The Official Home Page of Lt

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Description :
FORCED to file and present and prosecute the appeals against the FEDERAL EMPLOYERS/ SHIPPING COMPANIES while the FEDS counter-prosecuted and while the Shipping Companies represented me before the FEDS???

Full Text :
ERIC SHINE
In Pro Se/ In Forma Pauperis

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC SHINE, an individual

Plaintiff-appellant,
v.

AMERICAN SHIP MANAGEMENT, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 , inclusive;

Defendant-appellee.
____________________________________

v.

MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive;
Defendant-appellee.

and for consideration on;
____________________________________

v.

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; HONORABLE PARLEN L. MCKENNA; [UNITED STATES]; and does 1 through 50

Defendant-appellee
____________________________________

And for consideration on two related Petitions for Review of Agency Action on;

DHS/ USCG/ DOT 04-70763

Final Order DOJ/ ALJ 04-71187

)) Appellant Case No. 03-55937

NOTICE; AND MOTIONS OF REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT=S AREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL; OPPOSITION TO DECLARATION OF FRED CAR IN SUPPORT THEREOF IN;

AREPLY TO DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE=S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT=S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF; AND RELATED MOTIONS AND REQUESTS@

OR ALTERNATIVELY WITH GOOD CAUSE SHOWN TO FILE A [LATE]; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT=S AREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL; OPPOSITION TO DECLARATION OF FRED CAR IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND REPLY TO DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE=S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT=S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF; AND RELATED MOTIONS AND REQUESTS

APPELLANTS INCORPORATED AFFIDAVIT AND DECLARATION AS MOTION

RE-NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS;

NOTICE OF REQUEST TO FILE ORAL BRIEFS UNDER RESET/ CONSOLIDATED TIME SCHEDULE ORDERS AND TOWARD CONSIDERATION ON;

Shine v. ASM, Docket No. 03-55937
Shine v. Matson Docket No. 03-55935
Shine v. USA Docket No. 03-57025
Petition for Review Docket No. 04-70763
Petition for Review Docket No. 04-71187
_____________________________________

Appellant opposes and files this Notice; Motion and this incorporated affidavit and declaration as set forth within the Motion itself as in all others, and does so in direct opposition to the most recent filing of ASM=s ACorporate@ counsel in the person of Fred Carr who himself is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct and is also, as per recent rulings bound by himself under Sarbanes-Oxeley and other statutes which is relative in part to even Federal Employers.
His most recent filings are directed at the opposition Apersonally@ and falls well outside any Rules of Professional Conduct and it is requested that Mr. Carr and his firm be immediately sanctioned for such unprofessional and improper conduct by the Appellate Court.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
As to the more mundane issues of service of the RESPONSE and as per the FRAP=s and the corresponding specific Ninth Circuit rule that is analogous, and as specifically set forth in Rule 27 (a) (4) [and under 27-1] Appellant would normally have seven days AFTER AService of the Response@ to file his Reply. This would be absent the improper service by the Defendant to the improper address at PO BOX 9798, San Diego, Ca., 92169. The Rule states at pertinent part;

27 (a) (4) REPLY TO RESPONSE; AAny Reply to a Response must be filed within Seven Days
AFTER service of the response [emphasis added] .

Appellee signed and purportedly mailed its ARESPONSE@ on March 30, 2004 [which under FRAP 26 (a) (1) also excludes this date for computation] by first class USPS mail, which under FRAP 26 ( c ) allows an additional three [3] calendar days that are added to the prescribed period unless the paper is delivered on the date of service stated in the proof of service. It was not.
Calculation or tabulation would not more normally begin until the following day of March 31, 2004. Given more normal calculation and had affirmative personal service occurred on March 30, 2004 then the REPLY would have been due on April 6th, 2004, but the Appellee did not file by affirmative personal service on that day to the Appellant. Instead the Appellee served by mail service, which would extend the service by three days to minimally April 9th, 2004 for the Appellant to File [or mail] his REPLY. The Appellant=s obligation to complete service and/ or filing at that point is to serve the REPLY on or before April 9th, 2004 and service and filing are both considered complete when depositing in the mail or carrying out other forms of service under those set of circumstances which are further affected by defect of the Appellee. The Appellant would be required to mail his REPLY on or before April 09, 2004 for it to be considered Atimely@ given the circumstances and absent any possible defect on the part of the Appellee.

FRAP 26 that is titled ACOMPUTING AND EXTENDING TIME@ goes into the specifics as to computing and in fact extending time. A defect in service, does in fact exist as the Appellee served the Appellant to an improper address as cited and stated and attested to and sworn to herein nad hereby. The Appellee=s RESPONSE was not affirmatively received until April 05, 2004 so as per FRAP 26 (a) as to computing time under Rule 26 (a) (1) in that one is to AExclude the day of the act, or default, that begins the period.@ The act of service was defective due to the improper address and the service was not received as would more normally occur had the Appellees used the proper address that it was in fact, on affirmative Notice of, as to the proper address which was Noticed and served upon the Appellee and in fact in the left corner of the most recent series of filings with the Appellee by the Appellant. Irregardless of whether or when the Appellee received Notice of the new address the Appellee had a duty to correct service.
Due to the defect in service of the Appellee by sending the mail to the wrong address the Aperiod@ does not then begin until April 05, 2004 [or April 06, 2004] so the Appellant, and by this defect alone would have seven days from this date that would begin to be computed from April 06, 2004 and the REPLY would then be due April 13th, 2004. A copy of the envelope that the Appellee sent the RESPONSE to, is included as received [Exhibit 1] with the forward sticker in place, and then a copy with the forwarding sticker removed [Exhibit 2] and the underlying address that the Appellee used to send the Amis-directed@ RESPONSE to. In addition, as the record will reflect, Appellee states this simple fact in the use of the incorrect address, that the Appellee has been placed on Notice of with a valid CHANGE OF ADDRESS as served upon the Defendant and ASM, in its own APROOF OR SERVICE.@
Clearly, even with the extraordinary efforts of the Appellee to affect service with improper or possibly simply Amistaken@ process and procedures, the filing and service of the Appellant=s Response is more then timely even without the mitigating events, but even more so especially given the mitigating circumstances. Attached are copies of the envelope as sent to the Appellant and a copy of the PROOF OF SERVICE [EXHIBIT 1, 2, 3 ].

Yet, even barring the mitigating circumstances as stated, Appellants= REPLY is timely as the service and filing need only herein, be Amailed@ or affirmatively served upon the other party by April 09, 2004, under more Anormal@ circumstances. March 30th is not counted as per FRAP 26 (a) (1) and the computing would normally begin on March 31, 2004, if affirmative personal service had been used and on that date as attested to in the Proof of Service, it was not. Appellee used regular mail service which as per FRAP 26 (c) provides, at pertinent part, to Aadditional time of service@ which adds three [3] days on top unless the paper is delivered on the date of service stated in the proof of service. The document was not served on the date of service, nor was it sent to a proper address. The first circumstance of mail service allows the three days, the second which is a defect, would either add an additional three [3] days for forwarding or form the date of affirmative service or receipt which was received only on April 05, 2004.
The Appellant requests, that in any regard, even though he asserts and attests that he is Atimely@ with this filing of this REPLY that the Court, if it deems necessary due to its own calculations or understanding, that it grant an EXTENSION OF TIME as per FRAP 26 (a) and for good cause shown, or that as per FRAP 26 (b) permit the act to be done after that time expires, even though and again the Appellant asserts and attests and swears to the fact that he believes he is well within the proper time to file this REPLY by his own computation of the events and specific knowledge thereof and the Rules as applied herein. Moreover, by adding in the defect the Appellant has until either April 13th, or 14th, 2004 to file [mail] his reply.
Furthermore, Appellant now acting in pro per or pro se or in propia personum and in forma pauperis states and attests that all more recent filings, Motions, documents and other such information are and have been AAffidavits@ or ADeclarations@ themselves if not accompanied by separate affidavit, except for some if not many that have been filed by the Federal Trusts or Federal Employers, or Federal Employees Labor Union or even the AUnited States@ on behalf of the Federal Officer, and done so under his name and even often times by his own signature due to the corrupt practices and intentional misrepresentations by those various parties who have intentionally misrepresented the Appellant and even used the tortuous behaviors carried out upon the Federal Officer to influence and affect his decisions and actions. Many filings and events prior to the last several months have been carried out under extreme pressures and improper influence. An example of this, is many of the documents as were filed within the Related matters involving the Appellant=s home by the Federal Trusts and Peter Forgie and Allen Wintermantel in attempts to divest the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union and in fact United States of its obligations and involvements relating to the foreclosure, seizure, eviction and sale of the Appellant=s home while the various parties continued to promise arbitration and other benefits, while on the other hand continuing to act out against the Appellant within and as tortuous breaches of maritime employment contracts.

The more recent filings as filed by the Appellant and that the Motions and/ or documents as signed and affirmed by the Appellant while acting in pro per, that each and all are incorporated and filed as Aaffidavits@ and Adeclarations@ as the Motion itself and were, for the most part absent some that the Appellant can and will identify as have been affirmatively filed by the Appellant and do in fact represent his interests and position and not that of the various Defendants. The Appellant would like the ability to explain under the Alight of all existing circumstances@ as to which filings and Motions have been filed under duress or with the Aassistance@ of intentional Abad faith@ representation as forced upon the Appellant by the Federal Employers, Federal Trusts, Federal Employees Labor Union and even with the added influence of the Department of Homeland Security and United States Coast and other agencies that are interrelated and signatory to these set of Shipping Articles or Master Agreements. Appellant again requests full, fair and neutral due process hearings in any and all regards and has in fact Appealed to Congress to get before the Senate Commerce Committee so as to lay out specifically and clearly what is going on within the Federal and State Maritime Transportation Programs that poses an enormous risk and threat to our National Strategic Security and Civil Defense posture and cannot and should not be ignored by this Court.
Appellant asserts and believes that his REPLY to the Defendant=s RESPONSE is not due to be filed until April 14th, 2004 due to the process of service and how it has been carried out by the Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
REPLY TO THE RESPONSE
____________________________________________________________________________________
Even if the Appellant is Arepresenting himself@ somehow due to the continued and tortuous breaches of maritime employment contracts or Shipping Articles or the Bad Faith Representation as provided or not provided, or in fact on occasion as forced upon Appellant from in the USCG proceedings, one fact is clear, Mr. Carr owes Appellant the same professional conduct and courtesy he owes to any other individual. Mr. Carr, is and remains to be an AOfficer of the Court.@ It is requested that the Court deal with Mr. Carr severely for his improper and unethical and in fact unprofessional exhibitions in his most recent filing and the personal attacks and character assassination of the Appellant.
The Federal Employer terminated the Appellant for Ainsubordination@ and not for being Adisturbed@ as the Appellee would now like to present, and the Ninth Circuit has even recently held in AWright v. CompUSA, inc., (2003, CA1) 2003 WL 22973030. See Emp. Coord. EP 12,225 that a reasonable juror could infer that CompUSA=s charge of Ainsubordination@ masked retaliatory motives.

Herein, the Federal Employer [Shipping Company] has to follow the mandatory contractual and statutory arbitration system set -up by Congress under the Railway Labor Act, general maritime and admiralty law and in fact the very Shipping Articles themselves. AASM/ APL/ NOL@ terminated the Appellant on its final retaliation for Ainsubordination@, Afailure to follow a direct order@ and Abarratry.@ All of these charges were found to be unfounded by the USCG when it boarded the vessel and concluded it to be a Alabor dispute@ as set forth by LCDR. Metruck of the San Diego MSO
Worse yet, especially herein, the applicable statutes for Federal Employees of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute should apply, even though the Master Agreements or Shipping Articles somehow say that the Labor Management Relations Act [as amended by the LMRDA and WPA] should apply and afford Adue process hearings@ in each and all of the A75 grievances@ that are even admitted to by the Appellee, as for Federal Maritime Officers the working terms and conditions are somewhat Anon-negotiable@ as they are set by Congress in the use of Shipping Articles and protected under general maritime and admiralty law and as set forth in Master Agreements something that the Federal Employers have been Aputting under@ for the last ten [10] years or more.
There are very specific requirements placed upon the Federal Employers that they have entirely refused to follow so as to enrich themselves and not use the money in manner outlined for in the Federal Trusts. The simple fact that there are purportedly A75 grievances@ that not one has been processed in the proper, contractual and in fact statutory manner should be disturbing to the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court that shows not the Anature of the Appellant@, but the true nature of the Appellee. Had the Appellee even processed and handled even the first grievance [or two] and handled them in the contractual and statutory and mandated manner, it would have most likely precluded the need for any subsequent grievances. Some these grievances which were even specifically about access to the actual proper process of the Licensed Personnel Board and the mandatory arbitration process that is pressed upon the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union by far too many statutes and precedence and in fact by the Master Agreements and Shipping Articles that are inextinguishable.
The Federal Employer has shown by its own documents and exhibits and the fact that there are A75 grievances@ of an extraordinarily and cruel pattern of tortuous breaches of maritime employment contracts, that it even admits to, but wishes to Aredefine@ and use the end result of how they have tortured the Appellant so, and use it now as some form of Anew@ defense or some new reason why they have gone after someone and done so, unrelentingly.

Worse, the Federal employers [ASM and Matson and MARAD, MSC and even MEBA] have even used and encouraged the Department of Homeland Security and USCG to go after the Appellant on their behalf in further retaliation and take part in the actions therein by pressing conflicted counsel upon the Appellant so as to use the USCG Administrative process against him along with numerous other false paths the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union and even United States have led or taken the Appellant down. The most cruel being the USCG proceedings where they have been prosecuting the Appellant for the last year for being Adepressed@ somehow, all the while denying him due process, free speech and forcing him under what even the USCG and OALJ knew to be conflicted Counsel in the form of Frank Brucceleri as a Risk Manager for the Shipping Companies and in Peter Forgie his replacement as again pressed upon the Federal Officer and Federal Employee by the conflicted and corrupt Trustees and Co-Counsel of General Counsel over the Federal Trusts, in the persons of Charles Wolf, Jonathon Axelrod, Richard Gibson, Peter Forgie, Frank Brucceleri, William Doyle, George Clemens and others who are all AOfficers of the Courts.@

Even now the Appellant has been receiving ABENEFIT OVERPAYMENT STATEMENT OF AMOUNT DUE@ from EDD that is years old and has nothing to do with the ongoing disputes except that Appellant has not received any benefits therein since 2002 or in early 2003 and the only reason the Appellant was forced to draw off of these benefits was because the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union and Federal Trusts and United States have all refused to provide proper Amaintenance@ and Acure@ and Aunearned wages@ let alone follow proper National Labor Policy and moreover in these circumstances, specific Congressional mandates. Any need for Amaintenance@ and Acure@ and unearned wages@ was only created by the tortuous breaches of maritime employment contracts or Shipping Articles and the denial of proper, timely, fair and neutral arbitration and the continuing tortuous behaviors that even continue to this very day by the Federal Employers. The Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union are forcing AFederal Maritime Officers@ to draw off of other programs like State Disability or even Social Security Programs, and then using those systems and even determinations made therein, and using them against the Federal Officer in an overly complex scheme of insurance fraud and fraud carried out against Federal Trusts. This complex program of insurance fraud was even represented by the Federal Trusts and Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union in siphoning hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Federal Medical Trust in where the Appellant=s Legal Aid Program resides for anything affecting his license and instead of being used to file a Jones Act complaint, or taking over the existing complaints the Federal Trusts used conflicted counsel to deprive the Appellant of his substantive rights, free speech, due process and more.
Moreover, as specifically even to service of this RESPONSE Mr. Carr served his ARESPONSE@ to the Appellant at an improper address even though Mr. Carr had been notified well in advance of the CHANGE OF ADDRESS even within the Motion to which he ARESPONDED.@ Mr. Carr and Defendant ASM served the RESPONSE to the address of;

P.O. Box. 9798
San Diego, Ca., 92169-9798

However, Mr. Carr was well aware that the Appellant=s address had changed and was now and as previously stated should have been the following;
19185 Shoreline Lane
Apartment #1
Huntington Beach, Ca., 92648-2298

Mr. Carr=s service dates show March 30, 2004. Due to the improper address and forwarding time the Appellant did not receive the RESPONSE until April 05, 2004. Appellant believe that this was intentional, especially given the personal character assassination lodged by Mr. Carr and ASM in its most recent RESPONSE. Whether or not this was intentional, Mr. Carr and the Defendants sent the RESPONSE to the wrong address, of which they had proper NOTICE of the CHANGE OF ADDRESS well in advance of this filing. Appellant asserts and contends that his REPLY to the RESPONSE it timely without the mitigating circumstances, but taking into consideration how service was accomplished by the DEFENDANT. Appellant requests that this RESPONSE be accepted by the Court as a proper and timely REPLY to the RESPONSE and that the Court grant the proper EXTENSION OF TIME and other requests and afford the Appellant the right to have his Appeal heard on the merits. Appellant is aware that the only irreconcilable defect is an untimely ANOTICE OF APPEAL.@

Furthermore, Appellant has advanced the progress of all milestones for filing the Brief on Appeal, but has been met with great adversity and continued ABad Faith Representation@ and the continuing AFailure of the Duty of Fair Representation@ by many of the involved parties including the Federal Employers [ASM/ APL/ PCS/ Matson/ MEBA/ United States], the Federal Employees Labor Union, and the Federal Trusts who have Acoordinated@ and encouraged and in fact sponsored and have been actively involved in the Department of Homeland Security/ USCG Administrative Proceedings that have interrupted the ability of the Appellant to file the Brief.
Additionally, the difficulties encountered in obtaining the MISSING TRANSCRIPTS also took a considerable amount of effort and time, something that could have been spent on filing the Briefs on Appeal, but he has bene tortured endlessly and forced to mov from place to place, and one reason the Appellant has requested to be heard on ORAL BRIEFS and absent any of the undue and unwarranted and continuing influences that the Federal Employers, Federal Employees Labor Union, Federal Trusts, United States Coast, Guard, U.S. Attorney=s Office and the AUnited States@ in various forms and functions relating to matters in admiralty and general maritime jurisdiction and authority. This includes several of the principles that are cited by Fred Carr in the Agencies and Authorities of the Maritime Administration and Military Sealift Command and others who are all signatory to these Shipping Article and Master Agreements and have a vested interest in ensuring that the Appellant is never heard at all, let alone absent enormous pressures and stressors that are intentionally being carried out in the life of the Appellant by these various parties.
What is even more important is that the USCG ALJ and Department of Homeland Security issued a APROTECTIVE ORDER@ on March 29, 2004 that protected the release of this Order under FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS as specifically noted by the ALJ in his own Order [attached as EXHIBIT 4]. A brief review of ASM=s recent Motion it is easily discerned that ASM and Fred Carr did in fact file and present this Motion on March 30, 2004 in direct violation of the ALJ=s Order. This is unconscionable and should not be excused by the Appellate Court as this is continuing Acharacter assassination@ on the part of the Federal Employer.

Worse, Fred Carr uses two AEXHIBITS@ in his most recent filing that are from the FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LABOR UNION and in fact the very individual whom the Appellant ran for elective union office against [namely Alfred ABig Al@Camelio], so the Abacking@ of certain Aunion officials@ by the Federal Employers [and the backing of the Federal Employees Labor Union and even its own Counsel in the form of Jonathon Axelrod to the Federal Employers] would seem to at least present another prima facie showing by in fact the Appellee, not the Appellant, that there is and has been much more going on here then Ameets the eye@ and it has continued beyond the terminations and unresolved and unsettled grievances. Let alone the A75 grievances@ [and several which are admitted to be terminations by the Appellee] and that the Appellee even admits to as underlying matters that now raise the issues to a FIRST AMENDMENT and even CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL under the FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS and others beyond the issues of the Shipping Articles that are tied to Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the Appellee admits to this to such an egregious level and does so as if it truly respects the right of the Appellant to file grievances, but says nothing about having them handled in the proper and contractual and in fact mandated fashion.
In addition, the USCG who has already grossly violated the substantive and Constitutional and Civil rights of the Appellant did in fact release this Order without any proper or valid FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTas exhibited by the email from Lt. Hill to Fred Carr and in such a personal and matter-of-fact fashion as to be truly disturbing on its face. This is not a FOAI Officer releasing this to Fred Carr, it is in fact the AProsecutor@ who spent over a year=s time and at government expense in prosecuting the Appellant for being Adepressed@ somehow and absent any level of proper due process.
Moreover, that Lt. Hill did this in further violation of the USCG=s own policies and those of the Federal Government [especially of the United States as Prime Trustee and Fiduciary to its wards under admiralty] and as again outlined by the ALJ in his own order of March 29, 2004. As Fred Carr is probably aware, Aignorance@ of the law is not a valid ADefense@ and his filing of this Order by the ALJ violates this Protective Order and the specific requirements to obtain this Order of which the USCG should have notified him of and in fact refused to turn over any such document, especially since it is a gross violation of privacy and privilege. This was a violation of numerous related laws like the Whistle Blower Protection Act and more, let alone the Rules of Professional Conduct that Mr. Carr is duty bound as an Officer of the Court. Moreover, Lt. Hill is an Officer of the Court also, but has an even higher duty as a Commissioned Officer within the United States Coast Guard.

Moreover the Shipping Articles as Master Agreements state clearly that nothing happening Aafter@ termination can be used to support the termination, but CLEARLY this is what Fred Carr and ASM wish to do now somehow. Even worse they contend that the Aretaliatory termination@ was Areally@ motivated by the fact by their contention that the Appellant is a very disturbed man, not was a very disturbed man. Even if this were true, the Federal Employers, under admiralty and general maritime law are not to take actions against an individual for what they now purport, but ensure the individual properly receives Amaintenance@ and Acure@ and Aunearned wages@, even though the only reason the Appellant needed these, were due to the intentional injuries and tortuous behaviors of the Federal Employers, ASM, MEBA and MATSON and even the United States as the Appellant has been Aacting under the authority of his license@ during the USCG proceeding but has been denied pay, benefits and more, even though they were somehow prosecuting him for be Adisabled.@ [?] Even Fred Carr=s new assertions stand in stark contrast to the American=s with Disabilities Act which is just one more statute incorporated into and under the Labor Management Relations Act or more appropriate Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. The Appellants contractual rights under the Shipping Articles as protected by general maritime and admiralty law should not be put under the need for Amaintenance@ and Acure@ and Aunearned wages@ and this is one reason why they were set apart and maintained as set apart from matters in contract, and the need for this form the result of tortuous breaches of the Shipping Articles should not allow the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union to escape its own contractual obligations as paid out to it under ATrusts@ by the United States on behalf of its Federal Maritime Officers.
Beyond all of that the Appellant has maintained and asserted his Awhistle blower@status throughout these proceedings, but Mr Carr and ASM have intentionally violated the Appellants rights to privacy, privilege and in fact any and all protections that the Federal Employers owe to their own Awards under admiralty@ from under their own strong, if not inescapable Duty of Fair Representation as chosen ATrustees@ as held under the Railway Labor Act, Federal Employer=s Liability Act, Jones Act and under general maritime and admiralty law. Fred Carr is bold enough to admit that there are in fact over 75 grievances, not one of which has been handled or processed in the mandatory and prescribed fashion and all of which are Awhistle blower complaints@ as valid grievances and all have been denied proper due process and proper due process hearings from within the Licensed Personnel Board since the Federal Employers, Federal Employees Labor Union and the United States in various forms have all done away with this process Abehind the scenes@ even though it is still in the Shipping Articles and has never been changed or replaced with any other valid process or procedures. All of which, in these circumstances must in fact be incorporated into even the Labor Management Relations Act [or FSLMRA] by even Supreme Court precedence in this regard in the following case where the application of the Federal Employer=s Liability Act and other laws of course apply to matters herein as was held in but one example in the U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE of ACosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc. v. McAllister 337, U.S. 783, 69 S.Ct. 1317)@ where the Court held;

AFN2 41 Stat.1007, 46 U.S.C s 688, 46 U.S.C.A, which provides in pertinent part:

Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply.@

The Labor Management Relations Act, as Mr. Carr well knows has been amended by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act enacted 12 years later after the LMRA in 1959, which both taken together incorporate all of the laws applicable to the individual situation and employment position, status, statues and more, to the individual set of circumstances and the LMRA [which in its present form has been amended by the LMRDA and Whistle Blower Protection Act] cannot be used to Alessen@ the substantive rights of the Appellant under any other statutory scheme as created by Congress. Beyond this, under these circumstances the FSLMRA is the more appropriate application due to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and Federal Subsidy Laws and Federal Contracts and Federal Funds and Trusts involved.
As held in Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris 512 U.S. 246, 114 S.Ct. 2239 (1994) :

AThe Railway Labor Act establishes mandatory arbitral mechanism for settling Amajor disputes,@ involving rates of pay, rules or working conditions, and Aminor disputes,@ growing out of grievances or out of interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions. Railway Labor Act ' 2, as amended, 45 USCA ' 151a.@

Furthermore, it was held in AGibs v. Lewis and Clark Marin, Inc., No.5-97-1071, Appellate Court of Illinois/ 5th District/ #95-L-1425/ Honorable P.J. O=Neil presiding=that:
AIt is fundamental that, in passing the Jones Act, Congress did not intend to convert a seaman=s case wholly into a rail worker=s case with no accommodation for special rules applicable to maritime cases.
As Justice Cardozo stated:

AWe do not read the act for the relief of seaman as expressing the will of Congress that only the same defaults imposing libaility upon carriers y rail shall impose liability upon carriers by water. The conditions at sea differ widely from those on land, and the diversity of conditions breeds diversity of duties. This courts has said that Athe ancicent@ characterization of seaman as Awards of admiralty@ is even ore accurate now then it was formerly.@ Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Lines, inc. 287 U.S. 367, 377, 77 L.Ed. 368, 53 S.Ct. 173, 176 (1932),
To the extent that the Jones Act differs from the FELA, the differences are to be resolved in favor of the seaman. Reed v. Iowa Marine & Repair Corp. 143 F.R.D. 648, 651 (1992) see 1 (b) Benedict on Admiralty 2 at 1-8 and 1-9 (1991)@
______________________________________________________________________
Herein, Apreemption@ is inappropriate as the LMRA, RLA and other laws cannot be Apreempted@ as under general maritime and admiralty law the AShipping Articles@ as the Collective Bargaining Agreements become as per their own express language the will of Congress, and are no longer ACollective Bargaining Agreements@ and in fact are grants of Congress that are ABlack Letter Law@ that can be executed and redress sought independently and exclusively in either State or Federal Court. The Congressional intent of Congress cannot be escaped nor forgotten nor ignored by the Lower Courts or the various Trustees by somehow demanding that the Appellant cannot ever have his grievances heard somehow because he is further covered and protected by the LMRA also. Most importantly is that the Appellant is not only a Award under admiralty@ to Congress, but also the Courts and any Officers thereof. The Appellant has been unable to utter a word as to what has and is going on and only so as to continue and to suppress and oppress an entire class of Federal Officers, and most specifically herein the Appellant.
The Railway Labor Act does herein apply [in part] as the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 as does the Duty of Fair Representation therein does also apply. In addition to the rights and obligations under the Jones Act and other relevant statutes. Problem is the Appellant has been hammered on by Counsel, including his Aown@ supposed or Apurported@ counsel who have in effect been representing the interests of the Federal Employers and others like MSC, MARAD, United States, Matson, ASM, MEBA and others who are all signatory to these Shipping Articles so as to defeat them and ensure that an entire Federal Service is left without proper, timely and neutral due process and even have the Federal Trusts set-up for their protection pilfered and squandered toward Aother purposes@.

Even now, and for some Aodd reason@ Fred Carr has Aserviced@ Appellant=s Aold@ Counsel Jim Warner on this most recent filing. Why? It is unclear why the Appellee would now, take such a measure and include Jim Warner on Aservice@ unless he is of course Asoliciting@ input and further retaliation upon the Appellant somehow and the efforts of Aineffective@ and Acorrupted@ counsel to chime in and do more damage to the Appellant somehow. This is just further unprofessional and improper conduct by Counsel, in continuing attempts to invite more parties to the disputes and again take the focus off of the Federal Employer and Defendants and create more disturbances that have continued endlessly by the will of the Federal Employers, since the first actions on the vessels and the filing of proper grievances and thereafter. Even the Adifficulties@ with obtaining the TRANSCRIPTS and other problems that the Federal Employees Labor Union should be paying for from the Federal Trusts and not using Federal Funds from the Legal Aid program to further Ainjure@ Appellant rather then afford him relief has caused great and unnecessary delays.
The Defendants one and all believe that if they can just run over the Appellant enough times and as cruelly as possible, then Appellant will never be able to recover. Worse that he will never be able to return to work and this will somehow limit if not end their own obligations which would be a very cruel and dangerous precedence, as it only encourages the very sort of treatment that the Federal Employers, Federal Employees Labor Union and United States have carried out herein and in fact before to other individuals as shown in just some of the cited precedence that AAPL@ has been instrumental in itself so as to allow Atorture@ to be taken to new levels so as to forever escape contractual if not statutory obligaitons.
The Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union and in fact the United States have all set-up this complex and intertwined program of Amutual defense@ where they use the Federal Employers to protect the Federal Employees Labor Union, and the Federal Employees Labor Union to protect the Federal Employers, and then if all else fails use the United States Coast Guard [and other agencies like the Social Security Administration, NLRB and more] as not only a stop-gap to proper and timely arbitration, but then continue the tortuous behaviors so as to forever escape matters in State Court or even Federal Court and especially under admiralty and general maritime jurisdiction.

This is why almost noone can get a Agrievance@ through as anyone who even attempts to get a grievance through and handled in the contractual and statutory fashion or under the subsequent and complex scheme of general maritime and admiralty law protections, they will be put Aunder the gun@ as the Appellant has been and continuously tortured so as to drive any Agrieveant@ over the edge or out of the industry and use the end result to somehow support what the Federal Employer did in the first place as to an improper terminations, none of which have been handled in the mandatory fashion or allowed to be presented in either State Court or Federal Court. Part of the problem here is due to Aoutsourcing@ of American jobs, but it is now affecting a Federal Service to where many who are working in AFederal Service@ but did not go to the Federal Service Academy are doing everything and anything to run Federal Service individuals out of the industry at any and all cost.
The Motion for Consolidation is not the same Motion that the Appellant had brought forth before and several of the issues were not before the Appellate Court at the time, and even though the Appellant repeatedly requested that the counsel forced upon him in the USCG proceedings move to Consolidate and Combine and bring all the matters back under one action as appropriate under the Suits in Admiralty Act and force the USCG, as held in the aforementioned Supreme Court case of Cosmopolitan Shipping, to allow the Appellant in to proper and valid and truly neutral arbitration proceedings as required and in fact mandated by the Railway Labor Act upon the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union, and if necessary into proper jury trial with proper representation as provided for by the Federal Trusts.
Something that is not mandated against the Appellant in anyway as to arbitration, except to negotiate and try to settle before a fair and neutral third party in the manner, time frame and system as prescribed by the Shipping Articles and the complex and Asupposedly@ well-protected Congressional statutory scheme. Something of which the Appellant attempted to do and in fact filed MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION in the underlying cases of AShine v. ASM@ [Appeal 03-55937], AShine v. Matson@ [Appeal 03-55937], AShine v. MEBA@ [Appeal 03-55938], AShine v. USCG/ United States@ [Appeal 03-57025, even though the Appellant did not even get a chance to amend the complaint or be heard in any due process hearings so that he might even raise any of these issues], and even from within the ADepartment of Homeland Security/ USCG v. Eric Shine@ [Appeals 04-71187 and 04-70763] the Appellant attempted to first be heard, but then to also raise the issues regarding the Licensed Personnel Board and the proper and in fact mandatory system of arbitration. Everyone but the Appellant has argued against National Labor Policy in the use of proper arbitration, which only proves the Failure of the Duty of Fair Representation.
Even though previous and conflicted and in fact corrupted Counsel in Jim Warner [interestingly enough Fred Carr of the Federal Employer would now invoke both the Federal Employees Labor Union in@Alfred Abig al@ Camelio and Jim Warner, the Appellant=s former counsel to his side?] would not present the matters as repeatedly requested by the Appellant, the Appellant has in good faith attempted to get the matters before the Courts, but been blocked at all cross-roads.

In fact, Mr. Warner [as now invoked by Fred Carr by personal service] took numerous and retaliatory actions against the Appellant on behalf of the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union. The ongoing efforts and orchestrations are so well-developed and well-practiced as to constitute Alabor racketeering@ and false claims and other actions that are governed by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization statutes and protections therein, in addition to many other applicable statutes such as Qui Tam and False Claims and whistle blower statutes .
The use of Federal and State Transportation Trust Funds like the Federal Medical Trust where the Appellant obtains his Legal Aid from for the USCG proceedings is a huge waste of these Federal Funds and Programs by the Defendants. The Defendants used these programs, along with assistance of the USCG, so as to instead of arbitrating the matters or even having them heard in open court, bleed legal fees and costs from these programs and pocket the money while using it to injure the Civil Rights, Civil Complaints and even Civil Liberties of the Appellant. Several cases cited by the Appellant show that not only is the USCG well-practiced in this game set-up as a stop-gap to arbitration, but that APL [ASM/ PCS] itself is also. Worse, ASM has much of the same personnel as APL had, and individuals like Sandy Jones and Jordan Trouchan should not escape responsibility under the Sarbanes-Oxeley statute, as neither should Fred Carr or his law firm as has been recently held to apply equally as well to lawyers and law firms for failing to report corporate corruption which in this instance as a Federal Employer all the more serious. This all should be a matter for the AJustice Department@ but they have ignored the Appellants pleas for assistance and intervention and even allowed the Federal Employees Labor Union to file yet another counter complaint with the FBI against the Appellant, for his own complaints to the FBI. This is a matter of record and Fred Carr is Ausing@ the Areports@ by the Federal Employees Labor Union to support its actions against the Appellant somehow and both AASM@ and AMATSON@ continue to stand or attempt to stand on overrunning the Appellant with process and procedures.
There is much more information and exhibits that show the continuing violations and tortuous breaches of maritime employment contracts that Fred Car and ASM and others have carried out so as to preclude and in fact prohibit the ability of the Appellant to timely file and press forward the Appeals, even though he has gotten this far and has met all milestones, saving the filing of the Brief due to continued retaliations and actions within the USCG proceedings, and only because ASM and others have maintained an active role in the life of the Appellant through conflicted counsel and only so as to further injure and oppress him and his Constitutional let alone statutory, if not even simply contractual guarantees.
Appellant, in the face of great adversity and continuing tortuous behaviors by the Federal Employers

and individuals like Fred Carr, has in good faith made all efforts to press forward and progress the Appeals and all related matters and has in fact progressed the Appeals to where a Brief can now, or very soon be filed, but only absent any more harassment or continuing legal actions that have been instituted by the Federal Employers or on their behalf, not on behalf of the Award under admiralty.@ One reason why the Appellant as a whistle blower [even from the 75 grievances, let alone the letter to the Secretary of Transportation and others] has requested that he be afforded the right granted by the Appellate Court of the Ninth Circuit to file ORAL BRIEFS as this would be much more focused due to ongoing tortuous behaviors.
Even the improper and unethical practice of Steve Haney and Jim Warner must all be directed back at the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union and even United States as in these circumstances they cannot all hide behind one and other to escape each=s own part in all of this. Why Fred Carr has now included Jim Warner on service would be interesting to hear, but none the less and to incite the Appellant=s previous and ineffective counsel to now step forward would be very interesting to hear the Appellant=s own counsel now take some more Apotshots@ and do it on the record and as recorded. Many of the comments Jim Warner had for the Courts were not held on the record or recorded for some odd reason in several of the hearings where Jim Warner stated on the record his animus toward the Appellant. The Lower Courts, who heard many of these comments should have been sufficiently disturbed so as to require immediate AORAL BRIEFS@ from the Appellant himself who did try to speak but was run down by even the Court and not allowed to speak.
As to just some of the issues that have caused delays, beyond the Related matters that Fred Carr even presents by even attaching the document that generated Appeal 04-71187 as an Exhibit himself, are just some of the other matters. Another would be the simple fact that only recently has the Appellant, received as previously presented to the Appellate Court by Motion the MISSING TRANSCRIPTS as requested repeatedly from the Courts by the Appellant and had to eventually request relief in this regard from the Ninth Circuit so as to get the TRANSCRIPTS at no cost. These TRANSCRIPTS were unavailable to the Appellant at the time of the earlier Motions and Requests.

The Defendant and its counsel wish to present to the Court only half-truths if not clear misrepresentations so as to intentionally mislead the Lower Courts and even the Appellate Court, on all these matters somehow Aabout the Appellant@ and his attempts to progress and process the Appeals, but then do everything behind the scenes and out of the view of this Appellate Court by using the USCG to torture the Appellant for well over the last year and even rule on the two Appeals that are before this Court in 03-55935 and 03-55937 by improper OALJ/ USCG administrative decree. All the while and again denying Appellant his CIVIL RIGHTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, and intending to do injury to his CIVIL COMPLAINTS and CIVIL APPEALS, and more, even necessitating the requirement that those Appeals even be filed in the first place by using the USCG administrative process to carry out more of their own Adirty work@ for them. The Counsel forced upon the Federal Officer and Federal Employee from within the USCG proceedings refused to carry out numerous requests of the Appellant, which is in violation of the LMRDA and the duty owed to the Appellant under general maritime and admiralty law.
This of course includes the ongoing actions upon the Appellant through the use of a complex scheme that they have devised over the years, and in fact Aperfected@ along with the Federal Employees Labor Union and the willing use and participation of the USCG and on a whole-sale agency wide effort that rises to the top of the Agency in the USCG Commandant as EXHIBITED in Appeal 03-57025 and 04-70763 and the Sarbanes-Oxeley statute should stretch into ACorporate@ as well as Governmental abuses and hold the head of the Agency ultimately responsible. Worse, there was an open AWhistle Blower@ complaint and case with DOT when the USCG filed its retaliatory counter-complaint against the Appellant on behalf of the AUnited States@ and the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union since the Appellant had Ablown the whistle@ on how the USCG was also involved and had written to the Secretary of Transportation and others.
The Appellate Court must consider that much of all of this has been filed and orchestrated by the Federal Employers working in association [against the LMRDA] along with the Federal Trusts and Federal Employees Labor Union that they have absolute control over, who have set-up this complex program of Alabor racketeering.@ This is all used as only as a complex stop-gap program to deny access to the proper program and system of arbitration and even proper adjudication and do this against NATIONAL PUBLIC LABOR POLICY of the AUnited States@ which is in fact the use of timely, fair and neural arbitration. One question for all would be; AWhere is and what has happened to the Licensed Personnel Board?@

This is something that all of the parties have argued against from within each=s own venue and jurisdiction. ASM and Fred Carr argued against the use of Aarbitration@ which in and of itself proves the failure of the Duty of Fair Representation by the Federal Employers therein and associated. Moreover, Matson also argued against the use of arbitration which again proves the Failure of Duty of Fair Representation and the Aassociation@ and coordination between the Federal Employers. Then again AMEBA@ the Federal Employees Labor Union also argued against the use of Aarbitration@, even though it is mandatory as pressed upon all these parties by Congress. Then finally the United States itself from within the USCG proceedings also argued against the use of Aarbitration@ and proper acknowledgment of the simple fact that the Appellant was Aacting under the authority of his license throughout the USCG proceedings@ and that the operative Master Agreements and Shipping Articles apply.
So it would seem that the Federal Employee has argued for and attempted to compel arbitration even though he was not allowed to be heard about his rights and how they are derived by anyone in any proper due process hearings, but the Federal Employers, Federal Employees Labor Union, Federal Trusts and even the United States [in the form of all the previous and including the USCG, US Attorney=s Office, Department of Homeland Security, the District Courts] have all argued against the use of National Labor Policy and arbitration somehow and done everything to defeat the rights of the Appellant in any and all venues so as to create this Acruel circular loop that is absent any true due process.
That ASM and Fred Carr wish to lodge more personal attacks against the Appellant somehow is par for the course and they offer no precedence to show that the Appellant somehow has no rights. This is unconscionable and a childish if not last ditch effort to ensure that the Appellant cannot be heard about what is going on and attain personal redress and more importantly correct this enormous Ahole@ in National Security and proper Civil Defense Systems, of which are both so closely intertwined as to be indistinguishable. Worse again, to do everything and anything and even to go as far as by corrupting counsel, and corrupting the processes and even attempting yet again, as they have done in the past, to try and place general maritime and admiralty law under the thumb of administrative law and change the will of Congress as has been upheld by the highest Court of our land in the U.S. Supreme Court, time and time again. To now send the Appellant back into any arbitration process that involves all of these parties and under Atheir thumb@ would be cruel and this is one reason why the Duty of Fair Representation was created so that at this point, the matters that the Appellant tried to raise can be pretty much assumed after all of this. Yet, even the Federal Employers are trying to escape even this Duty by so torturing the Appellant as to make him Alook to be@ irrecoverable and even steal his pension and more, all without redress.

An example of the games the Federal Employer [ASM] and Federal Employees Labor Union [MEBA] and even the USCG and United States is presented, and has been presented [in Appeal 03-55935 and 03-57025] is shown in the case of Gillikin v. United States [764 F.Suppl. 261 n. 85 CV 2582 TCP U.S. District Court of New York], which involved a similar, but not identical set of Shipping Articles and Master Agreements where this Aprogram@ to use administrative law judges to make piecemeal determinations for the United States and its assigned and chosen Federal Employers and the Federal Employees Labor Union is clear. Also, as to where the United States used again conflicted Counsel and process to convince the Federal Employee [unlicensed] to obtain ASocial Security@ payments and file with ASocial Security@, rather then properly pay him Amaintenance@ and Acure@ and Aunearned wages@ so that they could Amanipulate@ and Acorrupt@ the system, and do this so as to escape paying various benefits that it owes to its seaman or as herein its Federal Maritime Officers.
Worse, as herein where they have used the USCG to have the Appellant Aacting under the authority of his license@ within the USCG proceedings, when they knew he was losing his home and more, and since they had ABlacklisted@ him and was being torn apart due to such tortuous and deceitful behaviors by the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union. Frank Brucceleri, the first counsel for the Appellant as pressed upon him by the Federal Trusts within the USCG proceedings tried to not only force Appellant to sign un unlawful and improper arbitration agreement, but also to file a Social Security claim. The level of complexity and refinement in these programs is unbelievable and is being carried out right before the Courts.

All underlying complaints have been brought by ACounsel@ including the matters that raised the Appeals of 03-55935, 03-55937, 03-55938, 03-57025, 04-70763 and 04-71187. For the most part due to the over-involvement of the ACorporate@ interests in the Federal Trusts set-up for the Federal Maritime Officers, and even the more ACorporate@ interests of the United States in a program of oppressing and denying a certain group of Federal Officers their own inalienable rights to Free Speech, Due Process, Civil Rights, Civil Complaints and more, and as a Anew@ and unpublished APublic Policy@ that runs counter to the Apublished@ and ACongressionally legislated@ and Judicially upheld@ use of proper, neutral and timely arbitration as ANational Labor Policy@, is clear. The Appellant has been Atargeted@ due to his attempts to gain timely and proper access to this process for his valid complaints and grievances, none of which as even Fred Carr and ASM and APL and others admit to ever having handled in the contractual and statutory manner. Worse he has been targeted as he has attempted to inform others and even ran for elective union office against AAlfred Abig Al@ Camelio@ who ASM now wishes to use to support their own contentions somehow. This simple fact and the fact that Fred Carr wishes to invoke the Federal Employees Labor Union and its personnel only clearly displays the cohesion and alliances that have been formed between the Federal Employers and the Federal Employees Labor Union that is against the Federal Officer and Federal Officers and in fact targeted against the United States Constitution at Article III where the Shipping Articles and general maritime and admiralty law derive their effect and protections. Freed Carr even invokes the USCG/ ALJ that they have Arecruited@ to act out against the Appellant which is unconscionable.
In the aforementioned and somewhat related case it was held in Gillikin that:
ADecision of the administrative law judge finding that seaman was not disabled within meaning of the Social Security Act was not Adeclaration@ that seaman reached state of maximum cure, such as would terminate obligation of United States, as shipowner, to provide injured seaman with maintenance and cure, where administrative law judge made no finding seaman=s condition had permanently stabilized or that it could not further improve. Social Security Act ' 1 et seq, 42 USCA ' 301 et seq.@

Herein with the Appellant, the ALJ on behalf of ASM was prosecuting the Appellant while being promised that they would finally Aarbitrate@, also while he was losing and trying to protect his home and attempting to assist if not take over three District Court cases in AShine v. ASM@, AShine v. Matson@ and AShine v. MEBA@ all of which the USCG and ALJ knew about and stepped in to injure the rights of the Appellant and use the injury to those three cases against him somehow.
It is important to note that under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, created the Merchant Marine as a Federal Service the AOfficers@ such as the Appellant are considered to be equal in pay and grade to their own counterparts in the USCG and are not to be treated or considered as Aone of the crew.@ This was set-up this way so that Officers would not Abefall@ such gross miscarriages of justice such as the Appellant has undergone and continues to undergo within the USCG proceedings and even the Appeal process.
This USCG ALJ in the Related Appeals [and as presented as an Exhibit by ASM/ PCS] has not stated that the Aseaman@, Appellant has somehow reached a state of maximum cure. Worse it is the denial of AOral Free Speech@ and Due Process that the Defendant have been most involved in and consistently so, toward denying the Appellant any ability to say what has happened and what is going on and attain relief and redress that has injured him so.

The Appellant=s Oral Free Speech rights have been subjugated under his Written Free Speech rights so that the various ATrustees@ over their own Awards under admiralty@ in all the aforementioned parties, might only somehow ASPEAK FOR HIM@ when in fact they are actually ASPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES@ and by presenting written documents Aon behalf@ of the Appellant to meet our their own ends. That they are doing this so as to create more improper Aprecedence@ and to their own benefit so they can deny more and more rights and privileges from Federal Officers who they have been entrusted, and in fact mandated to watch over and protect, for the United States by Congress and the Courts.
No one wishes to allow the Appellant to speak for himself in any manner or fashion due to the enormity of this long-standing program of intentional and malicious denial of Free Speech and Due Process, not only to the Appellant, but in fact to an entire class of Federal Officers who are being put under the gun by another Asister Federal Agency@ or Asister Federal Service@ if not their own Federal Employees Labor Union and Federal Employers and only so as to deprive Federal Maritime Officers of numerous and substantive rights in Pay, Pensions, Medical Benefits, Due Process, Employment, Free Speech and all other Constitutionally and statutorily granted and protected rights so that the various parties can use money intended for the Federal Officers and paid out in Trust to be used to fund a Afleet of lawyers@ rather then a fleet of ships.
Even Fred Carr in his most recent filing has pointed out how consistently and how well the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union and in fact the United States have been in preventing the Appellant from being heard, and in any regard. This includes any proper or valid Arbitration process [since there no longer is a process], and even in State Court [although the Appellant did not request to have anything filed there, but Steve Haney did so on behalf of the Federal Employers] and yet again even in Federal Court where the Appellant has not been able to even Autter a word@ or present and prosecute complaints and appeals in his own name as accorded by general maritime and admiralty law and custom, whether represented by Counsel or not. This was even pressed upon him in the USCG proceedings where he was mandated by the Court to Afilter@ anything and everything through the ACounsel@ who had been pressed upon him within the USCG proceedings by the Federal Trusts [and even ALJ by various gamesmanship] as controlled by Federal Employers, Federal Employees Labor Union and the United States.

The Federal Employers in conjunction with the Federal Employees Labor Union, have denied access to redress in the proper initial arbitration process as held under the Railway Labor Act and as made mandatory therein. In the form of the proper mandatory arbitral mechanism known as the Licensed Personnel Board, that is mysteriously no more, and has been entirely subverted and corrupted. As ASM, MEBA and Matson and even the United States have also been so adept at using conflicted counsel, and doing so from both sides of the isle, they have done a Asuperb job@ of trying to Aorchestrate@ the matters so as to forever change the laws and place admiralty and general maritime law under the guises somehow of administrative law. Worse to place it under rule of one sister Federal Service in the form of the USCG so as to be placed over another Federal Service in the form of the United States Merchant Marine or Federal Maritime Service.
The Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union wish to use every method available and imaginable and at such great expense, rather then afford all Federal Maritime Officers their rights to be heard in a fair, neutral and timely manner as prescribed by Congress. First in proper, fair, and truly neutral arbitration, then if necessary to proceed in State Court to execute their own Shipping Articles as individual federal maritime employment contracts, or in Federal Court if necessary and absent any further tortuous behaviors or actions by the Federal Employers and Federal Employees Labor Union or even the United States in the form of the USCG or Department of Homeland Security, especially absent any proper due process or oral hearings where the Appellant as a Federal Officer might be heard and with the assistance of independent counsel and not to be repeatedly pressed under counsel, especially conflicted counsel.
It has already been ruled and held in several District Courts that the LMRA does not and cannot preempt either the Railway Labor Act or the Jones Act, or for that matter admiralty and general maritime law. The LMRA is not the only Agoverning@ law, and even if it were, 301 of the LMRA allows suit for such tortuous breaches of maritime employment contracts that is only the key to open the door to Asubject matter jurisdiction, and toward the Shipping Articles. The tortuous behaviors such that have gone on herein and have not let up in any way shape or form are severe, and the LMRA is a catch-all statue to draw in all appropriate statutes for application to the specific industry and circumstances and moreover, it specifically has no statute of limitations and for good cause as even shown herein. This was crafted intentionally by Congress so as to relieve the issue of any AStatute of Limitations@ from those who are further protected by the LMRA and not limited by it, or put under by it and due to just the sort of behaviors that union members can be put under and due to numerous other statutes that are drawn in. Moreover, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act further altered this legislation, but one cannot forget the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act that is and should be applicable here as this is a Federal Service and the Master Agreements are a creation of the Federal Government and United States on behalf of its own AWards under admiralty.@ The games being played to rob and steal from these Federal Trusts and injure the Federal Officers is enormous and long-standing. This is only one reason why Fred Carr and others will go to such great lengths to assassinate the character, if not even the person of the Appellant so that the knowledge he holds is forever lost or corrupted by process and procedures and further and unrelenting tortuous conduct.

The governing Statutes and principles of law have been presented to the Court which includes 46 USCA 688 and in fact the entire Codification of Title 46 that is entitled AShipping@ and that includes the Subsidy Laws, Service Contract Act, the Shipping Articles Act of 1790 and numerous others as contained therein specifically or by reference, or incorporation over the years. Appellant has already provided an exhaustive listing of how admiralty and general maritime law applies, even from under the issues of LMRA that the Federal Employers, Federal Employees Labor Union and even the United States have all attempted to apply to the Appellant through back-door deals and by even corrupting Appellan