Whether the termination of the plaintiff violated his First Amendment rights, given the alleged pretext, perjury, and fraud on the court involved in the termination decision

QUESTIONS PRESENTED My name is John Greiner. I am a wrongfully terminated employee. I was terminated in violation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution. , The pretext that was created to establish that I was insubordinate was created by lies. Those lies were maintained into Administrative Hearings and when they were repeated under Oath they became perjury and fraud on the Court. The additional violations of the United States Constitution include the fifth, the ninth, and the 14 amendment; as well as other federal and state laws in support of the existing orders. The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) ignored the Post Hearing Brief that I wrote after I obtained the Hearing transcript. In the Post Hearing brief I explained again the reasons the charges against the Union and the Employer stated a claim Under PERA. My insistence that the union represent me ; in scheduling a second date for the Loudermill hearing was both written and 4 spoken; and was causally related to the decision to discharge me. See C/P#17.The — discharge decision was not only in retaliation for my insistence that the union be involved in scheduling a second day of the Loudermill hearing; but also to prevent me from having my witnesses heard, and to prevent me from exposing the overtime fraud, I believe was taking place in the department. If the Union had not conspired with the employer there would have been a post Loudermill hearing or an arbitration and I would not be here today. In either of those arena’s I would have exposed the overtime fraud and proven my innocence to the allegations of insubordination. In the post hearing brief I provided probative evidence that was ‘ available at the time of the hearing. The post hearing brief is contained on the flash , drive that I provided to the Michigan Court of Appeals (C of A) and the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC). I have provided this court with eleven copies of that same Flash Drive that is in evidence, in the other courts. I did not resupply a copy to the Defendants. Each Flash Drive copy, is connected to PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT IN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION STATEMENT OF FACT AND AFFIDAVIT (37a) the title of the Post Hearing brief is (MERC) post hearing brief from Mount Clemens library. I also exposed a plethora of material perjury that the AL J dismissed and ruled by an order titled “DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE” that contains many inaccurate statements, leading to the misconstrued and incorrect conclusions that have been carried forward; stating that there was no violation of the Unfair 2 Labor Charge against the Employer: or, the Failure to Represent Charge against the Union. Establishing res judicata. I responded by filing JOHN P.GREINER’S JR.EXCEPTIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER. I corrected 74 errors in the “(DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE”. On page 2, I cited MCR regarding grounds for relief and fraud on the court. MCR 2612.9 Grounds for Relief From Judgment — Generally. Point A. and B. A. Reads MCR 2.612.9 (C) “provides broadly for discretionary relief from judgment upon any grounds that would establish the injustice of permitting the judgment to stand.” B. Reads “unless refusal to take such action would be inconsistent with substantial justice.” MCR 2612.10 Grounds for Relief From Judgment — Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, of Excusable Neglect. Points C. and D. C. Reads “Relief under this provision is not limited to mistake or inadvertence by the court. The primary source of the subrule, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), was clearly intended to permit relief for the mistake or neglect of others, including the moving party, opposing parties, and those of counsel and other agents of the parties.” 3 D. Reads “the reasons shown must be substantial, as relief is normally limited to extraordinary circumstances indicating that the failure