|
<![CDATA[
CCASE:
CLEVELAND SPARROW V. RAYMOND DONOVAN
DDATE:
19860318
TTEXT:
~1
[1] WAGE APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of
CLEVELAND B. SPARROW, SR. WAB Case No. 86-09
(83-DBA-11) [Dated: March 18, 1986]
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECREE
The Wage Appeals Board is in receipt of a Petition for an
Interlocutory Appeal [Attachment] to stay a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge on March 25, 1986 in the above-entitled
matter.
The Wage Appeals Board hereby dismisses this petition because
it is apparent that the petition has been filed before an
Administrative Law Judge's decision has been issued in the case.
Under the Board's regulations, 29 CFR Part 7, and Secretary of
Labor's Order 24-70, dated October 7, 1970 (F.R. Vol. 36, No. 5 at
306, January 8, 1971) the Wage Appeals Board cannot assert
jurisdiction over a petition until a final decision has been
rendered.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
Craig Bulger,
Executive Secretary
Wage Appeals Board [1] [END]
[1] [86-09.WAB ATTACHMENT]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
CLEVELAND B. SPARROW, SR., )
Plaintiff, )
)
v- ) A25-96242
) 83-DBA-11
RAYMOND DONOVAN, et al., )
(WILLIAM BROCK) )
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
(1) Constitutional Violation
(2) Lack of Jurisdiction
(3) Violation of Statutes of Limitation
(4) Race and Age Discrimination
(5) OWCP Criminal Negligence In
Obstructing Injury Pay for ten (10) Years.
(6) Obstruction of Justice by Labor
I. Labor Violation of U.S. Constitution
On 19 February 1986, plaintiff attended a hearing before
Administrative Judge David Clark and filed a claim on the record
that Administrative Judge Clark, Glyder and Corrado were in
violation of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution
which provide for separation of church and state and provide that
the government shall make no laws governing religion. Yet,
the defendants have removed the records of plaintiff, interfer[]ed
with employees of plaintiff, concealed records from plaintiff
for five (5) years and have obstructed payments to plaintiff
for ten (10) years. On 19 February 1986, Administrative Judge
Clark said that he knew of no law that superceded the U. S.
Constitution, but did nothing to stop the harassment of plaintiff.
Plaintiff appealed to the Secretary of Labor and was advised
that the appeal was forwarded to Administrative Chief JudGe Litt
for a determination on my motion to dismiss for lack of
Jurisdiction during the hearing on 19 February 1986. I was also
advised that this was a procedural question and must be resolved
by the Chief Judge before this case can proceed.
II. Lack of Jurisdiction
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is
based on violation of the First Amendment, the U.S. Constitution
by Clark, Thomason, Glyder and Corrado. [1]
~2
[2] III. Timeliness
Plaintiff is entitled to a clear definition as to why Labor
concealed the records in this case for more than three (3) years.
There is only a requirement to keep records for three (3) years.
Labor is in violation of the Statutes of Limitations. On
19 February 1986, Administrative Judge Clark gave Glyder, Corrado
and the other defendants in this case seven (7) days to respond
to request for admissions. The defendants have not yet responded
and the answers are deemed admitted.
IV. Race and Age Discrimination
The Labor's Civil Rights Office has advised plaintiff that
the Administrative Law judge can rule on race and age
discrimination in this case because the EEOC has ordered the Navy
twice to reinstate plaintiff, but the Navy has flagrantly violated
the two (2) orders which have caused plaintiff stress, pain, and
suffering which were documented in Labor's Order for plaintiff of
injury in the performance of duty, but OWCP has illegally with-
held payments to plaintiff for ten (10) years and Cain, Markey,
Rogers and Masterson of OWCP has knowledge of the wrongdoing and
are liable in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1986. This is a flagrant
act of racial discrimination and the Civil Rights office has
advised plaintiff that the Administrative Judge should rule on
this abnormal ten (10) year delay of payments and make plaintiff
whole. [T]he Chief Judge is requested to rule on this issue
immediately.
V. Criminal Negligence
The ten (10) year Obstruction of justice and obstruction of
payments to plaintiff after a ruling of injury in performance of
duty constitute criminal negligence on the part of the OWCP
official. The Administrative Law Judge is requested to stay this
proceeding until the Secretary of Labor order and has completed
a criminal investigation of the conspiracy between OWC[P] and Navy
discriminatory officials to obstruct OWCP payments to plaintiff
for ten (10) years.
VI. Obstruction of Justice
On 26 February 1986, Administrative Judge Clark obstructed
justice by preventing the taking of depositions even though it is
obvious that the document filed on 21 February 1986 by John Lehman
Robert Phillips and Willinsham document that they had kno[]wledge
of the wrongdoing listed in their letter which they used repeatedly
to obstruct the racial discrimination complaints and the OWCP
payments for ten (10) years. Plaintiff should have received over
$40,000 per year for ten (10) years or over $400,000 which the
Navy and OWCP officials have effectively stolen, while paying
themselves more than 24 million dollars in salaries, overtime
and administrative services, legal fees. [2]
~3
[3] On 27 February 1986, Defendant Arthur Corrado of the Labor
Department conceded in a letter dated the same date that he
had conversations off the record with Ms. Janet Lyles,
Administrative Judge Clark's Law Clerk in which some arrangements
were made to negate Administrative Judge Clark's order of 19
February 1986 in which he ordered Corrado to respond in seven (7)
days. Corrado failed to respond to the request for admissions in
seven (7) days and have not yet given the required detailed answers
but rather denied everything. This is a lie or perjury or
fraud or plain obstruction of justice. [I]t is requested that the
defendants be required to respond specifically to each of the
request[s] for admissions.
Plaintiff herewith make[s] an interlocutory appeal of the
above and Administrative [J]udge Clark's order of 5 March 1986 in
which he fail[s] to correct the obstruction of justice, fail[s] to
address the jurisdiction issue raised in the request for admission
and fail[s] to order the defendants to respond specifically to the
request for admissions. Corrado has no authorization to represent
any person that has not specifically requested him to represent
them as required by 29 C.F.R. 10.15. Further, the defendants in
this case do not qualify for free legal service. Administrative
Judge Clark has made repeated rulings based on no opposition.
Plaintiff has filed a counter-claim and claim for legal pay in
accordance with the equal pay act and for damages because I am a
Federal Employee with Career Tenure and reinstatement eligibility
and entitled to Court appointed representation in accordance with
a U. S. District Court Order filed in this case. Administrative
Judge Clark's failure to appoint counsel and provide equal
protection under the law in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1981-2000
constitute a flagrant act of racial discrimination as documented in
his order of 5 March 1986.
It is requested that this matter be stayed until these issues
are resolved.
Respectfully submitted,
Cleveland B. Sparrow, Sr.
5801 - 16th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20011
(202) 723-8112 [3] [END 86-09.WAB ATTACHMENT]
]]>
|
