The Father's whistleblowing case has now come to a final conclusion,
with the January 11, 1999 refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case.
The Father has the following statement about this event:
STATEMENT OF REACTION TO THE DENIAL OF (UNOPPOSED) PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AT U.S. SUPREME COURT
January 12, 1999
I feel an immense sense of disappointment and frustration. By their unanimously denying Certiorari in my whistleblowing case, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices have in effect determined that lawyers are permitted to intentionally and freely lie to Federal Court Civil Juries at trial, thereby obstructing civil justice for Plaintiffs. Additionally, the Justices apparently approve of visiting Federal Judges conducting civil trials at District Courts while simultaneously sitting on 3 judges appeals panels at the next higher Appellate level of the same Circuit, with the same judges who will then decide appeals from their district court conducted trials; in violation of Federal Statute and Constitutional guarantees. This deprives citizens of fair trial and fair & independent appeal. While my more than 8 years costly “battle” to obtain justice now ends, perhaps in truth it is the People of the United States who are the real losers in this matter, because any lawyers who intentionally and maliciously lie to juries will be apparently supported by the highest Court in this Land, and the appearance of judicial collusion between Federal Judges no longer is of concern to the highest Judicial Tribunal in America. There is no anger by me in this outcome, only genuine sadness as I grieve for a Judicial System whose greatness of the yesteryears of my long gone youth, has now seemingly deteriorated into tribunals where the “aggrieved person” frequently cannot obtain justice. Perhaps, none of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices actually took the time to read my Petition and supporting filed documents; instead, maybe the Justices relied upon a law clerk summary of it, and the law Clerk’s recommendation to deny Certiorari, adopting it to refuse to consider my case. The result in any event became final, no Certiorari and thus no justice. How can the United States Judicial System be a “Beacon of Justice and hope” for the American People if its “judicial light” cannot illuminate the path to true fairness and justice in America, and has the reality of litigation outcome in America become somewhat of a nightmare throughout our beloved Nation? In any event, as always, I shall remain a law abiding, respectful, and dedicated Citizen in the Country I love, and be ever hopeful that future generations can somehow benefit from the principle that has eluded me: “justice for all.”
The Father's generation was raised from childhood to believe in the fairness, diligence, and "they will make it right" philosophy, for the Supreme Court of the United States. Major wrongs will not go "unpunished" was the belief of those "yesteryears."
For a while, after the Supreme Court refused to hear the Father's Whistleblowing case (refusal to grant certiorari), he was somewhat perplexed that the Supreme Court allowed such an outrageous injustice to stand. The Father initiated litigation at the Federal Court, as a Pro Se (acting as own Counsel), bringing a lawsuit under the Whistleblower Protection Provisions of the Federal False Claims Act [31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)]. At the Federal Court Civil Trial, that the Father instituted against his former employer (for being fired and other employer retaliation), the Visiting Federal Judge refused to allow waiting to testify Government and other persons, to come into the Court and testify from personal first-hand knowledge to the alleged defense contract fraud (that the Father had blown-the-whistle on), that they had personally observed with regard to the Father's former employer. The Visiting Federal Judge unjustly said that since the employer had not yet been convicted in any criminal trial of any wrongdoing, testimony on any alleged defense contract fraud subject matter (which would have corroborated the essentiality and the justness for the Father's whistleblowing) would not be allowed. Then the Employer's Attorney, knowing the Jury knew nothing at all about the Government and other testimony that the Visiting Federal Judge refused to allow at the civil trial, purposely and intentionally lied to the jury telling them "If there had been any wrongdoing at the Company, don't you think you would have heard about it during this trial, and the Government doing something about it." An immediate at the Bench "motion for mistrial" by the Father, was denied by the Visiting Federal Judge. An appeal to the Federal Appellate Court on the grounds of a lawyer intentionally lying to a Jury, and numerous other Trial Court prejudicial errors, frustratingly produced only Appellate total support and affirmation of all the Visiting Federal Judge's Trial Court decisions. Unbeknownst to the Father at the time of the Federal Court Civil trial, was the fact that the Visiting Federal Judge was also simultaneously sitting on 3 Judges Panels at the Appellate Court, by designation, deciding Appeals matters; thus, the same Appellate Court Judges that would decide the Father's appeal, would be deciding if the same Judge who was sitting with them on Appellate Panels, to hear/decide appeals from all Federal Courts in their jurisdiction, made the correct Trial Court decisions in the Father's case. Thus they would be judging their fellow panel Judge. Even when apprised by the Father of this appearance of judicial appellate bias and impropriety, all the Appellate Court Judges refused to recuse themselves (take themselves off the appellate review of the Father's case). When the Father appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, these are the grounds that he had in his unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Certiorari (pleading with the Supreme Court of the United States to accept his appeal and render a decision):
1. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE: Whether Active Service United States District Court Judges
who are assigned to one Circuit:
? can be designated to serve on Appellate Panels in another Circuit and while temporarily serving on those Appellate Panels at the Circuit Appellate level, to simultaneously conduct District Court Civil Trials, as a Visiting Judge, at a District Court in that same Circuit they are visiting; while knowing full well that any appeal from those District Court Trials will go before the exact same 3 Appellate Judges at the Circuit with whom the visiting Judge has been and is simultaneously sitting on Appellate Panels with;
? which Appellate Panel then prohibits oral argument on the Appeal from the District Court Trial and per curium affirms without discussion all results from the Visiting District Judge conducted Civil trial, thereby giving rise to the public perception that:
? there is unconstitutional commingling of levels of jurisdiction, Federal District & its Circuit Appellate,
? there is deprivation of Constitutional right of Citizens to fair civil trial and independent
unbiased Appellate Review thereof,
? thus giving rise to the appearance of Federal Appellate Judges being in collusion with their fellow Visiting Judges and vice versa, who simultaneously conduct District Court Civil trials while sitting on Appellate Panels with them, and contrary to the mandates of 28 U.S.C. § 292(d) which precludes simultaneous service at both Appellate and District Court levels in the same Circuit for the same Visiting Judge from another Circuit; and causes loss of public confidence in the Federal Judiciary and fosters public disrepute towards all Federal District & Appellate Judges, as well as the entire Federal Judicial System?
2. JUDICIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Whether 3 Appellate Panel Judges can refuse to disqualify themselves in xxxxxx’s Appeal, because of Conflict of Interest, when they have been, and are sitting on other Appellate Appeals Panels with the same judge who conducted the trial court action then on appeal; and in effect they are required to judge the trial court decisions of their brethren appellate-by-designation Judge; thus giving rise to the appearance of judicial collusion if they do not disqualify themselves from the Appeal?
3. INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION OF CIVIL JUSTICE & DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS: Whether The Chief Justice and The Associate Justices of The Supreme Court of the United States will, if they deny Certiorari in this matter, be indicating that they tolerate, condone, support and encourage a Defendant’s Counsel at a 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) Civil Trial, to have knowingly and intentionally lied directly to the Jury in that Civil Trial, by the Attorney falsely telling the Jury that the United States Government found no fraud at xxxxxxxxxx Corporation when it did; because the Attorney is a paid Advocate for his Defense Contractor Client, and the Plaintiff is only a Pro Se, such that the Attorney unconstitutionally deprived the Plaintiff of a fair civil trial, and by Attorney outrageous and unprofessional conduct “won” at trial on behalf of his Defendant Defense Contractor client?
4. DEFECTIVE JURY INSTRUCTIONS: Whether The Chief Justice and The Associate Justices of The Supreme Court of the United States will, if they deny Certiorari in this matter, tolerate, condone, and support the formulation of District Court Civil Trial Jury Instructions which were such a misstatement of the 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) Federal Statute and so erroneous, as to totally confuse the Jury, who admitted on the record at trial that they could not even unanimously answer the first 3 Special Interrogatories to the Jury at trial so they ignored and skipped them and went to the 4th Special Interrogatory; yet the Trial Judge refused to declare a mistrial and refused to allow the jury to be interrogated on how they were able to arrive at their verdict while ignoring the Court’s pre-verdict instructions to them that they mandatorily must unanimously answer the 1st 3 Special Interrogatories to the Jury before proceeding to and answering the 4th Special Interrogatory?
5. EXCLUSION AT TRIAL OF RELEVANT, MATERIAL, & CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFENSE CONTRACT/FALSE CLAIMS FRAUD: Whether The Chief Justice and The Associate Justices of The Supreme Court of the United States will, if they deny Certiorari in this matter, tolerate, condone, and support, in whistleblower Civil Trials under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), The Whistleblower Protection Provisions of the Federal False Claims Act, the exclusion at Civil Trial, of 4 Plaintiff Federal Employee witnesses including a Federal Government Criminal Investigator, and all Federal Government documents, which corroborate with certainty the commission by the Defendant of Defense Contract Fraud/False Claims which the whistleblower blew the whistle on and was retaliated against for, despite Defendant’s Counsel knowingly & intentionally lying to the jury at trial by falsely saying to the jury that the Government supposedly found no fraud; an exclusion of Xxxxxx’s credible, material and relevant evidence by the Trial Court Judge on the erroneous grounds that evidence of the commission of a False Claims Act crime is supposedly prohibited in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) civil trials without the Defendant first being criminally convicted of False Claims crime by the Federal Government; hence, lack of an employer being prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing by the Federal Government supposedly invalidates all Whistleblower Federal Statutory protection against retaliation, thus subjecting whistleblowers to employment termination and total professional career destruction by the employer, with no recourse at law and in the Federal Courts of the United States of America; thereby promoting, fostering, and judicially helping employers who steal from the public through False Claims, to personally and professionally destroy any whistleblowing employee who dares to expose such despicable crimes and who refuses to commit a felony by refusing to participate in his employer’s fraud against the United States of America?
6. MINIMUM & JUST STANDARDS FOR APPELLATE REVIEW: Whether The Chief Justice and The Associate Justices of The Supreme Court of the United States will, if they deny Certiorari in this matter, be establishing, fostering, supporting and condoning a United States Federal Appellate Court system whereby law abiding citizens of the United States of America, who have honorably served the Nation and faithfully obeyed its laws throughout their entire lifetime, are relegated to the status of being deprived of equal treatment under the law, if they pursue their civil appeals as pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, when they respectfully raise on appeal and properly document 21 substantial Trial Court errors that occurred at the District Court Civil Trial, are denied any oral argument thereon at the Appellate Level, having paid the same $105 Appellate Docketing Fee as those Appellants who are represented by Attorneys and get oral argument on appeals and get decisions with full Appellate Court rationale stated; and after waiting over a half year for Appellate Court decision after the last Brief was filed, get a 1 sentence 3 Judges, per curium, Appellate Court decision on a fellow-appellate panel judge’s trial court work, that is totally devoid of all supporting rationale, which says:
“Having considered the record and briefs, we find no reversible error in the jury instructions and special interrogatories, the challenged evidentiary rulings, or the denial of the motion to interrogate the jury.”
after The Appellate Judges in their decision cited cases pertaining to:
Americans with Disabilities Act,
Civil Antitrust Dispute,
Prior Sexual History Evidence, and
all of which contain no facts similar, or even applicable, to this Whistleblower Case at Bar, nor
address issues raised on appeal in this matter, and when combined with all other Judicial System
occurrences, are unjustly bizarre?
7. UNJUST DECISIONS IN PRO SE APPEALS: Whether The Chief Justice and The Associate Justices of The Supreme Court of the United States will, if they deny Certiorari in this matter, be establishing, fostering, supporting and condoning a technique in use by the United States Court of Appeals for the XXXth Circuit, whereby that Appellate Court in this pro se appeal, cited cases which do not furnish any decision whatsoever for the facts and situation in the case under appeal, then in a one sentence “catch-all” phrase, find all done at the Trial Court, by their fellow Appellate Panel Visiting Judge, to have been proper; thereby, in effect giving rise to a public perception that the Appellate Process in this case may have been both unconstitutional and a mockery of justice for United States Citizens, when it encompasses those enumerated circumstances now before this Court?
8. ENTITLEMENT TO NEW TRIAL: Whether any or all of the 21 substantial Trial Court errors
that occurred at the District Court Civil Trial, and/or the other occurrences encompassed in the
QUESTIONS PRESENTED above, as well as the occurrences at the Appellate Level, entitle
Xxxxxxx to a new Civil Trial on his 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) Claim and to his costs of the first trial and
Attorney xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Partner and Shareholder, in the law firm of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
an Officer of the Court in this Supreme Court of the United States.
For the longest time, after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it would not review the Father's appeal, his disappointment over that, encompassed a "puzzlement" over just why, seemingly important questions on appeal, failed to generate any interest at all among any Justice at that Court. The answer came recently when the Father saw an interview on TV of Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist who in part said the following:
Show: FOX SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME
Date: May 28, 2001
Head: Interview With Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Sect: News; Domestic
Byline: Brit Hume, James Rosen
Guest: William Rehnquist
Spec: Politics; Elections; Government; Congress; Supreme Court; Justice
BRIT HUME, HOST: Welcome to Washington. I'm Brit Hume.
We have a special program for you this day, a rare interview with Chief
Justice William Rehnquist. He has just revised and reissued his book on
the history of the nation's highest court. It's called simply "The
Supreme Court." In an exclusive interview with Fox News correspondent
James Rosen, the chief justice spoke about the changes on the Court in
modern times and offered a rare glimpse into the work of the nine
Justices, beginning with a tour of his personal office.
HUME: Over the years, the Supreme Court has changed considerably. It
has accepted fewer cases overall, and the ones that are reviewed have a
different scope than cases taken when Rehnquist was a clerk at the
In this segment, James Rosen talks to the chief justice about those
differences and about a new book Rehnquist is writing.
ROSEN: But aside from the physical layout of the place, how is the
court as an institution today different, if it is at all, than it was 50
years ago when you first strode in here?
REHNQUIST: Well, there's a lot more constitutional law now than there
was 50 years ago. The kind of cases that the court took, granted
certiorari on -- when I was a law clerk, tended to be, if it was an
undecided question of federal law, perhaps not of great importance, but
one which hadn't been decided by this court, and no necessarily
disagreement among the courts of appeals, the kind of case that I
thought was granted fairly often, particularly when perhaps three or
four justices thought it had been wrongly decided by the lower court.
Now, that has changed today. The -- we talk to our -- we talk among
ourselves about not engaging in error correction, which means simply
taking a case because you think the result (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was wrong.
And we generally stay away from that.
INTERPRETING THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S REMARKS!
In effect, what the Chief Justice is saying, amounts to:
no matter how outrageous the events in a case
at the Trial Court and/or the Appellate Court turned out, and
no matter whether an Attorney intentionally
lied to a jury during a civil trial, and an Appellate Court "looks the
other way," such as was done in the Father's case, and
no matter whatever injustice befalls a Citizen
at Trial & Appellate Courts,
apparently the Supreme Court of the United States has no interest in such civil cases. Indeed, the Father has heard or seen Chief Justice Rehnquist declare in the past: "Two Courts, a Trial Court and one Appellate Court review, are enough in any Civil Case!" Apparently all the other Justices at the Supreme Court feel the same way. It may be, that with the passage of time, and after a new future generation of Justices eventually ascend to the Supreme Court of the United States, that Court will return to its "roots" of historical greatness, by ensuring that no man, woman, or child in this Nation can become victimized by a wrongly decided case in a Lower Court. No Nation can achieve universal historical greatness, when its Supreme Court does not bring to its people, civil justice for all, under the law! The Supreme Court of the United States must be the guardian of that principle -- and until that happens, cases such as the Father's will continue to fall into the abyss of injustice and national shame!
The Father bears no grudge or ill will towards the Supreme Court of the United States for what it did in his litigation (or rather, what it did not do -- grant Certiorari). In effect he demonstrated that, when last year the Supreme Court made its momentous decision in the case of Bush vs. Gore. The father sent the following letter separately to each and every one of the Justices; nine letters individually sent. Unfortunately, not one Justice told a secretary or clerk to send even a one line reply back, acknowledging my letter; so there was none. The Father realizes that the Justices probably do not communicate with the "People" nor have interaction with "the Common Man;" only with Lawyers. In any event, the Father has full respect and reverence towards all the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is what his letter to them said:
December 14, 2000
The Honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States
The Honorable John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice
The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice
The Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice
The Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
The Honorable David H. Souter, Associate Justice
The Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
The Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice
The Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice
The Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
SUBJECT: Your “Split” Vote in the Bush Vs. Gore Case
Is a Blessing For This Nation and
A Historic Beneficial Achievement For
Constitutional National Stability
Dear Chief Justice and Associate Justices:
There has been much said in the news media and in comments by some of the public, about your split vote in the Bush Vs. Gore Case. There are all sorts of nonsensical mutterings about how, because of the “split voting”, you are supposedly fractured/divided/irreconcilable/weakened, etc., and all sorts of wild and other irresponsible public assertions and extrapolations about how supposedly that leads to a divided Nation and an inability of a President Elect to govern.
One only has to apply common sense to the matter and look beyond just the legal constitutional issues. If all nine of you had voted in a manner to support Vice President Gore, no matter how good was your Federal Constitution legal reasoning, you would have all been “doomed” to the eternal criticism of having supposedly favored the Democrats, and there might have occurred “unrest”, and “strife” of troubling proportions arise throughout this Nation, and especially in Florida. Likewise, on the other hand, if all nine of you had voted in a manner to support Governor Bush, you would have been eternally accused of Republican favoritism and supposedly there might have been “unrest”, and “strife” of troubling proportions arise throughout this Nation, and especially in Florida. Thus, a Unanimous Opinion at your Court would have been a “no win” situation for all of you and for the Nation.
The fact that you had a split vote in effect saved this Nation, because it demonstrated to The People of the United States and all around the World, that political partisanship played no part whatsoever in your collective judgments, and you each Judicially sought and enunciated that in which you truly believe. In the Bush Vs. Gore Case, both the Majority and the Dissenting Opinions are equally important to the Jurisprudence History of this Nation; not so much for what they say, but from the aspect that they beneficially looked at all sides of the issues. Your Majority and your Dissenting Opinions demonstrate that American Jurisprudence is at its best when brilliant minds like yours peacefully differ, express your views, and the matter is peacefully resolved one way or the other for the betterment of the Nation.
It is precisely because your Court was not unanimous, that you made your decision more acceptable to the Public, though some may not like the net effect outcome. However, your split decision calmed the Public because every citizen was absolutely able to see something they “loved” in either the Majority or the Dissenting Opinions, and the “fighting” between Political Parties has been abruptly halted and all of you in large measure have facilitated the beginning of the National healing process. That would not have been possible had you issued a nine Justices’ Unanimous Opinion. Therefore, from my perspective, (and surely from many others when they awaken to the reality of what has occurred) you all, both Majority & Dissenting have magnificently Judicially solved what was fast becoming a constitutional crisis for this Nation.
I respectfully conclude with a thought. We all frequently either say, think, or sometimes on occasion sing: “God Bless America”. Perhaps the Hand of Providence may have in fact silently guided your individual subconscious thoughts, which fortuitously led to not having a nine Justices’ Unanimous Opinion. In so doing, America has in fact been blessed by the Almighty because a President Elect now has an opportunity to unify the Nation, facilitated by a United States Supreme Court that issued a divided Opinion, and in so doing stopped the National chaos that was destructively in progress. That would not have happened had you issued a Unanimous Opinion. The People of the United States of America now owe you a debt of gratitude, and both the Majority and the Dissenters in the Bush Vs. Gore Case at your Court can be proud and at peace with their actions in this matter. May God bless each, every one, and all of you, for having saved this Nation from what might have been “chaos”. I wish to you all, a joyous holiday season, health, and happiness in the New Year. I salute all nine of you and gratefully say: “well done” Your Honors.