-DESCRIPCION DE LOS DETALLES DE LA CONSPIRACION CONTRA JESUS ALBERTO CABAL.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This conspiracy has been ongoing for over two (2) decades (28 years to be more precise), and was started by former president Ronald Reagan in the early nineteen eighties under the purported excuse of “Protecting the National Security of the United States”. Such decision was taken after Jesus Alberto Cabal filed discrimination charges against two previous employers known as: "Envirodyne Engineers"(from Missouri), and "Private Label Cosmetics"(from New Jersey). Throughout the years such confederacy has been kept in the dark from the world’s opinion via disinformation and manipulation of the news media not only within the United States, but also abroad. At the same time Federal officials did engage in a massive conspiracy to obstruct justice and to violate his civil rights to ensure that he could not prevail on his law suits for “employment discrimination”, “defamation”, and “employment retaliation” which were filed in several Federal District Courts throughout the country.

  • During the year of 2001 the confederacy at issue was aggravated by the ruthless and lawless actions of President George Bush Jr., and other members of his Administration who in an attempt to either: Expel Jesus Alberto Cabal from the United States, or to cause him physical harm did frame him in the state of Texas with a crime he did not commit. The “direct and circumstantial evidence” gathered so far in this case, without a doubt points out in that direction. The details surrounding this act in furtherance of the conspiracy at issue is discussed in detailed in the section of this Web Page titulado: "The Texas Files".
  • It must be reminded to the reader that most of the Evidence to support Mr. Cabal’s claims of discrimination, and conspiracies to obstruct justice and to violate his civil rights have been compiled and appeared within this Web Site in the section entitled as: Evidencia”.

  • On February the 4th of 2002, Jesus Alberto Cabal, did file in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in the city of San Antonio a 59-page complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against several high ranking employees of the United States Government, and from the agencies which they lead and/or represent; namely: The U.S. Department of Justice (D.O.J) and The Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I). (Appellant’s Exhibit-5 of the Appendix). The complaint which consisted of four (4) counts does describe in excruciating detail the terror and abuse of power to which Mr. Cabal has been subjected to since the year of 1982 at the hands of United States officials just for the simple fact that he is an alien of Colombian national origin, and therefore a Hispanic minority according with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • The law suit against present and former U.S. Attorney Generals, and F.B.I. directors seeks relief on behalf of Mr. Cabal, in both, their official and private capacities. The First Count of such complaint (Count-I), (Please, do refer to pages 1 through 9 of Appellant’s Exhibit-5 of the Appendix) is a petition under the F.O.I.P.A and the statute 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(b) which requests from the District Court to compel all the defendants including, but not limited to the D.O.J., and the F.B.I. to produce, and thereafter to allow duplication of all records in the possession of these defendants dealing with Mr. Cabal and gathered since the year of 1982 throughout the present. In particular, Mr. Cabal has stated in his pleadings that he is in immediate need of all audio and videotapes obtained from surveillance carried out at his place of residence in Seguin, Texas, during Saturday April the 28th of the year 2001 when the last overt act of the conspiracy at issue did take place. (Please, refer to pages 6-9 of Appellant’s Exhibit-5 of the Appendix), (Also, do refer to the section of this Web Site entitled "The Texas Files").
  • Mr. Cabal did consider that it was essential that the court entered its order compelling government agencies, and officials to comply for the simple fact that the matter had been classified as “Top Secret” under the false pretense of protecting the national security of the United States. This is the reason why for the past twenty (20) years Mr. Cabal has met a wall of denials from all federal agencies that he has been in contact with since the nature of the classification given to this matter via "Executive Orders" does allow these agencies to deny even the existence of “any Executive Order tampering with Mr. Cabal’s rights”.
  • The tremendous censorship imposed on the news media in this matter, plus the “gutsy acts” of a few journalists and private citizens who either directly or by innuendo have allowed Mr. Cabal to become aware of the existence of these Executive Orders aimed at suppressing his rights within the United States is the only way that he has been able to determine that such actions have in fact been taken at the presidential level against him. The second count of Mr. Cabal’s complaint (Count-II) sets forth a conspiracy to obstruct justice under the federal statutes: 42 U.S.C. 1985 (a)(2)(3) and 42 U.S.C. 1981. This court must be made aware that on December the 10th, 1998, Mr. Cabal did file an Administrative Claim simultaneously with the Justice Department offices in San Antonio, Texas, and Washington, D.C., in compliance with the federal statutes 28 U.S.C. 2672, and 28 U.S.C. 2675; these statutes do require that prior to initiating a law suit against federal agencies or officials for monetary damages, such parties must be given a chance to examine the claims against them, and thereafter to respond or settle the matter out of court if they wish to do so. (Appellant’s Exhibit-3 of the Appendix).

  • Within Count II of his complaint Mr. Cabal does relate to the court facts of law which overwhelmingly demonstrate that the actions taken by the Eastern District Court of Missouri in the city of Saint Louis could only be explained as being taken in furtherance of a conspiracy, for instance:
  • A. On page 11, paragraph 10 of such complaint Mr. Cabal describes how the district court of Missouri in a case of employment discrimination filed by Mr. Cabal against a former employer known as “Envirodyne Engineers” did appoint an all white jury, in spite of his objections, to try a law suit in which all the allegations of harassment and abuse made by Mr. Cabal, a minority himself, were directed against his white co-workers. (Appellant’s Exhibit-8 of the Appendix).
  • B. On page 13, paragraph 13A, of the complaint Mr. Cabal describes how his own supervisor at “Envirodyne”, an individual with the name of Paul Myers stated under oath during his deposition that the second person in the line of command in the laboratory where Mr. Cabal used to work at the time, a Mr. Paul Humburg, had stated to him that (quote): “He (Mr. Humburg)did not like people of Hispanic origin because in the past he had some bad experiences with Mexicans”. (Appellant’s Exhibits-9,10 of the Appendix).
  • C. This individual who had expressed such prejudiced against Hispanics was also part of the management team at “Envirodyne”, and was in a position to prejudice his co-workers against Mr. Cabal, as was indeed the case in those days.
  • D. In fact, further proof of prejudice against Hispanics at “Envirodyne Engineers”was discovered in a form known as EE0-1 and filed by such corporation with the E.E.O.C. in the early eighties in which its work force description by racial composition does show that among the dozens of workers at Envirodyne Engineers there were no employees of Hispanic heritage (male or female). (Appellant’s Exhibit-11 of the Appendix). Mr. Cabal who was a graduated chemist and who had been hired as a temporary worker by “Envirodyne” had also applied for permanent positions with this company as they became available, either as Chemist or as Q.A. Technician. (Appellant’s Exhibits-12, and 13 of the Appendix).
  • E. Jesus Alberto Cabal was denied either one of these two jobs in spite of the fact that his own supervisor had stated during his deposition, and later on during the trial of the law suit that he had done a good job while employed by “Envirodyne” (Appellant’s Exhibits-14,15 of the Appendix).
  • Furthermore, and to show that Mr. Cabal was not only a good and responsible employee at “Envirodyne” who was denied full time permanent employment in an act of discrimination, and who was railroaded in the district court pursuant to a conspiracy by U.S. officials altogether with management at “Envirodyne” it must be stated as well that:
  • F. An attorney for this corporation with the name of Jay Schiller in a letter sent to Mr. Cabal’s attorney on August 18, 1982 clearly implies that Mr. Cabal had been a good worker whom “Envirodyne” would be willing to re-hire at a latter time should the economic situation in the St. Louis area were to show some improvement. (quote). (Appellant’s Exhibit-16 of the Appendix).
  • Notwithstanding all of this massive evidence of employment discrimination, the “all white jury” chosen in this case returned a verdict against Mr. Cabal in all three counts, under a stiff censorship of the law suit in the Saint Louis metropolitan area during the year of 1986. Later on, when Mr. Cabal confronted a newsman in the city of St. Louis with the name of Tim Bryant about the stiff censorship surrounding his law suit, and the fact that he had clearly been “railroaded” during the trial of his discrimination law suit, his reply was that he couldn’t help Mr. Cabal because (quote): “All seems to indicate that very powerful people in the Federal Government do not want this matter to become of public knowledge.” (Page 14 paragraph E of Appellant’s Exhibit-5 of the Appendix).

  • The truth of the matter is that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, Mr. Cabal, at the trial of the law suit Jesus Alberto Cabal vs. Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., during the year of 1986 was in simple words overwhelming to show that he had been the victim of employment discrimination and slander by his co-workers at “Envirodyne”. The court’s decision at the time not to allow the jury to rule on the defamation count, and the appointment thereafter of an "all white jury” to decide a case of employment discrimination in which all of Mr. Cabal’s claims were directed against his white co-workers was the judge’s way to let Mr. Cabal know that the court did not intend to play by the rules in his case. This fact is undisputable if one takes into account that at the time the population of the city of Saint Louis itself was over 80% African-American; thus, the appointment of an all white jury under these conditions, plus the fact that the jury did rule contrary to the facts of the case can only be explained as an act in furtherance of a conspiracy.
  • This incident alone is sufficient as to contradict U.S. Attorney’s Craig Gargotta’s statements set forth within his Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the Federal Government´s defendants, and filed with the District Court of Texas on June of 2002. Within such Motion Mr. Gargotta does argue that Mr. Cabal had no one to blame, but himself for the dismissal of his law suits because (quote): “The law suits were factually or substantively defective” (page 11, paragraph 3 of the government’s Motion to Dismiss). In this regard the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals must be made aware that the lawyers who prepared and tried the law suit “Cabal vs. Envirodyne” on behalf of Mr. Cabal, belonged to the law firm of Newman, Goldfarb, Freyman & Stevens which was reputed at the time to be one of the best law firms in the Saint Louis metro area; particularly, in matters dealing with civil rights litigation. In fact, as was told to Mr. Cabal by other civil rights attorneys in the St. Louis metro area who examined several of the pleadings just before he filed his appeal on that particular case: “The original complaint, plus the pleadings which they filed throughout the litigation on behalf of Mr. Cabal were legally flawless, factual, and well reasoned documents as was also their presentation during the trial of the case in which they refuted one by one each of Envirodyne’s arguments that there was not an attempt by this company to discriminate against Mr.Cabal”. (Appellant’s Exhibit-14 of the Appendix).
  • It is fair to say that the only way that the lawyers acting on his behalf could have lost that particular case was through tampering with the proceedings; through cheating sponsored by U.S. officials as was definitely the case at the time. All of the evidence and exhibits that Mr. Cabal has set forth in the previous paragraphs did entitled him to relief as a matter of law, and could only have been suppressed or nullified via an Executive Order aimed at tampering with Mr. Cabal’s legal rights to prevail on the merits of his claims. Not other logical explanation suffice or can be given to the actions taken by the court against him during the trial of the case Cabal vs. Envirodyne.   

  • Now, in the case of the law suit Cabal vs. Private Label Cosmetics, Inc., which was filed in the state of New Jersey, similar violations took place. For instance:
  • I.) A few days after his hiring, an employee from “Private Labels”with the name of Barbara Zakaev, did contact the office of Envirodyne Engineers, Inc. in Saint Louis, Missouri to inquire about Mr. Cabal’s previous employment. Ms. Zakaev was told by Envirodyne’s officials that Plaintiff had in fact filed charges with the E.E.E.O.C against “Envirodyne” for employment discrimination. Other telephone calls did follow up among higher level officials of these two companies, and as a direct result of “Envirodyne” releasing the above referenced information to “P. L. C.” Plaintiff was subjected to tremendous harassment, to ostracism, and degradation at this employment. His co-workers openly used to tell him that they knew that he (Mr. Cabal) had filed charges of discrimination against “Envirodyne”, and that they wanted him to leave. Plaintiff was given “unsigned paychecks” on at least three occasions obviously in an attempt to intimidate him. (Appellant’s Exhibit-17 of the Appendix).
  • II.) Also, on/or about October the 9th , 1982 the owners of “Private Label Cosmetics” did issue a pay raise to all of its employees including those who got hired after Mr. Cabal, except for Mr. Cabal himself. Some of his co-workers and supervisors used to approach him several times a day to laugh at him stating: (Quote) “Poor guy, he is the only one who did not get a pay raise, Ha! Ha! Ha!” The pay raise eventually was made retroactive to the Plaintiff. (Appellant’s Exhibit-18 of the Appendix) After complaining on several occasions to the company’s vice-president, and president, about the intense harassment which Plaintiff was being subjected to by his co-workers and supervisors alike on November the 19th, 1982, a Mr. Michael Assante invited him to a meeting in an attempt to get Plaintiff to sign a statement purportedly acknowledging that:
  • III.) “The harassment had stopped after Mr. Cabal had met with the company’s upper management to discuss the matter”. (See Appellant’s Exhibit-19 of the Appendix). Mr. Cabal refused to sign such since the harassment never stopped, and by then management had prejudiced the work force against him to the point that the situation was basically spinning out of control.
  • IV.) On/or about November 22, 1982 a Mr. Geoff Finkenauer on behalf of Private Label Cosmetics and the Plaintiff mutually agreed to sign a letter of dismissal after his supervisors acknowledged that Private Label Cosmetics had allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point that the trust between Plaintiff and most of his co-workers, and supervisors was basically non existent. The mutually signed statement of dismissal basically read that “..Due to the unforseen personnel difficulties and to the underlying tension there created we find it necessary to lay Alberto Cabal off ”. (Appellant’s Exhibit-20 of the Appendix).
  • V.) After Mr. Cabal filed his law suit in the District Court of New Jersey against “Private Label Cosmetics”the harassment and intimidation of Mr. Cabal continued this time at the hands of federal officials. In fact, on January the 20th, 1983, a Magistrate from the U.S. District Court of New Jersey with the name of Serena Perretti wrote a letter to the Plaintiff declining to appoint him legal representation on the grounds that (Quote): “In a claim under Title VII for retaliatory dismissal the fact issues are not difficult and can be presented by a litigant without a lawyer. Therefore, I will exercise my discretion and decline to request counsel to represent you”. (Appellant’s Exhibit-21 of the Appendix).
  • In other letters mailed to Mr. Cabal during the following months she does make other remarks which indicated to him that the Magistrate had been prejudiced against him, and/or told by higher officials of the Executive branch how to rule in the case of Cabal v. Private Labels Cosmetics, Inc. This claim is corroborated by the fact that the Magistrate in spite of asserting in her letter of January the 20th, 1983, that “retaliation facts are easy to present” went on thereafter to deny all of Plaintiff’s motions, including but not limited to his subpoena of documents from his employer in what appears to have been a clear attempt to prevent him from winning on the merits of the claim. To further show the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that contrary to the argument of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas that the “Plaintiff (Mr. Cabal) did not have a valid claim in any of the law suits he has filed since 1982 reason why the suits were dismissed", he also needs to discuss herein some of the evidence presented in the case of Cabal vs. Tetraplastics, Inc. et al, suit which was filed during the year of 1994 also with the Eastern District of Missouri. In fact, the evidence was also quite compelling in Cabal vs. Tetraplastics, et al to show that Mr. Cabal was the victim of employment retaliation, defamation, and a conspiracy by the co-Defendants altogether with state officials in Missouri to violate his civil rights under color of law.

  • Once again, the proceedings were carried out under a stiff censorship since neither one of the Defendants could refute such compelling evidence indicating that a “meeting of the minds” took place among the parties which aim was to injure Mr. Cabal in his trade. The following facts prove by the “preponderance of the evidence”that there was in fact a conspiracy involving employees of “Tetra” and “I T Corporation” with federal and Missouri state officials to deprive Jesus Cabal of his civil rights under the statutes 42 U.S.C 1983, and 42 U.S.C 1985(a)(2) and (3):
  • 1. “Tetraplastics, Inc.” and “I T Corporation” were both located in the same industrial park at Earth City, Missouri, just a few blocks away from each other, at the time Mr. Cabal worked at “Tetra”. (This is an uncontested fact, and very critical evidence to this law suit).
  • 2. Jesus Cabal was terminated from his employment with “Tetraplastics” on July the 2nd, 1994, which is just about a week after he filed a law suit against “I T Corporation” in St. Louis County Circuit Court on June the 22nd, 1994. (These two previously related facts are too much of a coincidence to be disregarded).
  • 3. “I T Corporation” in its response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory#19 clearly states that: “Contact between employees of these two companies have indeed taken place in the past”, although “IT” claims that it is not of the kind described by Plaintiff. (See Appl. Exhibit-22 of the Appendix.).
  • 4. On Counts I through V of his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth statements made often by employees of “Tetraplastics” with the names of Mr. Tom Williams, Mr. Steve Hoff, and Mr. Craig McDonald, who stated on numerous occasions that Mr. James Hurley himself was a good friend of several officials of I T Corporation who released information to Mr. Hurley dealing with Mr. Cabal’s litigation against “I T”. In fact, one of Mr. Hurley’s relatives, a Dr. Andrew Hurley, is a professor at the University of Missouri (St. Louis), the same campus where the husband of Dr. Margaret Winter from “IT” is also an employee. (Appl. Exhibit-23 of the Appendix).
  • 5. Mr. Gene Reim, the director of personnel for “Tetraplastics”, admitting during his deposition that his own sister is an employee of the Missouri Division of Child Welfare in Saint Louis County, (Appl. Exhibit-24 of the Appx.) (page 55 of his deposition); fact which might explain why a state official with the name of Mr. Paul Fox, the legal counsel for the St. Louis County Circuit Court told Mr. Cabal during the year of 1994 (quote): “I know who you are!”.
  • 6. Mr. Paul Fox himself, the county’s legal counsel, within the Affidavit he submitted to the attorneys for the Defendants and referred to in Defendants’ Reply Brief has admitted that (quote): “The copy of the order signed by Judge Campbell and shown to me by Mr. Cabal, in fact seems to have been altered as to show a number seven(7) instead of a number one(1)”. Mr. Fox is relating to the dates of November 1, 1994 and November 7, 1994.
  • 7. The record also shows that the conspiracy at issue includes at least two employees of Plaintiff’s next employer after Tetraplastics, namely: “Stellar Manufacturing Company”. Within his deposition Mr. Bob Page, a “Tetra” employee acknowledged that: “He and his family were friends with an employee of “Stellar” known as Ms. Velma Johnson” (Appl. Exhibit-25 of the Appendix), and go as far as saying that: ”Velma (Johnson) was visiting his house the same morning just before his deposition.” (Appl. Exhibit-25 of the Appendix). Ms. Johnson and Ms. Dwyer from “Stellar Manufacturing” appear to have been the recipients of a defamatory letter issued by Tetraplastics.
  • 8. The director of human resources for “Stellar Manufacturing”, Ms. Dwyer, did let Mr. Cabal know that she was aware that he had been “railroaded” in previous litigation against former employers, and weeks later developed an incentives program at “Stellar” known as the “Stellar Safety Express”(See Appl. Exhibits-27, 28 of the Appendix), which as explained in the documentation attached thereto consisted of a train railroading throughout the Departments or Divisions of this company with all the employees purportedly traveling aboard the train and earning vacation days and/or monetary incentives.
  • 9. In fact, Ms. Dwyer did refuse to sign her own deposition and also refused to accept any of the certified letters mailed to her by Mr. Cabal, perhaps because she is aware that the conspiracy at issue had in fact been exposed. (See Appl.’s. Exhibits-29, 30 of the Appendix).
  • 10. A Mr. James Hurley from “Tetra” did file an affidavit with the district court stating that employees of “Tetra” were concerned about Jesus Cabal’s performance and attendance; yet, the director of personnel for Tetra, a Mr. Gene Reim, has flatly denied in his deposition that he has any knowledge at all that complains were ever made about Jesus Cabal ( See Appl’s. Exhibit-33 of the Appendix). It just makes no sense that in any business, employees will complain all the way to the company’s vice-president about a co-worker who was doing janitorial type of work, without ever bringing the matter to the director of personnel himself as to create a record of the particular incidents.
  • 11. Furthermore, at least two of the machine operators which Mr. Cabal was assigned to work with, did acknowledge in their own depositions that Plaintiff, Jesus Cabal, was in fact a good worker, and a responsible individual who was respectful of his co-workers. (Appellant’s Exhibits-31, and 32 of the Appendix).
  • The irony of Judge Perry’s dismissal of Mr. Cabal’s claims for conspiracy in “Cabal v. Tetraplastics”, et al., lays in the fact that she believed that there is enough evidence for a jury to hear his claims for employment retaliation, which by the way, are directly relate to his allegations of conspiracy. However, she chose to dismiss the conspiracy claims on the grounds that (quoting her):“Such were nothing but a bunch of coincidences”. (Appellant’s Exhibit-34 of the Appendix).
  • Judge Perry undoubtedly created serious doubts about her impartiality not only by dismissing Plaintiff’s counts for “libel” and “conspiracy” when there was very compelling evidence supporting Mr. Cabal’s allegations, but for going as far as imposing upon him the payment to the defendants of Court costs and attorneys’ fees in excess of $30,000 dollars. This is very unfair because: First The evidence in this law suit can not be refuted by the defendants, nor explained in any way other than in favor of Mr. Cabal’s claims, and Second The proceedings in the lower court were conducted under a tremendous censorship in which the news media was prohibited, once again, to report to the general public matters dealing with these proceedings. Such fact makes it perhaps criminal in nature to impose such outrageous fines upon a litigant who is being victimized simultaneously by the Defendants and by government imposed censorship which only goal was to cover up the truth. (Appl’s. Exhibit-35).
  • Judge Perry of the District Court of Missouri should have taken into account when considering Defendants’Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56, that the responsibility of the district judge is merely to determine that there are issues to be tried, rather than to try the issues herself via affidavits. Such has always been the contention of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals as shown in: U.S. v. Porter, C. of App. 8th Circuit, 1978, 581 F.2d 698, also in Ozark Milling Co. v. Allied Mills, Inc., C.A.. 8th Circuit, 1973, 480 F.2d 1014. “Summary Judgment remedy is extreme and not to be used as a substitute for trial, and any doubt as to existence of triable issue of material fact must be resolved against movant”. Jacobson v. Maryland Cas. Co., C.A., 8th Circuit, Mo.336 F.2d 72, 1964. Appellant needs to remind the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, that his assignment at “Tetraplastics”in the state of Missouri was of a “janitorial nature”, in spite of the fact that he is a graduated chemist who through the years has received excellent letters of recommendation from other employers. That is before and after his employment with “Tetra”. (See Appl’s. Exhibits-36 through 44).
  • Furthermore, the Director of Personnel for Tetraplastics, and at least two of the machine operators which Mr. Cabal was assigned to work with, did acknowledge in their depositions that Jesus Alberto Cabal was in fact a good worker, and a responsible individual who was respectful of his co-workers. (Refer to Appl’s. Exhibits-31 through 33 of the Appendix). The statements made by these employees of “Tetraplastics” in their depositions should have been enough grounds for Judge Perry to allow Mr. Cabal’s claims of defamation and conspiracy to be presented to a jury; particularly, because Mr. Cabal had already presented evidence indicating that copies of the Service Letter published by a Mr. Hurley from “Tetraplastics” had in fact being released to employees of Stellar Chemical Company, which was Mr. Cabal’s subsequent employer. The release of such derogatory service letter by Tetraplastics’ officials to personnel from “Stellar Chemical” was directly responsible for the fact that Mr. Cabal was kept as an hourly employee in spite of the fact that he had been promoted all the way to Plant Chemist, and eventually caused Mr. Cabal to lose his employment with “Stellar Manufacturing Company”of Hazelwood, Missouri.
  • The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seem to have ignored the fact that Defendants “Tetra” and “I T Corp.” did file a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 56 of the F.R.C.P. The provisions of Rule-56 do not allow a District Judge to dismiss any claims when a Defendant seeking Summary Judgment is unable to refute and/or to contradict the evidence set forth by the Plaintiff within his pleadings. (Mc Pherson v. Rankin, 736 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Circuit, 1984), see also Union Planters Nat. Leasing v. Woods, 687 F.2d. 117 (5th Circuit 1982). In this particular law suit, it can be said that after being confronted with the compelling and unchallenged evidence in Mr. Cabal’s possession, Judge Perry had no alternative but to allow Mr. Cabal’s claims for “defamation of character” and “conspiracy” to proceed to trial before a jury altogether with Mr. Cabal’s claims of employment retaliation. In summary, the fact that judge Perry from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri did not choose to rule on Mr. Cabal’s favor on the three (3) critical counts of his complaint had nothing to do with Plaintiff lacking of evidence to support his allegations, nor with his pleadings being defective as Mr. Gargotta has argued in support of the U.S. defendants’ claims to dismiss.

  • The case against “Tetraplastics, et al”is one in which the judge chose to ignore the evidence, it is as simple as that, and she did choose to ignore the facts of the case not because she was incompetent, nor because Mr. Cabal’s employers offered her a bribe. She did so because she was compelled by means of an Executive Order falsely arguing damage to the national security of the United States should Mr. Cabal had been granted an opportunity to prove his allegations before a jury as set forth in his complaint. The truth of the matter is that the stiff censorship surrounding the law suit plus the fact that she fined Mr. Cabal in the amount of $30,000 when the evidence overwhelmingly supported his claims was the "icing on the cake" that U.S. Government officials were out to deny him fundamental constitutional rights such as those of: "Fair Trial", "Due Process of Law" and the "Equal Protection of the laws".

  • home | Expedientes | Conspiracion | La Ley | Biografia | Contactame | Links |