Wilmington, DE (PRWEB) June 05, 2013
Applicant Robert E. Brown of Delaware has filed complaints with the United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s office on behalf of two Delaware Court cases of Hooten v Greggo & Ferrara, case number 17C-2010-00146 and Nationwide Mutual Ins v Garbo in the Delaware Court of Common Pleas, case number CPU4-9-007383, pursuant to FRCP 5.1, intervention of the Attorney General and Writ of Habeas Corpus.
"Both of these cases share a thread of De facto Law practices," says Robert E. Brown. "In Carl E. Hooten v. Greggo and Ferrara, the case was dismissed by the United States District Court Judge who disregarded expert testimony that the defendant violated Hooten's civil rights under the United Steel Workers national contract section IX "Grievance."
Hooten who is black and a white co-worker were allegedly fired for stealing company property and sent home without being given the USW process required by the international contract chapter IX Grievance 4 step process.
The expert witness testified based on the investigation that Hooten had been exonerated of the charge of stealing company property by the white co-worker who admitted that he acted on his own and that Hooten had nothing to do with the taking of the company property
The expert witnessed stated that the white co-worker was rehired and Hooten was terminated. Further investigation of Hooten’s EEOC complaint by the expert witness found that the EEOC had not reviewed the record properly. Hooten’s case was dismissed and Hooten was granted a letter of "Right to Sue" the EEOC on June 17, 2010.
On February 25, 2013, Hooten received a letter from the United States Department of Justice informing Hooten that the United States Department of Justice Litigation Section did not process individual complaints, but that Hooten should get counsel or whoever had helped him to file the complaint with the United States Justice Department.
The letter gives legal agencies and instruction on how and where Hooten should proceed to go back to the EEOC directly and request that the EEOC reopen his case under the same complaint number, 17C-2010-00146, Hooten v Greggo and Ferrara.
Hooten filed a complaint with the EEOC. Without any response after waiting 60 days, Hooten called the EEOC Office and was told that he could not reopen the case.
"The EEOC's mishandling of Hooten’s case violates Hooten’s constitutional rights under 42 USC § 2000-5, 42 USC § 2000-2, 42 and USC § 2000-3 which is the basis of the FRCP 5.1 and Writ of Habeas Corpus complaint to the United States Department of Justice," says Brown.
In the second case, Brown has filed similar complaints with United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s office. The issues in this case are entirely different. This complaint involves an immigrant resident from Liberia, Africa living here in the United States.
This complaint surrounds Nationwide Mutual Ins v Garbo in the Delaware Court of Common Pleas, case number CPU4-9-007383.
According to court documents, on or about May 7, 2009, Mr. F. D. Nathanael Garbo was parking his car in a commercial parking lot; he inadvertently stepped on the accelerator causing him to run into the car space behind his car, denting the fender of the car behind his car. The damaged car belonged to Mr. Kevin Wilson. Damages totaled approximately $500.00.
Mr. Garbo and Mr. Wilson made a written gentlemen's agreement between them; a payment of $500.00 was agreed upon for the damages done as a result of the accident to Kevin Wilson by Garbo.
On December 26, 2012, three years after the accident, Garbo received a letter from the Department of Transportation. It was a notice of suspension of Garbo's Delaware driver’s license number 1653044 for failure to pay a judgment stemming from the May 7, 2009 accident with Kevin Wilson. The judgment named Nationwide Mutual Insurance and Wilson as the plaintiffs. The letter further instructed Garbo to contact attorney Christopher Sipe and ended with notice of a $25.00 fined for reinstatement of license.
Brown is requesting intervention by the United States Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. pursuant to FRCP 5.1 and Writ of Habeas Corpus from restraint of Civil Rights and Liberty Protection of 42 USC 1983 (Deprivation of Rights) and 42 USC 1985 (Conspiracy to interfere With Civil Rights) based on Plaintiff’s following causes of actions.
According to the complaint, there is an erroneous judgment in the names of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Kevin Wilson of the May 5, 2009 to suspend Mr. Garbo’s driving license and causing Mr. Garbo to lose employment opportunities and income.
Further, Attorney Sipe is charged with misrepresentation, fraud, suspension of driving license, coercion (threat of imprisonment and\or deportation) by U.S. mail and telephone to induce Mr. Garbo to pay money to Attorney Sipe in the names of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Kevin Wilson.
Attorney Sipe has received approximately $3,100.00 to date from Mr. Garbo and is currently demanding an approximate $2,850.00 in addition, before Mr. Garbo’s license can be reinstated.
Judge Alex Smalls of the Delaware State Court of Common Pleas is charged with violating Canon C, 3, (E), (b).
Both Judge Smalls and Christopher Sipe are accused of conspiring to deny F. D. Nathanael Garbo of the 6th amendment right to the assistance of counsel and 14th amendment of due process and equal rights, liberty, and justice under the law.
"The legal remedy to address these violations is to request formal intervention by the U.S. State Attorney General's office," says Brown. "The judge and officer of the court are charged with engaging in the practice of De facto law (Unconstitutional) in an open court of law and are subject to federal rule of civil procedure 5.1."
And requesting the U S Attorney General filing of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court and to bring the defendants before a federal judge to show cause as to why the parties’ rights of liberty are being restrained.
In the two cases of Hooten v. Greggo & Ferrara, and Nationwide Mutual Insurance v Garbo, Brown believes there is a thread of violations of the FRCP 5.1 that requires the enactment of the FRCP 5.1 (De jure) “as a matter of law". Rule 5.1 Constitutional challenge to a statute notice, certification, and intervention; (a) notice by a party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into questions the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly)."