Whether Jamie was ordered for the FFD to ultimately have him removed from federal service in retaliation for pursuing prior EEO activity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether Jamie was ordered for the FFD to ultimately have him removed from federal service in retaliation for pursuing priot EEO activity; 2. Whether Mike Ward referred Jamie to the Inspection Division in retaliation for disclosing his EEO activity during a meeting in April 2010 3. Whether the allegations of insubordination and misconduct were clustered together to exaggerate the severity as a pretext for discrimination and retaliation to remove Jamie for engaging in EEO activity; . 4. Whether the Agency's removal of Jamie was based on discriminatory and retaliatory motives despite receiving successful performance reviews and having been found fit for duty; 5. Whether Jamie was removed in retaliation for his EEO activity related to the current case as well as previous EEO activity; 6. Whether Mike Ward's referral of Jamie to the Inspection Division for insubordination was in retaliation for an EEO investigation which Mr. Ward was present; 7. Whether Mike Ward's referral to the Inspection Division was based on retaliation for failing to follow the chain of command when Jamie was "put off" by his first and second line supervisors; 8. Whether the Agency's alleged reasons for ordering the FFD in abundance of —_——caition based on statements Jamie made on August 30, 201T are a pretext for retaliation” ——~C~* 9. Whether the. District. Court prejudiced BO'U'H the initial processing of the... 2°. complaint AND appeal or BOTH. 10. Whether Martin F. Zielinski's purported eleven (11) stressors relied upon in recommending the FFD were a pretext for retaliation as many factors enumerated ate common stress factors to any ordinary person and do not pose a high security risk. Additionally, Jamie's wife was not, in fact, leaving 11. Whether Mike Ward's referral to the Inspection Division for misconduct, insubordination, and miscellaneous violations were a pretext for retaliation and actually motivated by discrimination to get Jamie removed because of mental illness; 12. Whether the allegation of misconduct that Jamie was not performing his duties despite receiving successful performance evaluations signed by his first and second line supervisor was a pretext for retaliation for engaging in prior EEO activity; 13. Whether the Agency's allegation of insubordination for going outside his chain of command regarding his prior EEO matter was a pretext for retaliation when Jamie had previously received an email from Mike Ward stating "the FBI operates via an opendoor __ policy" and the chain of command "does not preclude anyone from reaching out to higher levels of management if he/she feels the need". 14. Why did the District Court engage in exparte communications with other State of NJ Judges while prejudicing my complaint? ——" 15; Why did for formet Magistrate Judge Joseph Dickson burden me with additonal “.. . it. losses AFTER my matter was erroneously dismissed? eet vee cee centee oe te vm 16. What Court will remedy the reprisal established by the EEOC, in addition to FBI Newark witnesses? 17. When can appellant expect relief, including reinstatement, which he has waited a 7 | decade for? | . . iv : Third Circuit Court of Appeals | 601 Market St Ste 18614, Philadelphia, PA 19106 Case 20-2801 District Court, Newark 50 Walnut St Rm 4015, ; : Newark, NJ 07102 2:15 CV 03999; Rosado v. AG US Attorney’s Office Camden 401 Market Street Camden, NJ 08102 US Attorney’s Office 970 Broad Street Newark, NJ 07102 NJ Appellate Division Clerk's Office, P.O. Box 006 Trenton, New Jersey, 08625 2:15 cv 03999 , 1201W2020 000354 & appeal A002741-20T4 1201XTR2020-2 & appeal A000819-20 Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office 25 Kirkpatrick St #3 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 2:15 ev 03999 , 1201W2020 000354 & appeal A002741-20T4 1201XTR2020-2 & appeal A000819-20 State matters involve Supreme Court’s recent unanimous ruling re Caniglia v. Strom, 20-157 (see