Can An Attorney Violate Rules of Professional Conduct and Get Immunity????

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

JACQUELYN B. NJAI, Appellee/Appellant, vs.MR. HOMER FLOYD, ET AL, Appellant/Appellees Case No.: 10-1062, RELATED CASE #08-2366DC. Civil No. 07-1506REPLY BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
Table of Contents………………………………………………………….....iIssues………………………………………………………………………….1-2Reply Argument (ANTHONY SANCHEZ/ANDREWS & PRICE LLP)…...2-11Reply Argument (Wilkinsburg School District 10-1062 Appellees) ..……….2-11Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….11-12Certification of Service……………………………………………………….13I. ISSUES: PITTSBURGH BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION/ANTHONY SANCHEZ ARGUMENT INCORPORATION OF CONSPIRACY1. Did and Should the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education have known that Anthony Sanchez, et al gave a pervious employee [N’Jai], a bad reference regarding Appellant’s opposition to the same School District’s discrimination and retaliation due to her participation in protected activities by the same identical attorney? (YES)2. Did Anthony Sanchez give Wilkinsburg School District the then Employer of the Appellant, Jacquelyn B. N’Jai, a bad reference on 8/25/05, in the District Office and in secret? (YES)3. Do the evidence show Sections 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986 Conspiracy between Anthony Sanchez, Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, and Wilkinsburg School District 10-1062 Appellees? (YES)4. Did Anthony Sanchez and his firm benefit monetarily from the conspiracy to deprived Appellant [N’Ja] of her civil and constitutional rights in terms and condition of her state employment, based upon race? Alleged disability? Age? Prior employment? Retaliation? (YES)5. Do Anthony Sanchez and his law firm commit fraud upon the court? Perjury? Other Misconduct to win lawsuits? (YES)6. Is there impermissible Commingling of Prosecutorial Functions as counsel for civil rights cases and liability insurance issues? (YES)7. Does the record show a malicious pattern of Behavior for abusive retaliation during and “because of” [N’Jai’s] protected activities? (YES)8. Did the Wilkinsburg SD 10-1062, Anthony Sanchez, Andrews and Price, LLP, and EEOC produce proof of service that Appellant [Njai] received a right to sue letter July 15, 2008? (NO)9. Why did Andrews and Price, et al conveniently leave out the directions to the EEOC right to sue letter dated August 17, 2009, that stated for the Appellant to keep the 8/17/09 envelop as proof of service? (Fraud Upon The Court)10. Can one ignore the directions of the EEOC to allow 8/17/09 as the date of receipt of a court ordered right to sue letter, because the Appellees says to do so? (NO)11. Where is the 7/15/2008 proof of service that Appellant signed for the right to sue letter? (NON EXISTANT)12. Did the Attorney(s) and District tamper with the Appellants mail (change of address), as they did recently on 2/28/10 and again on 3/31/10 as the PSERS stated they did? (YES)13. Is there a sign of a conspiracy to continue to deprive the Appellant of her Constitutional and civil rights by attorney Appellees fabricating documentation to win cases? (YES)14. Is Appellant [N’Jai’s] Informal Appellant Brief with Appendix held to the standards of a formal Appellant’s Brief with Appendix?15. Can Defendants always rely on technical issues verses the merits of the case?16. Is fraud, long-term discrimination during protected Title VII etc activities and retaliation frivolous?17. Are having monetary judgments against the Appellees unpaid as in accordance with the PA Public School Code -the due to fraud, an indication of frivolousness?18. Did N’Jai fail to follow the Federal and Local Rules of pro se Appellate Procedure, by filing an “Informal Brief of the Appellant”?19. Were the Section 1981 issue dismissed properly?Argument Against Anthony Sanchez and Andrews and Price, LLP: (Pittsburgh Board of Education)/Wilkinsburg SD 10-1062: In each of the responses from all the Appellees, they list and stated that the Appellant, Jacquelyn B. N’Jai, filed many lawsuits against them. According to them, because she filed complaints against and opposed the Appellees for various kinds of discrimination, then that is a reason for refusal to hire, promotions, benefits, salary, redress in a court of law, and constant and malicious retaliation. For Anthony Sanchez to discriminate within the time of this complaint in 2003-2004, and 2004-2006, and even up to 2010, after the Appellant has told the Board of Public Education and Wilkinsburg School District over and over, then the Board, Sanchez, his law firm, and Wilkinsburg SD 10-1062 Appellees should have known and did know that Appellant would sue them again. According to the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education Appellee, on Retaliation, “To establish discriminatory retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must tender evidence that (1) she engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) the employer took an adverse employment action against her; and (3) there was a causal connection between her participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Appellant [Jacquelyn B. N’Jai], have proven she was engaged in Title VII, ADA, ADEA, Whistleblower’s Act, Sections 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986 protected activities, and the record shows she has been engaged in that activity from 1994-2010. Not only did the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education take adverse action against her by defendants of her cases acting as hearing officers at her termination hearing, the Pittsburgh Board of Education gave false information about the tenure position of the Appellant by treating her as a substitute for 11 years of tenure, took her salary, had judgments against it but lied to have them dismissed, in violation of the Public School Code, and allowed Anthony Sanchez to use the District resources to retaliate against the same Plaintiff; but also when it found out the behavior of Anthony Sanchez and his bad references in the Wilkinsburg School District about her tenure with the Pittsburgh Board of Education-it did nothing to remedy the situation. To the contrary, the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education continued to file documents in this court and other courts claiming that Appellant [Jacquelyn B. N’Jai] should be sanctioned for her legal participation in protected activities in the past and in the future. From giving adverse information to Wilkinsburg where she was getting satisfactory teaching ratings, caused her to be denied a job, salary, benefits, tenure and even promotional opportunities unlike white staff who were not even qualified. As a result there were adverse actions that caused damage to Appellant’s professional reputation. Neither Board did anything to punish Anthony Sanchez (i.e. their employee or legal advisor), or any other Wilkinsburg SD 10-1062 Defendants. The record clearly shows in each and every order and response of the Appellees that the causal connection was Anthony Sanchez and his malicious intent to retaliate against Appellant for suing him and his firm. These statements were made by Sanchez and the evidence on the record show that Appellant stated a cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1991 and Section 1981. At no time did the Appellees submit any offer of proof to justify their ongoing discrimination. The record of Appellant speaks for itself. “Title VII forbids discrimination against current or former employee or an applicant “because he opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII].” So in this case for Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, Anthony Sanchez, and Wilkinsburg SD 10-1062 Appellees to say that because Appellant does not work for the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education any more, Anthony Sanchez’s use of her protected activities during her employment there as an excuse to ban her from a public institution, deny her other rights is unlawful and untrue. See Fine v. Ryan Int’l Airlines, 305 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 202); Dey v. Colt Constr. & Dev. Co., 28 F.3d 1446, 1458 (7th Cir. 1994); when even if the prior lawsuits by the Appellant [N’Jai] were not true (though they are true), then the Appellees or the Court cannot use her lawful participation and opposition to their discrimination as a reason for sanctions or dismissal with prejudice as they have clearly done in this case. According to the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, in order to show Sections 1983, 1985 and 1986 conspiracy:“(1) There had to be a conspiracy. Appellant had credentials and retained a job with the Wilkinsburg School District, in 2003. Obviously, it was prior to Anthony Sanchez and Pittsburgh Board of Public Education finding out that she was an employee. But without any equal protection, and because she complained of and opposed discrimination, this got Anthony Sanchez involved and as a result she was belittled publicly, had her reputation damaged, was fired and constructively discharged without any due process whatsoever. This was STATED INFRONT OF WITNESSES, that because of her opposition and participation in legal activities against the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, then she was defamed, and called insane and should be fired and mistreated in the Wilkinsburg School District as well. If bad references were given publicly in front of even the PHRC Mrs. Parr and employer Wilkinsburg SD, then there is no rock science to discern that the secret malicious actions had to be 100 times worse. Anthony Sanchez and his Firm knew or should have known that they were breaking the law, and that they could be sued, as they were sued in the past. But because of the monetary benefits and opportunities and intent to retaliate against the Appellant again and again, they did it anyway. (2) Motivated by racial or class based discriminatory intention to deprive a person of the equal protection under the laws: It is a fact that the Wilkinsburg SD 10-1062 Appellees used racial discrimination to deprive the Appellant (and other African Americans), of her privilege and rights to work full time as a tenured teacher for the Wilkinsburg School District, without any due process. So because Appellant said something to the District, and the employees, then Anthony Sanchez saw an opportunity to do the same thing he did in the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education and had no concern about the timing being during pending protected activities, and maliciously conspired with the Wilkinsburg and/or Pittsburgh School District, et al to destroy any opportunities or privileges N’Jai had in any public school district. He could care less about what she was complaining about, disregarding racism, age, disability discrimination against N’Jai or her students. Exhibit # 1 shows the financial gains he and his firm gets when he deliberately and openly discriminates against the Plaintiff and then lies to the court to get out of paying liability insurance. This document from Board minutes shows that the Boards are under federal regulation including IDEA and received sums like 2,808,014.32 x several other figures to implement and do not discriminate based upon disability and the like. Yet, knowing this, Sanchez not just discriminated against the Appellant, but also her sick student by refusing him IDEA benefits to retaliate against his teacher [N’Jai], for complaining about and opposing what they were doing to her and her student. Trying to kick her out of an IDEA meeting, while collecting federal funding is unlawful and unconstitutional. (Pages 2-3) In the Governmental Funds, 1 of 1, under LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES, liabilities: accounts payable, total liabilities for the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education alone, a whopping 69,782,735.61, and 191,981,811.54 are listed, and Appellants asks how much of it goes to Andrews and Price, Anthony Sanchez, et al, since they are the litigation firm for both School Districts? The conspiracy (ies) is monetarily beneficial for the Appellees. (3) An act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In the furtherance of the conspiracy, Anthony Sanchez and the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, and Wilkinsburg School District bribed witnesses for jobs, to get data to use in a court of law. Rabare was hired by Wilkinsburg School District and then Pittsburgh Public Schools recently-for writing a letter against the Plaintiff after coming to the HRC to testify against the Wilkinsburg School District and its racist hiring practices. The Wilkinsburg School District, gave false business reasons for racial discrimination that Appellant prove were pretextual. In the furtherance of the conspiracy, the Wilkinsburg School District by and through their attorney Anthony Sanchez, changed the address of the Appellant in order to stop the Public School Retirement Fund Checks earned by being a tenured teacher with the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education-during protected activities. Ironically, they changed the address of the EEOC right to sue letter, so that Appellant won’t receive it, then used that false information to dismiss her cases with prejudice and as a result depriving her of equal protection of the law and of a right to her property. (4) An injury to the person or property or deprivation of a right or privilege.As a result, Appellant lost her job(s), and a right to work as a public school teacher with $50,000.00 + salary, benefits, tenure, retirement benefits, reputation of satisfactory standing with the Wilkinsburg School District. She lost her right to seek redress in this and other courts of law. She was deprived of any administrative remedies with the EEOC/PHRC who are enforcers of anti discrimination policy. She lost a right to promotions, the privileges that her permanent certification brings, and they voided her BS and Master Degree privileges. She lost $73,000.00 judgments based upon lies. She lost a $63,000.00 job with the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education and a right to a Tenure Hearing that was scheduled then cancelled based upon a flat out and provable lie. She lost her right to her pursuits of happiness that comes from hard work, her right to privacy regarding her own address, social security number and a slanderous misconstrued illness of being insane. As in Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511 the Appellees are obligated to give a non-discriminatory business decision “through admissible evidence, a legitimate reason for not hiring, promoting, and covering up information given to the PHRC/EEOC. They have the burden of production, not just persuasion as they have done in this case.” Appellant have clearly shown that the business reasons given were absolutely not true and have submitted proof that the Appellee Andrews and Price, Anthony Sanchez, and Wilkinsburg SD 10-1062 Appellees are trying to get this court not to consider. All they claim are technical issues for dismissal without addressing any issues of merit. Appellant incorporates all documents, original and amended complaints, responses, orders of the District Court, any record from any case listed in the Courts memorandums and the Appellees responses and documents in this and all three reply briefs. It is also important to note that each time the Appellees Andrews and Price, by and through their attorneys submit documents that Appellant submitted or EEOC/PHRC have given, they alter or leave out relevant information so as to deliberately deceive the court and to influence a wrongful outcome, in the name of trying to help Appellant- and to cover up their misconduct. For example, they left out the Third Circuit Court’s Original mandate and Order and Judgment when it granted the Appellant’s motions for monetary judgment and to get her money stole on a Bill of cost, and strategically placed it in a way that could make one think her motion was denied, when it was the Appellees motion to strike that was denied. On the EEOC letter issue, the Defendants or Appellees strategically left out the directions or regulations that went with the 8/17/09 vs 7/15/08 letter, because it stated to go by the time she received the right to sue letter on the envelop marked 8/17/09 to deceive the court into another wrongful ruling. Over and over they manipulate and fabricate court documents to justify discrimination and to avoid liability. See Court case 98-640 where Anthony Sanchez fabricated an Act 33 and Act 34 for a suspected drug dealer by whiting out another’s name and putting Morant’s on it. See trial transcripts. That is no wonder they would access Appellees confidential information and changed the address of the PSERS retirement fund and cause to stop Appellant’s checks without any regards to federal law or not, during this very Appeal. The timing of changing to wrongful addresses with the timing of the EEOC wrongful address then using this as a defense to justify a dismissal with prejudice is very questionable. "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." [Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885)] “[W]e have held that dismissals based on the apparent default of counsel require the court not just to balance the Poulis factors but also to provide the litigant notice and a hearing. Dunbar v.Triangle Lumber & Supply Co., 816 F.2d 126, 129 (3d Cir. 1987). Even where the attorney’s actions are “flagrant,” a litigant’s potentially meritorious claim is not to be dismissed in the absence of evidence that the litigant bears any personal responsibility. Id. Here, the District Court neither considered the Poulis factors nor provided DiFrancesco with the opportunity to respond to the threat of dismissal. That was an abuse of discretion.” Because the final judgment in favor of all Appellees relied upon false information from the Appellees, to get out of liability for their actions, and without any proof whatsoever, the orders should be overturned. Here the District Court blamed Plaintiff for not being able to get the EEOC to give her a right to sue letter until 8/17/09, and then when she got the letter, the Court and the Defendants ignored the regulations of the EEOC to rely upon the envelop dated 8/17/09 vs some fabricated date on a letter claimed to be sent to a wrong address. This address was used dispite the fact that the correct PO Box number has been on the record since 1994-2010. A bad address was used dispite the fact that the EEOC sent Appellant other mail to the correct address and Appellant sent EEOC mail with the correct PO Box address. The District Court cut causal connections and threw out important claims, in order to interfere with Appellant’s ability to prove discrimination. She [the Court] then went on to call oral arguments to intimidate and try and build a false paper trail to buttress the Defendants’ position(s). The Court dismissed (with prejudice) Anthony Sanchez (in his personal and professional capacities), and Andrews and Price, prior to dismissing any Commonwealth 10-1062 Defendants; when Appellant was allowed to sue Anthony Sanchez and his firm et al, and was successful in other case(s). The Court erroneously forbade Appellant to mention anything Anthony Sanchez and his firm did even if unlawful, unconstitutional, or malicious. In the transcript proceedings for January 30, 2009, before the Hon. Judge Barry Fischer, Mr. Smart (the attorney for Wilkinsburg School District), stated: “Your Honor, just as a point of clarification. In the complaint when references are constantly made between either the Wilkinsburg or the city schools and Mr. Sanchez, he is always referred to as the solicitor. Mr. Sanchez was never the solicitor for either of those districts. HE IS ALWAYS SERVING IN THE CAPACITY AS DEFENSE COUNSEL APPOINTED BY THE INSURANCE CARRIER. So, just to clarify that for the record.” See pages 29 (lines 24-250), and page 30 (lines 1-6). “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” Matthew 6:24 CONCLUSION:WHEREAS, The lower court abused its discretion when dismissing the Appellant’s [N’Jai’s] Complaint and FOIA/Right to Know Claims with prejudice. The Court used inaccurate and wrongful information to dismiss with prejudice. The Poulis factors were ill applied in favor of the Appellees. The Section 1981 was barely addressed. The Appellant proved discrimination, adverse employment actions, and public discrimination and bad references that shortly after got her terminated and otherwise constructively discharged. Anthony Sanchez and Wilkinsburg School District could not have acted in the furtherance of their conspiracy during pending protected activities, had not the EEOC/PHRC helped them by doing things so the Defendants could use them for a fraudulent defense, like keeping information submitted to the Appellees and not giving Appellant exculpatory information they held against the Defendants, and by conjuring up a false addresses and dates on letters when the PO Box address has been on record since 1994-2010, and documents were being sent to them at the PO Box address. She has proved Title VII, ADA, (perceived disability claims), IDEA, ADEA, and the whistleblower Act Discrimination basis for discrimination. Appellant seeks damages from All the Appellants in both professional and/or personal capacities whatever applies, especially Anthony Sanchez and his law firm, along with Wilkinsburg School District and the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education for individual employees unlawful actions. Appellant seeks an injunction to stop the discrimination or the barring her from impartial redress in a court of law when she is discriminated against. She want real equal protection of the law and impartial due process.Respectfully SubmittedJacquelyn B. N’Jai CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Appellant, Jacquelyn B. N’Jai, served the attached Reply Brief of the Appellant on Anthony Sanchez, Andrews & Price,and the Wilkinsburg School District by US Postal mail, on April ____, 2010.Respectfully Submitted:Jacquelyn B. N’Jai