COMES NOW R. Mark Armstrong, pro se (“Plaintiff”), and hereby files a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial. The causes of action include but are not limited to: 1) Qua Tam (Claims A, B and C) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (1972) [33 U.S.C. § 1367] : Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (1976) [42 U.S.C. § 6971] : FCA, 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)-(g) 2)Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq., 3) Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Claim A) First Amendment as controlled by Garcetti_v._Ceballos Violations, (Claim B) Fourteenth Amendment Violations, 4) Retaliation under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), 5) Intentional infliction of emotional distress, for prima facie tort Tortuous Breach of Implied Covenant …show more content…
It is herein argued that the that the permit does not meet location standards and would not be allowed to be permitted if not for the nepotism and unethical conduct of Dale Anderson and C Langstan.
18. C Langston not only received awards but increases in duties and responsibilities and also wages.
19. The hiding of the personal relationship and violation of WY Stat § 9-13-104 damages the public and cost the people including but not limited to the 12 homes burnt down, those forced to haul trash over 150 miles one way, and untold human health effects. This is a form of fraud!
Claim C
20. During the FOIA / Sun Shine discovery process it was determined the C Langston has not stored and archived her emails as required by law. This should then exclude her from public service.
21. The failure to archive or destroying the emails must be viewed adversely for the City and C Langston.
22. This has destroyed evidence and prof of the illegal nepotism that is known but
The Investigator met with Investigator Michael Dattilio from Hellertown Police Dept. 685 Main St. Hellertown, Pa. 18055 (610) 838-7040 in reference to Judge Tidd’s investigation. Dattilio explained that Tidd, acting as attorney for Adams Plumbing, wrote up an agreement on April 26, 2013. The agreement between Douglas Adams, owner of Adams Plumbing, and former employee, Stephanie Gail Molloy, who acknowledged by written statement, that she improperly took funds from Adams Plumbing when she was the office manager. The agreement determined that Molloy would repay $88,000 to Adams.
The complaint states that on October 14, 2016, plaintiff Kirk Thompson, a UPS driver, delivered a box to defendant Eleanor Lewis at her single-family home in White Plains, New York. When Mr. Thompson placed the box on the front stoop and rang the doorbell, he heard Ms. Lewis’s dog barking and scratching the other side of the door. Mr. Thompson then walked back to his van when he heard a female voice behind him instructing him not to move. As Mr. Thompson turned around, Ms. Lewis’s dog, Simon, bit him on the arm, requiring surgery for Mr. Thompson and him missing six months of work due to his inability to drive.
. . be held and not be disbursed in any way, until we have reached an agreement on the total distribution to include Attorney fees, cost [sic] and expenses.” She stated that she was “requesting this action because of [her] overall dissatisfaction with the handling of [her] case from a legal standpoint.” Specifically, Wilson-Gaskins expressed that she was dissatisfied with: Kaye’s decision to file the claim in Montgomery County instead of “the more favorable jurisdiction of Prince George[’]s County”; delays in filing suit and with trial dates “as a result of [Kaye’s] needs”; the “failure to allege counts of retaliation and breach of contract” until beyond the statute of limitation, resulting in dismissal of those claims; and the failure to prove, to the satisfaction of the court, counts for discrimination and wrongful termination, resulting in dismissal on the discrimination count and the court’s denial of an award for punitive damages. Wilson-Gaskins asserted that, as a result of Kaye’s actions, she incurred “substantial financial loss,” and therefore, she requested a “substantial reduction in [his] attorney fees.” On June 17, 2009, Kaye sent Wilson-Gaskins a letter by facsimile regarding “Disbursement of Funds/Settlement of Claims.”
This led to her taking advantage of the trust at City Hall and began to steal funds from the capital development fund account. She took the chance to create a secret account named R.S.C.D.A. Her secret account was called the "Reserve Sewer Capital Development Account. " The city council had no idea about the account, and Rita would write the checks to herself. Some of her job duties were to write checks and move investment funds. The organizations believed that the invoices Rita created were for city projects, but they were faulty.
An employee has the right to work in a safe environment, one that is free from hazards that could lead to serious harm. Causing dissention and the hostile work environment for employees created the potential for a violent incident to occur. At the very least, the potential for a costly mistake due to duress they were under, which could have caused physical harm. The defendants’ faced discrimination and retaliation based on their race. This appalling treatment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and by doing so, invoked the Civil Rights Act of 1991 allowing the monetary damages
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
GERARD WARRENS willfully and with full intent and knowledge made untrue statements of material facts by stating that (1) HOOPER would receive registered stock representing an equity interest in STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC; (2) Warrens would make financial disclosures indicating the financial status of STEALTH SOFTWARE LLC; (3) Warrens could rely on Defendants ' statement that STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC was solvent; (4) Hooper would receive the corporate records and balance sheets from Warren; (5) Warrens would disclose various contracts and other prospective customer deals that had concluded or falsely stated they were concluded; (6) HOOPER would recceive all of the arrears in wages after he made an investment in STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC; (7)Warrens would dislose at a later date the Board members, officers, owners, shareholders, and managers of all the non-resident codefendents; (8) Warrens had top security clearance but would not divulge what kind; (9) Warrens had invested milions of dollars in the LLC; (10) Warrens had consummated contracts with a number of potental customers which were not true; and (11) that STEALTH had employees other than
John P. McNeil for House of Representatives, Democrat. John P. McNeil is a veteran of the Marine Corps. After being honorably discharged, he went to college and graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science. McNeil then continued on to attend the law school at Wake Forest University. He currently owns a law firm in Raleigh, NC.
The firm hires a geological team who digs a series of wells to test the water supply in the area. The team eventually gathers the evidence after long, harsh hours and agrees to a large settlement. A Civil Action. Dir.
Name of Case Sinthasophone v. City of Milwaukee Citation and Date Decided The Estate of Konerak Sinthasomphone, by its special administrator, Anoukone Sinthansomphone; Soutnthhone Sinthasomphone; and Somdy Sinthasomphone, Plantiffs, v. The City of Milwaukee, a municipal corporation; Joseph Gabrish; John A. Balcerzak; and Richard Po-Rubcan, Defendants. Civil Action No. 91-C-1121 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin 838 F Supp. 1320; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16709 Facts and Main Issue of Case
John Pozgai worked his life a as a merchant and eventually purchased land. Mr. Jonh Pozgai who assumed he had the right to do what he chooses on his own property removed 7,000 old tires and old automobiles. Would you believe it that the Enverviermental Protection Agency defined this property as a wetland even though the only connection to a wetland was a small drench ditch? Can you believe that after the Army Coup of Engineers instead he apply for a permit and he applied for a permit the Environmental Protection Agency sent cameras on his property and then he was arrested for putting earth and topsoil and sand into the United States waters because in the logic of the Epa it was pollutants that he was discharging .
The ruling by Judge Surratt-States told Patriot Coal they could discontinue the current contract with the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and move the current “retiree health care to the UMWA Retiree Healthcare Trust, which shall be structured as a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association.” This specifically approved Patriots requests to break the bargaining agreements and modify the retiree
Today, I am going to tell my side of the 1972 Buffalo Creek Disaster case as I interned for Arnold & Porter. As an intern, I shadowed Gerald M. Stern during the lawsuit. Needless to say, I was experienced several events that I applied concepts of business law to. The Buffalo Creek Disaster was an incident that occurred due to Dam Three failing at the Buffalo Mining Company’s location in West Virginia. This incident killed one hundred twenty-five individuals, injuring one thousand twenty-one citizens, and left four thousand homeless.
The claim was made that when he was fired it was due to his race. In the case Hicks files a law suit for wrongful termination under Title VII for racial discrimination. Hicks track record with St. Mary's Honor Center before the events unfolded seen him as a contributing component of the organization. Prior to being fired, Hicks experienced issues with the new change in leadership. While employed with St. Mary's Honor Center the plaintiff
This court ruling is a slap in the face of humanity” (Gordon, Tacoma,