the evidence review of the hidden case

5/24/2018 The Evidence Review of the Hidden Case

1/107

OFTHE HIDDEN CASE

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES AND

YOU MAY HUNT AND KILL ME BUT


2/107

YOU CANNOT KILL THE TRUTH

NOT KILL MINE, NOT OTHERS

IDEAS FOR A BETTER DEMOCRACY.THE STRUGGLE AND IDEAS FOR

BETTER WILL REMAIN AS LONG AS

THERE IS CORRUPTION AND A

GOVERNMENT ILL WILL TO

ALLOW IT. AND THIS HAS BEEN

SINCE THE TIMES IN HISTORY OFHUMAN KIND (Jose Centeno,MSHS)


3/107

DO NOT ATTACK, THIS IS ONLY A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

SUBMITTED

TO THE FEDERAL JUDGES WHO WILLFULLY KNOWINGLY INFORMED,

THEY CHOSE TO IGNORE FOR THEN TO ENGAGE IN WAR AGAINST THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!

EXHIBIT 1


4/107

I had gone thru all the interviews and found accepted for the position ofAddiction Counselor and on 10-3-89 I was called for an orientation by the

expected employer, Kings County Hospital Center from Brooklyn, New

York. It was part of the HHC, (Health and Hospitals Corporation) and partof the City of New York. In fact, my check came from the City of New York

and I was part of the City Pension Plan (to join the plan the person had to bea city employee). Then upon such evidence, how come the judge had the

nerves to tell me that she believes that the New York City should not be partof the lawsuit? (Judge Bloom in: Centeno v. Kings County Hospital, HHC

Health and Hospitals Co., New York City, et al). Notice the top of the

Exhibit that starts with: New York City.Therefore, at the beginning of thelawsuit hearings, right there, the judge became and, or, started becoming

an advocate for the defendants!!!

On that same date of 10-3-89 after I read this document, I asked forclarification and refused to sign it. Then I was told: Then you will not get

the job. Then I signed it but left the effective date in blank and I was

assigned to start on 10-17-89 but I warned them that I needed furtherclarification about their provisional capacity terms for hiring me because I

was employed by then in a permanent position at LUCHA Inc., and I was

not going to leave a permanent job for a provisional one. Notice that theeffective date is different than the signed date; you will see the reason

for it in the EXHIBIT 2.

Exhibit 1


5/107


6/107

EXHIBIT 2-A, B, CI had refused to start working with HHC on a provisional status and I

stayed with LUCHA, Inc., as a Senior Counselor. During October of 1989, I

received a call from the Director of the Addictive Disease Department,Outpatient Clinic, telling me: Hey!, what happened!, You was supposed to

start working with us on October 17 and you did not come. I explained toher what happened during the orientation and that I refuse to work under

such unequal terms and conditions. Then she told me: I will get back to

you. And she did get back to me and told me: Come down, we are hiring

you as a permanent. We set an appointment at D Building where I wasgiven an Oral Test Examinationand rated right there on the spot(this

kind of test or civil service examinations were allowed by the City) and Iwas dully appointed and promoted to or employed in the position

indicated in accordance with applicable law, including the Civil ServiceLaw, Health and Hospitals Corporation Personnel Rules and

Regulations, Corporation operational procedures and collective

bargaining agreements (at Exhibit 2)Then I was approved, certified and appointed or employed as a

PERMANENT employee according to their own laws, rules, regulations

and operational procedures, and that is a fact that cannot be deniedbut thedefendants thru Michael J Higgins, Director, denied it: He was not

qualified because he was not permanent in the Addiction Counselors

title (at Exhibit 13). And the corrupted judges apparently believed thedefendants when they raised the defense that He is a B1, a provisionalemployee, (see next exhibit for their classifications and definitions) Now

I invite you to look in the Personnel Action Formof this Exhibit 2, underthe STATUS INFORMATION; within the box, you will find in tiny

letters above the numbers 40-41 written: Civ Serv Code,and under the40-41 numbers you will see an erased letter followed with the number 1.

This was an alteration of the document to sustain their allegations that I

am a B1, a provisional; their definition for a B1 is: Pure

Provisional-An employee filling a regular vacancy who does not have

permanent civil service status in any title. But the A-1 that theyaltered to make it look as a B-1, means An employee having

permanent civil service status in the title of the current job. But

whoever altered the document missed that at the top right, before the lastbox, with number 41,on top of it are two words: Perm which logically

stands for Permanent; and Temp which logically stands for


7/107

Temporary or provisional, under that is a P validating Perm, a

PERMANENT EMPLOYEE, an A-1, not a B-1 as they alleged.

Part A


8/107

Michael J Higgins, the Department Director, lied again to me and to the

court when he stated: He was not qualified because he was not

permanent in the Addiction Counselors title (Exhibit 13). But here ismore solid proof, direct evidence that he was not telling the truth:

Employees are hired provisional or permanentand it is stated on theEmployees Handbookgiven at the moment of the hiring; in one of its

pages (shown here as Part B of this Exhibit 2), you can read at the right ofarrow 1 where is stated that: for provisional there is COVERAGE

EFFECTIVE 90 DAYS AFTER APPOINTMENT, But:

1- Because I was not provisional my coverage was effective 0n

January 21, 1990, (find it at bottom of the B arrow that I drew) before

the 90 days, attested by the signature of the Payroll Department Officer

in the EMPLOYEES BENEFITS PROGRAM form!!! (see Part C ofExhibit 2)

2- Because I was not provisional,the Payroll Department Officer,Could

not, and did not, place a mark in the box on the left side of the item

Provisional(find it at bottom of the A arrow I drew) in the

EMPLOYEES BENEFITS PROGRAM form!!! (Part C of Exhibit 2)

Part B


9/107

Part C


10/107


11/107

EXHIBIT 3

In the manuscript of THE HIDDEN CASE where I narrated in moredetails my experience with the employer and the court system, this Exhibit

was placed as EXHIBIT #10; but because of the connection with EXHIBIT2 already discussed here previously, I decided to renumber it to bring more

coherency and linkage to the evidence discussion.

This is evidence of the scheme, a tool used to discriminate, a device used

by the employer to put me in a wrongful classification and orcategorizationthat impacted me negatively and was used to deny to me a

promotion, another title with a better salary that would result in a better

quality of life, their action restricted my ability to legally obtain property;those wrongful classifications are prohibited by the Title VII Act.

This Exhibit is also a proof that the employer allegations that I was a

provisional employee were frivolous. Lets take a look at their definitions:

Permanent- An employee holding a permanent status in thetitle of thecurrent job and they claim that the probationary period became one

year and A non-competitive employee must complete the applicable

probationary period in the current job in order to be considered

permanent.

Based on the evidence in the previous exhibit, the reader so far can realizethat I was hired as permanenttherefore I was holding a permanent status

in the title of the current job(Addiction Counselor), and more than 10

yearshad passed when I started to claim my rights to a promotion therefore

my probationary periodhad been completedlong, long time ago!!! Butmore interesting is that I was and am the affected party of their frivolous,

arbitrary and capricious classifications without informing to me of the futureimplications. It was not until 2004 when an informant sent me this exh ibit

with the condition that I will not reveal his name (but he was a Union

Representative!!!)


12/107


13/107

EXHIBIT 4

I want the reader to know that at the beginning during the hiring process,my complaint against the employer was based on Unequal Terms or

Conditions of Employment because they wanted to hire me as aprovisional. That for them means and has it classified or categorized it as

B-1 or Pure Provisional, an employee filling a regular vacancy

that does not have permanent civil service status in any title (see

Exhibit3).But after I rejected those terms or conditions and I refused to

start working for them as a provisional, then they called me back andhired me as permanentas the evidence proved on Exhibit 2.

But after all that, and after many years later of been working for theemployer (Kings County Hospital, New York City HHC) then it was

logically for me to believe that any decent employer who believes first in thetruth, dignity, the law, in equal opportunity for advancement and

promotions, that such an employer would not use the lie, the excuse, the

pretext to deny and to disqualify, to bar from promotions the worker

who had rejected their provisional terms and or conditions for

employment, and to whom they later called back and agreed andaccepted and hired him under other terms or conditions, as a

PERMANENT, and then subsequently to base such denial of career

advancement and or disqualification from promotion because he is a

provisional and is not permanent and to say and write it, He was notqualified because he was not permanent in the Addiction Counselor

title (Michael J Higgins at Exhibit 13), THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG,

UNLAWFUL, UNETHICAL, IS DISCRIMINATION ON ITS FACE!!!This made me believe that their conduct and action(s) was and is, were

and are: Discrimination based on Race or National Origin; and that

started at the beginning of the hiring process!!! But that later, during andafter the case was taken to the Federal Court, escalated to the Denial of

Fundamental, Civil and Constitutional Rights and it got to the point

where the federal judges acting in false representation of, engaged in war

against the United States Constitution by denying some of the rights

ingrafted, testated ab-initio in and by the U.S. Constitution, being one

of them the Trial by Jury!!! And when the Trial by Jury Constitutional

Right was denied, that Unconstitutional Act took away with it other

rights, as for example the Right to a Due Process!!!


14/107

Now take a look to the document in its section D, right near the date of

birth box, there is a small squared box designated to classify or categorizethe employee in a RACEand so is read on top of the box. Notice that I

was classified and or categorized in RACE 3and that stands for Asia

or the Pacific Islands (but I am Puerto Rican), Because the employer wasasking to me certain requirements that were not required to othersfrom a

different race (take the civil service exam, take the CAC, have to be aQHP or qualified health professional) that made me to suspect that therewas a racial issuein the denial of promotions and I decided to investigateand here are my findings: None of the candidates against which I

competed for higher positions were classified or categorized in any

RACE except the Puerto Rican (me)!!! Why? NOTICE that the

exhibits 5 and 6 that follow: the employees were not classified or

categorized in any RACE.

Once that I learned of this, then I requested the same documents from theother candidates with whom I had competed and were given the promotions,but the employer refused to submit it. (When I got to the court and

requested it in the discovery, the judge threw the towel to the employer).

Note: None of these candidates were qualified for the position which demands aBachelors or a Masters Degree!!! (One of them had 12 college credits, the otherclaimed to have an Associate Degree in Dental Technologybut the employer failed to

submit proof of it at the discovery. I have a Bachelor Degree, a Masters Degree, plus

two years of Advance Studies in Psychotherapy plus other State Certificates related

to the working field.Now that the reader knows my credentials, NOTICE AT THE

LEFT OF BOTH DOCUMENTS (at Exhibits 5 and 6) THE SIGNATURE OFMICHAEL J. HIGGINS, DIRECTOR, APPROVING THE LESS QUALIFIED

APPLICANTS WHILE HE CONSTANTLY WAS TELLING ME: YOU ARE

NOT QUALIFIED!!! (Done in writing, as you will see ahead later in another exhibit).

Therefore, you do not have to be a wizard to understand and detect that there is a

racial issue present in this matter!!!


15/107

EXHIBIT 5Notice the RACE box is empty, the candidate was NOT

CLASSIFIED in any race number but I was!!! And notice again the


16/107

signature of Michael J Higgins, at the bottom on the left corner, to sustain a

pre-chosen applicant for a promotion based on experience and merit. Butbefore going further in the explanation of this Exhibit, I must ask: If two

applicants apply for a job position and one does not meet the

EDUCATION QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, then: Who hasthe merit? Bravo! Mr. Higgins and Company, again you reinvented the

definition for merit!!! But hereby I want to tell to the American Public that Ihad competed with this applicant for the position that he was being

promoted from and I was found: Not qualified; but now I knew better, Iwas fully aware of the vicious hiring and selection process, how the

candidates were being pre-chosen regardless of their qualifications

requirements!!!, and then I confronted them. Here was their move: Theycreated a job vacancy for Coordinating Manager to accommodate him

but they refused to give me the position from which their pre-chosen

candidate was being promoted!!! An informant gave me all the details andencouraged me to apply just to see what they say. I did apply, their pre-chosen as I had been told, was chose. But again I confronted them and

complained to Mr. Higgins Boss, Mr. Gregory Calliste. But guess what:

The person to whom I complained and he had agreed to promote me

but did not do it, he was part of the corruption in the hiring andpromotional process at Kings County Hospital!!!Mr. Calliste argued that

You are not qualified because the position requires a Master inBehavioral Science and yours is in Human Services. But now I will

show to the American Public and to the reader, a Master in BehavioralScience that the Discrimination Crew approved, and now I direct youand Ms. Jean G Leon, Mr. Gregory Calliste and Michael J Higgins, to

EXHIBIT 12. I invite the KCH Administrators for test their own

foolishness in front of the American Public and try to tell them that the

document on that Exhibit 12 is a MASTER IN BEHAVIORAL

SCIENCE!!! And of course, I invite the judges to the same test (Bloom,

Dearie, Winter, Walker, Sotomayor). Noticethat Mr. Calliste, who hadtold me that I did not qualify because my Master Degree was not in the

required field: Approved the non-Puerto Rican applicant WITHOUT

ANY COLLEGE DEGREE!!! (SEE HIS SIGNATURE AT THEBOTTOM RIGHT of this EXHIBIT 5 and then immediately go to the

EXHIBIT 12 to see the College Degree Document submitted to me by

the defendants themselves at Discovery when I requested the

EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS of each applicant with whom I

had competed). After I confronted Mr. Higgins, the Program Director, withthe facts, one day I was entering the K Building and he asked me: Jose,


17/107

How are you?, and I answered: Not too bad not too good, then he looked

at me and said to me: But you are not in the position that you would liketo be, right?, I love it!, I love it!. This right there told me that he

knew of what he was doing, his knowing, wanton, willful malicious conduct

of discrimination through the denial of promotion. After the incident, hecontinued humiliating me and whenever was a payday and I had to go to

pick up the check at his office, as soon as he saw me at the line, right

there in front of the workers he started making fun of me and kepttelling me: I love it!, I love it!. Even his Secretary got upset and askedme: Why he is doing this to you?, and I shared with her my experience.

But it is important for the reader and the American Public to know about this

incident Because I addressed it to the court in the Complaint Summary

and defendants never denied it therefore its admission; plus this is

circumstantial and or indirect proof of their reckless conduct, malice

and willful negligence of the discrimination against me!!! THAT HOWTHE JUDGES WERE SO FOOL THAT THEY COULD NOT FIND

ANY EVIDENCE OF PRETEXT FOR THE EMPLOYERSDISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT? No my reader, I do not have that

answer, but one thing I certainly can tell you is that: The real, direct,

circumstantial evidence that I submitted to sustain my alleged real facts,

should not, could not, will not and shall not be defeated by any commonsense person assigned to the case as a judge, magistrate judge , juror,

jury who has a logical rational mind!!


18/107

EXHIBIT 6


19/107

No race number in the RACE boxwas assigned to applicant;

he is from another race and national origin different to mine. See at

bottom the comments from the Director, Michael J Higgins, stating

the Promotion From Addiction Counselor to Addiction

Counselor Level 2 Now I direct the reader to Exhibit 14, aletter from employer

attempting to justify their failure to promote me; pay special

attention to their

statement that was verbalized to me constantly, now in

writing: he has

not applied for Certification Credentialed Addiction Counselor

(CAC, CASA). NOW AND HERE, PUBLICLY, I WANT TO

TELL TO ALLTOGETHER THE DEFENDANTS, THATTHE CANDIDATE THAT YOU PROMOTED FOR

ADDICTION COUNSELOR LEVEL II` DID NOT HAVE

ANY CAC OR CASA, NOR WAS HE A QHP , A

QUALIFIED HEALTHPROFESSIONAL BECAUSE HE

DID NOT HAVE THE COLLEGE DEGREES REQUIRED

AND DEMANDED FROM THE POSITION!!!! (Please, see

Exhibit 7, for position requirements). Now you, the reader, as a

member of the Jury, see the Exhibit 8. And I want you, Mr.Michael J Higgins and Ms. Jean G Leon, to see the spit in

your soup and decide if you still want it, if the taste changed

with the spicy spit of the truth: The Exhibit 8 is a copy of

the more qualified, the Qualified Health Professional, a

QHP, (Michael J Higgins arguments to deny mepromotions,

and ANOTHER DESPERATE ATTEMPT to demonstrate

that I am not qualified, and hereby submitted as evidence at

EXHIBIT 13). On this EXHIBIT 8 document, there are three

sections that read as follows:

1-Special Skills

2-Special Qualifications

3-Licenses and or Certifications.

Notice that: ALL THREE SECTIONS ARE BLANK!!!

THEREFORE NOT ONLY THE JUDGES WERE BLIND


20/107

BUT THE KINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL HIRING

COMMITTEE ALSO WAS BLIND (AND YOU, MICHAEL J

HIGGINS WAS THE DECISION MAKER)!!!


21/107

EXHIBIT 7Here is more supportive evidence to my comments or

arguments stated at the bottom of the introduction comments of the


22/107

previous exhibit 4. Notice under TITLE the name of the position

which is Addiction Counselor and right there under it is

indicated Level II which is another position that I applied for but

I got the usual response: Mr. Centeno is not qualified for the

position. Notice at the left side joint to the Competitiveposition the phrase Provisional Appointment.This called my

attention because among the pretexts for the denial of promotions

to me, the following was used too often: He is provisional;

therefore if I would have been provisional as they claimed, then

they should not have disqualified me on such grounds because the

Job Advertisement clearly states either: that the job is of a

Provisional Appointment or to Appoint a Provisional!!!

But here comes the most important but denigrating part ofthis Exhibit that stripped me out of my dignity!!!: The

advertisement clearly in bold face and capital letters states and

establishes the qualification requirements for the positionwith

the following phrase:

APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING

QUALIFICATIONS:1-Masters Degree preferred2-

Baccalaureate Degree in Social Science3-Specific training in Alcoholism and Substance Abuse

4-Must have CASAC or be CASAC eligible5-Bilingual Spanish/French/Creole a plus

Now, without any offense to the reader, I would like that after you

strip yourself out of any racial prejudices, if you have any, then

project or imagine you sitting as an employer, director or

supervisor in charge of the hiring, then as a judge or juror hearing

my allegations hereby exposed:1- Applicant B does not have a MastersDegree as required.

Applicant A has a Masters Degree in Human Services plus 2

years in Advance Studies in Psychotherapy.


23/107

2- Applicant B does not have the required Baccalaureate

Degreein Social Science.

Applicant A has his Baccalaureate inthe required field of the

Social Sciencesplus a Certification in Criminology.

3- Applicant B has the in house training and certificates and has

been working for the employer a little longer.

Applicant A has some trainings and certificates in Alcohol and

Substance Abuse plus his Masters Concentration was in

Community Psychology and Alcohol and Drugs Counseling at

the Southern New Hampshire University (former New HampshireCollege).

4- Applicant B does not have the CASAC that the job

advertisement document is requiring. But the Employer did not

require that from him because it did not stop him from

obtaining the promotion.

Applicant A does not have a CASAC too but it wasrequired tohim as a condition for promotions(see letter from Jean G. Leon,

Senior Vice President, EXHIBIT 14).

5-Applicant B is not bilingual or was not at the time of the

competence for the job position.

Applicant A is bilingual(English and Spanish).

Now that the reader had access to this information and could

corroborate it with the evidence submitted as Exhibits, and ofcourse, after you followed the instructions to be stripped out of

racial prejudices, if any, now is the time to answer with your

reasoning, with your logic and common sense, but overall: With

honesty, the following questions: From the imaginary seat of the

Employer, Director, Supervisor:


24/107

1-Which of the applicants was, is the more qualified?

2- Who does not qualify or did not meet the qualifications

requirements?

3-Who should legally and morally be hired for the position?

4-Should the ego or racial prejudices go over the public interest?(The employer is a public hospital that get millions in funds

from the federal government, therefore they have to follow the

Title VII and all other Federal laws and rules against

discrimination in the employment, hiring and or promotion.

THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST!!!).

Now I will ask the reader to change seats and seat in the Judge

or Jury chair to answer the following questions: Under the analysisof the preceding evidence:

1-Who shall win the case?

2-As a Judge, because there is a Public Interest involved and

therefore the Government has a stake and or is a Party in the

case,shall the Justice Department be informed by you?

3-Is it right to deny litigation assistance to a Pro Se litigant who

requests it while you as a judge shall know that it is a case of

NATIONAL INTEREST?4-Is it right to deny the ConstitutionalRight to Jury Trialafter

the pro se plaintiff paid for it?

5-Is it right to deny a Constitutional Rightusing the Douglas Mc

Donnells case arguments?

6-Is it right to deny the ConstitutionalTrial by JuryRight, not to

allow the plaintiff to go in front of the jury nor to see or hear their

verdict, and then send a letter to the Plaintiff stating that: No

juror could find on plaintiffs favor???


25/107

EXHIBIT 8

QUESTIONS TO JEAN G LEON and MICHAEL J HIGGINS

1-Hey!!! I do not see in this application document of the more

qualified candidate (according to you), anything under Special


26/107

Skills, nor under Special Qualifications and there are NO

LICENCES AND/OR CERTIFICATES that could or can

qualify the applicant as a (and I quote from yourself): State

Certified or licensed Qualified Healthcare Professional. And

because you said and wrote: Mr. Centeno does not qualify,then the logical question for you (and for the judges Bloom,

Dearie, Walker, Winter and Sotomayor), from myself, the

readers and the American Public, should be and is:

Other than, or if it was not: The Race or National Origin

factor, WHAT MADE THIS CANDIDATE TO QUALIFY IF

HE DOES NOT HAVE THE COLLEGE DEGREES

REQUIRED FOR THE POSITION AND THE CANDIDATE

COMPETING WITH HIM HAD A BACCALAUREATE, AMASTERS, A CERTIFICATION IN CRIMINOLOGY,

2YEARS OF ADVANCE STUDIES IN THE RELATED

FIELD, PLUS STATE, CITY AND INHOUSE

CERTIFICATES!? And yet thinking as if everybody who

heard or read your allegations were stupid or ignorant,

YOU STUBBURNLY CONTINUED CLAIMING THAT:

MR.CENTENO IS NOT QUALIFIED!!!

2- Hey!!! Where is his CAC or CASA that you was

demanding from Mr. Centeno?

I do not see it under special qualifications neither under

Licenses and/or Certifications!!!Other than, or if it was not, The

Race or National Origin factor, why did you demand and or

require from Mr. Centeno a CAC or CASA as a condition

for promotion but promote other (s) without such

credentials? That is illegal!!! That is Discrimination on its

face! Note: This was obtained on Discovery after I requested the applicationsforms plus the credentials of all those candidates with whom I competed but they

got the job, see the number at the bottom right, bate-stamped by themselves.


27/107

EXHIBIT 9


28/107

Up to here, the reader knows that I was required to have certain

credentials that were not required from other applicants as a condition to bepromoted (see Jean G. Leon at Exhibit 14, Michael J. Higgins at Exhibit 13).

Whenever I requested from them a list of how many workers had been

promoted without their unequal terms or conditions for promotion, theyrefused to answer. Then I requested it using The Freedom of Information

Act, and sent it from the address of a corporation where I was the Presidentplus I was foundering a Not for Profit Organization under the name of

LUPAC (Leathers United Pro Action Center) and it was approved by theFederal Government. This made its effect and here I show their response as

EXHIBIT 9. And hereby I direct to you, the reader, the American

Public, the already mentioned judges, Jean G Leon, Michael J. Higgins

and to the defendants altogether: To look to the evidence in this Exhibit

9 that proves that the lack of a CAC or CASA required to me was not

a barrier for other workers to be hired and or promoted into a higherposition with a higher pay.Please notice that the highlighted titles are titlesfor which I had applied but I was told: You are not qualified, You do not

have a CAC, CASA, CASAC, You do not have Permanent Civil Service

Status, Because of Civil Service Criteria, You are Provisional, and thelist of their pretexts or lies continued!!! And talking about their lies, right

here in this exhibit 9 is one: They claimed that there is no employee in

the Senior Addiction Counselor title but that was just another lie!!!

Therefore with Mr. Santiago as a witness I went to the K Building, and

looked for the Senior Addiction Counselor who had a big sign in thefront door of his office with his name and this title. He agreed to be

interviewed and after I showed him this Exhibit he answered: Well,

that is the title that they gave me and that is the title that I have. But

there was more than that because: THERE WAS NO POSTING, NO

CIVIL SERVICE TEST REQUIRED FOR THE POSITION,

Therefore: MYSELF AND ALL THE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT

WERE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION WERE DENIED ANEQUAL OPPORTUNITY!!! And corroborated by the defendants

themselves in this Exhibit 9 document: they hired and or promoted in the

department a total of 18 workers without those requirements that werebeing required and demanded from me!!! Again, the Employment

Discrimination practices by the Kings County Hospital thru its

representatives involved in the Discrimination, got unmasked, naked!!!Their Discrimination acts cannot be denied anymore, not to a logical

rational mind when confronted with the outstanding evidence in this Exhibit9, but hereby I ask to the defendants:


29/107

1-Have you hired and or promoted in a higher paid position any

applicant without the CAC or CASA asked, required or demanded to

me?

2-Have you hired and or promoted in a higher paid position anyapplicant without the Permanent Civil Service Status that was been

asked, required or demanded to me?

The answers are: YES to both questions!!!, And now I kindly direct the

reader, the American Public, the judges and to the defendants

altogether to the following EXHIBIT 9, an Official Document from the

Kings County Hospitals Network Human Resources emitted under theFreedom of Information Act!!!Therefore, once that the judges got to this

part of the evidence, the case should not have gone farther!!! What

happened? That is for the court to answer because they must have had myarguments and this evidence on top of the desk and they had a duty to read itand weight it before taking the reckless decision of to give a Careless

Treatment of the Facts, and to give more power to the Mc Donnell

Douglas case than to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION to then

justify the DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and dismiss my

case through the use of another fabricated tool: a Motion for SummaryJudgment!!!


30/107


31/107

EXHIBIT 10This is another title for which I competed but almost everybody in the

Department knew that the applicant, who was like me in the AddictionCounselor I title, had been pre-chosen (and they were right). I was foundnot qualifiedand they invented lies to try to sustain the disqualification,

but I should say to try to cover their race bias. The title of Senior HealthcareProgram Planner Analyst is a title that was almost hidden and it was not

until the Affiliation Contract of the Kings County Hospital with DownstateMedical Center ended, that it became visible because most of the state


32/107

workers became city workers under such title; then and logically, all the city

workers interested in promotion started to ask: Where were these titles?Where they did the posting? It had Level A and Level B and both were

almost double the pay of an Addiction Counselor. And although they

claimed that I was not qualified for the Senior Healthcare ProgramPlanner Analyst position, they themselves admitted and stated that the

position is interchangeable with the Addiction Counselor I position.But this Exhibit once more is evidence of the racial biases and their

corrupted hiring-promotional system:Here and now I direct the reader,the American Public, the already mentioned judges and the altogether the

defendants to this exhibit quote: APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE

FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS : Masters Degree in Health or

Social Sciences, and immediately after you read the required

qualifications (that according to defendants I did not meet or did not

qualify) take a deep look to the MASTERS DEGREE IN HEALTHOR SOCIAL SCIENCES that on the Discovery for qualifications,

degrees and certifications, I requested to and obtained from defendants,

bate-stamped by themselves with number 265, and that belongs to the

pre-chosen selected applicant!!! DOES THAT LOOKS TO YOU, OR IS

IT PROOF TO YOU OF A UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE DEGREE,

OR: IS THAT A MASTERS DEGREE IN HEALTH OR SOCIAL

SCIENCES THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE POSITION??? NOW

COMPARE IT WITH THE EXHIBITS 15-A,B,C.

Now, what do we tell to all those Fellow Americans that sacrificeworking two or three jobs to send their children and or grandchildren

to the universities to obtain a Degree with the hope that they will get a

job with a higher pay, and, and What we tell to the students

themselves who also make their own sacrifice for the same hope of a

better future after they obtain their Degree (s)??? In what to me

concern, it stripped me out of my Dignity and hope!!!


33/107

EXHIBIT 11I confronted the administration with the previous Exhibit and demanded

Equal Opportunity in the promotion system. They made their move by

changing the title to the pre-chosen candidate from Senior Health Care

Program Planner Analyst to Coordinating Manager. An inside informant told


34/107

me about it and once more I confronted administration, they made their

move by doing the posting while the pre-chosen candidate had been alreadychosen and was receiving the salary for the Coordinating Manager title. I did

apply and was rejected because your Master Degree is not in Behavioral

Science, yours is Human Services. It was disgusting to discover laterwhat I had been told by my informants: The pre-chosen candidatedoes not have college degrees!!!See details at next exhibit 12.


35/107

EXHIBIT 12Note: the name of the candidate to whom I should not blame, is erased.

Here is more direct and indirect proof of Employment

Discrimination: This is another candidate with whom I competed

for a promotion and he was according to inside information: the


36/107

pre-chosen one. And my informant was right!!! Just take a look to

the COLLEGE DIPLOMA??? exposed here. During the

discovery stage in the court, I requested the credentials of all those

candidates that I competed with and the employer had found more

qualified while stating that Mr. Centeno is not qualified. Andladies and gentlemen, here exposed in this Exhibit 12 is The

employers proof that they had chosen the more qualified

candidate as they told to the court,but in the second page of this

Exhibit you will find Michael J. Higgings, the Department

Head and his Superior, Gregory Calliste, under the title

Senior Staff Authorization, both of them authorizing and

declaring BY THEIR SIGNATURES that their candidate was

recommended to be hired as the: 1st

choice andMr.is a QHP!!!But the position required a Master in Social Work, and you,

Mr. Calliste, to whom I complained in the presence of Janet

Ayeku, (another Administrator), you said that I was not chosen

because my Masters Degree is not in Social Work, now here

publicly I want to confront you with the Masters Degree in

Social Work from your 1stchoice that I requested and you

submitted on the Discovery, and is shown here as Exhibit

12!!!

THAT HOW CAN JUDGES BE SO FOOLISH? No, my

dear reader, I do not have the answer for that although I tried

to answer it by claiming that they were prejudiced, blind or

under the influence of something!!! And of course, to sustain

my allegations now I ask the reader (s):

1- Is this document below (12a) a Diploma or Degree fromany known College or University recognized by any

Accreditation Agency within the United States?

2- Is this same document an acceptable proof or evidencethat an employee is

A Qualified HealthProfessional, is a QHP? (see on

12b Michael Higgins and Gregory Calliste attesting with

their signatures that the document is a Master in


37/107

Behavioral Science and that their pre-chosen candidate is

a QHP (a qualified health professional).

12a


38/107

12b


39/107

EXHIBIT 13

This is another, if not the most, disgusting direct proof ofblatant Racial and or Employment Discrimination but it is also

proof of a needed reform in the Employment Discrimination

Laws and Procedures because THE EEOC KNEW ABOUT

THIS AND NEVER INFORMED ME!!! And it was not until I

took the case to the court that I learned that the employer thru

his Representative Director Michael J Higgins, HAD PRE-

EMPTED, PRE DISQUALIFIED ME FROM PROMOTIONS

and whether I would have gone or not to an interview,However, he would not have qualified.And then he continues

and stated: Mr. Centeno does not qualify as a State Certified

or licensed Qualified Healthcare Professional (Maybe

because I did not have the College or University Degree shown

on Exhibit 12a above?). And throughout his statement the

deceiver continues with the lies But here publicly open in

this writings I want to ask you, Mr. Michael J. Higgins:

1-

WHAT CREDENTIALS THAT THE APPLICANT BFROM EXHIBIT 7 HAD THAT YOU MADE HIM A

QHP, A QUALIFIED HEALTHCARE

PROFESSIONAL??? Can the employer explain that to

the American Public?? (The American Public has a

right to know because the Kings County Hospital and

the HHC receives millions in Federal Funds!!!) (This is

why the United States Government had and has a stake

in the case!!!)

2- WHAT CREDENTIALS THAT THE APPLICANTFROM EXHIBIT 12 HAD THAT YOU MADE HIM A

QHP, A QUALIFIED HEALTHCARE

PROFESSIONAL??


40/107

3- UNDER WICH LEGAL AUTHORITY?, WHO GAVEIT YOU?, TO DECIDE WHO IS A QHP, A

QUALIFIED HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL

AND WHO IS NOT?


41/107

EXHIBIT 14 (A, B, C)This is what I was referring to in the Exhibit 7: The requirements asked

in a job vacancy advertise has to be the same for every applicant!!! An

employer should not, must not, shall not require or demand any

Degrees and or Certificates to one or some candidates and NOT TO

THE OTHER OR OTHERS!!! This exhibit is REAL PROOF OFDISCRIMINATION!!!The Senior Vice President, Jean G. Leon and the

Department Director, Michael J. Higgins, were requesting and or

demanding that I obtain a CAC, CASA in order for me to be eligible

for the Addiction Counselor Career Ladder But now I tell that: THEY

WILLFULLY, WANTON, KNOWINGLY INJURED THE LADDER

because the lack of such credentials or requirements did not stop or

prevented the non Puerto Rican candidate discussed in the EXHIBIT 7

from climbing the Career Ladder from Addiction Counselor Line I to

Addiction Counselor Line II which was a Supervisory Position with a

higher pay, DESPITE THAT HE DID NOT MEET THE

EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS!!! (had no college Degree). Andtheir psychological or mental abuse continued when they gave authority tothe person without college degree to supervise me in the absence of the

Clinic Director who was my Supervisor. How would you feel in such asituation? What would you do? This is extreme and unusual punishment

thatthe U.S. Constitution prohibits. If you do not think so, then if you areworking in a high position, both the position and the salary shall be given to


42/107

a less qualified worker without the qualification requirements for your

position and you shall be barred, preempted from any promotionalopportunity!!! After that done, then tell me how you feel. Fair enough?

The EXHIBITS 13 and 14A shows in writing different lies, excuses,

pretexts or inventions from the defendants to deny and exclude me frompromotions. I proved it with their Personnel Order HHC 092/12

Establishment of Titles (Exhibits 14B and 14C). Notice the Senior

Addiction Counselor Title that they concealed and said there are no

employees in this title (Exhibit 9), but there was an employee with thattittle; plus the Addiction Counselor Level IIand its Special Notes: For

placement in Assignment Level II. But in nowhere in this Document

that established the Titles is written any of the Kings County Hospitals

Discrimination Crew lies, excuses, pretexts or inventions to deny a, to

exclude me from a promotion!!! Hey!, Mr. Higgins: Where is your

QHP, State qualified health professional, Civil ServiceRequirements, A-1, Permanent, CASAC??? The answer is

simple: They are not in the Official Personnel Order HHC 092/12

Establishment of Titlesbecause those were your pretext tools used to

discriminate!!!

A


43/107

B


44/107

C NOTE to the reader: Notice that the only requirement For

placement in Assignment Level II,a position that defendants claimed

that I was not qualified for the position, the requirement is that


45/107

candidates must possess one year in Assignment Level I (I had

worked 17years in the lower level title for the employer). And again,

NONE OF THE INVENTED LIES from defendants are a condition

For placement in Assignment Level IIin the Corporation Order for

the Establishment of Titles.


46/107


47/107

EXHIBITS 15

I believe that I should not spend too much time in explaining

these exhibits because they are self explainable. However, I do

invite to the reader to compare these credentials of this notqualified applicant( according to the employer) with those

credentials submitted to me on the discovery request by the

employer and shown as Exhibits 7 and 12 and that were more

qualified (according to the employer).

Note: Although the persons were pre-chosen as you will see in

another exhibit, and I had to rely on inside informants who alerted

me of the job vacancies, once I was denied the application and I

was informed that the pre-chosen candidate does not have acollege degree, later I investigated and found that she was

studying but had not graduated yet. Employer refused to provide

the information and did not comply with the full discovery.


48/107


49/107


50/107


51/107


52/107


53/107


54/107


55/107


56/107

EXHIBIT 16

Now be prepare to know what an employer accustomed to lie is willing todo in order to attempt to prevail in court: The employer had promoted mebut did not tell me that I was being, nor that I was, promoted!!! And the

reader may ask: How they can do that and why?I will explain it to younow: Every year I had an evaluation. I never got a bad one, and on two of

them I was given OUTSTANDINGand the two supervisors who did itwere punishedbecause to give an outstanding evaluationwas forbidden


57/107

by administration. Me and my Supervisor, Mr. Scott Oestreich, whose

signature you can see beside the phrase REPORTS TO in this Exhibit 16,were against that. On the year of 2005, on the month of October, my

evaluation was made. It contained many pages and I usually just took a

quick look and signed it, knowing that it would do anything in getting me apromotion because I learned that I was barred and or preempted from

promotions. After many months had passed, one day while at home, I wasputting together all my evaluations record when I decided to take a detailed

look to my last one, and what a great surprise that I got!!! I had beenpromoted to Sr. Health Care Program Planner Analyst (Sr. HCPPA),(look

in the Exhibit, beside TITLE). Finally after 16 years of work with the

Kings County Hospital I had been promoted!!! But the joy and good feelingsdid not last long because then I started asking myself: Why I was not

notified? What was the employers objective, the reason for not to notify

me?It did not take me too long to figure out the answers: I had taken theemployer to the court for their refusal to promote me and accused them ofDiscrimination; the court had forbidden them to retaliate (but they did

retaliate later); therefore is obvious that because I had claimed that they

failed and or refused to promote me, so they promoted me in such a way thatin a future court hearing they could just pull out the form and claim that they

promoted me and I had signed and accepted the promotion! What a good

planned trick! What would you have done under my situation? This is what Idid: Because much time had passed from the date of the untold promotion

to its discovery by me, I requested a hearing with Mr. Scott Oestreich whowas my immediate supervisor and confronted him with this Exhibit and hissignature in it attesting and or supporting what is in it. In that same hearing I

claimed the corresponding salary, retroactively, to the new Title of Sr.HCPPA that I was given or promoted to, and I was working now within

such Title. He agreed to discuss it with his supervisor and get back to me. In

the meantime I started to sign the required documentation in the charts with

my new title, Jose Centeno, MSHS, Sr. HCPPA, instead of Jose Centeno,MSHS, Addiction Counselor I.


58/107

EXHIBIT 17


59/107

About 10 months had passed and the issue of the promotion explained inthe previous exhibit had not been resolved. Doctor Gallo, who supervisedthe doctors in the department, was given the hot potato to solve the issue.

He requested a meeting with me and we met. In the meeting I explained to

him almost everything about what I already have written in this book. But hedid not want to hear nothing else than that I surrender back my new title and

stop signing with it on the charts. To that I refused and he retaliatedwiththe suspension letter submitted here as Exhibit 17. NOTICE the state of

mind from him, the animosity against what is right or ethical: He suspended

me without pay but he did not know of what to charge me for, therefore

he needed time to fabricate the charges and then he sent me this letterstating that charges will be submitted to you shortly. After he mustcertainly have done, a consultation with the DISCRIMINATION CREW,

days later I received the fabricated charges: They claimed that by signing

with the new given title in the patients charts was an alteration orfalsification. Despite that I was very angry I had to laugh on your ridiculouscharges Doctor Gallo!!! And here publicly I want to tell you and to all

your DISCRIMINATION CREW that you cannot charge me of

alteration and or falsifying of information on the patients charts

because you have dirty hands on the issue!!! Did you forget that

whenever the department was alerted that a surveyor was coming, then

what was well known as the sanitation crewspent days and nights in

the Charts Room altering and or falsifying information on the charts

because what was written MAY NOT LOOK GOOD TO THESURVEYOR???!!!And moreover, that was done without the presence ofthe original person who had done the documentation, and who documented

what transpired in the session with the patient, not what transpired in the

minds of the Sanitation Crewwho altered or falsifiedthe informationbecause of fear that it may not look good at the eyes of the sur veyors

and the hospital may get a citation!!! And almost everybody in the

department knows of that practice. when I was asked to volunteer to

such illegal practice I refused. The National Health Department should

forbid the surveyors from letting to know the hospitals that they are

going to be surveyed!!! Or it may be, Doctor Gallo that you retaliatedbecause I gave to you many complaints when the doctors were refusing

to read and document the PPD results? (I documented cases where it

was me who at the time of referral and or discharge, found that the

patient was positive on tuberculosis). Finally was you who ordered to

call the police and I was taken out of the hospital while I was working.


60/107


61/107

EXHIBIT 18

After the suspension based on fabricated charges, as

explained in the previous exhibit 17, then I was asked to go to a

hearing at the office of Human Resources. There I met with the

Union Gotobedwithmanagement, Local 371representatives (notmy representatives because they had refused to represent mein court) who got there without me asking for any representation

because I knew what to expect from them: nothing!!!. But Human

Resources claimed that they had to be present. Mr. Phil Romain

read the charges and gave me a lecture and when I started to

address my opinion Mr. Tomlin started yelling at me and told

me shshshutup!!! Then I started to get mad but the other

representative(of who?), Ms. Santos came to the rescue and thehearing proceeded. Then Mr. Romain went into his office and

came back with a contract and asked me to sign it and come back

to work tomorrow. I requested a copy of it but it was denied,

then I requested time to read it and it was granted. What a

surprise!!! Their contract had the following clause: Mr.

Centeno agrees to drop all claims from the past, the present

and the future against the employer. I refused to sign it (no

wonder they refused to give me a copy of it). But now it was Ms.Santos who got upset because I refused to sign such a cunning

contract!!! And she got so upset that she asked me to go to see the

psychiatrist because she could not understand why I preferred to

loose the job instead of signing the so called contract. Then I

asked her: What are your credentials for you to tell me to go to see

a psychiatrist?, Do you have any degree in the field? Here was her

answer: Oh I have been in the union many years. So, now the

reader knows why I could expect nothing from the Union

Gotobedwithmanagement. That they also shall be sued for

False Representation? Yes!!! But I am only One against too

many!!! And the employer in an attempt to culminate its

Conspiracy, sent to me the termination letter dated on January 16

of 2007 with the effective date of October 2 of 2006.


62/107


63/107

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE COURT EVENTS

Because I do not want to leave the reader wondering about what

happened at the court, and because of my comments in some of the exhibits,I decided to share with you the events in a chronological order and here they

are:

1- THE CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATIONAfter many complaints and meetings with supervisors, administrators,directors and the Union Gotobedwithmanagement Local 371 failed,

I realized that it was time then to seek help from the Federal

Government. Without too much hope that I would get any soon helpfrom them, I went to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission) and filed a Charge of Discrimination. And based on

the evidence previously discussed, the reader and any person with areasonable and logical mind could find cause to declare thedefendants guilty of the Charge of Discrimination, and that my charge

was based on truth!!! See it below.

EXHIBIT 19


64/107

2- THE COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


65/107

Half a year had passed since I filed the charge with EEOC and before the

coward terrorist acts of September 11. Whenever I contacted the EEOC theanswer was the same: We are short of staff (Now you know why I said

earlier that I went there without too much hope). During the coward

terrorist acts, the building where EEOC had its offices got hit also and mostof the files disappeared. On the next year I was notified that they found my

records and this was the first time that I was contacted by the Departmentof Justice (I had faxed and called them asking for help because

administration had told me that the civil and constitutional rights that

you claim do not apply here, therefore I assessed that they were against

the United States). But they washed their hands and gave to me the

option to go back with the Short of Staff answer from EEOC or to requesta Right to Sue Letter. I was frustrated and chose the last option and I

received it stating that because more than 180 days have elapsed since I

had filed the charge and none of them EEOC nor the Justice Department hadfiled any suit, and of course here comes the blaming the victim excuse:and because you specifically have requested this notice (they forgot that

it was their duty to investigate and litigate because they are part and or

have a stake in the suit because the law clearly forbids to any program

that receives federal funds from engaging in employment

discrimination; plus Employment Discrimination is an issue ofNATIONAL INTEREST). Then after I complied with all the protocol ofserving the summons notices to the pertinent parts, filed and amended the

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED that follows:

EXHIBIT 20


66/107


67/107


68/107


69/107


70/107


71/107

After I filled out and signed the COMPLAINT FORM shown above and

MARKED WITH AN X THE YES BOX (see it on the corner at top right

of the document), then by doing that I: ACCEPTED THE JURY TRIALDEMANDED!!! And then I gave the Form to the Court Clerk whoACCEPTED and STAMPED IT (see right corner of the form) after I PAID

THE FEE!!!(see the receipt below):


72/107


73/107

Note: I had requested litigation help to the court and at this point I

requested it again but it was denied to me, plus I told you earlier of myrequests to the Justice Departmentprior to getting inside the court but I

had no answer except for the notice that they had found my records andThe Right to Sue Letter offer.

3-THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTI was given the court rules guide, the dates of appearance for the

pretrial hearingsor Pretrial Conferencesand a MagistrateJudge was assigned to the case by The Chief District Judge to

whom I never saw but dismissed my case acting in, as, from AHIDDEN OR HIDING BUSH!!!I will explain my reasoning for this

statement later. During a Pretrial Hearing or Conference thedefendant lawyer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the

court granted it, DESPITE OF THE SUPREME COURT

WARNINGS TO JUDGES WHO USE THAT TOOL TO GETRID OF THE CASE THEY HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM!!!. And

I have an early mind recollection that the Magistrate Judgesuggested this course of action to the defendants by saying thefollowing phrase: I guess that what comes next is a motion for

summary judgment. But here and now, I want the reader and TheAmerican Public to look at the COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL

DEMANDED Form where I marked with an X inside the square

beside the Yes word, therefore indicating that I had requested

and demanded, and accepted the Trial by Jury Constitutional

Right. Moreover, after I paid for the service of a Jury Trial, THE

COURT ACCEPTED AND STAMPED IT ON JUNE 5, 2002

and I PAID for the service!!!

(Now my statement about the judge acting in, as, from a hidden or

hidingbush starts making sense to the reader?) Isnt this action which deny

The Constitutional Rightto a trial by jury,Unconstitutional?


74/107

See in the next document under the title CONCLUSION a

summaryof my response to their motion (the marks and handwriting were

added

for the reader):EXHIBIT 21


75/107

To the reader: Note that the employer based its defense on qualifications

requirements claiming that I was not qualified, and that I was provisionaland not a permanent employee (but if you read this far by now you

should know of the employers falsities and lies as the evidence has

demonstrated). But there is something more important on this Exhibit, it isthat prior to the Judge Dearies ILLEGAL granting of a Motion for

Summary Judgment to defendants (illegal because it was

unconstitutional because it denied the Constitutional Right to a Trial by

Jury), prior to it I had requested, demanded and reminded to him my

Constitutional Right to a Trial by Jury (exhibits 20 and 21) and here in

this exhibit 22 I remind the court again of the need for a trial, THE

TRIAL BY JURY THAT I HAD ALREADY REQUESTED,

DEMANDED, AND THE COURT ACCEPTED AND STAMPED, ANDI HAD PAID FOR THE SERVICE!!! And before I continue, here and

now I must address again that by denying to me my Constitutional Right to aTrial by Jury that is safeguarded by the United States Congress in its TitleVII Act Law for cases involving Job Employment Discrimination, by

denying it: You have chosen to engage in war against the United States

Constitution and the United States Congress who sustained and sustainsthe Right with the additional Title VII Act Law!!!

EXHIBIT 22


76/107


77/107

All the evidence shown here was submitted to the District Judge and his

Magistrate Judge therefore it is hard for me, as it should be for the rationaland logical mind of the reader, to believe that these judges were not in the

same wagon of prejudice as the employer. And to prove it there is no better

proof than the weighting and examination of the evidence submittedversus their own statements in this document. Let us examine their statement

but by keeping in mind that they (the judges):

grant defendants motion for summary judgment for the reasons

stated below:

1- Weather plaintiff has established a prima facie case is admittedlya closequestion.

Notice that the Judge did not write weather or not,he knew that he

was going to be haunted by the conscience of truth, therefore he made ofthe issue a question that he himself refused to answer by stating rightthere But the question needsnot be answered. To the reader and the

American Public, here is proof that the judges based their decision on

their own prejudices instead of the evidence that I submitted versus theemployers answers:

The employer claimed: plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden of

establishing a prima facie case because plaintiff was not qualified for

the Addiction Counselor Level II position.

Therefore to solve the so called prima facie case issue, any judge

with a rational logical mind for justice had to confront the employer

with the evidence at hand of the same employer and that I had

submitted to the court, where they state that:

APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING

QUALIFICATIONS (exhibits 7,10 and 11), Please NOTICE that they

themselves made and wrote this QUALIFIFICATIONS statement

within their Job Advertisement Form, and, or, their own requirements

in the Corporation Order for the Establishment of the Title (Exhibit14c); after this done then it was a matter of moving to see my

qualification credentials (Exhibits 15), and AT THAT PRECISE

MOMENT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN UNMASKED, UNDRESSED

FROM THEIR LIES!!! And if the court wanted to corroborate further

my arguments of Discrimination, then at this point they had to only

COMPARE MY QUALIFICATIONS TO THE QUALIFICATIONS


78/107

POSSESED BY THOSE OTHER CHOSEN APPLICANTS FOR THE

SAME POSITION THAT THE EMPLOYER ALLEGED THAT I AM

NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION!!!But because of the judges prejudice, they did not want to read, hear or

find any pretext from the employer. To any person with a rational andlogical mind, the employers pretext (s) is, are, more than evident!!! The

judges claim that plaintiff fails to tender any evidence of pretext is

illogical, unreasonable, not of common sense!!! Therefore the court

became an accomplice to the employersdiscrimination and oppression,

doubling the already psychological abuse and humiliation to this

plaintiff in representation of self, other similarly situated employees, the

American Public and the United States Government which had and has

part or stake in it until the issue is resolved and closed because to me it

hasnt until I am notified and have an answer from my requests to the

American Government. Do not forget that it was, and here again isThe Governments position on the case is requested.

2- plaintiff fails to tender any evidence of pretext.Here and now, Judge Dearie, on behalf of the American Public, am

asking you: What is your definition for pretext? I doubt that any reader

with a rational and logical mind will believe your arguments after all theevidence submittedand that you had a duty to read, examine and then

weight it against the employers pretexts. Moreover, if you and anyother judges believed the employers lies were not pretexts (and just to

mention some: He is not qualified, He is provisional. He is not a

QHP. And, then you should find another job but not as judge!

And with the following quotation that I shall believe that you already

know I move to examine your next PRETEXT to fail your duty to do

justice, to deny me the Constitutional Rights of Jury Trial and Due

Process: THERE ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD GO WITHOUT

SAYING BUT THEY MUST BE SAID!!!

3- No material issue of fact is in dispute and no rational juror couldfind in plaintiffs favor on his complaint.

Here and now, openly and transparently, through this writings, I wantto tell you, Mr. Dearie, that : The fact that you derailed the court by

denying to me the Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial, the fact that

the court had charged for providing the Jury Trial Service, the fact


79/107

that you obstructed justice by preventing and or obstructing the case

from reaching the jury, the fact that from such obstruction,

prevention and denial of a Demanded Jury Trial right took away

with it other rights as for example: The Due Process, an Equal

Opportunity (compared to others who had access to these rights),and other rights not known to me, Mr. Dearie: ALL THESE FACTS

ARE I N DI SPUTE. And moreover, How a rational juror was going to

fi nd on my favor on my complaint if YOU NEVER ALLOWED ME TO

REACH THE, TO BE I N, ON, FRONT OF THE JURY???

EXHIBIT 23

4-THE APPEAL


80/107

So many years, time, effort and money invested to have an education to

help myself and to others had taken me nowhere but to the streets, I endedwandering around on the streets of New York City (AND LATER IN

PUERTO RICO)and living in a basement without windows, then I started

feeling as if I was in a domiciliary arrest at 430 Shepherd Avenue inBrooklyn. But then I decided to fight back and filed for an appeal in the

same Federal Court. But this time the defendants where more because withthe appeal I filed what is called an Instant Law Suit,and in that same

moment and instant, I accused the Federal District Court of becoming an

accomplice to the Discrimination and Oppression of the employer among

other charges like mentioned earlier the denial of Constitutional Rights.

But many of those same judges from the court of appeals had worked for theDistrict Court and it is logical to think that they have developed bonds or ties

and would become pitcher and catcher, and the same for other personnel:

When I reached the building, went inside and asked for the Court of Appealsfloor and room, I was told: That is not here. But I knew that I was in theright building and asked again and I was told to go across the street. It didnt

take me too long to realize that they just were doing sabotage. WHAT A

SHAME THAT THIS KIND OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WASHAPPENING WITHIN A FEDERAL COURT!!! It was going to be late

and that day and time was my last chance to file the appeal, therefore I

became more aggressive and eventually I was told the floor and room. OnceI got there I gave to the clerk the appeal and I was asked: To whom you

represent? And I answered: To myself and to the American Public. ThenI was denied the Oral Arguments and I was told It will be decided on thepapers submitted. Sothis is what I meant about developed ties and

bonds, and you, the reader, may come out with your own conclusions butbefore doing so, read carefully their response while keeping in mind what

you have read up to now in this book.

EXHIBIT 24

NOTE to the Reader: The Appeal document with its addendums is in

the book: THE HIDDEN CASE where I narrate more in details myexperience.


81/107


82/107

EXHIBIT 25Before I write any other comment, I shall inform to the reader that when I

received this letter I was by then documenting and writing my experience ina manuscript book under the title: THE HIDDEN CASE. And based on

the obstacles that I started experiencing with my computer, I assessed that itwas being intervened; the following events confirmed it to me: NOTICE

the first sentence of this SUMMARY ORDER that states: THIS

SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE

FEDERAL REPORTER. Despite I got more frustrated and upset with

this kind of hijacking to the American Democracy by the Federal Courts inNew York City, I continued with my writings. Then I received from the

court this same letter in a form of a MANDATE;but I continued with my

writings and then I received a third but this time was a different letter fromthe court just simple and blatantly (excuse me but I still upset) stating that:This case shall not be published. Hey!!!, That is how dictatorial

governments operate!!! What they want to hide? (If you read up to herethen both, you and I, know already what they wanted to hide). Like youcan see in the stamped seal of the Corrupted Circuit, the date was January

31 of 2006; after that I ended homeless and was wandering around here and

there; eight years has passed and today, January 11, 2014 I still struggling tofinish and publish this manuscript. During my homelessness (that ended 7

months ago) I lost the last letter from the Corrupted Circuit but I havewitnesses to whom I showed it and who got astonished, for two of them itwas hard to believe it (both representatives of the law, Police Officers).I

think that by now I have given to the reader, the Persons Of Interest

and to The American Public my reasoning or theory to believe that

there are elements of Conspiracy, and the Court became an Accomplice,

and to me this is equal to: a coup, a de-facto government attempt

from within the American Court System!!! WHEN ANY COURT

STARTS HIDING CASES AND DICTATING TO THE CONGRESS

OR ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT THIS CASE

SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED THAT IS A NOXIOUSDOCTRINE!!!, THAT IS A DANGER TO THE DEMOCRACY!!!

NOTICE that in the document of this Exhibit 25 they wrote a list of the

judges present and then at the bottom of the page they wrote the

name of the person APPEARING FOR

DEFENDANTS=APPELLEES. And right on top of it is

APPEARING FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Jose Centeno But


83/107

guess what: I was not allowed to be present in the hearing and they got

my papers and told me: You did not have to come, go home, then I

inquired about the hearing and I was told: It will be decided on thepapers.But of course, they have to look good at the eyes of the American

Public so this document can give the impression that a Hearing wasconducted and that I was present in it but I was not!!!

Now let us examine the second sentence: AND MAY NOT BE CITED

AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHERCOURT. Here openly and transparently I want to denounce the

orchestrated CONSPIRACY TO DENY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

by all the participants within both courts (District and Appeal)and thisbased on the facts that:

1- The United States Constitution is The Law of the land, TheSupreme Law of The Land.

2- To work for the court as judges, you are required to swear todefend The United States Constitution, (Didnt you?)(And if you

did, what happened? Did you swear in vain?).

3- The Trial by Jury is a Constitutional Right.4- The United States Congress in the Title VII Act ratified the

Constitutional Right to a Trial by Jury in cases of Employment

Discrimination.

5- I requested, demanded Jury Trial in my initial complaint.6- You the court,accepted and stamped it and then charged the fee

to provide the service

7- During the proceedings both courts conspired to deny and deniedmy Constitutional Right (s):

A-The first conspirator, the District Court through its judges (or

other persons involved not known to me) met to achieve the

conspiracy (one to recommend and the other to accept the

recommendations that my Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial be

denied and that my case be dismissed, and they dismissed it)


84/107

B-The second agent, the Court of Appeals, became a co-

conspirator by joining the torts violators, the Constitutional and

Civil Right(s) Deniers and Violators, they joined them when they

adopted, made as theirs and then sustained their District Courtsviolations to The Supreme Law of The Land, The United States

Constitution!!!

8- Your denial of a Constitutional Right violated another Right: theDue Process of Law.

Events of the conspiracy: A- Denial of litigation help, B-Denial of

Constitutional Rights of Trial by Jury and Due Process of Law, C-

They Ordered and affirmed the Constitutional Rights Violation

(s) based on their assume familiarity with the facts and proceduralhistory of this case, THEREFORE IT IS RATIONAL AND

LOGICAL TO BELIEVE THAT THEY KNEW OF ALL THE

FACTS MENTIONED UP TO HERE AND THE

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BUT THEY HAD TO

ACHIEVE THE CONSPIRACY OR CO=CONSPIRACY SO THEY

ORDERED AND AFFIRMED THE VIOLATIONS!!! (and the

Readers, the American Public, and you the judges yourselves can

corroborate it by looking to your own words here in this Exhibit 25

Document, therefore and again, you knew of the violations!!!).

And moreover your ASSUMPTIONS, assume familiarity, your

CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS that the McDonnell Douglas V.

Green (or any other of your cited cases in this Exhibit) can be used to

sustain your ordered and affirmed DENIEAL(s) OF A

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT(s), Plus your MANIPULATION AND

HALING of the case into another case to then get it evaluated under

the framework of that other case that is NOT THE CASE

PRESENTED TO THE COURT but for more abuse to me and

shame to you and the United States Court System that you representto then use such case framework TO DENY CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHT(s), all these:

A-Is, Are, in legal contemplation or legally contemplated!

B- At the instant created, creates and will create not only to

me, but to the average person with a logical and rational mind also: a


85/107

genuine issue of material fact(s) to dispute, to denounce, to fight

corruption within the United States of Americas Federal Courts!

B- All those yours assumptions, orders, conclusory allegations

and arguments orchestrated to DENY instead of SAFEGURD

Constitutional Rights: Are without merit!

IN RE: THE BELOW COURT (S) STATEMENT: THIS BOOK WILL BE

PUBLISHED. IT SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERALREPORTER AND MAY BE, SHALL BE, CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL

AUTHORITY TO STOP THIS AND OR ANY OTHER COURT FROM

EMBEZZELMENT, CONSPIRACY TO DERAIL OR OBSTRUCTJUSTICE, DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THE

PERSON(S) THAT GO INTO A COURT TO SEEK JUSTICE OR A

REMEDY.


86/107


87/107


88/107


89/107

FOR THE CLOSURE 1:

To you judges and to all the involved in thi s kind-type of conspiracy,

hereby

I remind and tel l you that: You are not exempt from sui t and there is, are,Legal Right (s) against you and, or, the authority that makes or made the

law

On which your claimed right (s) depend to deny to me my

CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHT to a Trial by Jury; and then arguing: IS A CONSTI TUTIONAL

RIGHT

A LEGAL RIGHT?, DOES THE MC DONNELL DOUGLAS V. GREEN,

OR

ANY OTHER CASE OVERRULE A CONSTI TUTI ONAL RIGHT?, CAN

ASUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR ANY OTHER EMBEZELMENT

FROM

A JUDGE OVERRULE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? That the

judges did not

Or do not know the answers? Then they should step down! ! ! There is no

doubt

That they failed their duty to the American Public to be watchful of the

Constitutional

Rights of the citizens, and that is in legal contemplation because Theguarantee

Of Trial by Jury contained in the Constitu tion is equally binding at all

times and under

All circumstances not only to all people but to the courts and itsoff icers or r epresentatives,

Judges are included!! !


90/107

FOR THE CLOSURE 2The dissemination from some judges of the false assumptions, conclusions,

that any particular


91/107

Opinion within any previously decided case, and that any motion, order, or

Summary Judgment Motion Order could be used to deny and thereforeover-rule a Constitutional Right, is a noxious doctrine!!! Such practice

should stop and it is not and has not been enough for the Supreme Court to

Issue warnings because they did it with me and they can do it again withany other law abided

Citizen that in good faith goes into the court to seek a remedy under a

claimed Constitutional

Right (s)!!! NEW LEGISLATION IS URGENTLY NEEDED because

such practice or doctrine poses a threat to the Trust in the American

Court and Legal System due to the fact that:

There are involved rights that are secured by the Constitution and such

rights cannot be abrogated by any Motion for Summary Judgment

nor by any jurisprudence (meaning the Judge Dearies famous case of

Mc Donnell Douglas v. Green). As a matter of fact, the act of JudgeDearie and of all those other judges that became accomplices by

sustaining his decision, was and is an unconstituti onal act that cannot

afford protection by, from, nor within, THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT!!!


92/107


93/107

FOR THE CLOSURE 3When the Government through any of its representatives refuses to uphold,

enforce, sustain

A Constitutional Rightthen becomes a lawbreaker

and breads contempt forthe law!!! And

The defendants, altogether the defendants, with their discr imination acts

and or denial of

Consti tuti onal, Civil or Fundamental Rights: where investing the latter

with a monopoly! ! !


94/107

Justice Brennan

TO THE READER:To finish this book of THE EVIDENCE REVIEW, I chose to close it

with

The inclusion of some Legal Poems that I wrote for my friends the Judges

andThat served me as therapy (I cannot afford to pay for a psychotherapist). I

hope


95/107

That you not only enjoyed this book and the poems but I expect that you

learn fromMy experience to prevent this from happening to you or to any member of

your family or

friends. And I almost forgot to share with you that I could not afford to paythe

psychotherapy or counseling services but I could afford to go to church andthat

is the best therapy and it works and strengthens the faith!!!By and GOD BLESS YOU!!!

Respectfully, Mr. Jose Centeno Camacho, MSHS

The not qualified (according to you know who)


96/107


97/107


98/107


99/107


100/107


101/107

For comments feel free to contact me at:[email protected]

[email protected]@scribd.com

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


102/107


103/107


104/107


105/107


106/107


107/107

the evidence review of the hidden case

Documents