THE DEMOCRATIC

TYRANNY OF INJUSTICE
IN THE U.S.A.
-----------------------------------------------------

Just Like The People of Egypt Have Engaged In A

Revolution Against Hosni Mubarak, We The People Must
Take Action Against An Obama Civil Dictator Injustice.
-----------------------------------------

Enclosed herewith, you will discover how state agencies

engage in an 18 USCA 245(b)(5) criminal conspiracy
against our Federally Protected Rights, so as to deny
USA Citizens the equal protection of law, due process of
law, and then willfully violate enumerated rights
guaranteed by the 9 t h AMENDMENT of the United
States Constitution.
-------------------------
Therefore, just like the dictatorship of Egypt, democracy
in the USA is only an Illusion, where the Obama
Administration knowingly permits this 18 USCA 245
horror of injustice, and willfully refuses to exercise its
executive powers to command federal and state agencies
to guarantee due process to USA Citizens.
------------------
Since this mockery of due process is now standard operational
procedure, American Democracy has been defeated to the point
where there is no democracy, and where the wealth, prosperity, and
welfare of We-The-People is being stolen, robbed, and cheated by a
massive organized crime operation, of extortion, being committed
under color of law, and under color of official right, so as to create
an oppressive dictatorship in places of employment.
 JOSHUA J. ISRAEL
P. O. Box xxx, Sxxxxxxx, MN xxxxx

President, BARACK OBAMA

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington D.C. 20500
Ph. (202) 456-1414
Fax (202) 456-2461

Attention, President Obama:

It has become necessary to call your attention to the willful failures in civil
rights enforcement, by the EEOC, and to their criminal method used to deprive
myself, and USA Citizens, of due process and the equal protection of law.
When filing my complaint to the EEOC on 1/14/08, I was denied an advisory
of my rights and responsibilities, denied complaint counseling, and denied
alternative dispute resolution (29 CFR 1614.102). Thereafter, when an
investigation was conducted 2½ years later, EEOC Investigator, Andre Susan
Taylor, produced conclusive evidence of reprisal for protected activity; however,
this Investigator acted as judge, jury, and executioner, and arbitrarily
disregarded this admitted evidence, and did advise myself that she will dismiss
my charge, “anyway,” regardless of what her investigation produced. According
to 29 CFR 1614.108(b)(e)(f)(g), this EEOC Investigator has willfully denied
myself alternative dispute resolution, and a prompt, fair, and impartial,
processing of a charge of discrimination. This investigator also intends to deny
my right to a hearing before an administrative judge (29 CFR 1614.109), and
this Investigator is engaged in willful misconduct punishable by authority of 29
CFR 1614.102(a)(6). Wherefore, this is NOT what you have in mind when you
ordered Attorney General, Eric Holder, to RECHARGE Civil Right protections.

Please Take Immediate Action, because we elected you in this position to do so,
and doing so will bring YOU the necessary rewards, needed control, and more
power over this 18 USCA 1951 corruption, racketeering and criminal
extortions, committed under color of official right.

__________________________
Joshua J. Israel
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case Type: Civil
JOSHUA J. ISRAEL,
Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-10-29417

vs. Complaint

FEDEX GROUND HOME DELIVERY, Tort, Wrongful Discharge

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________

OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS

This OBJECTION by Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, serves as the (21) day “safe-harbor” provision

of Rule 11, requiring notice of an offending paper or contention, and providing opportunity for

Counsel to correct or remove the offending paper. This OBJECTION is brought forth because

the Counsel of Defendant, FEDEX GROUND HOME DELIVERY, has made contentions that

are unwarranted on the evidence, and Defendant’s Motion For A Consolidated Hearing has no

basis in fact for the Court to consider, and to demonstrate, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. On the 23rd day of December, 2010, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from Counsel of

Defendant, Andre J. LaMere, and said Counsel did request an extension of time to file a

motion to dismiss; however, said Counsel FAILED to inform Plaintiff of ANYTHING

concerning a motion to dismiss a motion for summary judgment.

2. On the 31st day of December, 2010, Plaintiff received the Appearance of Counsel and the

Court Filings made by Defendant for a MOTION TO DISMISS a motion for summary

Judgment, and a MOTION TO EXTEND HEARING DATE.

3. In the first instance, an initial summary judgment action was WITHDRAWN, on 12/3/2010,

and this said summary judgment action was REPLACED with a Summons and Complaint,

on 12/6/2010. Thereafter, the Sheriff service of said Summons and said Complaint, did NOT

include the WITHDRAWN summary judgment action.

4. As a result, Counsel for Defendant used her own resources to discover the existence of the

WITHDRAWN summary judgment action; and now, Counsel for Defendant intends to

dismiss a paper that is Not in the Court Record, that is Not at issue herewith, that was Not

served upon Defendant, and that is Not to be proceeded hereupon.

5. On the 31st day of December, 2010, Plaintiff received the additional filing of Defendant to

Consolidate a Hearing for Motion To Dismiss with a Motion of Plaintiff that does Not exist

in the Court record, that was Not served upon the Defendant, and then Defendant’s Counsel

falsely claims that Plaintiff is in violation of the 20 day provision of Rule 56.01.

6. In addition, on 12/31/2010, Plaintiff additionally received the AFFIDAVIT, filed by Counsel

of Defendant, which falsely claims that Plaintiff was fully advised of the action to dismiss a

motion for summary Judgment, and thereafter Plaintiff refused to cooperate.

7. Since Plaintiff does Deny the aforesaid contentions, the burden of proof is upon Defendant to

produce evidence of the existence of a motion for summary judgment, in this action.

8. Therefore, the only case controversy herewith is the Summons and Complaint, and since

Defendant has failed to serve an Answer upon Plaintiff, a DEFAULT Judgment is the proper

procedure, at the hearing, on 1/27/2011, by authority of the following Civil Practice Rule:

Minn. Rule of Civil Procedure 55.01(b). When a party against whom a

judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend
 within the time allowed there-for by the Rules, or by Statute, and that fact is
made to appear by affidavit, judgment by default shall be entered against that
party as follows: (b) in all other cases, the party entitled to a judgment shall apply
to the court there-for. If a party against whom judgment is sought has appeared in
the action, that party shall be served with written notice of the application for
judgment at least three days prior to the hearing on such application. If the action
is one for the recovery of money only, the court shall ascertain, ***, the amount
to which the Plaintiff is entitled, and order judgment therefore.

9. To be specific, NO paper for any motion for summary judgment has been served upon the

Defendant by the Plaintiff.

10. As of the day of this filing, NO Answer to the Complaint has been filed and served upon

Plaintiff, creating a case controversy for discovery, and then trial thereafter.

11. The Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss a non-existent motion for summary judgment has NO

basis in fact, and the Motion To Consolidate Hearings, to a later date and time, is a

contention, and a request, that is UNWARRANTED on the evidence of record.

12. Wherefore, the Defendant has (21) days from the filing of this Objection to remove or correct

the offending Motions, and to file an ANSWER to the Complaint.

By: _______________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
1/3/2011

Proof Of Service
Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel certifies that his OBJECTION to the Defendant’s Motions To Dismiss
is served upon Defendant’s Counsel, Andre J. LaMere, at her business address of, 3300 Wells
Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140, by placing same in an
envelope addressed to Counsel, and served by First Class postage through the U. S. Postal
Service, on the 3rd day of January 2011.

_________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case Type: Civil
JOSHUA J. ISRAEL,
Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-10-29417

vs. Complaint

FEDEX GROUND HOME DELIVERY, Tort, Wrongful Discharge

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT
This civil action arises out of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), where

the PLAINTIFF, Joshua J. Israel, did bring a Charge Of Discrimination against the Defendant,

FEDEX GROUND HOME DELIVERY, and where Defendant failed to give notice of its

workplace rules, prior to taking adverse action against Plaintiff; and then, refused to inform

Plaintiff of its true reason for termination. Since Plaintiff has independent evidence of EEOC the

investigation results reported, Plaintiff will set forth pleadings for relief from wrongful discharge

in employment, and to demonstrate that there was no justification for the employment discharge,

Plaintiff states as follows:

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, is a Minnesota Resident who resides at the address of P. O. Box

xxx, xxxx Avenue East, Sxxxxxx, MN xxxxx, Ph. 952-xxx-xxxxx.

14. Defendant, FEDEX GROUND HOME DELIVERY, is a parcel package courier company,

where its principle place of business is at the address of 5800 12th Ave. East, Shakopee, MN

55379, Ph. (952) 445-0083 and 952-445-0657 and 612-201-6799.

 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33(6)

which sets forth the following jurisdiction:

Minn. Stat. 363A.33(6) District Court Jurisdiction. Any action brought

pursuant to this section shall be filed in the district court wherein the unlawful
discriminatory practice is alleged to have been committed or where the
respondent resides or has a principle place of business.

16. This action arose in Scott County, Minnesota, at the Defendant’s Shakopee, Minnesota,

address; therefore, venue is proper pursuant to 363A.33(6).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17. Plaintiff filed a CHARGE of DISCRIMINATION with the EEOC (CA-1) against the

Defendant on the 7th day of January, 2008, and the Defendant did enter its Appearance in this

action (CA-3), and did Answer this Charge of Discrimination.

18. When exhausting administrative remedies (CA-4), the MDHR did dismiss this Charge

without an investigation of the clear admissions made by Defendant (CA-2).

19. After 18 months of delay, Plaintiff was contacted by EEOC Investigator, Andre Susan Taylor

on 6/8/2010, and during this first investigation interview, on 6/10/2010, the initial evidence

produced by said investigator, was that Plaintiff was not the employee of Defendant.

20. However, during said EEOC investigation, on 6/10/10, Plaintiff produced evidence

demonstrating that the computer system of Defendant was used to complete the employment

application process, on date 10/03/2007; and, Plaintiff produced additional evidence

demonstrating his pre-employment interviewer was an employee of Defendant, (named

Wade), at Defendant’s place of business, on 10/03/2007.

21. Furthermore, Plaintiff produced evidence that Defendant did pay for the (2) two pre-

employment drug tests administered to Plaintiff (CA-1a), on 10/03/2007 and 10/08/2007;

and, that (the employee named Wade) reported problems with the background investigation

of Plaintiff that caused a (2) week delay in the training of Plaintiff; and, that Plaintiff has

never met, nor was ever contacted, by anyone from Kelly Services.

22. Thereafter, during the second EEOC investigation interview, on 8/19/2007, EEOC

Investigator, Andre Susan Taylor, produced evidence that the Defendant did deny driver job

assignments to Plaintiff because of a telephone call that Plaintiff participated in, on Friday

10/26/2007, and that Defendant did determine the lengthy telephone call of Plaintiff was so

unprofessional that said telephone call warranted the denial of their driver job assignments,

and warranted the employment discharge of Plaintiff.

23. In rebuttal to said Investigator’s findings, Plaintiff brought forth evidence that Defendant,

Chris Costello, allowed the driver-trainees to take personal calls during the training class, and

that Chris Costello did give such permission due to its short notice provided for the re-

schedule of training sessions; and because, Chris Costello’s short notice in re-schedule times

will interfere with the personal schedule and personal appointments of the driver-trainees.

24. In further rebuttal to the EEOC findings, Plaintiff brought forth that he was coerced to

participate in this telephone call because Defendant, did re-schedule the training (3) times,

and Defendant gave only two (2) days prior notice of re-schedule, and that this short notice

did place the FEDEX Training on the exact same day, and time, that the Plaintiff was to

participate in a telephone pre-trial hearing. Moreover, court rules demand that (5) days

before a pre-trial hearing is required to re-schedule any court hearing.

25. In additional rebuttal to the EEOC findings, Plaintiff brought forth that when the telephone

call did commence, Plaintiff did advise Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas F. Phalen,

that Plaintiff was at a place of employment; however, the ALJ only ordered Plaintiff to move

to an isolated location where ambient noise would not be recorded. In addition, Plaintiff did

advise, Defendant, Chris Costello, that the telephone call was a pre-trial hearing before an

Administrative Law judge, and that the ALJ required Plaintiff to move to a quiet location.

26. Moreover, in an additional rebuttal to EEOC findings, Plaintiff brought forth that the

Defendant, Chris Costello, did give permission to Plaintiff to complete the telephone pre-trial

conference call, and did allow Plaintiff to move to a quiet location.

27. Thereafter, in additional rebuttal to the EEOC findings, Plaintiff did produce evidence that

when the ALJ did finally conclude the telephone pre-trial conference, Chris Costello did re-

schedule the driver road-test, of Plaintiff, for Tuesday 11/30/2007.

28. In addition to the EEOC findings, Plaintiff produced evidence that he did report to Chris

Costello for the driver road-test, on Tuesday, 11/30/2007, at 9:30 AM; that Plaintiff did drive

the FEDEX Courier Van through the city streets of Shakopee, MN; and that thereafter,

Plaintiff did drive the FEDEX Courier Van through an obstacle course in Defendant’s

parking lot, and that Plaintiff did pass the Defendant’s road-test.

29. Thereafter, on Tuesday 11/30/10, Plaintiff did produce evidence that Chris Costello did

inform Plaintiff that a Bloomington, MN route would be assigned to Plaintiff (CA-1).

30. However, on 11/01/2007, after the Owners meeting was held on Wednesday 11/31/2007, the

Defendant changed its mind about the Bloomington driver route assignment, and Chris
 Costello refused to assign any available driver route to the Plaintiff, and Defendant refused to

advise Plaintiff of its true reason for refusing any available job assignment, even after

Plaintiff made (12) twelve inquiries during the (8) eight weeks of temporary services.

31. In disregard of her own evidence produced, and in disregard of the rebuttal evidence

produced, EEOC Investigator, Andre Susan Taylor, did inform Plaintiff that his Charge

would still be dismissed (CA-3); however, before the case was dismissed, Plaintiff did

request a hearing before an administrative judge, and did make an audio recording of the

EEOC investigation interview, with said investigator (recorder).

Count 1
(Tort, Wrongful Discharge)

32. To establish a prima facie tort of wrongful discharge, it must be established that Defendant

(1) engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm the Plaintiff; that (2) Defendant intended

to harm the Plaintiff; that, (3) the unlawful act did cause injury to Plaintiff; and (4) that there

was no justification for Defendant’s unlawful action; in addition, to establish wrongful

discharge in reprisal for statutorily protected conduct, Plaintiff must establish that (1) he

engaged in statutorily protected conduct, that (2) the employer is aware of the protected

conduct and still took adverse employment action against Plaintiff soon thereafter, and that

there (3) is a casual connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action Bersch

v. Rgnonti & Associates Inc., (MN App.1998) 584 N.W.2d 783, 786; Nelson v. Productive

Alternatives Inc., (MN S. Ct. 2006) 715 N.W.2d 452, 455-456.

33. Therefore, the protected conduct of Plaintiff is (1) set forth by the participation of Plaintiff in

a telephone pre-trial hearing before ALJ, Thomas F. Phalen, and the (1) knowledge of
 protected activity is established by Plaintiff informing the Defendant that the telephone call

was a pre-trial hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

34. The adverse action suffered by Plaintiff is the (2) denial of any driver job assignment, after

Plaintiff did pass his driver road-test, and after being promised a Bloomington, MN route

assignment, which is tantamount to an employment discharge.

35. The (3) casual connection between the protected activity and the adverse action is the three

(3)business days soon after Defendant obtained imputed knowledge that the telephone call of

Plaintiff was a pre-trial hearing; and additionally, a casual connection is established by the

one (1)business day after the weekly Owners-Meeting was held by Defendant, on 10/31/10.

36. As a result, when an employer discharges an employee for reasons that contravene a clear

mandate of public policy Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., (MN S. Ct. 1987) 408

N.W.2d 569, 570-571, the employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge, and this

clear mandate of public policy is set forth by the following Minnesota Statute:

Minn. Stat. 181.932(1)(2) Disclosure of information by employees. (1)

Prohibited action. An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, or
otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the
employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of
employment because: (2) the employee is requested by a public body or office to
participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry.

37. When Defendant did deny a driver job assignment to Plaintiff, the Defendant intended to

cause harm to Plaintiff, because Defendant was intentionally depriving Plaintiff of wage

earning opportunity (CA-5) and any prospective future employment; and because, Defendant

was deceptively discharging the Plaintiff from employment. In addition, the Defendant did

know that it was causing harm to Plaintiff because Defendant refused to inform the Plaintiff
 of its true reason for refusing (8) weeks of wage-earnings to the Plaintiff, in violation of

Minn. Stat. 181.933(1) before discharging Plaintiff.

Count 2
(Ambiguity in Notice and Knowledge Requirements)

38. When denying a driver job assignment to Plaintiff, the Defendant did admit that it denied job

assignments to Plaintiff because the lengthy telephone call that Plaintiff participated in was

determined to be unprofessional conduct.

39. Since engaging in a telephone pre-trial hearing before an ALJ is not considered misconduct

or unprofessional conduct (by notice in the employee handbook), and since Plaintiff had no

prior notice of any restriction to his telephone calls or notice as to the length of the ALJ

hearing; the sudden assertion of unprofessional conduct by the Defendant is ambiguous, and

suspicious, and any ambiguity or uncertainty in the notice and knowledge requirements is to

be strictly construed against the Defendant St. Louis I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Blaylock, (Ark.

S. Ct. 1915) 175 S.W. 1170, 1175-1177; therefore, Defendant is without justification for its

adverse action to discharge Plaintiff.

40. However, since the Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff that the telephone conference call

was unprofessional conduct; since the Defendant’s Employee Handbook has no provision for

participation in court administrative hearings (Employee Handbook); and, since no other

driver-trainee, who answered their telephone calls, suffered the adverse action that Plaintiff

was subjected to, there was no justification for Defendant’s adverse action against Plaintiff;

and as a result, the Defendant has made a clear admission of a material fact that disparate

treatment actions were taken against the Plaintiff, Johnson v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., (MN

App. 1994) 522 N.W.2d 386, 389-392.

 RELIEF

41. As a result of the aforesaid wrongful discharge, Plaintiff suffered $5,600.00 in denied wages;

Plaintiff suffered $2,800.00 in personal property losses, and Plaintiff suffered $620.00 in out

of pocket expenses. Since the Defendant’s actions were intentionally egregious, a triple sum

total of punitive damage assessments does bring the total damage claim of Plaintiff to the

sum of $26,560.00 by authority of Minn. Stat. 549.20(1)(a)(b)(2)(a), and this Court is

entitled to a civil penalty of $750.00 by authority of Minn. Stat. 181.933(1).

42. Furthermore, Plaintiff moves this Court to Subpoena the EEOC Records in this case, and to

Subpoena EEOC Investigator, Andrea Susan Taylor, for verification of her own EEOC

Investigation process, and her procedure, and her evidence produced.

43. Wherefore, Plaintiff does plead with the Court for relief from wrongful discharge that has

deprived Plaintiff of wages, personal property, and prospective employment opportunity.

By: ________________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
P. O. Box xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sxxxxxxxx, MN xxxxx
(952) xxx-xxxxx
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case Type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, Case No. ____________________

Plaintiff,

vs. AFFIDAVIT

FEDEX GROUND HOME DELIVERY,

Defendant. Judge, ______________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA J. ISRAEL

STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, have read this document. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief,
the information contained in this document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law, and
there is no issue of military service as to any of the parties.

I have not been determined by any court in Minnesota, or in any other state to be a frivolous litigant, and I
am not a subject of an Order precluding me from serving or filing this document.

I am not serving this document for any improper purpose, such as to harass the other party, or to cause
delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, or to commit fraud on the Court.

I understand that if I am not telling the truth, or if I am misleading or deceiving the Court, or if I am
serving this complaint for an improper purpose, the Court can order me to pay money to the other party,
including the reasonable expenses incurred by the other party because of the serving or the filing of this
complaint, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.

Dated: _______________________ __________________________________

Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
Subscribed and sworn to before me
on this 6th day of December, 2010

______________________________
Notary Public
 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Washington D.C. Chair
Jacqueline A. Berrien
131 M – Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20507,
Phone (202) 663-4900
Date: August 30, 2010
Charge Number: 444-2008-00291
MDHR – FEP Case: 56687
Joshua J. Israel, CHARGING PARTY
vs.
FedEx Ground Home Delivery, RESPONDENT

Attention , EEOC – CHAIR, Jacqueline A. Berrien:

With the current atmosphere of Glen Beck insanity and hatred on the rise, and with the current
invasion of guaranteed rights granted by the U. S. Constitution, you should be happy to learn that the
EEOC is now recognized as the NEW-face of the Klu-Klux-Klan. Just like 100 years ago, when black
people were willfully denied the equal protection of law, so it is now that the EEOC is just as eager to
deprive black people of the equal protection of the law; and, not only do EEOC employees behave like
the KKK, but now they get sadistic pleasure from it. The EEOC is just as much against Black People as
the Republican Party is against President B. Obama; and what’s worse, the origin of Your-EEOC-Job is
derived from the civil right struggles of black people, and now the EEOC is of NO-VALUE to us;
consequently, beginning in 2011, you will need us, and just like you refuse us now, we will refuse you.

THESE ARE THE FACTS: after resisting the malevolent misconduct of EEOC officer La Vonne
Williams, in the year 2004, the Minneapolis EEOC office retaliated against myself, and did violate my
venue rights by forwarding EEOC cases to Miami Florida for dismissal (case 265-2004-00316; case 265-
A4-00340; and case 265-2004-00302), and even when I still proved discrimination, these malevolent
EEOC offices suppressed and destroyed evidence favorable to me (Gloria K. Allen; Lillie M. Garrett;
Frederico Costales). Thereafter, in case 26E-2006-00049, the EEOC again suppressed a valid case
containing conclusive evidence that was admitted by the respondent; in addition, in cases 444-2008-
00291 and 846-2008-06943, the EEOC refused to process said cases, for 2 years, and after filing a protest,
EEOC Investigator, Roland C. Adams, rushed to dismiss case 846-2008-06943 without conducting any
investigation or offering Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); furthermore, on 8/20/10, EEOC
Investigator, Andre Susan Taylor, did produce admitted and conclusive evidence of reprisal for protected
activity during her investigation; however, she hatefully did address the merits of this conclusive evidence
without the benefit of further investigation, or (ADR); because, the respondent bears the burden of
explanation and rebuttal, and the EEOC is NOT to rebut any of the evidence for the respondent Tommy R.
Beck v. U. S. Dept. of Treasury, EEOC case-01992979, ALJ order-EC900.

So, the KKK doesn’t even need to exist since EEOC, John P. Rowe, is doing exactly what the KKK
would do if the KKK could decide civil rights matters. If there was ever a time of being ashamed to be a
member of the black race, then that time is now; because, the EEOC is guilty of committing a crime
against myself, and against many other Black American Citizens, under 18 USCA 245(b)(5).

_________________________________
Joshua J. Israel
CC:/b.obama
Certified Mail No. 7008 3230 0001 5315 3227
 JOSHUA J. ISRAEL
P. O. Box xxx, Sxxxxxx, MN xxxxx
Ph. 952-xxx-xxxx

August 27, 2010

Commissioner, James Kirkpatrick

Minnesota Dept. of Human Rights Regarding, 363A.29(2), Requests
Sibley Square at Mears Park for a Hearing before an
190 East 5th Street, Suite #700 Administrative Judge.
St. Saul, MN 55101
Ph. (651) 297-5090 Fax (651) 296-9042

Attention, Commissioner, James Kirkpatrick:

On date, 8/20/2010, during an investigation interview with EEOC Investigator, Andre Susan
Taylor, I did make my request for MDHR Case #56687 to be heard before an administrative
judge, due to a lack of jurisdiction after the 180 days for investigation having expired, and due to
the complete failure in the equal protections afforded by due process. On 8/21/2010, this hearing
request was placed in the mail, and was received by the EEOC on 8/25/2010 (A-1). Thereafter,
on 8/26/2010, I received the attached dismissal of Case #56687 (A-2); therefore, I must now
send my formal written request to the MDHR, and I must request for my due process rights, and
my opportunity to be heard, is to be had before an administrative judge, by authority of Minn.
Stat. 363A.29(2). In addition to the hearing request, and by authority of 29 CFR 1614.108(g), I
do formally request a copy of the investigative file, in Case #56687.

Very Truly Yours,

By: _____________________________
Joshua J. Israel

cc: eeoc john p. rowe

Certified Mail: #7008-3230-0001-5315-3241

 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Chicago District Office
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60661
Director John P. Rowe,
Phone (414) 297-1111
Date: August 20, 2010
Charge Number: 444-2008-00291
MDHR Case: 56687

Joshua J. Israel, CHARGING PARTY

vs.
FedEx Ground Home Delivery, RESPONDENT

Attention District Director, John P. Rowe:

By authority of 29 CFR 1614.109(a), Charging Party moves the EEOC for a hearing before an
Administrative Judge. This request is made, because Investigator, Andre Susan Taylor, has
demonstrated an expressed bias and hatred, and has refused to comply with her duty and
responsibilities, under 29 CFR 1614.102(a)(2)(6)(13) and 29 CFR 1614.108(b)(e)(f), when this
Investigator refused all advise concerning rights and responsibilities, refused Alternative Dispute
Resolution, and exceeded the 180 day jurisdiction for completing an investigation. In addition,
on 8/20/10, during an investigation conference, said Investigator brought forth conclusive
evidence of reprisal for protected activity, and when Charging Party brought these conclusive
evidences to the attention of the Investigator, said Investigator stated that she will still continue
with her dismissal of this charge. After informing this Investigator that she is required to enter
into the evidentiary record that prima facie evidence of reprisal for protected activity has been
produced during her investigation, and that Charging Party demands a hearing on these facts
before an administrative judge, the Investigator claimed Charging Party has no such rights.
Therefore, since Charging Party is denied all equal protection of due process, afforded in Title
VII Civil Rights protections, and because the 180 day jurisdiction from a 1/14/08 filing date has
expired, the EEOC is incapable of performing any of it’s authorized legal functions, and this
constitutionally inadequate disparity requires Charging Party to exercise his right to due process
and his right to an opportunity to be heard before an administrative judge.

Very Truly Yours,

______________________________
Joshua J. Israel/Charging Party
8/21/2010

cc: MDHR, Commissioner, James Kirkpatrick

EEOC Office, Certified Mail: 7008 3230 0001 5315 3210

inspector.general@eeoc.gov

iamjoshuaj@aol.com

Attention, Inspector General, Eletha L. Brown

I have two EEOC Cases that have not been processed by the Minnesota EEOC Office; that have
not had any opportunity for pre-complaint counseling; and most important, that have not had any
opportunity for mediation. In fact, I regret that I am still alive to go through this insane
torturous deprivation, and to be denied the equal protection of the civil right act which many
BLACK PEOPLE were battered, tortured, and killed just trying to bring into existence. Now
after all that blood-shed and torture, we now have Black Female Federal Employees sadistically
violating the constitutional right of other Black People. The Minneapolis, Minnesota EEOC
Office has a hatred for me because I complained to the EEOC Director, in the year 2004. I did
complain because the Minneapolis Office violated my venue rights by transferring three (3) valid
race discrimination cases to Orlando, Florida. Then the Florida office investigators, played the
role of devils advocate for the employer, and they adjudicated the complaint with contempt, bias,
and prejudice as if they were white KKK judges, and then they dismissed the cases, with
prejudice. The case number of my two recent EEOC Cases are as follows Israel v. Fed Ex
Ground Delivery – [ 444-2008-00291 ]; the next one is Israel v. Transway Express Inc., - [ 846-
2008-06943 ]. I try to contact the EEOC office in Minneapolis, but their voice mail system is all
that answers, it’s as if they live in fear, and are afraid to speak to someone in person. So what
happened this time? Did some hateful Black Person destroy these complaint cases?
By: Joshua J. Israel (952) xxx-xxxx, P. O. Box xxx, Sxxxxxxx MN, xxxxx.

Dated, September 21, 2009