petitioner, fresh and new in her position,

briefly thought about career opportunities in the future, and asked

Kelly if it was "OK" to receive such calls. Kelly responded saying the

Investigators receive the calls "all the time," and if the Investigators

feel qualified, they act upon the calls. The Petitioner left Kelly's

office with an optimistic outlook on future career possibilities.

In May 1995, precisely remembering her initial conversation

with Kelly concerning headhunter calls, the Petitioner received a call

from a Headhunter, for the first time. The Headhunter was looking for

someone to fill a management position with a credit card company in

Cincinnati, OH.

The Petitioner wasn't comfortable making a verbal "announcement" to

the other Investigators about the call, and simply photocopied the

details of the position and passed the information along to the others.

FBC management, at this point, decided to rely on the Bank's policy

of Headhunter's calling the Bank by terminating the Petitioner, yet

Kelly had previously stated it was "OK: to accept the calls.

Moreover, when K.J. Kuchta departed from the bank, the department,

as a whole, wished him well, with full knowledge of the fact that he

was leaving from the result of a Headhunter call.

Prior to the Petitioner being terminated from FNB, and after

learning of Kelly's decision to promote Michelle Leo and Adrienne

Miller in October 1994, the Petitioner asked Kelly and Leo the

reasons Vivian Hart had not been considered and promoted to the

position as Leo's assistant instead of Adrienne Miller. The Petitioner

made the inquiry for the following reasons: Kelly had originally

chosen Investigator Tami Neuberger, (who voluntarily ended her

employment with FNB) as his Assistant. Leo, however, was

hysterically and emotionally upset with Kelly's decision since she had

been in the department longer than Neuberger. As a result, Kelly

recanted his decision, after choosing Neuberger, and gave Leo the

position instead, due to the fact that Leo had more time in the

department. In comparison, since those were the grounds and

conditions Kelly chose Leo on, then Leo and Kelly should have

chosen Hart for the same reason. Both Leo and Hart, although in two

separate employment capacities, shared the same employment profile.

Both had been in the department 10 years, both had perfect

attendance, both were dependable, loyal and committed to their jobs.

The only differences between the two were their ethnic racial

differences. On the other hand, Adrienne Miller, Leo's best friend and

confidant had only been in the department 6 months and did not share

the same employment background as Leo and Hart. The Petitioner's

Question to both Kelly and Leo: If Kelly recanted his original

decision to promote Neuberger and chose Leo instead, based

3

on Leo's length of time in the department and her credentials as a

good-standing employee, then why wasn't Hart, who has the exact

employee profile as Leo, promoted as Leo's Assistant, instead of

Adrienne Miller?

After the Petitioner made the racial comparison, the Petitioner

suffered Retaliation and Harassment from October 1994 to May 1995,

which lead up to the Petitioner being terminated from FNB, May

1995.

The following includes the Retaliation and Harassment the Petitioner

encountered:

Petitioner using the 6th floor restroom

Petitioner using a spray cleaner to clean her area

Petitioner drying her umbrella in her cubicle

Petitioner handling a "Hot Call"

Petitioner using a vacuum to clean her area after a holiday-

weekend.

Petitioncr overlooked for management duties

. Petitioner submitting a Laser '95 Idea/Suggestion

. Petitioner terminated

a ee Oe

CO ID

Using the 6th Floor Restroom: Two weeks after the Petitioner

asked Leo and Kelly the reasons Hart wasn't promoted, the Petitioner

went to the 6th floor where the break room is also located, to use the

restroom because the restroom on the second floor where the Fraud

Department is located was in use and full. The Petitioner and Leo

met at the elevators, along with Adrienne Miller, Investigators Tal

Layne and Steve Thompson. In a condescending, belittling and

embarrassing manner, Leo abrasively asked the Petitioner,

"WHAT ARE YOU DOING UP HERE?" Not only did the

Petitioner feel embarrassed among the other Investigators, but she

felt, at this moment, belittled and emotionally threatened by Leo's

new position and authority over her.

ee es a RT - IS

PG ST Ge er ee nee oe) On WS Pee i -

Using a Spray Cleaner: In an effort to comply with Kelly’s

managerial directive, which he had not changed after promoting Leo,

Kelly asked that the Investigators clean their desks regularly and to

use his office as an example. The Petitioner, as a result, routinely

cleaned her desk once a month using Pine-Sol because the

maintenance workers were not allowed to clean or dust the

Investigator’s desks. The Petitioner began cleaning her desk one

morning, and Leo and Miller came into the Investigative area and

Miller asked Leo what the Pine-Sol smell was. At this moment, Leo

said the smell was “offensive”. The smell! was offensive to Miller, yet

Miller’s work area is set up outside of the enclosed Investigative area.

Leo harassed the Petitioner about the cleaning solution the Petitioner

had been using for the past three years, after Miller rendered her

opinion.

Drying Umbrella: Ona rainy Monday morning, the Petitioner

arrived to work and left her umbrella opened in her cubicle to dry, as

usual. When Leo arrived to work, she took her coat off, walked by

the Petitioner’s cubicle and demanded the Petitioner remove her

umbrella from her cubicle and place it on Leo’s chair, next to Leo’s

desk. Leo’s request made no sense at all, ordering the Petitioner to

place a wet umbrella on a chair, yet Leo persistently harassed the

Petitioner about the umbrella, forcing the Petitioner to seek Kelly’s

intervention. Kelly said he saw no reason why the Petitioner could

not keep her umbrella in her cubicle and he thought Leo overreacted.

At this point, however, Leo had established a pattern of using her

authority by singling out and harassing the Petitioner whenever she

felt either threatened or insecure in her position as Supervisor.

Vacuuming Cubicle: In January 1995, after a three-day holiday-

weekend, the Petitioner’s cubicle, as well as the rest of the

Investigative area had not been cleaned over the weekend. The

trashcans were full and trails of paper had accumulated on the floor.

5

The Petitioner had more trails of paper around her cubicle than the

other areas in the department. As a result, the Petitioner attempted to

clean her area and the immediate walking area with a vacuum cleaner

she had obtained from the building office. Leo came into the

department and angrily yelled, “TURN THAT THING OFF!!” Leo

bitterly and harassingly said the Petitioner had been causing a

distraction to the other two Investigators who were in the department,

at the time (Al Holzapfel and Tal Layne). The Petitioner explained to

Leo that before she turned the vacuum on, she made sure the others

were not on their phones. Leo insisted, however that the Petitioner

was Causing a distraction and as a result, informed Kelly about the

Petitioner using the vacuum cleaner to remove some of the paper on

the flocr.

Handling a Hot Call: After the Petitioner completed a “Hot Call”

(a call from merchants alerting the BCC company of a potential lost

card or theft usage during a transaction and on-location), Leo later

received a call from a clerk of the merchant where a hot call generated

from. Leo said the clerk told her the Petitioner had been rude for

asking the mandatory, routine questi~ns: “if whether the clerk has the

card in her possession, the name of the merchant, location, city and

state of the merchant, etc.” The caller (merchant) refused to answer

the standard questions, and only wanted to know the status of the

card. Subtle implications were also made, by the caller, about the

person using the card and his race (black) and the Petitioner sounding

black, during the call.

Leo verbally reprimanded the Petitioner and said the Petitioner

shou!d not have been rude to the clerk because the bank does not want

to lose merchants. In essence, Leo was saying, the Petitioner should

not perform her job correctly by following the department guidelines

when handling hot calls. During Hot Calls, a person attempting to use

a stolen credit card can call BCC and request verification or the status

of the card while posing as a merchant.

6

There are specified rules that merchants are required to follow,

including "cooperation" with the bank when a call is generated into

the center. Leo offered no supervisory support. She automatically

showed her allegiance to the caller/clerk, leaving the Petitioner

feeling helpless after attempting to simply perform the structured

procedure designed to prevent the bank from being potentially

defrauded when handling Hot Calls.

Laser '95 Idea/Suggestion: FNB sponsored an employee

Idea/Suggestion campaign called "Laser '95" whereby employees

submit suggestions and ideas to improve a product or service. The

Petitioner thought of an idea and attempted to prepare the

documentation. The Petitioner had informed the other Investigators

that she would be at the typewriter, and she informed the support staff

that she would take all of her phone calls. Leo came out of Joe

Barry's office (Officer Of the Fraud/Security Department and Kelly's

Manager), approached the Petitioner, and observed what the

Petitioner had been typing and harassingly said, "You have to get

yack to work! You are needed back there" (in the Investigative

rea). Leo had been in Barry's office and really did not know what

the Investigators were doing, and if the Petitioner's assistance, in fact,

had been needed, the Investigators would have known where to find

the Petitioner. Once again, Leo retaliated, singled out, and harassed

the Petitioner. Perhaps Leo felt challenged or insecure of her

authority after leaving Barry's office and directed her feelings toward

the Petitioner by exercising her authority over the Petitioner.

In comparison to Leo's harassment against the Petitioner, the

previous month, Investigator Al Holzapfel prepared and submitted a

suggestion and received a monetary reward, as a result. During an

Investigator’s meeting, Leo recognized and congratulated Holzapfel

for his efforts. Several years ago, before Leo became Frank's

Assistant, she too, prepared and submitted ideas and received

substantial monetary rewards.

Managerial Duties: The following is a list of Investigators in

seniority order:

Tal Layne

Steve Thompson

Bob Cannon

Tami Neuberger (before leaving)

Connie Watson (Consuelo)

Al Holzapfel

Sheila Triplett

Shawn Toney

Christine Steele

When Frank Kelly went on vacation or planned to be away from the

bank, he would assign an Investigator to perform his management

responsibilities. Both Kelly and Leo were scheduled to be away from

the bank at the same time and therefore, would have to assign an

Investigator to assume management responsibilities. Layne,

Thompson, Cannon, and Neuberger had previously been given the

opportunity to assume the supervisory role in seniority order, yet Leo

intentionally overlooked the Petitioner and chose the next Investigator

in line, Al Holzapfel. The Petitioner had been in the department a

year and a half longer than Holzapfel and she demonstrated above

average Investigative knowledge and excellent chargeback and

recovery results. When both Leo and Kelly requested additional

research for Law Enforcement purposes, the Petitioner efficiently

supplied the requested information or found solutions to their non-

case related issues. Leo would, without hesitation, at times, ask the

Petitioner to resolve potentially fraud matters outside of her normal

scope of Investigative responsibilities. Kelly allowing Leo to

ultimately choose the Investigator to assume the management

responsibilities, overlooke Vivian Hart in being promoted and chose

Al Holzapfel instead.

During lower court briefing, the Respondent's Counsel stated Leo's

rationale was based on what the Petitioner's "Peers" thought of her,

but Leo had already set the opinion and tone and even provided an

example for the others, when she demonstrated the type of

relationship she and the Petitioner would have, two weeks after Leo

became Frank's Assistant, by embarrassing the Petitioner in front of

the others (the Petitioner's Peers") at the Elevator on the 6th Floor.

Sharing Information with Fellow Investigators: Given the

consistent effort Leo put into retaliating and harassing the Petitioner

on almost every action the Petitioner made, when the Petitioner

attempted to share the Headhunter information with the other

Investigators, instead of Leo "correcting" this action made by the

Petitioner, Leo came over to the Petitioner's desk, after reading the

copy placed on her desk, and asked the Petitioner if she had given a

copy to her alone, or to the other Investigators in the department, as

well. The Petitioner told Leo, she had given a copy to the others,

also. Once again, instead of Leo demonstrating supervisory support

or allegiance of any kind toward the Petitioner, Leo used the fact that

the Petitioner had photocopied and shared the information with others

(and not just her) as a final weapon against the Petitioner. If Leo had

the slightest idea that giving the others "a copy" of the information

was inappropriate, and that the Petitioner's job could be in jeopardy,

Leo could have told the Petitioner that she should "verbally" tell the

others, since receiving Headhunter calls, in the department, in and of

itself, was an accepted activity. Leo simply stated, "O.K." and

walked away.

The next morning when the Petitioner arrived to work, Leo

met the Petitioner at her cubicle and said, "Connie, Joe Barry wants to

see you." When the Petitioner went into Barry's office, he held a

copy of the Headhunter information in his hand and asked, "Did you

write this?" The Petitioner said, "Yes," and Barry said,

"Well then, You are Fired!"

During the course of the Petitioner's employment as an

Investigator, the Petitioner realized the Bank's involvement and

connection with a 3rd party Law Enforcement Entity (Secret Service,

FBI, etc.) who secretly surveilled the department and conferred with

Joe Barry, Frank Kelly, and in some cases, Tal Layne and Steve

Thompson. The work and observance of the 3rd Party Entity resulted

in manipulated activity among the Investigators, specifically targeting

the Petitioner. The "Hidden Voice" (or Law Enforcement Entity

within the company) harassed the Petitioner on a daily basis and the

Petitioner sensed the middle ground she had been placed in, between

BCC Management and the Law Enforcement Entity.

Other 3rd Party Law Enforcement Connected activity include

the harassment, manipulation and abuse the Petitioner suffered while

under the employ of FNB, by Federal Agents posing as Agents and

Satanic Advocates. The Petitioner believes the Agents/Satanic

Advocates who have the most knowledge of the harassing and

manipulative abuse against the Petitioner include: Kelly B. Turner,

Dan Jones, Mark Lowelry (possible twin), Tim Yelder (possible

twin), Ellis Tate (possible twin or triplet), and Theron Cook and his

multiple birthed brothers, Deron , Feron, Beron, Geron, Meron,

Peron, Ceron and Eron and quite possibly Heron Cook. The mere

mentioning of the Agent's/Advocates names, subtly places the

Petitioner, as well as her family in jeopardy, currently and while she

worked at FNB.

The Petitioner is a God-fearing Christian who believes in

Jesus Christ. The Petitioner believes the Law Enforcement Agents

agreed to become Satanic advocates or serious challengers of the

Satanic organization, from the result of Children who women thought

were supposedly aborted between 1980 to the present, but in actuality

were not and were placed in the hands of the Satanic organization.

10

The Satanic organization, along with other Law Enforcement Entities

watched the Petitioner through secret video surveillance and

"peeping" during the 70's and 80's and generated the idea of saving

the aborted children, then using and sexually abusing the children for

their Satanic purposes.

The Petitioner believes three of her unaborted children are

possibly in Foster homes from the the result of the work of

undercover Law Enforcement Agents, but the children are oblivious

to the satanic pasts they were forced to be a part of, and are now

living their lives as if nothing ever happened.

Most recently, and while under the employ of FNB, in an

effort to protect the unaborted children, the Agents continued in their

work with the Satanic organization by creating other children for

supposedly Satanic purposes. Agents secretly manipulated the

Petitioner as a subject to conduct their operation. The Agents secretly

gained access into her apartment, at night, and conducted their

abusive behavior with her while she slept. She believes Sperm has

been attached to her Ovum, thus creating seeds of offspring to sell and

barter within the Satanic organization. In essence, developing a new

form of Slavery. The Petitioner also believes not only African

American Children have been produced, but children with lighter skin

tones, soft grain hair and lighter colored eyes (appearing Mixed,

Mexican, Italian and Caucasian) have been produced, thus giving

those in the Satanic organization the unknown presumption of

purchasing or bartering a child supposedly produced by a colored

male/Agent or Advocate and a Caucasian or mixed female, etc. In

actuality, the Agent/Advocate scientifically created children for the

Satanic organization, perhaps to give the appearance of creating

"racial unity" or oneness in their organization. The lighter skin toned

children are from the result of multiple birthed Agents scientifically

combining their Semen together to create one X or Y chromosome,

and attaching it to the Ovum and then removed and sent through a

11

birthing process similar to the Children who were supposedly aborted.

The Petitioner does not know the exact number of children produced

from her, but it has been an ongoing consistent abuse over the past 3

to 7 years. The Agents, however, should have complete details.

As a result of the Agent's Investigation, presence and

penetration within the state of Nebraska, some of the children are no

longer wanted by the buyers and purchasers within the Satanic

organization, and may have been placed in the hands of the

government arena, while other children are being stubbornly held to

perhaps be used as the buyer or purchaser wishes and dares anyone to

try and take them.

The Agents also abused the Petitioner's naturally born son,

Brandon Watson by administering a Sinus Allergy through his nasal

system, as well as a deep puncture in his foot. Brandon woke up one

morning vomiting lotion after the Benny Hinn Miracle Crusade, here

in Omaha. Pastor Benny Hinn had prophetically spoke of satanic

activity occurring in this city, and it involved some of the leaders of

the city. The Petitioner sang in the choir during the Crusade, and her

son, Brandon, met her at the auditorium the night before he vomited

lotion.

Additionally, the Petitioner also has life-long disease, called

Crohn's, that may have been administered to her by the

Agents/Advocates or is a direct reaction from the result of her

reproductive system, during the course of the Federal Agent's

investigation/activity.

Still another challenging strategic operation the Law

Enforcement/Military Entity has created and are currently in the midst

of, from the result of the innocent, and maternally and paternally

lonely Children, are people who have been pronounced dead, but are

in actuality alive and are being held against their will.

12

ty a a

|

The supposedly dead people are using technically advanced video

equipment to watch and surveil people throughout the United States.

A few of the people include the Petitioner’s family members: Sarah

Watson-Grant, Beatrice Watson, Walter Watson, Thelma Willis, Gene

Holt and her God-Daughter’s Mother, Annjanetta Cole, Marvin

Ammons, who was supposedly killed by the Omaha Police

Department, Brenda Woodard-Patterson, who supposedly died of

Cancer, Roosevelt Watson, Step-Grandfather of son, Brandon, and a

“Great Host of Others” who were either buried alive and then

retrieved by Satanic Advocates (and most recently, Law

Enforcement/Military groups) or they were CLONED for their

funerals, and forced to leave the land of the known living.

Cc.

Given the daily harassment and the secret, subtle way Americans have

learned to communicate with each other — coupled with an element of

intimidation, inferiority and threats of the various Entities abducting

you or members of your family under the disguise of death and using

clones during funerals, and in some cases, burying people alive, the

Petitioner believes the Panel Member(s) were subtly persuaded to

agree with the lower courts’ decision either from the result of having

knowledge of the unaborted children activity and/or the appearance of

death activity occurring throughout the United States, coupled with

being subjected to subtle intimidating words and gestures directed to

the Panel Member(s) prior to their briefing the Petitioner’s case, by

various entities who have a “worldly” interest in the Petitioner’s case:

Law Enforcement Entities, Satanic Organization, Racial Groups and

various Interest and World-Wide Media and Entertainment Groups.

13

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

A.

Due to non-investigation of the Petitioner’s case, in it’s entirety,

by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at the onset

of the discrimination charge, the original charge of Harassment

and Retaliation still exists. The Petitioner filed a charge with

E.E.O.C. and alleged Discrimination and Retaliation, leading up to

being Terminated. The Omaha agency did not explore the retaliation

charges. The Investigator continuously asked for comparators in

order to conduct her Investigation. When the Petitioner complied, the

Investigator did not contact FNB to deny or refute the comparable

information, nor did E.E.0.C. allow the Petitioner to respond to

FNB’s rebuttal, as the Investigator had promised at the onset of the

Investigation. The Investigator never contacted FNB.

B.

The Legal Requirements for Discrimination and Retaliation

Charges were satisfied: Prima Facie, Temporal Proximity,

Disparate Treatment, Casual Connections, and a Proffered Reason for

Pre-Textual Illegal Discrimination. Two weeks after the Petitioner

made the racial comparison between Leo and Hart in regards to being

promoted, the Petitioner met Leo at the elevator on the 6" floor along

with the others in the department and intentionally embarrassed the

Petitioner in front of her Peers, Tal Layne, Steve Thompson and

Adrienne Miller, who listened as Leo abrasively harassed the

Petitioner. The Petitioner was not late for work, as the Counsel for

FNB suggested in lower court briefing, and if the Petitioner had even

taken a break, she would have been within her employment right and

should not have been subjected to being harassed and embarrassed in

14

front of her Peers. Not only did the Petitioner suffer Disparate

Treatment perpetuated by Leo, but Leo intentionally inflicted

emotional harm upon the Petitioner. Leo had never belittled or

embarrassed the others she took cigarette breaks with, who

periodically took extra unauthorized smoke breaks throughout the

day, with and without Leo. Leo displaying to the others her

supervisory authority over the Petitioner two weeks after racially

comparing Leo to Hart is clearly a Proffered Reason for Pretextual

Illegal Discrimination within Temporal Proximity. Moreover, Prima

Facie is established, as well.

Other examples of Leo's intentional harassment and Pretextual

Illegal Discrimination perpetuated from the result of the Petitioner

racially comparing Leo, Hart and Miller include, Leo obsessively

harassing the Petitioner to remove her umbrella from her cubicle, as

well as Leo harassingly demanding the Petitioner to "get back to

work" while the Petitioner prepared a FNB Idea/Suggestion. The

Petitioner suffered Disparate Treatment because Leo had not harassed

others who prepared Ideas, specifically, Al Holzapfel, but instead,

praised him for winning an award, for his idea, during a meeting.

Still another example involves Leo overlooking the Petitioner

for Managerial duties and choosing Al Holzapfel instead. In terms of

length of time in the department, Holzapfel had not been in the

department longer than the Petitioner, yet the Petitioner had not been

given the opportunity to skip over Investigators Cannon and

Thompson, who had the opportunity to perform the duties and had

been in the department longer than the Petitioner. This denial and

overlooking of managerial duties clearly demonstrated Pretextual

Illegal Discrimination, based on the Petitioner racially comparing

Leo, Hart and Miller, and Leo holding it against the Petitioner in

retaliation.

The Respondent's Counsel relied solely upon the affidavits of

Joe Barry, Frank Kelly and Glen Beauchamp of Human Resources.

Human Resources knew there was an on-going problem in the

15

Investigative area concerning harassment against the Petitioner.

So much so, Robert Urban, Glen Beauchamp's manager, specifically

called the Petitioner from her duties to inquire how things were, and if

the Petitioner wanted to discuss any issues with him (two to three

weeks before being terminated). Yet, Glen Beauchamp upheld the

decision of the BCC management staff. The Respondent's affidavits

contend the Petitioner had been "warned". The "memo" generated by

Kelly in March 1993 and addressed to the Petitioner from the result of

using the copier to photocopy a letter, however, referred to "personal"

use of bank's equipment. The Petitioner simply shared the

Headhunter information with the others via photocopy, as opposed to

verbally telling the others, which Kelly said was "O.K." to do at the

onset of the Petitioner's career as an Investigator. Kelly did not

distinguish between verbally sharing or photocopied sharing of

Headhunter information.

8

Other Casual Connections, while under the employ of FNB include

the harassment, manipulation and abuse against the Petitioner under

the orchestration of Federal Agents. The Petitioner realized the

Bank's connection with a contracted 3rd Party Law Enforcement

Entity, i.e., Secret Service, FBI, ect.

During the Petitioner's employment with FNB and thereafter,

the Agents secretly gained access into the Petitioner's apartment, at

night, and conducted their abusive behavior with her while she slept,

during the night. The multiple birthed Agents/Advocates (specifically

the Cook's, and at least one occasion or chromosome with one of the

Tate Agent/Advocates), scientifically had their Semen combined

together to create X and Y Chromosomes. The Semen had been,

perhaps, secretly taken from discarded, full, condoms by one or more

of the Agents/Satanic Advocates.

16

Thus, Golden, Brown, Mixed, Mexican, Italian and Caucasian-

looking Children have been produced for Satanic purposes throughout

the United States.

The Agents/Advocates who are also a part of FNB’s 3" Party Law

Enforcement Entity is within the scope of the Petitioner’s suit and

contribute to 2 of the abuse and harassment the Petitioner suffered.

The Agents inflicted abuse upon the Petitioner over the past three to

eight years and have also inflicted abuse upon the Petitioner’s son,

Brandon Watson for the purpose of attempting to use him as an

example for Satanic organization purposes.

The Law Enforcement Agent Entity’s purpose and the Satanic

Advocacy purpose are to do what their names imply...........

SECRET/INVESTIGATION, and both organizations have

strategically placed the Petitioner in the center of THEIR on-going,

never-ending battle via constant 24 hour monitoring and surveillance

of the Petitioner, Innocent Babies and Children, and quite possibly

(un)fertilized frozen eggs produced from the Petitioner. The

Petitioner has children scattered throughout America, with some of

them under the disguise and guardianship of other Agents/Advocates.

In addition to the monetary amount the Petitioner is asking for,

she is also asking the Supreme Court to help her reclaim the children

which were produced, without her consent, and taken from her and

sold (regardless of their appearance) over the past three to eight years

from the result of the Federal Agent’s undercover battle with the

Satanic organization. Subsequently, it is important to note,

Spiritually, God has reclaimed the souls and spirit of ALL the lonely

and Innocent Children: The Unaborted Children and the Children

produced from the result of Law Enforcement/Military activity and

their intervention within the Satanic organization.

Moreover, the Petitioner asks the court to help her find and

legally reclaim her three children who were supposedly aborted,

Caprina Watson, whose satanic given name may be Amy or Amanda,

clinically aborted 2-19-86, Carina Watson, whose satanic given name

may be Tracey or Stacey, clinically aborted 10-18-86, and Corinthian

Watson, whose satanic given name may be Jacob, clinically aborted

1-29-88. Caprina and Carina may be in Long Island, New York, and

Corinthian may very well be in Omaha. If my children are in Foster

Homes or are Adopted and belong to someone else, as the true,

maternal mother, how would I physically reclaim them?

Also, the Petitioner asks the court to help in the release of her

family members and the “Great Host” of others who were

pronounced dead, but are still alive, including, Thelma Willis, (Step

Grandmother who supposedly died during Petitioner’s employment

with FNB), Beatrice Watson, (Aunt, who supposedly died on

Petitioner’s birthday and while employed with FNB), Sarah Watson-

Grant (Aunt), and Walter Watson (Uncle).

18

CONCLUSION

This Petition for Certiorari should be granted for the sake of the

harassment the Petitioner and her naturally born son suffered while

| under the employ of FNB and thereafter, from the result of the

knowledge and orchestration of events by Federal Agents(3" Party

: Entity within FNB), and for the sake of Innocent Missing Human

Beings.

Respectfully Submitted,

Consuelo Watson, Pro Se

11718 Norwick Plaza #34

Omaha, Nebraska 68164

(402 )493-8121

19

Consuelo Watson, Appellant

v.

First National Bankcard Center, Appellee

No. 98-1518

United States Court of Appeals,

For The Eighth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the District of Nebraska

July 6, 1998

Consuelo Watson, Pro Se

George C. Rozmarin of Stryker and Stryker, for Appellee

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS

SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIUM.

Consuelo Watson appeals from the district court’s! entry of

summary judgment in favor of defendant in her action alleging

retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2000e-17. After carefully reviewing

the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. See 8" Cir. R. 47B. We deny

Watson’s pending motion.

' The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska

App. |

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Case Number 8:96CV651

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:

CONSUELO M. WATSON, Plaintiff

V.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA,

(FIRST BANKCARD CENTER), Defendant

Before the court is filing no. 6, the “Motion For Summary

Judgment” filed by the defendant, First National Bank of Omaha, who

“moves”, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for summary judgment as a

matter of law, in support whereof Defendant relies upon the pleadings

and the Affidavits of Frank Kelly, Joseph W. Barry and Glenn

Beauchamp.” The Defendant has also submitted an “Index of

Evidence: (filing no. 7) in support of its motion for summary

judgment. The plaintiff has submitted her “Objections To Summary

Judgment” (filing no. 12), including supporting evidentiary materials,

and her “Additional Objections and Answers to Defendant’s Request

of a Motion for Summary Judgment” (filing no. 13) which the clerk

has filed in the court file for purposes of clarity of the record.

BACKGROUND

Connie Watson filed her Complaint (filing no. 2) against the

defendant, First National Bank of Omaha, on December 31, 1996. In

her Complaint, Watson alleges that the defendant discriminated

against her on the basis of her race. Watson is a black woman who

was employed by the defendant from January, 1987 until May 25,

App. 2

1995. At the time her employment was terminated, Watson worked as

a credit card investigator in the defendant’s First Bankcard Center.

In late October or early November 1994, Watson spoke with

Frank Kelly, Operations Officer and Director of Security of the First

Bankcard Center, concerning the promotion of Adrienne Miller, a

white woman, over Vivian Hart, a black woman. Miller was promoted

to the position of administrative assistant. Watson alleges that, after

her discussion with Kelly about the promotion of Miller over Hart, the

defendant engaged in a pattern of retaliation against Watson which

eventually culminated in her termination of employment May 25,

1995. In his affidavit, Kelly states that he informed Watson that is

was inappropriate to discuss the employment circumstances of other

employees and that seniority was not used in making employment

decisions (filing no. 6). Additionally, Kelly informed Watson that

race was not a factor in the promotion decision.

Watson asserts that Kelly and Watson’s immediate supervisor,

Michelle Leo, engaged in a pattern of retaliation subsequent to

Watson’s discussion with Kelly concerning Miller’s promotion.

Specifically, Watson alleges that Leo refused to allow Watson to use

a strong-smelling disinfectant to clean her work cubicle and required

Watson to move her umbrella which Watson had left open to dry in

her cubicle area. Moreover, Watson asserts that Leo refused to permit

Watson to run a vacuum cleaner in her work area during working

hours, and that Leo took the side of a consumer who had complained

that Watson was rude during a “hot call.” Additionally, Watson

claims she improperly counseled regarding her tardiness. Watson also

claims that she, unlike other employees, was not permitted to make a

suggestion under the “Laser 95 Idea” program, because Leo ordered

Watson to return to work. Finally, Watson asserts that she was

unfairly passed over to be a temporary supervisor for a few days when

App. 3

eG 8 8 oS Fg Be AE ET OE es

both Kelly and Leo were on vacation. All of these incidents of

retaliation apparently took place in late 1994 or early 1995. !

In late May, 1995 Watson received a phone call from a “head

hunter” who was looking for individuals to apply for employment

with an entity other than the defendant. Watson, who asserts that she

believed her actions to be in accordance with company policy,

prepared a document which detailed the potential job opening, the

terms of employment and possible salary. Then, apparently after using

the company’s copy machine to reproduce the informational

document, Watson distributed the document among her co-workers.

On May 25, 1995 K-lly and Joseph W. Barry, Vice President of

Credit Card Risk Management, questioned W atson about her

preparation of the document. When Watson failed to deny that she

had prepared the document pertaining to the employment solicitation,

her employment with the defendant was terminated. Both Barry and

Kelly have submitted affidavits, each stating that the decision to

terminate Watson was wholly unrelated to Watson's’ discussion with

Kelly about Miller’s promotion.

ANALYSIS

When presented with a motion for summary judgment, a court

must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party

and gives the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences

that may be drawn from the evidence. Moore v. Webster, 932 F. 2d

1229, 1230-31 (8 Cur, 1991). The moving party must demonstrate to

the court the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In a discrimination suit, summary

>

! Watson also asserts that First National Bank has retaliated against her by hiring a

group that “is either of a cult, a satanic or klu klux klan nature, and they usually

harass the PLAINTIFF while she is driving, or in places of public establishments”

See filing no. 12, pg. 8.

App. 4

judgment is granted sparingly. David v. F leming Companies, Inc., 55

F. 3d 1369 (8" Cir. 1995),

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified the

standard to be used in discrimination cases:

In discrimination cases, it is now well settled that a plaintiff's

presentation of a prima facie creates a legal presumption of

unlawful discrimination. This presumption places an obligation

upon the employer to produce evidence of a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's discharge. If the

employer carries this burden, the legal presumption of unlawful

discrimination drops out of the picture. Once this occurs. . . [t]he

defendant's production (whatever its persuasive effect) having

been made, the trier of fact proceeds to decide the ultimate

question: whether plaintiff has proven that the defendant

intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff. The factfinder’s

disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly

if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may,

together with the elements of the prima facie case. suffice to

show intentional discrimination.

Ryther v. Kare 11, 108 F. 3d 832, 836 (8" Cir. 1997) (en banc)

(citations and internal quotations omitted), “Obviously, ... the

plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence of the elements of the

prima facie case and where necessary, adduce sufficient proof of

pretext to meet the traditional tests of summary judgment and

judgment as a matter of law.” Id. At 838 (citing Rothmeier v.

Investment Advisers, Inc., 85 F. 3d 1328. 1335 (8thCir. 1996)).

Section 704(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-3(a), states in pertinent part:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to

discriminate against any.. -employees... because [the employee]

App. 5

has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice

by this subchapter, or because [the employee] has made a charge,

testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff has the

initial burden of establishing: (1) that the plaintiff participated in

protected activity, (2) that an adverse employment action was taken

against the plaintiff; and (3) that there was a casual connection

between the adverse employment action and the protected activity.

Steven's v. St. Louis Univ. Med. Ctr., 97 F. 3d 268, 270 (8" Cir.

1996); see also Feltmann v. Sieben, 108 F. 3d 970 (8" Cir. 1997).

In this instance, the court assumes that Watson has established

that she engaged in a prc.ected activity when she questioned the

promotion of Miller, a white woman, over Hart, a black woman.

Moreover, Watson has established that an adverse employment

action, namely termination of her employment, was taken against

her.” However, Watson’s evidence of a casual connection between

her complaints to Kelly about Miller's promotion and her ultimate

termination is, at best, weak. Watson questioned Kelly about Miller’s

promotion in late October or early November, 1994; yet, Watson’s

employment was not terminated until May 25, 1995. Termination of

Watson’s employment, approximately six months after she discussed

with Kelly the fact that Hart was not promoted, “is by itself

insufficient to support a claim of casual connection.” Feltmann, 108

F.3d at 977. However, for purposes of this motion for summary

judgment, the court will assume that plaintiff's other allegations of

retaliation, including reprimands for tardiness and failure to allow

Watson to serve as a temporary supervisor, provide a sufficient causal

* The court makes no finding whether the plaintiff's other alleged adverse

employment actions, including the incidents relating to vacuuming, drying her

umbrella, making suggestions for the bank’s Laser 95 contest, reprimands for

tardiness and denial of an opportunity to serve as a temporary supervisor constitute

adverse employment actions for purposes of this motion for summary judgment.

App. 6

connection between her complaints and the defendant’s ultimate

decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment. Hence, the court will

assume that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of

retaliation.

Once the plaintiff establishes her prima facie case, “‘a rebuttable

presumption of discrimination arises and the burden of production

shifts to the bank to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason”

for the plaintiff's termination. Thomas v. First Nat’| Bk. Of Wynne,

111 F.3d 64, 66 (8" Cir. 1997) (citing Ryther, 108 F. 3d at 835). In

this instance, the defendant has articulated a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason fcr the plaintiff's termination, namely, the

plaintiff's employment was terminated because she circulated a notice

trom a “head hunter” that solicited employees of the defendant for

non-bank employment and had used the bank’s copying equipment

and supplies to reproduce the notice. Filing no. 6 (Affidavit of Kelly),

{ 12; Affidavit of Barry, § 3; Affidavit of Beauchamp, 4] 5).

Once the defendant comes forward with evidence of a

legitimated, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's termination,

the presumption of discrimination created by the plaintiff's prima

facie case disappears, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving

that the proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is pretextual

and that the real reason for her termination was intentional

discrimination. Thomas, 111 F.3d at 66 (citing Ryther, 108 F.3d at

835). After reviewing the record, the court finds and concludes that

the plaintiff has submitted no evidence suggesting that the defendant's

proffered reason for her termination is pretextual and, furthermore,

that the plaintiff has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support

her ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination. In their

affidavits, Kelly, Barry and Beauchamp state that Watson’s

discussion with Kelly concerning Miller’s promotion was in no way

related to the defendant’s ultimate decision to terminate Watson’s

employment. Filing no. 6 Affidavit of Kelly, § 12; Affidavit of Barry,

* 3; Affidavit of Beauchamp, 4 5). While these affidavits “can

App. 7

perhaps be characterized as self-serving,...they are plausible,

unchallenged and not circumstantially, rebutted.” Thomas v. Runyon,

108 F. 3d 957, 961 (8" Cir. 1997).

Consequently, the court finds and concludes that, even viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff

has failed to establish evidence from which a reasonable factfinder

could conclude that the defendant intentionally discriminated against

the plaintiff.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:

(1) That filing no. 6, the “Motion For Summary Judgment” filed

by the defendant, First National Bank of Omaha (First Bankcard

Center), is granted;

(2) That filing no. 12, the “Objection To Summary Judgment”

filed by the plaintiff, Consuelo (Connie) Watson, is overruled;

(3) That filing no. 13, the “Additional Objections and Answers

to Defendant’s Request of a Motion for Summary Judgment” filed by

the plaintiff, Consuelo (Connie Watson) is overruled:

(4) That judgment will be entered in favor of the defendant, First

National Bank of Omaha (First Bankcard Center) and against the

plaintiff, Consuelo (Connie) M. Watson, on Watson’s complaint and

action; and

(5) That a separate judgment will be entered on this date in

accordance with this memorandum and order.

DATED this 7" day of July, 1997.

App. 8

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Thomas M. Shanahan

Thomas M. Shanahan

United States District Judge

App. 9

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Case Number 8:96C V651

JUDGMENT:

CONSUELO M. WATSON, Plaintiff

v.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA,

(FIRST BANKCARD CENTER), Defendant

In accordance with the “Memorandum and Order” (filing no. __)

Entered and filed on this date,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED:

(1) That judgment is granted to the defendant, First National

Bank of Omaha (First Bankcard Center), and against the plaintiff,

Consuelo (Connie) M. Watson, on the defendant’s “Motion for

Summary Judgment” (filing no. 6);

(2) That filing no. 12, the “Objection To Summary Judgment”

filed by the plaintiff, C onsuelo (Connie) Watson, is overruled;

(3) That filing no. 13, the “Additional Objections and Answers

to Defendant’s Request of a Motion for Summary Judgment” filed by

the plaintiff, Consuelo (Connie Watson) is overruled; and

(4) That the complaint and action of Consuelo (Connie) M.

Watson are dismissed with prejudice.

DATED this 7" day of July, 1997.

App.10

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Thomas M. Shanahan

Thomas M. Shanahan

United States District Judge

App.11