New York Bar Applicant Robert E. Brown Files Federal Injunction and Stay of Action in New York District Court and Justice Department

Wilmington, Delaware (PRWEB) August 22, 2013

In the latest events regarding legal documentation provider Robert E. Brown, who continues his own legal battle in seeking admission to the New York Bar, Brown announces he has filed for federal protection for his wife, home and business, the Walnut St. Deli, as well as filing for federal protection for his clients.

Brown is seeking protection for his clients in the cases Hooten v. Greggo, Ferrara and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Garbo. Brown assisted Hooten and Garbo in preparing and filing the legal documents in these cases. Additionally, Brown has filed documents for his own protection with the New York State District Court (case # C, A. No.1-12 CV- 1615 GLS) (RFT) and the United States Justice Department office of Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for Federal Protection through Injunction and Stay of Action pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedures 65 and 62. Brown also filed for federal protection on behalf of his clients under 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985 Civil Rights Acts.

Brown maintains Hooten was not given his rights under the AFLCIO International contract grievance process. The grievance proceedure requires a five step process of all grievances and the violation of "42 USC §2000E-5(b) enforcement requires compliance to the statute. Hooten’s original complaint was governed by the EEOC statute of violation of 5 USC § 7116 - Unfair labor practices that clearly states:
(1) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter
(2) To cause or attempt to cause an agency to discriminate against any employee in the exercise by the employee of any right under this contract
(5) To refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a labor organization    
(6) To fail or refuse to cooperate in impasse procedures and impasse decisions
(7) To enforce any rule or regulation (other than a rule or regulation implementing section 2302 of this title) which is in conflict with any applicable collective bargaining agreement, if the agreement was in effect before the date the rule or regulation was prescribed                                                                                            
(8) To otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of this chapter                                                            

In the Hooten v. Greggo and Ferrara case (#17C-2010-00146), Mr. Hooten has filed in the District Court to "to set aside the order, amend complaint and request to reopen EEOC's alleged mishandling of Hooten’s discrimination case based on the contentions that:
(1) The decision involved an allegedly erroneous interpretation of material fact and law
(2) The decision had a substantial impact on the policies, practices, and operations of the agency.

Brown maintains the EEOC had a statutory duty to investigate Hooten’s case according to 42 USC §2000E-5(b).

This statute requires application of conciliation under EEOC statutes of a "duty to conciliate." "The EEOC has a statutory duty to attempt conciliation before filling a formal Complaint under 42 USC §2000E-5(b)." This process allows for the employer and the EEOC to negotiate how the employer might alter its practices to comply with the law, as well as what remedies will be provided to the aggrieved individuals.

Brown says that being the principal of the New York District Court case applicant for admittance to the New York State Bar, assisting clients living in Delaware against the Delaware Bar attorneys effectively was not taken likely.

In the case of Brown’s client Hooten v. Greggo, Ferrara, Brown filed a FRCP 60 motion on behalf of Hooten. Hooten maintains his innocence in the charges of theft of scrapwire from Greggo and Ferrara.

The particulars involving Brown’s client Mr. Garbo, against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Garbo (case # CPU 4-9-007383), Brown says the filing of title 18 § 4 (Misprision of Felony) was not taken kindly by the Delaware State Supreme Court and the Disciplinary Council.

Brown reminded the council that according to the federal statute title 42 USC § 4 (misprision of felony), requires notifying a federal judge as a matter of law and that Brown’s intention to file charges on behalf of Mr. Garbo with a federal judge was serious . It was for these reasons, Brown says that he has filed for federal protection on behalf of his family and clients.

PDF Print