Whether the City of Austin, as a municipal government employer violated the Appellant's federal and state law rights secured by the United States Constitution and Acts of the United States Congress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the City of Austin, as a municipal government employer ; violated the Appellant’s federal and state law rights secured by the ! United States Constitution and Acts of the United States Congress. ft IL Whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12 (b) (6) was used ' in contravention of the United States Constitution’s Seventh Amendment ss right to jury trial. a = City of Austin Siaals namely Art Acevedo encased mfraud' and negligence and violate the “due process” rights of employees, as it relates 7 to their property interest in sick leave. ‘ i IV. Asa matter of Due Process and pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of : : 1866 which was enacted.to protect All Persons in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication. . JURISDICTION . _ , Jurisdiction is properly conferred pursuant to The Judiciary Act of : 1789 which gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law), as well as, the All Writs Act of 28 U.S.C. §1651 : and 28 U.S.C. §1658. This controversy arises under Article III of the United States Constitution. Also, pursuant to 28 U.S.C §1738 Full Faith and Credit State and judicial proceedings, as there is an official Court Writ issued from the 167 District Court out of Austin, Travis County Texas. I. Whether the City of Austin, as a municipal government employer . a | [ violated the Appellant’s federal and state law rights secured by the . | f ; United States Constitution and Acts of the United States Congress. oS IL Whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12 (b) (6) was used ae: in contravention of the United States Oo ‘negligence and violate the “due process” rights of employees, as it relates or to their property interest in sick leave. ; ne oe . TV. Asa.matter of Due Process and pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of : : _ 1866 which was enacted to protect All Persons in their Civil Rights, and a furnish the Means of their Vindication. oo! The undersigned Pro Se litigant of record certifies that the | am following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this. case. bo These representations are made in order that the Judges of this Court ids ~ may evaluate possible disqualifications and recusal. . PG ; Appellant: Blayne Williams, Sr. . , : : Appellees: City of Austin, Art Acevedo, et.al — SE : . | Represented by: Paul Matula : Austin, Texas 78767 oo, So (612) 974-1342 ae . . © (512) 974-2894 (FAX) | oO . a .