IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

)

) ARB Remand No.

IN RE: JOSI-IUA I ISRAEL, ) ARB Appeal No. 09-115 )

Petitioner, ) j.llLRB Appeal

)

) Appeal No. 09-069

Joshua J. Israel Petitioner/Pro-se P. O.

Shakopee, I'vfN 55379

(~) - ~ @'

THE U~NITED STATES

11 }

) ARB Remand No,

HE: JOSHUA 1. ISRtt\EL, ) ARB Appeal No, 115

) ) ARB Appeal NQ. )

~~~~~~~~ ~ __ ~ __ .) i\ppeal

T OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUTf

PROOF OF SERVICE

Israel, certifies that the original and four copies

serviced Clerk Appellate COU1rt~ and

a 1S serried upon general counsel for the Administrative Review Board,

Janet R. Dunlop, at their address stated below, by priority mail through the U.

Postal Service, on this 26th day March, 10.

Michael E. Gans, Clerk of Court Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Room 24.329

III South lOth Street

St. Louis, MO 63102 030820400001 78888456

Janet R. Dunlop

General Counsel Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210

03082040 0001 7888 8432

James C. Hardman Attorney at Law 753 Carla Lane Little Canada, NIN 55109-1925

0306 1070000071504138

2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

)

) ARB Remand

IN RE: JOSJHUA 1 ISRAEL~ ) ARB Appeal 115

)

) ARB Appeal )

~~ __ ~~~~~~ __ ) ARB Appeal No.

08-095

PROOF OF SERVICE

Petitioner, Joshua J. Israel, certifiesthat the original and four of the

Petition Writ Mandamus serviced Clerk of Appellate Court, and,

a copy is upon counsel for Unimark Truck Transport, Matthew

Administrative Law Judge, Larry S. Merck, their address stated below, by

priority mail the S. Postal Service, on day March, 201

'\

Michael E. Gans, Clerk of Court Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Room 24,329

111 South lOIh Street

St Louis, MO 63102 03082040 0001 7888 8456

Janet R. Dunlop

General Counsel Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Ave, N,W. Washington, D,C, 20210

0308 2040 0001 7888 8432

Matthew Troha Attorney at Law

JHT Holdings/Unimark 4320 39!l1 Avenue Kenosha, WI 53144

0307 17900001 14248612

3

IN THE UNITED STATES APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

)

) IN RE: JOSHUA J. ISRA_.EL, ) )

Remand Appeal

09-115

) AHJB Appeal N 00 )

~~~~~~--~~~~~~~.)

PROOF OF SERVICE

Petitioner, Joshua J. Israel, certifies that the original and four copies of the Petition for Writ Of Mandamus serviced to Clerk Appellate Court, and a copy is served Gary Richardson, and Administrative Law Judge, Thomas F. Phalen, at their address stated below, mail through the U. Postal

Service, on this March, 201100

Michael E Gans, Clerk of Court Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Thomas 1". Eagleton Courthouse Room 24.329

111 South 10th Street

St. Louis, MO 63102 03082040 0001 78888456

Janet R. Dunlop

General Counsel Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210

03082040 0001 7888 8432

Richardson 1316 Pecos Drive Southlake, TX 76092

0308 2040 000 I 7888 8463

4

THE lJ1\rITED

COURT OF APPEALS

THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

)

) ARB Remand

06-1040

IN RE: JOSHUA J, ISRAEL, ) ARB Appeal No. 115

)

Petitioner. ) ARB Appeal

~, j

~~~~~~~~~_~~_) ARB

CERTIFICATE OF' COlvIPI)ANCE 'FvITH RULE 321ru

Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation,

Typeface Requirements, and Style Requirements.

10

This

contains 2,351 words, and contains 12 pages, excluding the petition exempted by FRep

2. This brief requirements of FRep and

the style requirements of FRep 32(a)(6) because the petition has been

prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft-Office Word

Processing Program, in

Petitioner/Pro-se P.O.-

) -

5

THE UNITED STATES COURT

APPEALS

THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

)

) ArID Remand No. 06-040

IN JOSHUA Jo ISP'L<t\EL~ ) ARB Appeal No. 1 5

)

)

No. 08-095

)

~ ~~~~.) ARB "Appeal No.

Notice is hereby given on

26th day

March 201

~

Joshua Israel,

the Eighth Circuit, U. S. Court of Appeals, for a Writ

of

This lf~lrit is

Counsel,

R. Dunlop-I.Ak.B General Counsel), has

procedure be followed

31105;

Petitioner IS deprived of

Property without

~ ~ ::;

equal

nrotection afforded by 29 CFR

~ ,

78.109; and additionally, because said

violations have invaded fundamental fights guaranteed by the First and Fifth

Amendments and retained by the Ninth Amendment

the u

Constitution.

Therefore, Petitioner is deprived of all forward looking and backward looking

claims associated with the loss of his career and livelihood, without due process

of

ChristoJ2her v. Hal/bury, (S Ct. 2002) 536, s.

414-416,

6

The relief sought IS brought forth by 49

311

if JL

1

1

. and prock v, Roadwav Ex~J.nc" (S

-263,

26"" /~O .

, I, _I ; 111

has

titled P i\o',,' er t

en mec ennoner 0

Carrier Protections, Congress has entitled Petitioner

to at

be

Congress

entitled Petitioner to exemplary and

damages

violation of said protections. Since

entitlements are violated by an invasion

of

rights, ARB

deprive

the Eighth Circuit of appellate jurisdiction, over Case No, 06-040,

over four

years.

ARB General

has

of employment

reinstatement or an award of damages, and this

Petitioner of his interest in property without

o 'Wherefore, Petitioner

seeks an Order from this

declaring that ARB General Counsel

violate

the equal protection of due process specified

Congress in

USCA 31105"

,

Petitioner seeks an Order setting forth a reasonable schedule for ARB review of

of Case 08-095, and

so as to protect the appellate jurisdiction, of

this Court, over agency actions that are not in accordance with law BSP

Transport Inc, v. USDOL. o: Cir. 1998) 160 F 38, 46-49.

7

The jurisdiction of this Court

evoked under

USC 1651

and

USCA 1 1, FRl\P 21(a), and

311

1, Is Petitioner entitled

the procedure

be

protects

entitlement, under 49 USCA 31105,

a four year and six month delay a

consti tuti onal

20 Is the Eighth Circuit deprived of its

jurisdiction, as a result of

and

and capricious

First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment rights?

3, '(Will dilatory tactics, abuses of discretion, the deprivation due

process, and the violation of retained enumerated rights demonstrate an attempt

t id '"' A.

o avoicenrorcement

Motor Carrier Protections, by a lawless means, which

are not in accordance with law?

a commercial

vehicle, and Petitioner was compelled engage

Protections,

under 49

311 05(a)(J) (A),

livelihood from unlawful

W.l.JUl~vu. at destroying his career and livelihood? in the year

After an Administrative Law Judge

was assigned, this ALJ

serve

Pre- Hearing Order

parties herewith; and after Petitioner

service his

pre-trial statement and documentary evidence upon

said employer

terminated the employment

Petitioner. At

Evidentiary Hearing,

over-ruled the objections

Petitioner, and consolidated the retaliatory

termination of Petitioner into

same evidentiary hearing, and recommended

that both issues be dismissed, 'the

(AlLJ

After filing his Brief-In-Opposition to the

Board

of the Department of Labor (DOL), the ARB

the ALJ did abuse her

discretion, did deprive Petitioner of due

and did remand the case back

the ALJ for further proceedings, in the year 2008. The AFJ3 did order the ALl to

afford Petitioner proper notice

time

conduct discovery, and the ALI was

ordered

afford Petitioner the time necessary

his case

defense

against a suspicious employment termination. After the ALI failed do the

Petitioner filed his Brief

Opposition, on

(A-I); therefore, 120 days

«)

the filing of this ARB Appeal, 11127/09, ana

General Counsel have

with the 29 CFR 1978.1

for review

06-040

- renumbered as

been rendered,

Since the financial condition

livelihood

Petitioner .

been

devastated by additional delays, in - Cases 08~095

09~069 - Petitioner made

clear to the

and ARB General Counsel that excessive delays are a

violation,

authority of Brock v. Roaciwavl;;)gzress, (S. Ct. 1987)

481 US, 252, 259-261. Nevertheless,

ALJ and ARB General Counsel

beyond constitutional constraints in the First,

Fifth, Ninth Amendments,

beyond the equal protection of due process

Thereafter, in Case

08-095, a

of Mandamus was required just

obtain a evidentiary hearing, because the ALJ violated

CFR 197801 (Petition

After the arbitrary hearing

an adverse decision, Petitioner filed

Brief Opposition, on the

day of June

(A-2); and since this time, ARB

General Counsel have refused to follow the procedure specified by

USCA

31105(b)(2)(B)(C), and

CFR

1

and 29 CFR 19780109(c)(l), because

no ARB decision has been rendered in the subsequent 8 days (21 months),

Much later, in Case 09-069, the ALI closed the record on date 1

and delayed its decision until 2/27/09;

delay,

10

the employer

Hue opportunity to sen -off its property assets

as a

motor carrier

Thereafter,

General

refused comply 'with

equal

due

specified

49 USCA

1 05 (b) (2) (B) (C),

1978.100~ and!

CFR 19 1

because no

ADn. ~ 0." 11 b

lC'I...[) oecision nas • een

Presently, relief granted

II un Case l\"TO 08-1)°'5.,

.L"'1h.JL\,JOl :_.J ~ I:..".. l"tt - 0 t j'

an

Stay in Bankruptcy (Case o.

11

because

Petitioner did prove that a

perpetrated upon the

Report was

the record;

because, the ALJ decision.

upon

fabricated and falsified

id .

ao ntion,

Petitioner

impeach the employer's testimony,

decision must

Moreover,

i\l1U3 General

powers

~/iolate a previous

~ established

Eighth Circuit Court (A-4), and did grant a

Bankruptcy

Stay

case, on

1:R LJr'Cf" l't

ln e l10lJmger . na.,

Cir. 2003) 329 F. 948, 952-953.

It established

if agency action inconsistent

intent

of congress to pursue, the Courts must invalidate

Giacobbi Vo

Biermann,

DOL)

F. Supp. 33, 37-400 Congress

recognized that employees protection against

the transportation. violations

need express the

employee, as

public.

Therefore, Congress enacted

Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), so as to

Petitioner

for reporting

protection violations; so as to ,,,u..JL,,,'" Petitioner to

his

commercial rnotor vehicle unsafely and engaging in protected activity; and so as

Petitioner to equal protection for participating m an investigation

testifying at an evidentiary hearing.

the

to be a Motor

Carrier Protection transportation

protects

public safety, that protects

and services in interstate commerce, and that protects the

safe operation of a commercial motor vehicle Brock v. Roadway Express tnc.. (8.

1987)481 U. S. 252,

-259, 261-263,

270.

By enacting the ST At\, Congress entitled Petitioner to mandatory statutory

protections, which entitle Petitioner

a due process procedure that must be

followed to equally protect the

USCA 31105 entitlement Not

did

12

Congress make mandatory the expeditious

granting temporary

employment reinstatement or compensatory damage

an additional

mandate from

s. Sunreme

n

made an evidentiary hearing and

administrative or

to be an expeditious requirement ~

Roadway Ejepress Inc:

Ct

U 252, 258~259,

Therefore,

mandate

Congress and the U. So

Court

dilatory tactics and ail abuses of process that will undermine the ability

Petitioner protect

means of livelihood from unlawful

dear that excessive delays

become a

COUl1 re-defined this

it held,

dilatory tactics,

in the procedure to

to equally protect an employee's entitlement, will

be devastating to the personal financial condition

the

of a commercial

motor vehicle,

prospects for his future and for his re-employment; and

the U. S. Supreme

additionally emphasized that it strong Congressional

policy that persons seeking

equally protected by

31105

not

suffer because

such protected activity Brock v. Roadway Express Inc.. (3.

1987)481 U. S. 252, 258-259, 261~263,

270

~, .

In willful disregard of Congress

the U.

Sunreme

'_iC 1 Jl;;;;

ARB

General Counsel

deprived Petitioner of his retained First Amendment right of

access

appellate review, his Fifth Amendment right to due process, under 49

311

and

due process, under 29 Cl'1f{

proceedings before any

ALJ or the ARB. Therefore since Petitioner

right

a "prompt"

administrative and judicial review of and unconscionable

designed

enforcement

a lawless means; and, since ARB General Counsel

has expanded its

Fifth Amendment (equal protection

due

process),

invade First Amendment

to courts of appeal); Mandamus

necessary, under

Amendment "power-constraint" provisions, against an

expansion of power

beyond constitutional limitations that

fundamental rights

. .

mvasion

the federal government

'-'

Richn10nd JVewslJapers vJirginiaJ (,S;, Ct. 1980) 448 555,

As a consequence

said four year delay, Petitioner IS deprived

his

"-'lULLu-,e.fl'-". and a property interest, without due process of

or

protection

of due process, under 29 CFR

and Petitioner is additionally deprived of

following Congressional mandate of due process, under 49 USC 31105(c):

49 U§CA 3U05«t) JlJldid:BI~ Review and Venue.c-A person adversely affected by an order issued after a hearing under subsection (b) of this section may file a petition for review, not later than 60 days after the order is issued, in the court of of the United States for the circuit in which the violation occurred or the person resided on the date of the violation, The review shall be heard and decided expeditiously,

Now that ARB General Counsel continues to delay these matters, in

reckless disregard

Congressional entitlements and Supreme Court mandates,

14

and

of the procedure specified for equal

of due

process, a Vi/fit of

is available

unreasonable agency action is so

egregious as warrant

intervention

of

fundamental

and the

Ninth

to the

(8.

1

448

592-596,

Therefore, it has become necessary for

Court

compel ARB

and defined by this Court, which would

m

the equal

protection of due process, under

e'PR 1978.109 Telecommunications Research

v. Federal Communications Commtsston..

App D. C

79-80, This Telecommunications precedent is favorable for the Petitioner

because it

egregious agency

however, the

Issue

herewith involves an outright invasion of enumerated rights, and a violation of

the procedure specified for

equal protection of

process, Since the ARB

with the

CFR

109 procedure for

equal protection of 49 USCA 1 ,this Extraordinary Writ sought because of

strong Congressional policy against agency action

is inconsistent

the

intent

Congress to pursue, This 'Writ is also sought because the Ninth

Amendment forbids ARB General Counsel from expanding its powers to invade

15

or violate any fundamental fight

by the

Fifth, and Ninth

Amendments.

consequence

said invasions and

mandate

Court

invalidate such lawless procedures and reaffirm

the

of

555,

Furthermore, the ultimate power

the aforesaid!

expansion of power,

violate the Fifth Amendment, I( due process), and

which

the First Amendment, (access to judicial review), are within the

power

this

restrain. Moreover, the Ninth Amendment does

this

Court the power to establish appellate jurisdiction over the aforesaid i~.I.RB Cases,

so as bring

General Counsel back into the

constraints," of the

Constitution, and

nrotect this

iI:

s appellate

Telecommunications Research Vo Federal Communications Cornmission., (0. So

App D. C 1984)

F2d 70, 79-800

Ph. C )'

. ~ @.

16

ilPPEl~~DIX

17

r'

Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, WIN. D.C.202W

JOSHUA J. liSR;\EL,

ARB CASE

09-115

ALJ CASE NOl. 2005-ST A-OSI

SClPllNEI])ER NATIONAL, CARruERS~

RESPONDENT.

TIlle Complainant, J, Israel, filed his brief and four in this ease

arising under the employee protection provisions of Surface Transportation Assistance of 1982 R and its implementing regularions.' the

Administrative Review Board received on July 30, Israel

indigent transcript, to supplement the record evidence, sanctions and to vacate

judgment The Respondent has filed a response opposing all four motions.

49 U,S,C,A. § 311 (West 2008), as amended the Implementing

of the 1 Commission 2007, PL. nO-53, 12] Stat 266 (Aug. 3,

2007), Section 405 the ST AA provides protection discrimination to employees who report violations of commercial motor vehicle safety rules or who refuse to operate a vehicle when such operation would violate those rules,

2

29 C.F.R. Pm1 li 978 (2008).

Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.VIf. D.C. 20210

In the Matter oil:

ARB CASE NO. OB-095

COMlPLA.I[NANT,

ALJCASE

Ul'UMAlRK TRUCK Tru.lJ~SPORT9 INC.

RESPONllENT.

THE ADJVII[NISTR4.TIVlE REVIE'lN BOARD

ORDER

Administrative Review

has received three motions:

Complainant, Joshua J. Israel, in. case arising the employee

provision the Surface Transportation Assistance Act or the Act). I In the first

Motion, Israel requests a of Exhibit 14. This motion is IG!u.r~TJED. A

the Exhibit is enclosed.

Israel filed two additional motions: Motion to Strike Hearsay Evidence and

Motion to Strike Respondent's Exhibit RX-S. The Respondents file a response to

these motions on or before Jlldy 3192008.

FOR THE ADMINISTR.ATIVE REVIEW BOARD:

U.S.C.A. § 3 HOS(a) (West 1 found at 29 C.F.R Part 1978 (2007),

Regulations implementing the ST AA are

i8ftA.~~DEE L -rOOD

IChll(ECl' DnAW.: (214) !5i78·1HIH bitOJdld@ch~mlb!~ee!'1!a!l.com

H p~lvI B LE

N

A PROFIESSIOlllAl CORPORA inm'lil JU10Ri\lllEYS iH LAW

MAiiM ~hJ!VllBER: 12'!4) 90E;·2(!O:;!

FACSIIl~ILE: (214) S€l5·121l3 c:ri2YJ@chamb~®l!!ryal'll.l';OliV1l

zrrt IIIOR1"H STiEf<JU~~()~~S IFRiEiEWA Y SUITE 1'ltii1

DAiLUl\S, TlE}{AS 1!5:l:07

June 22,

Janet R. Dunlop, Genera] Counsel U.S. Department of Labor

Administrative Board

200 Constitution Avenue, N.

Washington, D.C. 10

Re: Joshua Israel 'I'. Brankich, Inc.

ARB Case : 09-069

Case No.: 2008-STA-OI[H FHe No.:

As previously reported, Brankich ceased operation in the 2008 and it has

now completed the necessary administrative steps to conclude business. Brankich is no

longer represented this regarding complaint Should any future

correspondence it to the President Gary

Richardson at 1316 76092.

you for your attention to this matter,

Sincerely,

Brandee L. Todd

cc:

Mr. Gary Richardson, Brankich, Mr. Joshua Israel

(Via E~lvlail)

Administrative RevievJ 200 Constitution Avenue, s D.C. 202"j 0

JOSHUA J. ISR4.1ElL~

COMPLAJ[NANT~

AlLJ·

NO, 201Jl1-STA-IJ43

Ul'\{!MARK TRUCK TRANSPORT, INC.~

BEFORE:

THE ADMIN][ST1i',L<\ TliV.lE REVIE'IliV BOAIID

OlRDJER STAYING PROCEEDllNGS

J. a complaint with United States Department of Labor

alleging that his employer, Truck Transport, Inc., violated Section 405, the

employee protection of the Surface Transportation Assistance 1

r(STAA)! it to assign him loads in retaliation for protected activity. A

Department Labor Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Decision

and Order (R. D. & denying Israel's complaint because the ALI found that Israel failed to by a preponderance the evidence that Unimark any adverse action against him because he engaged in protected activity. case is now before the Administrative Review Board pursuant to the ST)IA's automatic review provisions.i

The Office of Administrative Law Judges in Cincinnati has forwarded a letter the Board from Counsel for Unimark, dated July 14, 2008, stating that JHT Holdings,

49 U.S.CA. § 31105 (Thompso:n;West 2007). The STAA's implementing

regulations are found at 29 C.ER. Part 1978

2

See U.S.CA. § 31 C.F.R. § R978J09(c)(1). The Secretary of

Labor has delegated to the Administrative Review Board her authority to issue final agency

decisions under Secretary's Order' No. 1-2002, (Delegation Authority and

Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), Fed. Reg. 64,272 17, 2002);

C.F.R. § ] 978.109(a).

has not addressed the nor has he provided reason to

further proceedings in this case are 81' AYED until the

bankruptcy proceedings are the are ordered to

inform the Board when bankruptcy proceedings conclude,

FOR THE ADMINmTRL-\TIVE llEVIEVlv BOillJRD~

IN THE UNITED STA

COLJI{T

APPEALS

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No.1 1717

IN RE

ISRAEL,

DEPARTMEN'I' OF LABOR9S

lVIOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR WFt[OF MANDAMUS

Pursuant to Local Rules 21 A

the Department of Labor

hereby moves for an extension of

7, 2010, to file a response

to

Petition

Writ Mandamus.l In support of

motion,

Department states as

1. The Petition was filed on April 1, 2010 and on April 2, 201 the

Court directed the Department to tile a response.

Department received

the Court's Order on or about April 12, but the legal division of the

Solicitor's Office responsible for handling this matter did not receive the

The order directing the Department to file a response does not

establish a due date, but the docket sheet indicates the response was due

on April 16,2010. As explained in the text below, counsel for the Department did not become aware of the Petition until April 22. Measured from the former date, the requested extension is for 21 days, and from the latter date, it is for 15 days.

OJ A 'J ')') 2 erR-, until ~ pHI L. .. , .lllie

regrets the internal

of

Petition and Order

has caused part of

delay.

2.

counsel

Department estimates that an

additional fourteen days needed prepare an adequate response to the

The Department does not believe that the delay will prejudice

Because of security concerns, incoming mail to the Department is screened for harmful agents before it is delivered, which explains why the order was not received by the Department until on or about April 12.

2

Department of

requests that this Motion

granted

to the Petition

of Mandamus

Oil

May 7,2010.

M. PATRICIA SMITH icitor of Labor

JOSEPH M. VVOODWARD

Associate

for Occupational

Health

HEATHER PHILLIPS

Counsel for Appellate Litigation

200 Constitution Room Washington, D.C. (202)

10

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of April, 10, I

served a

of the Department of Labor's Motion for

Extension of Time to File Response

the Petition for Writ of

Mandamus by regular mail on the following:

Joshua J. Israel P.O. ,- _

/

Attorney

4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH

1

1'71'7

.ll f

RE JOSHUA J. ISRi\EL,

Petitioner,

In Reply to the response made by the Department

(DOL)~ IOn the

Iv lay, 2010,

Petitioner must

forth that Janet R. Dunlop has

made a dear admission of a material fact, and

Janet has dearly admitted to

non-compliance

the equal

due process specified

Congress,

under

USCA 31 ]05, and 29 CPR 1978.

a potential excuse for said non-

compliance, Solicitor, Ronald Gottlieb, of the DOL, sets forth a UU''''Jl.''-

of

first-in and first-out caseloads, and that an additional 1 year delay is necessary

before any review may be had" herewith. The DOL claims that Petitioner win

not be prejudiced by their delay, and that no priority review should be afforded

Petitioner. Moreover, the DOL additionally claims that Petitioner did not

demonstrate any prejudice resulting from their delays, did not demonstrate that

Petitioner was exempt for an imposed Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy, that their

are

egregious, and that extraordinary

afforded bv Mandamus

of

in unavailable to Petitioner.

Consequently, Petitioner must demonstrate that the Declaration of Janet

Dunlop is an unsworn self-serving hearsay statement that is without merit;

that Petitioner has been singled-out for mistreatment, for extreme prejudice, and

for egregious conduct; the DOL continues to act in bad-faith, that DOL

continues to refuse enforce the law, by a lawless means, that this

usurpation

power rs a violation, and

an invasion, of Ninth Amendment

enumerated rights.

In the first instance, Janet

Dunlop

delay,

deciding cases, is necessary due to a back-log of case administration; however,

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made a

finding

In

the GAO found the Administrative Review Board's (ARB)

data, provided by Janet R, Dunlop, was unreliable, and lacks sufficient oversight

of data quality (GAO-09~106, (A-5)o The GAO also found that cases appealed

from a Recommended Decision and Order (RDO) from an Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) was completed in an average time-frame of nine (9) months (GAO-

09-106, (A-5). 'Therefore, the DOL's assessment that a 2 year time-frame has

suddenly become a necessary requirement is only the furtherance of egregious

conduct

prejudicial the administration of justice; and, Janet R. Dunlop

2

no longer a fair and impartial

of Petitioner's C3J.se matters; proceeding 0

brought

prejudice

Since the DOL further claims that their excessive delays are

GUS

and have not prejudiced Petitioner, the Track and Confirm results, for Proof of

Service to Brankich, and to Unimark Truck Transport, have not provided Petitioner with their "new"

these Parties and also reveals that

service of process cannot be had upon said Parties (A-6 to

In addition,

Brankich did explicitly inform Janet R. Dunlop that Brankich had ceased!

operations,

(which is not valid), and

escape

delays initiated

the DOL has prejudiced the right Petitioner to

forward-

looking

backward-looking claims associated with retaliation for protected

activity; because, said delays have assisted said Parties in their escap~ from

liability

6-621), Hence, these egregious delays perpetrated

the ALJ, in

first instance, and the aforesaid subsequent delays

ARB, thereafter, have

deprived Petitioner of an interest in property, without the equal protection of due process; because, the Petitioner filed Post-Hearing-Motions with the ARB requesting relief from egregious conduct that is inconsistent with the intent of

Congress to pursue (A, 1

A-9), of which remains undecided; therefore, the

adjudication process before Janet R, Dunlop is now a partisan proceeding.

3

s right to the equal protection of due 31105(c), Janet R. Dunlop fenow the DOL falsely claims that 09-115

In the attempt process, under 29 CFR 1978.1

numbered case

to 09-115~

is a second complaint, which lies under the jurisdiction their

Amendment, and which

a case be pursued the U. S. District Court.

However, in the first instance, since OSHA is investigate complaints and to compile a record all

the exclusive duty to evidentiary findings; and

since the ALJ is granted

exclusive duty to administer

process to the

Parties

an evidentiary hearing, case

115 is not a 2nd complaint,

because OSHA

not performed it's exclusive duty investigate. In addition,

since an inadequate 115 is retroactive

and motion process was initiated herewith, case

holdings of the

in Elbert v. True Value c«.

. (8th Cir. 2008)

F3d

-693. Moreover, since the GAO has

instances of OSHA failures to conduct an investigation (GAO-08··973 T, 7), and have found failures of due process that would have properly enforced the law (A-7a to A-8), the DOL has already defeated any favorable out-come of any case pursued the U. S. District Court. Therefore, Janet R. Dunlop's legal manipulation to re-number case after an Order on Remand, is a prejudicial alteration of 06-040 case-identification, and a prejudicial alteration of 06-040 case-designation, so as to deliberately prejudice the rights of

4

Petitioner

his First

rights of administrative and judicial review;

as a

Dunlop IS a

adjudicator that is invading

Amendment enumerated rights of Petitioner,

After OSHA failed

investigate 9 failed to

parties and

witnesses, failed to compile documents and records, and failed to conduct a dosing conference and prepare and file a Final Investigation Report; and, after

the ALI did cover-up this investigation deficiency and proceeded

further

deprive the Petitioner of due process during

evidentiary hearing; the

Petitioner was compelled

identify himself as a Federally Created Entity,

under 49

311 ,which is given

by the mandates

Congress

and

United States Supreme Court Brock Vo Roadwav Ex~

Ct.

7)

252, 258-259,

complete livelihood Petitioner at stake (A~Sa). The Petitioner is identified as a Federally Created Entity because a driver a commercial motor vehicle is in the best person to detect safety violations that endanger the driver as wen as the public (A-Sa); and because, coercing the driver to choose between operating his vehicle unsafely and loosing his livelihood would lack practical effectiveness if the driver could not first be re-instated pending an evidentiary hearing with complete administrative and judicial review. Since the DOL and

Janet R. Dunlop have demonstrated an arbitrary disregard

the health and

5

welfare Petitioner,

report filed

the GAO

forth an objective finding

that confirms the abuses that Petitioner did experience (A-7 to

is afforded to Petitioner when there is dear evidence that the health and

welfare of Petitioner has been devastated

a practice of willful and intentional

delays that

the aim of causing economic harm; and, since

R. Dunlop

IS m

disregard of said mandates, Janet is a

adjudicator that

singled-out Petitioner

mistreatment and economic harm.

Since the bulk of the

's Response is aimed at their grant of an

Automatic

in Bankruptcy, the Petitioner did demonstrate,

Dunlop, the mandate

r"I0 0" 0 1li" 1 ~ r~ /'. th

EIghth Circuit in case ln Re HOllinger lnd.. (8

329 F3d 948, 952-953. In Hoffinger, this Court determined that appeals

involving a governmental unit's police and regulatory power are !ill! subject

the automatic stay in bankruptcy, and this Court is correct in so holding because

the automatic stay has been improperly used to detriment and destroy

livelihood of Petitioner (Forma Pauperis in this case), and to allow Unimark the

opportunity to escape liability (A-6a). Moreover, Petitioner additionally

demonstrated to Janet R. Dunlop, that Petitioner is cooperating with the

enforcement powers of the USDOL, that his appeal to the ARB is an action to

perfect an interest in property, and that this action is a "pre-petition" interest in

said unpaid wage property interest, where the last services were performed for

6

which

were unpaid and owmg In Re AR Accessories GroJ!}2;

3d 458-459. However) Janet R, Dunlop arbitrarily ignored

these mandates, did grant

Automatic

and hereby

allowed Unimark

escape liability for retaliation against Petitioner for seeking Motor Carrier

Protections (A-6a). In addition, even after

DOL gave this Court a previous

Declaration

compliance with the

protection

due process (Mandamus

07-3

Janet R. Dunlop appears to have reneged on

previous

Declaration, appears

have retaliated

Petitioner for

Mandamus

petition, appears

have singled-out Petitioner

mistreatment, and appears to

have targeted Petitioner with reprisals for seeking Mandamus

Furthermore, since Unimark and Brankich are now unavailable for service and

process in this action

and have

liability, herewith, this Court

can render judgment here-upon,

To qualify for Mandamus protection, the DOL has brought forth

principles to consider when Mandamus is sought as an appropriate remedy In Re

Barr Laboratories, (D.C Cir. 1991) 930 F.2d 72, 74-76. In Barr, the D. c.

Circuit established the following principles for Mandamus consideration:

The (1) time administrative agencies take to render decisions must be governed by a "rule of reason," (2) where Congress has provided at timetable to indicate speed with which it expects the agency to proceed in enabling the statute; (3) that delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake; (4) that the appellate court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on

7

agency activities a higher or competing (5) the Court should take into account the nature and extent of the interests

prejudiced by delay, and (6) the Court not find any impropriety

lurking agency in order to that agency action is

'''''''''''V'HHn~r delayed.

As a result, in his

Petition, the Petitioner

set forth the (1) rule

of reason established by Congress, and the . S. Supreme

which affirms

Petitioner's entitlement to an expeditious remedy (reinstatement), an

expeditious resolution (a prompt hearing with an expeditious review), an

expeditious compensation for injury sustained (damage awards) 3 under 49

USCA 31105, because Petitioner is a Federally Created Entity necessary

safe transportation of goods in interstate commerce; (2) that Congress and the

U. S. Supreme Court has re-affirmed the expeditious timetable, under 49 USCA

31105(c) and 29 CFR 1978

make clear that the DOL is expected to expedite

the process in accordance

the equal protection of due

; (3)

the

U. S. Supreme Court has re-affirmed that a driver of a commercial

vehicle should not suffer for seeking Motor Carrier Protections, that drivers

need express protection against retaliation, and that priority is essential

maintain the safe transportation of goods and services in interstate commerce;

that since a retaliatory discharge and excessive delays has been brought

forth, herewith, this Court must consider the effect of granting compensation, to

Petitioner, over DOL delays that only help employers escape liability; (5) this

Court should take

account the nature and extent of Petitioner's loss of

8

livelihood, Petitioner's unemployment condition, and of

Reaming a new trade to restore himself as a wage earner in society; and

that a

finding of egregious conduct or an improper scheme behind any excessive

agency delay not a requirement grant OJ,

of Mandamus.

qualifying circumstances and situations of Petitioner have

established the principles granting Mandamus, the actions of Janet FL

Dunlop are inconsistent with intent of Congress to pursue, and this

must invalidate the process and

that

GAO has found to exist

ARB procedure (A-5), within ALJ hearings (A-g), and within OSHA

field investigations

7-7a). Therefore 9 this Court should issue an

declaring the aforesaid egregious conduct as so unconstitutional

it win

deprive any United States Citizen

the equal protection

process) and

that invasions and violations IQf First, Fifth) and Ninth Amendment

enumerated rights are inconsistent with the intent of Congress to

"1 - T

J.. q _ __

-

).

9

\JVH ~STlEBlO\lVER

ROTECTI

Be'Her Data and tmproved Over~ight '~Vou~d Help Ensuf!r;: Prog~"am Quality and Consis'tency

\Wha~ GAO Found

Labor lacks reliable information on processing times :811Ild, as a result, cannot accurately report how long it takes to investigate rued dose a case or decide on certain appeals, OSHA does not have an effective mechanism to ensure that the data are accurately recorded in its database, and GAO's file reviews revealed that the key dates are often inaccurately recorded in the database or cannot be verified due to a lack of supporting documentation, For example, in one region visited, none of the case dosed dates matched the documentation in case files, At the appeals level, the reliability of information on the processing times is mixed. Timeliness data at the OAlJ level are reliable, and the OiUJ completed appealed cases in an average of about 9 months in fiscal year 2007. In contrast, ARB data are unreliable, and tile agency lacks sufficient oversight of data quality, GAO's file

review found that ARB processingtimes ranged from 80 to over 5 years. At

all levels of the whistleblower program, GAO found that increasing caseloads, case complexity, and accornmodating requests from the parties' legal counsel affect case processing times.

Whistleblowers received a favorable outcome In a of cases that were closed in fiscal year both at initial decision 2111d on appeal, but the actual proportion may be somewhat lower than Labor's data show. OSHA's data show that whistleblowers received a favorable outcome in 21 percent of cornplaints=nearly all settled through a separate agreement involving the whistleblower and tine employer, rather than through a decision rendered by OSWL However, GAO fOID1d several problems in the way settlements were being recorded in OSf-WA'S database, and a review of settlement agreements suggests that the proportion of cases found to have merit may actually be about 19 percent As with investigations, when whistleblower complaints were appealed, decisions favored the whistleblower in a minority of the cases-c-one-third or less of outcomes favored the whistleblower,

With respect to administering the whistle blower program, OSHA faces two key challenges-it lacks a mechanism to adequately ensure the quality and consistency of investigations, and many investigators said they lack certain resources they need to do their jobs, including equipment, training, and legal assistance. OSHA does not routinely conduct independent audits of the program to ensure consistent application of its policies and procedures. OSHA's new field audit program has begun to address this need but is lacking in several key areas. For example, the current audit processes do not adequately provide for independence, an important aspect of an effective audit program. Moreover, OSHA is challenged to ensure that investigators in all regions have the resources they need to address their large and complex caseloads, OSHA has not established minimum equipment standards for its investigators, and nearly hall of the whistleblower investigators reported that the equipment they have does not meet the needs of their jobs. FUrthermore, investigators often cite the need for more training and legal assistance on the complex federal statutes that OSHA administers.

( )

FEDERALl'"( C EATED ENTIT!ES

What GAO Found

GAO identified 219 federally created entities with varied control, missions, and operations. These entities, which GAO categorized into 7 types, are not universally subject to the 12 key broad-based governance, accountability, and transparency requirements reviewed for this report. These requirements CITe: budget preparation, review, and approval; strategic and performance planning: budget execution and funds control; control of improper payments; internal control and accounting systems; preparing and reporting of audited financial statements; standards of conduct; whistleblower protection; access to public records; availability of federal contract and

public meetings. For fiscal years 2005 through Congress appropriated, on

average, about $4 trillion at year in federal funds to 120 of the federally created

entities in 4 of the 7 entity The table summarizes GAO's results.

Applicabiiity o~ Requir!.!mrel1ts, Number of iiElek"ltifielJl En1ti~!es, <me! Pen::entlilge of Approprllil~",d Federai Fmui$ by !:lJ1Jtit T, e

Geiler[\]~ applicabi!ity «lif regl.!iremel1lts

Efi'ltit!e~ d!rectly receivii"lQ approl(J)riatecl fWI"III:l9

fl'illrcei1! I))f average anl1ual appropriated fUflu.la 'Ir1lJ identif!ed entities

Number off i!l!ei'!ti'iie~ enUlies

Executive

_d~e~p~a~r~tm~e~.n~t~s~ ~A~I~m~0~8~t~~~I ~1~5~ ~15~ ~73;.6%

Other executive

branch entities

Almost all

79

24.8%

88

Government corporations

Most

23

"18

1.5 %

Other federally established organizations

17

0.1 %

50

Nonappropriated fund instrumentalities

No

o

GSEs" No 3 0

FFRDCs No 39 a

Total 219 129 101l€) %

Source: GAO a-;,alysi':."·· .. ·""'"'"", ... ,,',. .... ,,· .. •• "'........... _ ..... , .. " .. " ..... ' .. ···9 .. '_ ..... " .. ',_·

"As of June 2009, two GSEs are in federal conservatorship and have received commitments of federal support through funds appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and from the Federal RessIV6 System.

Executive departments and other executive branch entities CITe subject to almost all of the 12 key requirements and received, on average, more than 98 percent of the appropriated funds reviewed. In contrast, nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, government-sponsored enterprises, and federally funded research and development centers are not subject to the requirements but did not directly receive appropriated funds. However, these entities may have received funds from other federal sources via contracts, grants, or other arrangements.

In establishing entities and specifying their governance, accountability, and transparency requirements, Congress has weighed a variety of considerations such as accountability, economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and entity missions. Entities not subject to the specific requirements GAO reviewed may have adopted or be subject to other comparable requirements,

_" . _. ._Uni'!ed States G!Y<fefl"lment Accoui'l~llIbmty Offfice

- Track & Confirm

rrack& Confirm

Labe!/Receipt Number: 0308 2il<i\O 0001 (~S3 3463 Class: PI"!ori1ly Maii@

Service(s): De!l'll~1']' COl1lfirmat!cn rs Status: Undellver@ilble as Ad1llI'",~(8ed

rmd~ & Confirm

Enter label/Receipt Numbero

Your item was undeiiverab!e as addressed at 12:36 PM on March 29, 2010 in SOUTHLAKE, TX 76()92o It is being returned ~"f appropriate inforrnation is aVaJilab~eo

Detailed Results:

OIl Ul1d~!iv~i'~ble as Addlf~S~~d, liIIauch 2ill11[l1, 12::3If.lpm, SOUTHLAKE, TX 'J'6(1)~2

01 Arrival! at Post Offi«:lI!I, M0lfCi'! 29, 2!J1I), '11 :39 ~m, :SOUTHLAKE, TIl: 7!s(j~~

" "Processed through S@1i Facility, IVlii\1ffCI'I ~010, 4:~,2 am, FORT WORn"" TX 16~~1

" ACCli.lpt~I'ICiiii, MarlC!1J 25, 2@10, 'illJ:15 ~m, SHAKOPEE, MNl 5531S!

uceack .& COlJ1firm by email

Get current event infoffllla'!iol'l or updates for your item sent to you or others email, I Go >1

Site Map

Customer Service

Business Customer Gateway

Careers

PdV8CY Policy

Terms of Use

Forms

Gov't Services

Copy.igM@ 2011.1 USPSo Ali Rights Reserve(t

No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA

11.11

f1I"'1t.'iiI"l""'ur __ ,__ _~_ylI'f __ L JY.~L T __ L _'~1{.~ ~ '1_

Page]

Label/Recaipt Number: IJJl0117Sl@ @ilI@'j 142413612 Class; Pricii'ity M<mU®

Service(s): Dil'bliv~1'J Confil'l'IultllOHf! "'u Status: Undel!v®rabllEJ as Ad@rIlHl'$l!lld

rf«llC~&Com~m Enter label/Receipt Nurnber.

I ---"~ '-=~-"

(IJ/;I!J> )

YOtJr item was IJl'1deiiverabiie as addressed at 9:53 AM 0111 1, 2010 in

KENOSHA, W! 53·144. ~t is returned if appropriate nnformatiog"J] is

available.

Detaiisd Results:

" tind~!ivlSrl9lb!l\l) all! Addres$ad, 1]1, 201@, 9:53 am, ~{ENIOSHA, W'! l53'l44

" Sorting Compl@te, Apri! ((11, 2010, 9:24 i:!Wi, KEi\&OSliA, Wi 5314'>~

., AlIriv~ll!1t POSit Offic@, Aprii 01, 21:110, 3:~1l5 am, KENOSHA, m_ij 5~~411

" Pi'ilJIcessllldthl"olJgh SOJrt Facility, Malr~1l'n 31, 21:1'111:1, 3:'11 pm, OA!{ CREE](, WI !531M

<II A(\';c$ptanlt;~, i\iil'illi'cil 20~(i)), 12:4~ !)I'I1l, SHAKOPEE, i\~N 55379

Tr3lIGk; &, Confirm by e;maii

Get current event informatlorl or

for your item sent to you or others byemaiL (lil!ll»

No FEAR Act rEEO Data FOIA

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 011 GAO·OiHI73T. For more information, contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 5~2·6722 or kutzg@gao.gov.

Case Stlu::Ues from Ongoing ~N'ork Show Examples in Which Wage and Hour D~v~sion Dhj No't Adequate~y Pursue Labor \jio~at;ons

What GAO Found

GAO identified case studies that show WHD inadequately investigated complaints from low-wage and minimum wage workers alleging that employers failed to pay the federal minimum wage, required overtime, and failed to pay employees their last paychecks. Examples of inadequate WHD responses to complaints included Instances where VvHD inappropriately rejected complaints, failed to adequately investigate complaints, or neglected to investigate until it was too late. The table below provides examples of several case studies.

Profession! AI!~ged

!oc<ltio!'l viol<Jtiol(j

Night Minimum

attendant a'! wage

assisted

living facility!

Ohio

~ A homeless woman receiving free room and board while working as a night attendant at a nursing home alleged her employer had failed to pay her wages for an entire yea,.

" According to INHD, the employer admitted it had failed to pay any wages to the night attendant and considered the room and board to be pay, but stated it did not have any money to pay the back wages. ® WHO dropped the case and advised the night attendant of her right to file a private lawsuit.

e The employer was still in business as 01 June 2008.

Pool Last

maintenance paycheck>

technician/ minimum

Florida wage

(J) Pool maintenance technician alleged that 1119 did not receive his final paycheck from his employer,

e Employer admitted to the WHO investigator that they did not pay the employee's last paycheck but refused to pay employee.

(J) WHO dropped case and advised the worker of his right to file ill rivals lawsuit.

Cashier!

Last paycheck-

e Gasoline station cashier alleged he did 110t receive his final paycheck from his employer.

" According to WHD, the employer agreed that it owed the cashier his last paycheck, but asked the WHD investigator to call back later to resolve the complaint

ID WHD dropped the case after several subsequent calls to the employer were 110t returned.

~ WHO advised the cashier of his right to lile a private lawsuit.

Florida

minimum wage

Cook/Ohio

Overtime pay

® Complainant alleged he was not paid for overtime

@ Investigator did not perform any actions for 15 months citing a backlog of cases

~ Investigation was dropped after 15 months when the investigator _""_""""."",._"""""""'_. ~<,'v.; a .. ne~ifle s~owil1S that Y'!; bt;Si'2~~~""

Source: GAO, WHD.

The investigations for these cases were inadequate for a variety of reasons. For example, investigators stated that some delays in investigating cases were caused by a backlog of complaints. In these cases by the time a complaint was assigned to an investigator, the statute of limitations for assessing back wages was close to expiring. In another instance an investigator stated that a thorough investigation was not performed because the complaint was filed anonymously. In addition, several investigators stated that because complaints were related to isolated issues, WHD did not normally perform a

full investigation. Finally, for one last paycheck complaint, when asked about 1· why a thorough investigation was not performed, the investigator simply '" I

stated it "was not a case." ~

~~ __ ~~~~~ ~ __ ~~_U!1ited Sta'ies Govemment .Ihccoi.lfltaoility Office

wbe tU(!il~Ji:nJJton t~Jl)![t

Initiative On Wor~ter Satiety Gets Poor ~J1arks

~G's Report

VVeak Enforcement

By '01 ashington Post Staff Thursday, April Z, 2009

A special government program to improve worker safety hazardous industries rarely fulfilled its promise, a Labor audit concluded yesterday, and over the past dozens of deaths occurred at fi11TIS that should have been subjected to much tighter federal safety enforcement.

The was the first detailed appraisal of

a highly touted Bush administration initiative that caned for the Occupational Safety and Administration to devote attention and resources to improving safety

at companies a troubled history of'job-

related fatalities, study found

officials failed to gather needed data, conducted uneven inspections and

enforcement, and sometimes to discern

repeat fatalities because records misspelled

the names or failed to notice

when two subsidiaries with the same owner were involved.

Last year, the administration also changed the program's rules, sharply reducing the number of companies eligible for special attention. Proper enforcement might have "deterred and abated workplace hazards at the worksites of 45 employers where 58 subsequent fatalities occurred," Assistant

Inspector General P. Lewis wrote in the

report.

Job Fatalitles

As an example, the report said that 1','110 similar worker deaths had occurred at different facilities operated by the Tennessee

Authority and that second one

might have been prevented ifthe first one

had appropriate enforcement and

special inspections. In all, the audit said, a

little more than that

""R%n~'MV"-" in the Enhanced Enforcement Program were not properly logged, partly because of poor training at OSHA.

Other repeat at construction, pipe,

drilling, tree-trimming, lighting, energy and boating firms did not trigger the inspections envisioned under the program, the study said. Even when settlements were reached to improve safety practices at a company

involved repeat often were

not properly enforced.

Advertisement

Print Powered By

http://wVV'N,washingtonpost. com fwp-dynfcontentiarticie/2009!04!011 A R 2009040 1 03939, him I

Many businesses say the agency's enforcement regime often becomes onerous under Democratic administrations, leading to burdensome reporting requirements and a type of punitive enforcement that they say stifles economic growth, They applaud Republican administrations for focusing more on helping companies abide by the law than on penalizing those who violate it, So they are bracing for a big shift

By Miclllllel A Flelch<lr W~shin!l!()rI Posl St<lfi' INrtl®~ Mondery, Decemb®r 1, 20(J6

The next labor secretary will be taking charge of an agency widely criticized for walking away from its regulatory function across a range of issues, including wage and hour law and workplace safety,

THIS STORY

H La!:HH' D1)~t. Acew£€ie'J t)fStr~vi!19 From E!'forc~m0nt

" i~ lramihtion: Laber S(jer'21l:~U'1J " CZlbin@tTraciulf

"My view is that this is a deeply troubled department," said Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, who has written several reports critical of the agency's operation under the Bush administration. "As bad as the personnel situation

be in many departments, I think it tends to be worse the Labor Department than in most places. "I think you've got people embedded there who are philosophically hostile to the mission of the agency."

There are few federal agencies where [he ideological differences separating many Democrats and Republicans play out more plainly. Labor is one ofthe government's largest regulatory enforcement agencies, overseeing issues from overtime payments and pension regulations to workplace safety and training programs, The agency has a total budget of $50.4 billion and 16,800 employees.

Cr@tin's; Dleeasc Sympt@ms Take tile CD Symptoms Quiz Consult Your Doctor About the Results vwwv LIVI ngwithCrohnsOisea se .corn

Bustnes s On MOliru

Artictes. Tools & Resources for Small Business, Connected by Sprint! '>Nvwl/,Busin essonvam. com

"With the new administration, I think you are going to a shift from compliance assistance to pure enforcement," said Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. .

Labor activists say that focusing so closely on the concerns of employers shortchanges workers and that a shift in emphasis is iong overdue. Under President Bush, they say, the pendulum has swung far away from enforcement, leaving workers vulnerable to dangerous workplaces and with little protection from exploitive employers,

In July, the Government Accountability Office issued a report. alleging that the Labor Department did an inadequate job of investigating complaints by low-wage workers who alleged that their employers were stiffing them for overtime, or failing to pay the minimum

I

I

I'

J

Admtnlstranve Review Board

200 Constnutlon NoW

D.C. 20210

COMPLAINANT~

RESPONDENT.

BEFORE~ THE ADMINIS1fR.ATIVE REVIEVV soxan

ORDER GRANTING MOTION REQUESTING COPIES OF JOINT EXHiBIT - ]} AND HEARING TRANSCR[PT

The Administrative Board is in receipt Complainant's Motions

requesting a copy of Joint Exhibit-B and a of Hearing Transcript dated October 29, Complainant's motions are GRANTED. The Administrative Review Board

is forwarding

requested documents to Complainant with this Order.

FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:

Note: Questions regarding any case pending before the Board should be directed to

The Board's Paralegal Specialist, Juanetta Walker: Telephone: 693-6200

Facsimile: (202) 693- 6220

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

10-1717

IN RE JOSHUA ISRAEL,

Petitioner,

Petitioner, Joshua J. Israel, certifies that original four copies the

the Response made by the Department Labor serviced Clerk

Appellate Court, for Eighth Circuit, and a copy is upon Solicitor, Ronald Gottleib, in appearance for the Administrative Review Board, Janet R. Dunlop, at their business address as stated below, priority mail through the

U. So Postal Service, on 11th day of 2010.

~----\~~~"'4-___.Ll\--,~,--"-,,~,,--,,,,~--

.. Israeli Petitioner-Pro ;€.

'.

Michael E. Gans, Clerk of Court Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Room 24.329

III South lOth Street

St Louis, MO 63102 030820400001 78868038

Ronald J. Gottlieb Office of Solicitor U. S. Dept of Labor

200 Constitution Ave, N.W. Washington, DoC. 20210 030820400001 7888 8791

IN THE U1\TITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1717

IN RE JOSHUA ISRAEL~

Petitioner.

Certificate of Com12liance With Rule 32(a)

Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation, Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements.

L

contains 1 ~ 973 contains 9 pages, excluding the

exempted by FRep 32(a)(7)(B)(iii),

parts:

2, This brief complies with the typeface requirements FRCP 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements FRep because the petition has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft-Office 'Nord

Processing Program, in the 14 size, of the Roman

Petitioner/Pro-se C. -

Case: 10-1117 Page: 1

Date Flled;

8/2010 Entry 10:

United States Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit

Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329

St. Louis, lV[i§§l[JIllllrll 63102

Mi.cfuulleR lEo GllllIll§

Clerk

VOICE 244-24\(1)

FAX (314) 244-2780

May 18,2010

Mr. Joshua 1. Israel P.O.

,1VIN

RE: 10-1 7 In Re: Joshua Israel

Dear Mr. Israel:

Enclosed is a copy of an order entered today in the above case at the direction of the court. Mandate is issued

Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court

CMD

Enclosure/ s)

cc: Mr. Ronald Joseph Gottlieb Mr. Charles F. James

District Court/Agency Case Numberts): 06-040 15 08-095 09-069

Case: 10-1 7

1

Date Filed: 05/18/2010 Entry 10: 3665740

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No: 10-1 7

In re: Joshua J.

Petitioner

Appeal from Department of Labor (except OSHA) (06-040)

lIS)

(08-095)

(09-069)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in

pauperis has been considered by the

court and is granted.

Petition for writ of mandamus has been considered by the court and is denied.

May 18,2010

Order Entered at the Direction of the Court:

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

/s/ Michael E. Gans

i! N

\ 1\)

\

Skill! R Factor (in Matrix) Start End
1 0,000 :1..724 Job 16::1.7,1_0 Job 16:17.18
281 -2.213 -0.489 Job 16:15.13 Job 17:16,41
'T]3':. f.tI{ o It 1 -1.613 0.1H Job 18:11.1 Job 18:11.6
HA:I'fmD -224 -20444 -0.720 Job 15:10.44 Job 14:15.45
)tl'JD THE 1 -3,910 -2.185 Job 15:20.41 Job 15:20.46
CRJ!]\vIE 111 -1,935 -0.210 Job 15:32.12 Job 16:4.35
-1481 -2.791 -1.{)66 Job 18:6.47 Job 13:20.13
JUDGES 1 -1,732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
1 -:1.,892 -0.168 Job 14:13.56 Job 14:13.61
PURPOSE 1 -1.580 0.144 Job 17:11.16 Job 17:11.22
4 -2.703 -0.978 Job 16:9.12 Job 16:924
I) E,S'1-1ftt"JY 1 -2.614 -OJ190 Job 19:10.7 Job 19:10.13
I-HJr'!l~Llt'\J 56 -1.956 -0.231 Job 17:9.37 Job 17:12.54-
CORRJIJP'T 1 -1.613 0.111 Job 17:1.11 Job 17:1,17
coon 10 -2.366 -0.642 Job 17:9.6 Job 17:9.36
1. -1.255 00469 Job 8:3.40 Job 8:3.46
MOFtALS -821 -1,919 -0.195 Job 18:11.52 Job 15:23.68
632 -2.283 -0.558 Job 14:18.73 Job 16:8.31
JUDGES 1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
1. -1.279 0.446 Job 15:6.14 Job 15:6,20
l:tI{3~HirE,{)lJS 1 -2.624 -0.900 Job 17:9.4 17:9.12
I--IUI'r'tAl',T 56 -1.956 -0.231 Job 17:9.37 Job 17:12.54
JUDGES 1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
I--lATE 1 -2.450 -0.726 Job 16:3.27 Job 16:3.30
1 -1.255 0.469 Job 16:11.26 Job 16:11.30
nlJNii\:lS! 56 -1.956 -0.231 Job 17:9.37 Job 17:12.54
1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
ACCEI)T 1 -1.771 -0.047 Job 13:10.37 Job 13:10.42
316 0.104 U328 Job 14:22.49 Job 15:29.60
I.t~ :~:!: ns o t'rJ," -1717 -2,363 -0.639 Job 20:29.51 Job 15:26,5
1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
MERCY 135 -1.492 0.232 Job 17:6.7 Job 17:14.30
Gt)TO -8 -2.566 -0.842 Job 15:14.69 Job 15:14.45
1 -2.246 -0.521 Job 15:29.1.3 Job 15:29.16
wr ClKJEJJ 1 -2.664 -0.939 Job 16:11.63 Job 16:11.68
-1717 -2.363 -0.639 Job 20:29.51 Job 15:26.5
JUDGES 1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
1 -2.614- -0.890 Job 19:10.7 Job 19:10.13
1 -3.281 -1.557 Job 17:6.29 Job 17:634-
1 -2.746 -1.022 Job 12:18.44- Job 12:18.48
HIDDEN 1 -1.041 0.683 Job 15:20.62 Job 15:20.67
W'H'TdHOLD 1 -1.362 0.363 Job 12:15.9 Job 12:15.16
-100 -1.637 OJ)88 Job 16:16.17 Job 16:10.111
l;t'RO(1)F 441 -2.360 -0.635 Job 16:17.44 Job 18:8.28
2 -0.034- 1.690 Job 15:35.24 Job 15:35.32
DECREE -246 -2.025 -0.301 Job 17:8.34 Job 16:10.108
~t.I. -8 -1.975 -0.251 Job 14:7.51 Job 14:7.19
1'tJn:l'~ -12 -2.734- -1.009 Job 16:13.91 Job 16:13.55
~rI-JJE 702 -1.254 0.471 Job 4:11.1 Job 6:25.23
PEOPLE 1 -3.281 -1.557 Job 17:6.29 Job 17:6.34
INTO THE 1 -2.898 -1.173 Job 16:11.46 Job 16:11.52 111 -11.,935 -0,210 Job 15:32.12 Job 16:403.5
·PERSON -1717 -2.363 -0.639 Job 20:29.51 Job 15:26.5
1 -1.732 -OJJ08 Job 31:11..58 Job 31:11.63
DEN"l{ 8 -2.483 -0.758 Job 18:7.67 Job 18:8.21
4946 -2.643 -0.919 Job 3:4.39 Job 18:3.46
W'EAlc.:TH 1 -10431 0.293 Job 21:13.21 21:13.26
_P.r.- ,,7 i1.RJ) 214 -2.596 -0.871 15:12.51 Job 15:2535
TO THE 1 -3.752 -2.028 Job 16:11.19 Job 16:11,23
GOOD 10 -2.366 -0.642 Job 17:9.6 Job 17:9.36
64 -2.046 -0.322 Job 16:2.11 Job 16:5.58
]PEOPLE 1 -3.281 -1.557 Job 17:6.29 Job 17:6.34
1 -1.732 -OJli08 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
BIGOT 2 -0.1)34 1.690 Job 15:35.24 Job 15:35.32
-246 -2.025 -0.301 Job 17:8.34 Job 16::lJlU08
PU]",nSH 1 ~1.903 -0,1.79 Job 19:29.40 job 19:29.45
i ~1JA8 0,576 Job 14:7,94 Job 14:8.26
PERSON 1 ~1,944 ~O.220 Job 13:10043 Job 13:10.48
1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11,58 JQb 31:11.63
96 -2.059 -0.335 Job 16:12.28 JQb 16:18.2
lPO\;VER 1 -2.083 -0.359 Job 24:22.30 Job 24:22.34
:I. -1.732 -0.008 JQb 31:11,58 Job 31:11,63
ACCEPT 1 ~1.771 -0,047 Job 13:1(1.37 Job 13:10.42
1733 -1,837 -0,113 Job 8:2.46 Job 13:10.32
BRIBE 1 -0,778 0.946 Job 15:34.81 Job 15:34.85
1 -1.732 -0,008 Job 31:11,58 Job 31:11,63
DO IvIMill -692 -1.386 0,338 Job 14:14.32 Job 12:13.38
COHRUI'T 1 -1,613 0,111 Job 17:1.11 Job 17:1,17
21 ~2.13g -0.414- Job 18:10.34 JQb 18:12.4
AGMNST 1 -3.164 -1.440 Job 16:10,110 JQb 16:10.116
702 -1.254- 0.471 Job 4:11.1 Job 6:25.23
][NNOCEN'I' 1 -1.580 0.144 Job 17:8.38 Job 17:8.45
64 -2.046 -0.322 Job 16:2.11 Job 16:5,58
]?I~:'() ]?IJ2 1 -3,281 -1.557 Job 17:6.29 Job 17:6.34-
GlUE!, -265 -2.175 -0.451 Job 16:19.40 Job 16:5.8
1\1EAI\l 1 -2,983 -1.259 Job 17:2.23 Job 17:2,26
EVIL -1 -1.152 0,572 Job 16:11,13 Job 16:11.10
1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 JQb 31:11.63
DO JFACE 1700 -2.166 -0.442 Job 14:12,11 Job 19:22.50
1 -2.531 -0,807 Job 9:19.38 Job 9:19.45
FROM 1 -3.464 -1.740 JQb 17:4.25 Job 17:4.28
-225 -2.912 -1.188 Job 18:10.23 Job 17:8.37
IA)RD -7 -2.457 -0.733 Job 16:19.2 Job 16:18.28
OF LIFE 1 -1.519 0.206 Job 24:22.59 Job 24:22,64
SADIST -1481 -2.791 -1.066 Job 18:6.47 Job 13:20.13
JlJDG1ES 1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
856 -2.287 -0,563 Job 9:25,53 Job 12:11.24
FORE'ITER 1 -2.595 -0.871 Job 20:7,17 Job 20:7.23
581 -2,091 -0.367 Job 15:27.63 Job 17:12.55
BRIMSTONE 1 -0.845 0.879 Job 18:15.48 Job 18:15,56
-1098 -2.322 -0.597 Job 20:25.74 Job 17:9.24
3 -1.755 -0.031 JQb 17:7.31 Job 17:7.40
_AF·~r~Ef~ __ l~!Y. :1 -1.531 0.193 Job 30:5.52 Job 30:5.57 SE'lV""El'I SE1LL§

.A.LnlJE ])Ef'lTH FLEE

FROM JUDGES

LORI)

I~I(~I-I'I\ 'ro 1)IE;

JUDGES DO FillLCE

OF THEiR

1. -2.838 -1.11.3 JQb 17:534 Job 17:5.38
-98 -2JJ77 -1.153 Job 19:3.41 Job 18:18.3
1. -1.903 -0.179 Job 19:29.40 Job 19:29045
1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31::H.58 Job 31:11.63
3 -001389 0.835 Job 12:18044 Job 12:192
-44 -1.733 -0.008 JQb 15:2.21 JQb 14:2:1.24
1 -2.382 -0.658 Job 16:16.51 Job 16:16.55
636 -2.317 -0.593 JQb 11:10.49 JQb 13:15.16
1. -2.859 -1.135 Job 15:30.92 Job 15:30.95
1 -3.464 -1.740 Job 17:4.25 Job 17:4.28
1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:11.63
-6 -1.338 0.386 Job 4:7.64 Job 4:7.34
-7 -2.457 -0.733 Job 16:19.2 16:18.28
1 -1.519 0.206 Job 24:22.59 Job 24:22Ji4
-1998 -1.618 e.ios Job 24:20.27 19:12.20
1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:1:1..63
1 -2.943 -1.218 Job 17:9.4- Job 17:9.8
11 -2.175 -0.451 Job 11:13.23 Job 11:14.12
1 -1.732 -0.008 Job 31:11.58 Job 31:1V53
1700 -2.166 -0.442 Job 14:12.11 Job 19:22.50
1 -2.185 -0.460 Job 16:9.17 Job 16:9.21
:I. -2.661 -lt937 Job 30:2.27 Job 30:2.33
1050 -0.808 0.916 Job 18:4.78 Job 21:4.10 The ELS reference is 215 characters between rows. There are 126 displayed terms in the matrix.

The matrix starts at Job 3:3.63 and ends at Job 31 :13.42. The matrix spans 46010 characters of the surface text.

The matrix has 214 rows, is 5 columns wide and contains a total of 4601 0 characters.

There are 30 significant terms in the matrix.

The matrix odds are 1 chance in 9446715199420064.49 in favor of significance. The cumulative 'R' Factor for the displayed matrix is 15.975.