OF

THE HIDDEN CASE

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES AND
YOU MAY HUNT AND KILL ME BUT
YOU CANNOT KILL THE TRUTH
NOT KILL MINE, NOT OTHERS
IDEAS FOR A BETTER DEMOCRACY.
THE STRUGGLE AND IDEAS FOR
BETTER WILL REMAIN AS LONG AS
THERE IS CORRUPTION AND A
GOVERNMENT ILL WILL TO
ALLOW IT. AND THIS HAS BEEN
SINCE THE TIMES IN HISTORY OF
HUMAN KIND (Jose Centeno,MSHS)



DO NOT ATTACK, THIS IS ONLY A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED

TO THE FEDERAL JUDGES WHO WILLFULLY KNOWINGLY INFORMED,

THEY CHOSE TO IGNORE FOR THEN TO ENGAGE IN WAR AGAINST THE

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!




EXHIBIT 1

I had gone thru all the interviews and found accepted for the position of
Addiction Counselor and on 10-3-89 I was called for an orientation by the
expected employer, Kings County Hospital Center from Brooklyn, New
York. It was part of the HHC, (Health and Hospitals Corporation) and part
of the City of New York. In fact, my check came from the City of New York
and I was part of the City Pension Plan (to join the plan the person had to be
a city employee). Then upon such evidence, how come the judge had the
nerves to tell me that she believes that the New York City should not be part
of the lawsuit? (Judge Bloom in: Centeno v. Kings County Hospital, HHC
Health and Hospitals Co., New York City, et al). Notice the top of the
Exhibit that starts with: New York City. Therefore, at the beginning of the
lawsuit hearings, right there, the judge became and, or, started becoming
an advocate for the defendants!!!

On that same date of 10-3-89 after I read this document, I asked for
clarification and refused to sign it. Then I was told: Then you will not get
the job. Then I signed it but left the effective date in blank and I was
assigned to start on 10-17-89 but I warned them that I needed further
clarification about their provisional capacity terms for hiring me because I
was employed by then in a permanent position at LUCHA Inc., and I was
not going to leave a permanent job for a provisional one. Notice that the
effective date is different than the signed date; you will see the reason
for it in the EXHIBIT 2.


Exhibit 1


EXHIBIT 2-A, B, C
I had refused to start working with HHC on a provisional status and I
stayed with LUCHA, Inc., as a Senior Counselor. During October of 1989, I
received a call from the Director of the Addictive Disease Department,
Outpatient Clinic, telling me: Hey!, what happened!, You was supposed to
start working with us on October 17 and you did not come. I explained to
her what happened during the orientation and that I refuse to work under
such unequal terms and conditions. Then she told me: I will get back to
you. And she did get back to me and told me: Come down, we are hiring
you as a permanent. We set an appointment at D Building where I was
given an Oral Test Examination and rated right there on the spot (this
kind of test or civil service examinations were allowed by the City) and I
was dully appointed and promoted to or employed in the position
indicated in accordance with applicable law, including the Civil Service
Law, Health and Hospitals Corporation Personnel Rules and
Regulations, Corporation operational procedures and collective
bargaining agreements (at Exhibit 2)
Then I was approved, certified and appointed or employed as a
PERMANENT employee according to their own laws, rules, regulations
and operational procedures, and that is a fact that cannot be denied but the
defendants thru Michael J Higgins, Director, denied it: He was not
qualified because he was not permanent in the Addiction Counselors
title (at Exhibit 13). And the corrupted judges apparently believed the
defendants when they raised the defense that He is a B1, a provisional
employee, (see next exhibit for their classifications and definitions) Now
I invite you to look in the Personnel Action Form of this Exhibit 2, under
the STATUS INFORMATION; within the box, you will find in tiny
letters above the numbers 40-41 written: Civ Serv Code, and under the
40-41 numbers you will see an erased letter followed with the number 1.
This was an alteration of the document to sustain their allegations that I
am a B1, a provisional; their definition for a B1 is: Pure
Provisional-An employee filling a regular vacancy who does not have
permanent civil service status in any title. But the A-1 that they
altered to make it look as a B-1, means An employee having
permanent civil service status in the title of the current job. But
whoever altered the document missed that at the top right, before the last
box, with number 41, on top of it are two words: Perm which logically
stands for Permanent; and Temp which logically stands for
Temporary or provisional, under that is a P validating Perm, a
PERMANENT EMPLOYEE, an A-1, not a B-1 as they alleged.

Part A




Michael J Higgins, the Department Director, lied again to me and to the
court when he stated: He was not qualified because he was not
permanent in the Addiction Counselors title (Exhibit 13). But here is
more solid proof, direct evidence that he was not telling the truth:
Employees are hired provisional or permanent and it is stated on the
Employees Handbook given at the moment of the hiring; in one of its
pages (shown here as Part B of this Exhibit 2), you can read at the right of
arrow 1 where is stated that: for provisional there is COVERAGE
EFFECTIVE 90 DAYS AFTER APPOINTMENT, But:
1- Because I was not provisional my coverage was effective 0n
January 21, 1990, (find it at bottom of the B arrow that I drew) before
the 90 days, attested by the signature of the Payroll Department Officer
in the EMPLOYEES BENEFITS PROGRAM form!!! (see Part C of
Exhibit 2)

2- Because I was not provisional, the Payroll Department Officer, Could
not, and did not, place a mark in the box on the left side of the item
Provisional(find it at bottom of the A arrow I drew) in the
EMPLOYEES BENEFITS PROGRAM form!!! (Part C of Exhibit 2)

Part B



Part C





EXHIBIT 3

In the manuscript of THE HIDDEN CASE where I narrated in more
details my experience with the employer and the court system, this Exhibit
was placed as EXHIBIT #10; but because of the connection with EXHIBIT
2 already discussed here previously, I decided to renumber it to bring more
coherency and linkage to the evidence discussion.

This is evidence of the scheme, a tool used to discriminate, a device used
by the employer to put me in a wrongful classification and or
categorization that impacted me negatively and was used to deny to me a
promotion, another title with a better salary that would result in a better
quality of life, their action restricted my ability to legally obtain property;
those wrongful classifications are prohibited by the Title VII Act.

This Exhibit is also a proof that the employer allegations that I was a
provisional employee were frivolous. Lets take a look at their definitions:
Permanent- An employee holding a permanent status in the title of the
current job and they claim that the probationary period became one
year and A non-competitive employee must complete the applicable
probationary period in the current job in order to be considered
permanent.

Based on the evidence in the previous exhibit, the reader so far can realize
that I was hired as permanent therefore I was holding a permanent status
in the title of the current job (Addiction Counselor), and more than 10
years had passed when I started to claim my rights to a promotion therefore
my probationary period had been completed long, long time ago!!! But
more interesting is that I was and am the affected party of their frivolous,
arbitrary and capricious classifications without informing to me of the future
implications. It was not until 2004 when an informant sent me this exhibit
with the condition that I will not reveal his name (but he was a Union
Representative!!!)









EXHIBIT 4

I want the reader to know that at the beginning during the hiring process,
my complaint against the employer was based on Unequal Terms or
Conditions of Employment because they wanted to hire me as a
provisional. That for them means and has it classified or categorized it as
B-1 or Pure Provisional, an employee filling a regular vacancy
that does not have permanent civil service status in any title (see
Exhibit3). But after I rejected those terms or conditions and I refused to
start working for them as a provisional, then they called me back and
hired me as permanent as the evidence proved on Exhibit 2.

But after all that, and after many years later of been working for the
employer (Kings County Hospital, New York City HHC) then it was
logically for me to believe that any decent employer who believes first in the
truth, dignity, the law, in equal opportunity for advancement and
promotions, that such an employer would not use the lie, the excuse, the
pretext to deny and to disqualify, to bar from promotions the worker
who had rejected their provisional terms and or conditions for
employment, and to whom they later called back and agreed and
accepted and hired him under other terms or conditions, as a
PERMANENT, and then subsequently to base such denial of career
advancement and or disqualification from promotion because he is a
provisional and is not permanent and to say and write it, He was not
qualified because he was not permanent in the Addiction Counselor
title (Michael J Higgins at Exhibit 13), THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG,
UNLAWFUL, UNETHICAL, IS DISCRIMINATION ON ITS FACE!!!
This made me believe that their conduct and action(s) was and is, were
and are: Discrimination based on Race or National Origin; and that
started at the beginning of the hiring process!!! But that later, during and
after the case was taken to the Federal Court, escalated to the Denial of
Fundamental, Civil and Constitutional Rights and it got to the point
where the federal judges acting in false representation of, engaged in war
against the United States Constitution by denying some of the rights
ingrafted, testated ab-initio in and by the U.S. Constitution, being one
of them the Trial by Jury!!! And when the Trial by Jury Constitutional
Right was denied, that Unconstitutional Act took away with it other
rights, as for example the Right to a Due Process!!!
Now take a look to the document in its section D, right near the date of
birth box, there is a small squared box designated to classify or categorize
the employee in a RACE and so is read on top of the box. Notice that I
was classified and or categorized in RACE 3 and that stands for Asia
or the Pacific Islands (but I am Puerto Rican), Because the employer was
asking to me certain requirements that were not required to others from a
different race (take the civil service exam, take the CAC, have to be a
QHP or qualified health professional) that made me to suspect that there
was a racial issue in the denial of promotions and I decided to investigate
and here are my findings: None of the candidates against which I
competed for higher positions were classified or categorized in any
RACE except the Puerto Rican (me)!!! Why? NOTICE that the
exhibits 5 and 6 that follow: the employees were not classified or
categorized in any RACE.
Once that I learned of this, then I requested the same documents from the
other candidates with whom I had competed and were given the promotions,
but the employer refused to submit it. (When I got to the court and
requested it in the discovery, the judge threw the towel to the employer).
Note: None of these candidates were qualified for the position which demands a
Bachelors or a Masters Degree!!! (One of them had 12 college credits, the other
claimed to have an Associate Degree in Dental Technology but the employer failed to
submit proof of it at the discovery. I have a Bachelor Degree, a Masters Degree, plus
two years of Advance Studies in Psychotherapy plus other State Certificates related
to the working field. Now that the reader knows my credentials, NOTICE AT THE
LEFT OF BOTH DOCUMENTS (at Exhibits 5 and 6) THE SIGNATURE OF
MICHAEL J. HIGGINS, DIRECTOR, APPROVING THE LESS QUALIFIED
APPLICANTS WHILE HE CONSTANTLY WAS TELLING ME: YOU ARE
NOT QUALIFIED!!! (Done in writing, as you will see ahead later in another exhibit).
Therefore, you do not have to be a wizard to understand and detect that there is a
racial issue present in this matter!!!




EXHIBIT 5
Notice the RACE box is empty, the candidate was NOT
CLASSIFIED in any race number but I was!!! And notice again the
signature of Michael J Higgins, at the bottom on the left corner, to sustain a
pre-chosen applicant for a promotion based on experience and merit. But
before going further in the explanation of this Exhibit, I must ask: If two
applicants apply for a job position and one does not meet the
EDUCATION QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, then: Who has
the merit? Bravo! Mr. Higgins and Company, again you reinvented the
definition for merit!!! But hereby I want to tell to the American Public that I
had competed with this applicant for the position that he was being
promoted from and I was found: Not qualified; but now I knew better, I
was fully aware of the vicious hiring and selection process, how the
candidates were being pre-chosen regardless of their qualifications
requirements!!!, and then I confronted them. Here was their move: They
created a job vacancy for Coordinating Manager to accommodate him
but they refused to give me the position from which their pre-chosen
candidate was being promoted!!! An informant gave me all the details and
encouraged me to apply just to see what they say. I did apply, their pre-
chosen as I had been told, was chose. But again I confronted them and
complained to Mr. Higgins Boss, Mr. Gregory Calliste. But guess what:
The person to whom I complained and he had agreed to promote me
but did not do it, he was part of the corruption in the hiring and
promotional process at Kings County Hospital!!! Mr. Calliste argued that
You are not qualified because the position requires a Master in
Behavioral Science and yours is in Human Services. But now I will
show to the American Public and to the reader, a Master in Behavioral
Science that the Discrimination Crew approved, and now I direct you
and Ms. Jean G Leon, Mr. Gregory Calliste and Michael J Higgins, to
EXHIBIT 12. I invite the KCH Administrators for test their own
foolishness in front of the American Public and try to tell them that the
document on that Exhibit 12 is a MASTER IN BEHAVIORAL
SCIENCE!!! And of course, I invite the judges to the same test (Bloom,
Dearie, Winter, Walker, Sotomayor). Notice that Mr. Calliste, who had
told me that I did not qualify because my Master Degree was not in the
required field: Approved the non-Puerto Rican applicant WITHOUT
ANY COLLEGE DEGREE!!! (SEE HIS SIGNATURE AT THE
BOTTOM RIGHT of this EXHIBIT 5 and then immediately go to the
EXHIBIT 12 to see the College Degree Document submitted to me by
the defendants themselves at Discovery when I requested the
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS of each applicant with whom I
had competed). After I confronted Mr. Higgins, the Program Director, with
the facts, one day I was entering the K Building and he asked me: Jose,
How are you?, and I answered: Not too bad not too good, then he looked
at me and said to me: But you are not in the position that you would like
to be, right?, I love it!, I love it!. This right there told me that he
knew of what he was doing, his knowing, wanton, willful malicious conduct
of discrimination through the denial of promotion. After the incident, he
continued humiliating me and whenever was a payday and I had to go to
pick up the check at his office, as soon as he saw me at the line, right
there in front of the workers he started making fun of me and kept
telling me: I love it!, I love it!. Even his Secretary got upset and asked
me: Why he is doing this to you?, and I shared with her my experience.
But it is important for the reader and the American Public to know about this
incident Because I addressed it to the court in the Complaint Summary
and defendants never denied it therefore its admission; plus this is
circumstantial and or indirect proof of their reckless conduct, malice
and willful negligence of the discrimination against me!!! THAT HOW
THE JUDGES WERE SO FOOL THAT THEY COULD NOT FIND
ANY EVIDENCE OF PRETEXT FOR THE EMPLOYERS
DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT? No my reader, I do not have that
answer, but one thing I certainly can tell you is that: The real, direct,
circumstantial evidence that I submitted to sustain my alleged real facts,
should not, could not, will not and shall not be defeated by any common
sense person assigned to the case as a judge, magistrate judge, juror,
jury who has a logical rational mind!!




EXHIBIT 6
No race number in the RACE box was assigned to applicant;
he is from another race and national origin different to mine. See at
bottom the comments from the Director, Michael J Higgins, stating
the Promotion From Addiction Counselor to Addiction
Counselor Level 2 Now I direct the reader to Exhibit 14, a
letter from employer
attempting to justify their failure to promote me; pay special
attention to their
statement that was verbalized to me constantly, now in
writing: he has
not applied for Certification Credentialed Addiction Counselor
(CAC, CASA). NOW AND HERE, PUBLICLY, I WANT TO
TELL TO ALLTOGETHER THE DEFENDANTS, THAT
THE CANDIDATE THAT YOU PROMOTED FOR
ADDICTION COUNSELOR LEVEL II` DID NOT HAVE
ANY CAC OR CASA, NOR WAS HE A QHP , A
QUALIFIED HEALTHPROFESSIONAL BECAUSE HE
DID NOT HAVE THE COLLEGE DEGREES REQUIRED
AND DEMANDED FROM THE POSITION!!!! (Please, see
Exhibit 7, for position requirements). Now you, the reader, as a
member of the Jury, see the Exhibit 8. And I want you, Mr.
Michael J Higgins and Ms. Jean G Leon, to see the spit in
your soup and decide if you still want it, if the taste changed
with the spicy spit of the truth: The Exhibit 8 is a copy of
the more qualified, the Qualified Health Professional, a
QHP, (Michael J Higgins arguments to deny me promotions,
and ANOTHER DESPERATE ATTEMPT to demonstrate
that I am not qualified, and hereby submitted as evidence at
EXHIBIT 13). On this EXHIBIT 8 document, there are three
sections that read as follows:
1-Special Skills
2-Special Qualifications
3-Licenses and or Certifications.
Notice that: ALL THREE SECTIONS ARE BLANK!!!
THEREFORE NOT ONLY THE JUDGES WERE BLIND
BUT THE KINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL HIRING
COMMITTEE ALSO WAS BLIND (AND YOU, MICHAEL J
HIGGINS WAS THE DECISION MAKER)!!!





EXHIBIT 7
Here is more supportive evidence to my comments or
arguments stated at the bottom of the introduction comments of the
previous exhibit 4. Notice under TITLE the name of the position
which is Addiction Counselor and right there under it is
indicated Level II which is another position that I applied for but
I got the usual response: Mr. Centeno is not qualified for the
position. Notice at the left side joint to the Competitive
position the phrase Provisional Appointment. This called my
attention because among the pretexts for the denial of promotions
to me, the following was used too often: He is provisional;
therefore if I would have been provisional as they claimed, then
they should not have disqualified me on such grounds because the
Job Advertisement clearly states either: that the job is of a
Provisional Appointment or to Appoint a Provisional!!!
But here comes the most important but denigrating part of
this Exhibit that stripped me out of my dignity!!!: The
advertisement clearly in bold face and capital letters states and
establishes the qualification requirements for the position with
the following phrase:
APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING
QUALIFICATIONS:
1- Masters Degree preferred
2- Baccalaureate Degree in Social Science
3- Specific training in Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
4- Must have CASAC or be CASAC eligible
5- Bilingual Spanish/French/Creole a plus

Now, without any offense to the reader, I would like that after you
strip yourself out of any racial prejudices, if you have any, then
project or imagine you sitting as an employer, director or
supervisor in charge of the hiring, then as a judge or juror hearing
my allegations hereby exposed:
1- Applicant B does not have a Masters Degree as required.

Applicant A has a Masters Degree in Human Services plus 2
years in Advance Studies in Psychotherapy.

2- Applicant B does not have the required Baccalaureate
Degree in Social Science.

Applicant A has his Baccalaureate in the required field of the
Social Sciences plus a Certification in Criminology.

3- Applicant B has the in house training and certificates and has
been working for the employer a little longer.

Applicant A has some trainings and certificates in Alcohol and
Substance Abuse plus his Masters Concentration was in
Community Psychology and Alcohol and Drugs Counseling at
the Southern New Hampshire University (former New Hampshire
College).

4- Applicant B does not have the CASAC that the job
advertisement document is requiring. But the Employer did not
require that from him because it did not stop him from
obtaining the promotion.

Applicant A does not have a CASAC too but it was required to
him as a condition for promotions (see letter from Jean G. Leon,
Senior Vice President, EXHIBIT 14).

5-Applicant B is not bilingual or was not at the time of the
competence for the job position.
Applicant A is bilingual (English and Spanish).

Now that the reader had access to this information and could
corroborate it with the evidence submitted as Exhibits, and of
course, after you followed the instructions to be stripped out of
racial prejudices, if any, now is the time to answer with your
reasoning, with your logic and common sense, but overall: With
honesty, the following questions: From the imaginary seat of the
Employer, Director, Supervisor:
1-Which of the applicants was, is the more qualified?
2- Who does not qualify or did not meet the qualifications
requirements?
3-Who should legally and morally be hired for the position?
4-Should the ego or racial prejudices go over the public interest?
(The employer is a public hospital that get millions in funds
from the federal government, therefore they have to follow the
Title VII and all other Federal laws and rules against
discrimination in the employment, hiring and or promotion.
THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST!!!).

Now I will ask the reader to change seats and seat in the Judge
or Jury chair to answer the following questions: Under the analysis
of the preceding evidence:
1-Who shall win the case?
2-As a Judge, because there is a Public Interest involved and
therefore the Government has a stake and or is a Party in the
case, shall the Justice Department be informed by you?
3-Is it right to deny litigation assistance to a Pro Se litigant who
requests it while you as a judge shall know that it is a case of
NATIONAL INTEREST?
4-Is it right to deny the Constitutional Right to Jury Trial after
the pro se plaintiff paid for it?
5-Is it right to deny a Constitutional Right using the Douglas Mc
Donnells case arguments?
6-Is it right to deny the Constitutional Trial by Jury Right, not to
allow the plaintiff to go in front of the jury nor to see or hear their
verdict, and then send a letter to the Plaintiff stating that: No
juror could find on plaintiffs favor???





EXHIBIT 8
QUESTIONS TO JEAN G LEON and MICHAEL J HIGGINS
1-Hey!!! I do not see in this application document of the more
qualified candidate (according to you), anything under Special
Skills, nor under Special Qualifications and there are NO
LICENCES AND/OR CERTIFICATES that could or can
qualify the applicant as a (and I quote from yourself): State
Certified or licensed Qualified Healthcare Professional. And
because you said and wrote: Mr. Centeno does not qualify,
then the logical question for you (and for the judges Bloom,
Dearie, Walker, Winter and Sotomayor), from myself, the
readers and the American Public, should be and is:
Other than, or if it was not: The Race or National Origin
factor, WHAT MADE THIS CANDIDATE TO QUALIFY IF
HE DOES NOT HAVE THE COLLEGE DEGREES
REQUIRED FOR THE POSITION AND THE CANDIDATE
COMPETING WITH HIM HAD A BACCALAUREATE, A
MASTERS, A CERTIFICATION IN CRIMINOLOGY,
2YEARS OF ADVANCE STUDIES IN THE RELATED
FIELD, PLUS STATE, CITY AND INHOUSE
CERTIFICATES!? And yet thinking as if everybody who
heard or read your allegations were stupid or ignorant,
YOU STUBBURNLY CONTINUED CLAIMING THAT:
MR.CENTENO IS NOT QUALIFIED!!!

2- Hey!!! Where is his CAC or CASA that you was
demanding from Mr. Centeno?
I do not see it under special qualifications neither under
Licenses and/or Certifications!!! Other than, or if it was not, The
Race or National Origin factor, why did you demand and or
require from Mr. Centeno a CAC or CASA as a condition
for promotion but promote other (s) without such
credentials? That is illegal!!! That is Discrimination on its
face! Note: This was obtained on Discovery after I requested the applications
forms plus the credentials of all those candidates with whom I competed but they
got the job, see the number at the bottom right, bate-stamped by themselves.







EXHIBIT 9
Up to here, the reader knows that I was required to have certain
credentials that were not required from other applicants as a condition to be
promoted (see Jean G. Leon at Exhibit 14, Michael J. Higgins at Exhibit 13).
Whenever I requested from them a list of how many workers had been
promoted without their unequal terms or conditions for promotion, they
refused to answer. Then I requested it using The Freedom of Information
Act, and sent it from the address of a corporation where I was the President
plus I was foundering a Not for Profit Organization under the name of
LUPAC (Leathers United Pro Action Center) and it was approved by the
Federal Government. This made its effect and here I show their response as
EXHIBIT 9. And hereby I direct to you, the reader, the American
Public, the already mentioned judges, Jean G Leon, Michael J. Higgins
and to the defendants altogether: To look to the evidence in this Exhibit
9 that proves that the lack of a CAC or CASA required to me was not
a barrier for other workers to be hired and or promoted into a higher
position with a higher pay. Please notice that the highlighted titles are titles
for which I had applied but I was told: You are not qualified, You do not
have a CAC, CASA, CASAC, You do not have Permanent Civil Service
Status, Because of Civil Service Criteria, You are Provisional, and the
list of their pretexts or lies continued!!! And talking about their lies, right
here in this exhibit 9 is one: They claimed that there is no employee in
the Senior Addiction Counselor title but that was just another lie!!!
Therefore with Mr. Santiago as a witness I went to the K Building, and
looked for the Senior Addiction Counselor who had a big sign in the
front door of his office with his name and this title. He agreed to be
interviewed and after I showed him this Exhibit he answered: Well,
that is the title that they gave me and that is the title that I have. But
there was more than that because: THERE WAS NO POSTING, NO
CIVIL SERVICE TEST REQUIRED FOR THE POSITION,
Therefore: MYSELF AND ALL THE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT
WERE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION WERE DENIED AN
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!!! And corroborated by the defendants
themselves in this Exhibit 9 document: they hired and or promoted in the
department a total of 18 workers without those requirements that were
being required and demanded from me!!! Again, the Employment
Discrimination practices by the Kings County Hospital thru its
representatives involved in the Discrimination, got unmasked, naked!!!
Their Discrimination acts cannot be denied anymore, not to a logical
rational mind when confronted with the outstanding evidence in this Exhibit
9, but hereby I ask to the defendants:

1-Have you hired and or promoted in a higher paid position any
applicant without the CAC or CASA asked, required or demanded to
me?
2-Have you hired and or promoted in a higher paid position any
applicant without the Permanent Civil Service Status that was been
asked, required or demanded to me?

The answers are: YES to both questions!!!, And now I kindly direct the
reader, the American Public, the judges and to the defendants
altogether to the following EXHIBIT 9, an Official Document from the
Kings County Hospitals Network Human Resources emitted under the
Freedom of Information Act!!! Therefore, once that the judges got to this
part of the evidence, the case should not have gone farther!!! What
happened? That is for the court to answer because they must have had my
arguments and this evidence on top of the desk and they had a duty to read it
and weight it before taking the reckless decision of to give a Careless
Treatment of the Facts, and to give more power to the Mc Donnell
Douglas case than to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION to then
justify the DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and dismiss my
case through the use of another fabricated tool: a Motion for Summary
Judgment!!!






EXHIBIT 10
This is another title for which I competed but almost everybody in the
Department knew that the applicant, who was like me in the Addiction
Counselor I title, had been pre-chosen (and they were right). I was found
not qualified and they invented lies to try to sustain the disqualification,
but I should say to try to cover their race bias. The title of Senior Healthcare
Program Planner Analyst is a title that was almost hidden and it was not
until the Affiliation Contract of the Kings County Hospital with Downstate
Medical Center ended, that it became visible because most of the state
workers became city workers under such title; then and logically, all the city
workers interested in promotion started to ask: Where were these titles?
Where they did the posting? It had Level A and Level B and both were
almost double the pay of an Addiction Counselor. And although they
claimed that I was not qualified for the Senior Healthcare Program
Planner Analyst position, they themselves admitted and stated that the
position is interchangeable with the Addiction Counselor I position.
But this Exhibit once more is evidence of the racial biases and their
corrupted hiring-promotional system: Here and now I direct the reader,
the American Public, the already mentioned judges and the altogether the
defendants to this exhibit quote: APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE
FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS : Masters Degree in Health or
Social Sciences, and immediately after you read the required
qualifications (that according to defendants I did not meet or did not
qualify) take a deep look to the MASTERS DEGREE IN HEALTH
OR SOCIAL SCIENCES that on the Discovery for qualifications,
degrees and certifications, I requested to and obtained from defendants,
bate-stamped by themselves with number 265, and that belongs to the
pre-chosen selected applicant!!! DOES THAT LOOKS TO YOU, OR IS
IT PROOF TO YOU OF A UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE DEGREE,
OR: IS THAT A MASTERS DEGREE IN HEALTH OR SOCIAL
SCIENCES THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE POSITION??? NOW
COMPARE IT WITH THE EXHIBITS 15-A,B,C.
Now, what do we tell to all those Fellow Americans that sacrifice
working two or three jobs to send their children and or grandchildren
to the universities to obtain a Degree with the hope that they will get a
job with a higher pay, and, and What we tell to the students
themselves who also make their own sacrifice for the same hope of a
better future after they obtain their Degree (s)??? In what to me
concern, it stripped me out of my Dignity and hope!!!





EXHIBIT 11
I confronted the administration with the previous Exhibit and demanded
Equal Opportunity in the promotion system. They made their move by
changing the title to the pre-chosen candidate from Senior Health Care
Program Planner Analyst to Coordinating Manager. An inside informant told
me about it and once more I confronted administration, they made their
move by doing the posting while the pre-chosen candidate had been already
chosen and was receiving the salary for the Coordinating Manager title. I did
apply and was rejected because your Master Degree is not in Behavioral
Science, yours is Human Services. It was disgusting to discover later
what I had been told by my informants: The pre-chosen candidate
does not have college degrees!!! See details at next exhibit 12.




EXHIBIT 12 Note: the name of the candidate to whom I should not blame, is erased.

Here is more direct and indirect proof of Employment
Discrimination: This is another candidate with whom I competed
for a promotion and he was according to inside information: the
pre-chosen one. And my informant was right!!! Just take a look to
the COLLEGE DIPLOMA??? exposed here. During the
discovery stage in the court, I requested the credentials of all those
candidates that I competed with and the employer had found more
qualified while stating that Mr. Centeno is not qualified. And
ladies and gentlemen, here exposed in this Exhibit 12 is The
employers proof that they had chosen the more qualified
candidate as they told to the court, but in the second page of this
Exhibit you will find Michael J. Higgings, the Department
Head and his Superior, Gregory Calliste, under the title
Senior Staff Authorization, both of them authorizing and
declaring BY THEIR SIGNATURES that their candidate was
recommended to be hired as the: 1
st
choice and Mr.is a QHP!!!
But the position required a Master in Social Work, and you,
Mr. Calliste, to whom I complained in the presence of Janet
Ayeku, (another Administrator), you said that I was not chosen
because my Masters Degree is not in Social Work, now here
publicly I want to confront you with the Masters Degree in
Social Work from your 1
st
choice that I requested and you
submitted on the Discovery, and is shown here as Exhibit
12!!!

THAT HOW CAN JUDGES BE SO FOOLISH? No, my
dear reader, I do not have the answer for that although I tried
to answer it by claiming that they were prejudiced, blind or
under the influence of something!!! And of course, to sustain
my allegations now I ask the reader (s):
1- Is this document below (12a) a Diploma or Degree from
any known College or University recognized by any
Accreditation Agency within the United States?
2- Is this same document an acceptable proof or evidence
that an employee is
A Qualified Health Professional, is a QHP? ( see on
12b Michael Higgins and Gregory Calliste attesting with
their signatures that the document is a Master in
Behavioral Science and that their pre-chosen candidate is
a QHP (a qualified health professional).

12a




12b




EXHIBIT 13
This is another, if not the most, disgusting direct proof of
blatant Racial and or Employment Discrimination but it is also
proof of a needed reform in the Employment Discrimination
Laws and Procedures because THE EEOC KNEW ABOUT
THIS AND NEVER INFORMED ME!!! And it was not until I
took the case to the court that I learned that the employer thru
his Representative Director Michael J Higgins, HAD PRE-
EMPTED, PRE DISQUALIFIED ME FROM PROMOTIONS
and whether I would have gone or not to an interview,
However, he would not have qualified. And then he continues
and stated: Mr. Centeno does not qualify as a State Certified
or licensed Qualified Healthcare Professional (Maybe
because I did not have the College or University Degree shown
on Exhibit 12a above?). And throughout his statement the
deceiver continues with the lies But here publicly open in
this writings I want to ask you, Mr. Michael J. Higgins:
1- WHAT CREDENTIALS THAT THE APPLICANT B
FROM EXHIBIT 7 HAD THAT YOU MADE HIM A
QHP, A QUALIFIED HEALTHCARE
PROFESSIONAL??? Can the employer explain that to
the American Public?? (The American Public has a
right to know because the Kings County Hospital and
the HHC receives millions in Federal Funds!!!) (This is
why the United States Government had and has a stake
in the case!!!)

2- WHAT CREDENTIALS THAT THE APPLICANT
FROM EXHIBIT 12 HAD THAT YOU MADE HIM A
QHP, A QUALIFIED HEALTHCARE
PROFESSIONAL??

3- UNDER WICH LEGAL AUTHORITY?, WHO GAVE
IT YOU?, TO DECIDE WHO IS A QHP, A
QUALIFIED HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL
AND WHO IS NOT?






EXHIBIT 14 (A, B, C)
This is what I was referring to in the Exhibit 7: The requirements asked
in a job vacancy advertise has to be the same for every applicant!!! An
employer should not, must not, shall not require or demand any
Degrees and or Certificates to one or some candidates and NOT TO
THE OTHER OR OTHERS!!! This exhibit is REAL PROOF OF
DISCRIMINATION!!! The Senior Vice President, Jean G. Leon and the
Department Director, Michael J. Higgins, were requesting and or
demanding that I obtain a CAC, CASA in order for me to be eligible
for the Addiction Counselor Career Ladder But now I tell that: THEY
WILLFULLY, WANTON, KNOWINGLY INJURED THE LADDER
because the lack of such credentials or requirements did not stop or
prevented the non Puerto Rican candidate discussed in the EXHIBIT 7
from climbing the Career Ladder from Addiction Counselor Line I to
Addiction Counselor Line II which was a Supervisory Position with a
higher pay, DESPITE THAT HE DID NOT MEET THE
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS!!! (had no college Degree). And
their psychological or mental abuse continued when they gave authority to
the person without college degree to supervise me in the absence of the
Clinic Director who was my Supervisor. How would you feel in such a
situation? What would you do? This is extreme and unusual punishment
that the U.S. Constitution prohibits. If you do not think so, then if you are
working in a high position, both the position and the salary shall be given to
a less qualified worker without the qualification requirements for your
position and you shall be barred, preempted from any promotional
opportunity!!! After that done, then tell me how you feel. Fair enough?
The EXHIBITS 13 and 14A shows in writing different lies, excuses,
pretexts or inventions from the defendants to deny and exclude me from
promotions. I proved it with their Personnel Order HHC 092/12
Establishment of Titles (Exhibits 14B and 14C). Notice the Senior
Addiction Counselor Title that they concealed and said there are no
employees in this title (Exhibit 9), but there was an employee with that
tittle; plus the Addiction Counselor Level II and its Special Notes: For
placement in Assignment Level II. But in nowhere in this Document
that established the Titles is written any of the Kings County Hospitals
Discrimination Crew lies, excuses, pretexts or inventions to deny a, to
exclude me from a promotion!!! Hey!, Mr. Higgins: Where is your
QHP, State qualified health professional, Civil Service
Requirements, A-1, Permanent, CASAC??? The answer is
simple: They are not in the Official Personnel Order HHC 092/12
Establishment of Titles because those were your pretext tools used to
discriminate!!!


A


B


C NOTE to the reader: Notice that the only requirement For
placement in Assignment Level II, a position that defendants claimed
that I was not qualified for the position, the requirement is that
candidates must possess one year in Assignment Level I (I had
worked 17years in the lower level title for the employer). And again,
NONE OF THE INVENTED LIES from defendants are a condition
For placement in Assignment Level II in the Corporation Order for
the Establishment of Titles.


EXHIBITS 15

I believe that I should not spend too much time in explaining
these exhibits because they are self explainable. However, I do
invite to the reader to compare these credentials of this not
qualified applicant( according to the employer) with those
credentials submitted to me on the discovery request by the
employer and shown as Exhibits 7 and 12 and that were more
qualified (according to the employer).
Note: Although the persons were pre-chosen as you will see in
another exhibit, and I had to rely on inside informants who alerted
me of the job vacancies, once I was denied the application and I
was informed that the pre-chosen candidate does not have a
college degree, later I investigated and found that she was
studying but had not graduated yet. Employer refused to provide
the information and did not comply with the full discovery.




















EXHIBIT 16
Now be prepare to know what an employer accustomed to lie is willing to
do in order to attempt to prevail in court: The employer had promoted me
but did not tell me that I was being, nor that I was, promoted!!! And the
reader may ask: How they can do that and why? I will explain it to you
now: Every year I had an evaluation. I never got a bad one, and on two of
them I was given OUTSTANDING and the two supervisors who did it
were punished because to give an outstanding evaluation was forbidden
by administration. Me and my Supervisor, Mr. Scott Oestreich, whose
signature you can see beside the phrase REPORTS TO in this Exhibit 16,
were against that. On the year of 2005, on the month of October, my
evaluation was made. It contained many pages and I usually just took a
quick look and signed it, knowing that it would do anything in getting me a
promotion because I learned that I was barred and or preempted from
promotions. After many months had passed, one day while at home, I was
putting together all my evaluations record when I decided to take a detailed
look to my last one, and what a great surprise that I got!!! I had been
promoted to Sr. Health Care Program Planner Analyst (Sr. HCPPA), (look
in the Exhibit, beside TITLE). Finally after 16 years of work with the
Kings County Hospital I had been promoted!!! But the joy and good feelings
did not last long because then I started asking myself: Why I was not
notified? What was the employers objective, the reason for not to notify
me? It did not take me too long to figure out the answers: I had taken the
employer to the court for their refusal to promote me and accused them of
Discrimination; the court had forbidden them to retaliate (but they did
retaliate later); therefore is obvious that because I had claimed that they
failed and or refused to promote me, so they promoted me in such a way that
in a future court hearing they could just pull out the form and claim that they
promoted me and I had signed and accepted the promotion! What a good
planned trick! What would you have done under my situation? This is what I
did: Because much time had passed from the date of the untold promotion
to its discovery by me, I requested a hearing with Mr. Scott Oestreich who
was my immediate supervisor and confronted him with this Exhibit and his
signature in it attesting and or supporting what is in it. In that same hearing I
claimed the corresponding salary, retroactively, to the new Title of Sr.
HCPPA that I was given or promoted to, and I was working now within
such Title. He agreed to discuss it with his supervisor and get back to me. In
the meantime I started to sign the required documentation in the charts with
my new title, Jose Centeno, MSHS, Sr. HCPPA, instead of Jose Centeno,
MSHS, Addiction Counselor I.



EXHIBIT 17
About 10 months had passed and the issue of the promotion explained in
the previous exhibit had not been resolved. Doctor Gallo, who supervised
the doctors in the department, was given the hot potato to solve the issue.
He requested a meeting with me and we met. In the meeting I explained to
him almost everything about what I already have written in this book. But he
did not want to hear nothing else than that I surrender back my new title and
stop signing with it on the charts. To that I refused and he retaliated with
the suspension letter submitted here as Exhibit 17. NOTICE the state of
mind from him, the animosity against what is right or ethical: He suspended
me without pay but he did not know of what to charge me for, therefore
he needed time to fabricate the charges and then he sent me this letter
stating that charges will be submitted to you shortly. After he must
certainly have done, a consultation with the DISCRIMINATION CREW,
days later I received the fabricated charges: They claimed that by signing
with the new given title in the patients charts was an alteration or
falsification. Despite that I was very angry I had to laugh on your ridiculous
charges Doctor Gallo!!! And here publicly I want to tell you and to all
your DISCRIMINATION CREW that you cannot charge me of
alteration and or falsifying of information on the patients charts
because you have dirty hands on the issue!!! Did you forget that
whenever the department was alerted that a surveyor was coming, then
what was well known as the sanitation crew spent days and nights in
the Charts Room altering and or falsifying information on the charts
because what was written MAY NOT LOOK GOOD TO THE
SURVEYOR???!!! And moreover, that was done without the presence of
the original person who had done the documentation, and who documented
what transpired in the session with the patient, not what transpired in the
minds of the Sanitation Crew who altered or falsified the information
because of fear that it may not look good at the eyes of the surveyors
and the hospital may get a citation!!! And almost everybody in the
department knows of that practice. when I was asked to volunteer to
such illegal practice I refused. The National Health Department should
forbid the surveyors from letting to know the hospitals that they are
going to be surveyed!!! Or it may be, Doctor Gallo that you retaliated
because I gave to you many complaints when the doctors were refusing
to read and document the PPD results? (I documented cases where it
was me who at the time of referral and or discharge, found that the
patient was positive on tuberculosis). Finally was you who ordered to
call the police and I was taken out of the hospital while I was working.



EXHIBIT 18
After the suspension based on fabricated charges, as
explained in the previous exhibit 17, then I was asked to go to a
hearing at the office of Human Resources. There I met with the
Union Gotobedwithmanagement, Local 371 representatives (not
my representatives because they had refused to represent me
in court) who got there without me asking for any representation
because I knew what to expect from them: nothing!!!. But Human
Resources claimed that they had to be present. Mr. Phil Romain
read the charges and gave me a lecture and when I started to
address my opinion Mr. Tomlin started yelling at me and told
me shshshutup!!! Then I started to get mad but the other
representative(of who?), Ms. Santos came to the rescue and the
hearing proceeded. Then Mr. Romain went into his office and
came back with a contract and asked me to sign it and come back
to work tomorrow. I requested a copy of it but it was denied,
then I requested time to read it and it was granted. What a
surprise!!! Their contract had the following clause: Mr.
Centeno agrees to drop all claims from the past, the present
and the future against the employer. I refused to sign it (no
wonder they refused to give me a copy of it). But now it was Ms.
Santos who got upset because I refused to sign such a cunning
contract!!! And she got so upset that she asked me to go to see the
psychiatrist because she could not understand why I preferred to
loose the job instead of signing the so called contract. Then I
asked her: What are your credentials for you to tell me to go to see
a psychiatrist?, Do you have any degree in the field? Here was her
answer: Oh I have been in the union many years. So, now the
reader knows why I could expect nothing from the Union
Gotobedwithmanagement. That they also shall be sued for
False Representation? Yes!!! But I am only One against too
many!!! And the employer in an attempt to culminate its
Conspiracy, sent to me the termination letter dated on January 16
of 2007 with the effective date of October 2 of 2006.




CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE COURT EVENTS

Because I do not want to leave the reader wondering about what
happened at the court, and because of my comments in some of the exhibits,
I decided to share with you the events in a chronological order and here they
are:
1- THE CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
After many complaints and meetings with supervisors, administrators,
directors and the Union Gotobedwithmanagement Local 371 failed,
I realized that it was time then to seek help from the Federal
Government. Without too much hope that I would get any soon help
from them, I went to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission) and filed a Charge of Discrimination. And based on
the evidence previously discussed, the reader and any person with a
reasonable and logical mind could find cause to declare the
defendants guilty of the Charge of Discrimination, and that my charge
was based on truth!!! See it below.
EXHIBIT 19



2- THE COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Half a year had passed since I filed the charge with EEOC and before the
coward terrorist acts of September 11. Whenever I contacted the EEOC the
answer was the same: We are short of staff (Now you know why I said
earlier that I went there without too much hope). During the coward
terrorist acts, the building where EEOC had its offices got hit also and most
of the files disappeared. On the next year I was notified that they found my
records and this was the first time that I was contacted by the Department
of Justice (I had faxed and called them asking for help because
administration had told me that the civil and constitutional rights that
you claim do not apply here, therefore I assessed that they were against
the United States). But they washed their hands and gave to me the
option to go back with the Short of Staff answer from EEOC or to request
a Right to Sue Letter. I was frustrated and chose the last option and I
received it stating that because more than 180 days have elapsed since I
had filed the charge and none of them EEOC nor the Justice Department had
filed any suit, and of course here comes the blaming the victim excuse:
and because you specifically have requested this notice (they forgot that
it was their duty to investigate and litigate because they are part and or
have a stake in the suit because the law clearly forbids to any program
that receives federal funds from engaging in employment
discrimination; plus Employment Discrimination is an issue of
NATIONAL INTEREST). Then after I complied with all the protocol of
serving the summons notices to the pertinent parts, filed and amended the
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED that follows:

EXHIBIT 20










After I filled out and signed the COMPLAINT FORM shown above and
MARKED WITH AN X THE YES BOX (see it on the corner at top right
of the document), then by doing that I: ACCEPTED THE JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED!!! And then I gave the Form to the Court Clerk who
ACCEPTED and STAMPED IT (see right corner of the form) after I PAID
THE FEE!!!
(see the receipt below):




Note: I had requested litigation help to the court and at this point I
requested it again but it was denied to me, plus I told you earlier of my
requests to the Justice Department prior to getting inside the court but I
had no answer except for the notice that they had found my records and
The Right to Sue Letter offer.




3-THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I was given the court rules guide, the dates of appearance for the
pretrial hearings or Pretrial Conferences and a Magistrate
Judge was assigned to the case by The Chief District Judge to
whom I never saw but dismissed my case acting in, as, from A
HIDDEN OR HIDING BUSH!!! I will explain my reasoning for this
statement later. During a Pretrial Hearing or Conference the
defendant lawyer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the
court granted it, DESPITE OF THE SUPREME COURT
WARNINGS TO JUDGES WHO USE THAT TOOL TO GET
RID OF THE CASE THEY HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM!!!. And
I have an early mind recollection that the Magistrate Judge
suggested this course of action to the defendants by saying the
following phrase: I guess that what comes next is a motion for
summary judgment. But here and now, I want the reader and The
American Public to look at the COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED Form where I marked with an X inside the square
beside the Yes word, therefore indicating that I had requested
and demanded, and accepted the Trial by Jury Constitutional
Right. Moreover, after I paid for the service of a Jury Trial, THE
COURT ACCEPTED AND STAMPED IT ON JUNE 5, 2002
and I PAID for the service!!!

(Now my statement about the judge acting in, as, from a hidden or
hiding
bush starts making sense to the reader?) Isnt this action which deny
The Constitutional Right to a trial by jury, Unconstitutional?

See in the next document under the title CONCLUSION a
summary
of my response to their motion (the marks and handwriting were
added
for the reader):
EXHIBIT 21



To the reader: Note that the employer based its defense on qualifications
requirements claiming that I was not qualified, and that I was provisional
and not a permanent employee (but if you read this far by now you
should know of the employers falsities and lies as the evidence has
demonstrated). But there is something more important on this Exhibit, it is
that prior to the Judge Dearies ILLEGAL granting of a Motion for
Summary Judgment to defendants (illegal because it was
unconstitutional because it denied the Constitutional Right to a Trial by
Jury), prior to it I had requested, demanded and reminded to him my
Constitutional Right to a Trial by Jury (exhibits 20 and 21) and here in
this exhibit 22 I remind the court again of the need for a trial, THE
TRIAL BY JURY THAT I HAD ALREADY REQUESTED,
DEMANDED, AND THE COURT ACCEPTED AND STAMPED, AND
I HAD PAID FOR THE SERVICE!!! And before I continue, here and
now I must address again that by denying to me my Constitutional Right to a
Trial by Jury that is safeguarded by the United States Congress in its Title
VII Act Law for cases involving Job Employment Discrimination, by
denying it: You have chosen to engage in war against the United States
Constitution and the United States Congress who sustained and sustains
the Right with the additional Title VII Act Law!!!

EXHIBIT 22


All the evidence shown here was submitted to the District Judge and his
Magistrate Judge therefore it is hard for me, as it should be for the rational
and logical mind of the reader, to believe that these judges were not in the
same wagon of prejudice as the employer. And to prove it there is no better
proof than the weighting and examination of the evidence submitted
versus their own statements in this document. Let us examine their statement
but by keeping in mind that they (the judges):
grant defendants motion for summary judgment for the reasons
stated below:

1- Weather plaintiff has established a prima facie case is admittedly
a close question.

Notice that the Judge did not write weather or not, he knew that he
was going to be haunted by the conscience of truth, therefore he made of
the issue a question that he himself refused to answer by stating right
there But the question needs not be answered. To the reader and the
American Public, here is proof that the judges based their decision on
their own prejudices instead of the evidence that I submitted versus the
employers answers:

The employer claimed: plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden of
establishing a prima facie case because plaintiff was not qualified for
the Addiction Counselor Level II position.

Therefore to solve the so called prima facie case issue, any judge
with a rational logical mind for justice had to confront the employer
with the evidence at hand of the same employer and that I had
submitted to the court, where they state that:
APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING
QUALIFICATIONS (exhibits 7,10 and 11), Please NOTICE that they
themselves made and wrote this QUALIFIFICATIONS statement
within their Job Advertisement Form, and, or, their own requirements
in the Corporation Order for the Establishment of the Title (Exhibit
14c); after this done then it was a matter of moving to see my
qualification credentials (Exhibits 15), and AT THAT PRECISE
MOMENT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN UNMASKED, UNDRESSED
FROM THEIR LIES!!! And if the court wanted to corroborate further
my arguments of Discrimination, then at this point they had to only
COMPARE MY QUALIFICATIONS TO THE QUALIFICATIONS
POSSESED BY THOSE OTHER CHOSEN APPLICANTS FOR THE
SAME POSITION THAT THE EMPLOYER ALLEGED THAT I AM
NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION!!!
But because of the judges prejudice, they did not want to read, hear or
find any pretext from the employer. To any person with a rational and
logical mind, the employers pretext (s) is, are, more than evident!!! The
judges claim that plaintiff fails to tender any evidence of pretext is
illogical, unreasonable, not of common sense!!! Therefore the court
became an accomplice to the employers discrimination and oppression,
doubling the already psychological abuse and humiliation to this
plaintiff in representation of self, other similarly situated employees, the
American Public and the United States Government which had and has
part or stake in it until the issue is resolved and closed because to me it
hasnt until I am notified and have an answer from my requests to the
American Government. Do not forget that it was, and here again is
The Governments position on the case is requested.

2- plaintiff fails to tender any evidence of pretext.

Here and now, Judge Dearie, on behalf of the American Public, am
asking you: What is your definition for pretext? I doubt that any reader
with a rational and logical mind will believe your arguments after all the
evidence submitted and that you had a duty to read, examine and then
weight it against the employers pretexts. Moreover, if you and any
other judges believed the employers lies were not pretexts (and just to
mention some: He is not qualified, He is provisional. He is not a
QHP. And, then you should find another job but not as judge!
And with the following quotation that I shall believe that you already
know I move to examine your next PRETEXT to fail your duty to do
justice, to deny me the Constitutional Rights of Jury Trial and Due
Process: THERE ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD GO WITHOUT
SAYING BUT THEY MUST BE SAID!!!

3- No material issue of fact is in dispute and no rational juror could
find in plaintiffs favor on his complaint.

Here and now, openly and transparently, through this writings, I want
to tell you, Mr. Dearie, that : The fact that you derailed the court by
denying to me the Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial, the fact that
the court had charged for providing the Jury Trial Service, the fact
that you obstructed justice by preventing and or obstructing the case
from reaching the jury, the fact that from such obstruction,
prevention and denial of a Demanded Jury Trial right took away
with it other rights as for example: The Due Process, an Equal
Opportunity (compared to others who had access to these rights),
and other rights not known to me, Mr. Dearie: ALL THESE FACTS
ARE I N DI SPUTE. And moreover, How a rational juror was going to
find on my favor on my complaint if YOU NEVER ALLOWED ME TO
REACH THE, TO BE I N, ON, FRONT OF THE J URY???

EXHIBIT 23


4-THE APPEAL
So many years, time, effort and money invested to have an education to
help myself and to others had taken me nowhere but to the streets, I ended
wandering around on the streets of New York City (AND LATER IN
PUERTO RICO) and living in a basement without windows, then I started
feeling as if I was in a domiciliary arrest at 430 Shepherd Avenue in
Brooklyn. But then I decided to fight back and filed for an appeal in the
same Federal Court. But this time the defendants where more because with
the appeal I filed what is called an Instant Law Suit, and in that same
moment and instant, I accused the Federal District Court of becoming an
accomplice to the Discrimination and Oppression of the employer among
other charges like mentioned earlier the denial of Constitutional Rights.
But many of those same judges from the court of appeals had worked for the
District Court and it is logical to think that they have developed bonds or ties
and would become pitcher and catcher, and the same for other personnel:
When I reached the building, went inside and asked for the Court of Appeals
floor and room, I was told: That is not here. But I knew that I was in the
right building and asked again and I was told to go across the street. It didnt
take me too long to realize that they just were doing sabotage. WHAT A
SHAME THAT THIS KIND OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS
HAPPENING WITHIN A FEDERAL COURT!!! It was going to be late
and that day and time was my last chance to file the appeal, therefore I
became more aggressive and eventually I was told the floor and room. Once
I got there I gave to the clerk the appeal and I was asked: To whom you
represent? And I answered: To myself and to the American Public. Then
I was denied the Oral Arguments and I was told It will be decided on the
papers submitted. Sothis is what I meant about developed ties and
bonds, and you, the reader, may come out with your own conclusions but
before doing so, read carefully their response while keeping in mind what
you have read up to now in this book.


EXHIBIT 24
NOTE to the Reader: The Appeal document with its addendums is in
the book: THE HIDDEN CASE where I narrate more in details my
experience.



EXHIBIT 25
Before I write any other comment, I shall inform to the reader that when I
received this letter I was by then documenting and writing my experience in
a manuscript book under the title: THE HIDDEN CASE. And based on
the obstacles that I started experiencing with my computer, I assessed that it
was being intervened; the following events confirmed it to me: NOTICE
the first sentence of this SUMMARY ORDER that states: THIS
SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE
FEDERAL REPORTER. Despite I got more frustrated and upset with
this kind of hijacking to the American Democracy by the Federal Courts in
New York City, I continued with my writings. Then I received from the
court this same letter in a form of a MANDATE; but I continued with my
writings and then I received a third but this time was a different letter from
the court just simple and blatantly (excuse me but I still upset) stating that:
This case shall not be published. Hey!!!, That is how dictatorial
governments operate!!! What they want to hide? (If you read up to here
then both, you and I, know already what they wanted to hide). Like you
can see in the stamped seal of the Corrupted Circuit, the date was January
31 of 2006; after that I ended homeless and was wandering around here and
there; eight years has passed and today, January 11, 2014 I still struggling to
finish and publish this manuscript. During my homelessness (that ended 7
months ago) I lost the last letter from the Corrupted Circuit but I have
witnesses to whom I showed it and who got astonished, for two of them it
was hard to believe it (both representatives of the law, Police Officers). I
think that by now I have given to the reader, the Persons Of Interest
and to The American Public my reasoning or theory to believe that
there are elements of Conspiracy, and the Court became an Accomplice,
and to me this is equal to: a coup, a de-facto government attempt
from within the American Court System!!! WHEN ANY COURT
STARTS HIDING CASES AND DICTATING TO THE CONGRESS
OR ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT THIS CASE
SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED THAT IS A NOXIOUS
DOCTRINE!!!, THAT IS A DANGER TO THE DEMOCRACY!!!
NOTICE that in the document of this Exhibit 25 they wrote a list of the
judges present and then at the bottom of the page they wrote the
name of the person APPEARING FOR
DEFENDANTS=APPELLEES. And right on top of it is
APPEARING FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT Jose Centeno But
guess what: I was not allowed to be present in the hearing and they got
my papers and told me: You did not have to come, go home, then I
inquired about the hearing and I was told: It will be decided on the
papers. But of course, they have to look good at the eyes of the American
Public so this document can give the impression that a Hearing was
conducted and that I was present in it but I was not!!!

Now let us examine the second sentence: AND MAY NOT BE CITED
AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER
COURT. Here openly and transparently I want to denounce the
orchestrated CONSPIRACY TO DENY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
by all the participants within both courts (District and Appeal) and this
based on the facts that:
1- The United States Constitution is The Law of the land, The
Supreme Law of The Land.
2- To work for the court as judges, you are required to swear to
defend The United States Constitution, (Didnt you?) (And if you
did, what happened? Did you swear in vain?).

3- The Trial by Jury is a Constitutional Right.

4- The United States Congress in the Title VII Act ratified the
Constitutional Right to a Trial by Jury in cases of Employment
Discrimination.


5- I requested, demanded Jury Trial in my initial complaint.

6- You the court, accepted and stamped it and then charged the fee
to provide the service


7- During the proceedings both courts conspired to deny and denied
my Constitutional Right (s):

A-The first conspirator, the District Court through its judges (or
other persons involved not known to me) met to achieve the
conspiracy (one to recommend and the other to accept the
recommendations that my Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial be
denied and that my case be dismissed, and they dismissed it)

B-The second agent, the Court of Appeals, became a co-
conspirator by joining the torts violators, the Constitutional and
Civil Right(s) Deniers and Violators, they joined them when they
adopted, made as theirs and then sustained their District Courts
violations to The Supreme Law of The Land, The United States
Constitution!!!

8- Your denial of a Constitutional Right violated another Right: the
Due Process of Law.

Events of the conspiracy: A- Denial of litigation help, B-Denial of
Constitutional Rights of Trial by Jury and Due Process of Law, C-
They Ordered and affirmed the Constitutional Rights Violation
(s) based on their assume familiarity with the facts and procedural
history of this case, THEREFORE IT IS RATIONAL AND
LOGICAL TO BELIEVE THAT THEY KNEW OF ALL THE
FACTS MENTIONED UP TO HERE AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BUT THEY HAD TO
ACHIEVE THE CONSPIRACY OR CO=CONSPIRACY SO THEY
ORDERED AND AFFIRMED THE VIOLATIONS!!! (and the
Readers, the American Public, and you the judges yourselves can
corroborate it by looking to your own words here in this Exhibit 25
Document, therefore and again, you knew of the violations!!!).

And moreover your ASSUMPTIONS, assume familiarity, your
CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS that the McDonnell Douglas V.
Green (or any other of your cited cases in this Exhibit) can be used to
sustain your ordered and affirmed DENIEAL(s) OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT(s), Plus your MANIPULATION AND
HALING of the case into another case to then get it evaluated under
the framework of that other case that is NOT THE CASE
PRESENTED TO THE COURT but for more abuse to me and
shame to you and the United States Court System that you represent
to then use such case framework TO DENY CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT(s), all these:

A-Is, Are, in legal contemplation or legally contemplated!
B- At the instant created, creates and will create not only to
me, but to the average person with a logical and rational mind also: a
genuine issue of material fact(s) to dispute, to denounce, to fight
corruption within the United States of Americas Federal Courts!
B- All those yours assumptions, orders, conclusory allegations
and arguments orchestrated to DENY instead of SAFEGURD
Constitutional Rights: Are without merit!


IN RE: THE BELOW COURT (S) STATEMENT: THIS BOOK WILL BE
PUBLISHED. IT SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REPORTER AND MAY BE, SHALL BE, CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL
AUTHORITY TO STOP THIS AND OR ANY OTHER COURT FROM
EMBEZZELMENT, CONSPIRACY TO DERAIL OR OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE, DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THE
PERSON(S) THAT GO INTO A COURT TO SEEK JUSTICE OR A
REMEDY.




FOR THE CLOSURE 1:
To you judges and to all the involved in this kind-type of conspiracy,
hereby
I remind and tell you that: You are not exempt from suit and there is, are,
Legal Right (s) against you and, or, the authority that makes or made the
law
On which your claimed right (s) depend to deny to me my
CONSTI TUTI ONAL
RIGHT to a Trial by Jury; and then arguing: IS A CONSTI TUTI ONAL
RI GHT
A LEGAL RI GHT?, DOES THE MC DONNELL DOUGLAS V. GREEN,
OR
ANY OTHER CASE OVERRULE A CONSTI TUTI ONAL RI GHT?, CAN
A
SUMMARY J UDGMENT MOTI ON OR ANY OTHER EMBEZELMENT
FROM
A J UDGE OVERRULE A CONSTI TUTI ONAL RI GHT? That the
judges did not
Or do not know the answers? Then they should step down!!! There is no
doubt
That they failed their duty to the American Public to be watchful of the
Constitutional
Rights of the citizens, and that is in legal contemplation because The
guarantee
Of Trial by J ury contained in the Constitution is equally binding at all
times and under
All circumstances not only to all people but to the courts and its
officers or representatives,
J udges are included!!!


FOR THE CLOSURE 2
The dissemination from some judges of the false assumptions, conclusions,
that any particular
Opinion within any previously decided case, and that any motion, order, or
Summary Judgment Motion Order could be used to deny and therefore
over-rule a Constitutional Right, is a noxious doctrine!!! Such practice
should stop and it is not and has not been enough for the Supreme Court to
Issue warnings because they did it with me and they can do it again with
any other law abided
Citizen that in good faith goes into the court to seek a remedy under a
claimed Constitutional
Right (s)!!! NEW LEGISLATION IS URGENTLY NEEDED because
such practice or doctrine poses a threat to the Trust in the American
Court and Legal System due to the fact that:
There are involved rights that are secured by the Constitution and such
rights cannot be abrogated by any Motion for Summary Judgment
nor by any jurisprudence (meaning the Judge Dearies famous case of
Mc Donnell Douglas v. Green). As a matter of fact, the act of J udge
Dearie and of all those other judges that became accomplices by
sustaining his decision, was and is an unconstitutional act that cannot
afford protection by, from, nor within, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT!!!


FOR THE CLOSURE 3
When the Government through any of its representatives refuses to uphold,
enforce, sustain
A Constitutional Right then becomes a lawbreaker and breads contempt for
the law!!! And
The defendants, altogether the defendants, with their discrimination acts
and or denial of
Constitutional, Civil or Fundamental Rights: where investing the latter
with a monopoly!!!

Justice Brennan

TO THE READER:
To finish this book of THE EVIDENCE REVIEW, I chose to close it
with
The inclusion of some Legal Poems that I wrote for my friends the Judges
and
That served me as therapy (I cannot afford to pay for a psychotherapist). I
hope
That you not only enjoyed this book and the poems but I expect that you
learn from
My experience to prevent this from happening to you or to any member of
your family or
friends. And I almost forgot to share with you that I could not afford to pay
the
psychotherapy or counseling services but I could afford to go to church and
that
is the best therapy and it works and strengthens the faith!!!
By and GOD BLESS YOU!!!
Respectfully, Mr. Jose Centeno Camacho, MSHS
The not qualified (according to you know who)



















For comments feel free to contact me at: josecubich@yahoo.com
josecentenocamacho@gmail.com
josecenteno@scribd.com
jose.centenocamacho@facebook.com