The federal court under Federal Judge Frederick J. Motz denied its own rules for a scheduling order, a scheduling hearing and any discovery (investigation) even though both defendents (UPS represented by Piper Rudnick) were allowed to engage in their own discovery and sharing with each other their own documents and "stories" to make their positions "fit".

Federal Judge Motz denied Dan O'Shea the discovery necessary to expose both UPS and the Teamsters. In one affidavit of a number of them presented to Judge Motz, Rob Moorhead details a number of UPSers tape recording management harassment, retaliation and targeting of employees. But Judge Motz refused to let Dan O'Shea bring these witnesses forth. It was a violation of all rule of law.

"Earmarks"...directions in legislation that money flow to very specific groups in very specific places for very specific purposes: big presents from Congress to favored constituents, or, in other words, many favors called in when deemed necessary. As an article points out - "What is most interesting is that these "earmarks" are now described as the property of firms like Piper Rudnick--a Republican-oriented lobbying business".

The intrigue moves on.

O'Shea had boxed the defendents into having admit they had negotiated no policy and even introduced evidence that others, similarly-situated employees around the country adhered to the same management instructions without discipline, not so much as a warning notice, O'Shea was summarily discharged for.

Even Ron Joseph, one of the new union officers who initially stated Dan O'Shea was unjustly terminated emailed to Dan O'Shea that a number of drivers stated they do what Dan O'Shea did and aren't even disciplined. Yet Judge J. Frederick Motz, along with UPS and the Teamsters feared all of this would reach the light of day.

The unlawful actions continued. Since Dan O'Shea forced the defendents to admit there was no policy (to be able to state no material fact exists), the defendents had to determine a new "strategy" - that Dan O'Shea violated law.

While Judge Motz, UPS and the Teamsters unlawfully accused Dan O'Shea of violating law, the Maryland Unemployment Commission paid out benefits to Dan O'Shea, reaching a determination that:

"The claimant was discharged...because he allegedly recorded a meeting when he was told not to. Insufficient information has been presented to show that the claimant's actions constituted misconduct in connection with the work. As a result, it is determined that the circumstances surrounding the separation do not warrant a disqualification under section 8-1002 or 8-1003...".

Those sections assert that benefits can be denied to claimants if their own actions led to the discharge. A state agency in Maryland determined that Dan O'Shea did nothing wrong, not even violating a state law, because of insufficient evidence even though they well knew Dan O'Shea used a tape recorder in an area where there was no right to privacy.

Of course UPS appealed, but it was denied...they couldn't bring an existing policy to the hearing, nor could they assert such under oath - so they didn't appear.

Federal Judge J. Frederick Motz allowed UPS and the Teamsters to lie under oath.

And further, the federal court and Federal Judge Motz unlawfully "interpreted" state statutory law and instead of merely and unlawfully denying Dan O'Shea and his family justice, the new strategy was to use their authority to brand O'Shea as a criminal. Just as the NLRB's investigation was no more than 4 days, the Federal Judge Motz decision in Dan O'Shea's case took all of 2 days, after his summary judgment response was filed, as if the court's opinion had already been written...

...2 days.

Federal opinions take months, not days. (Of course all of this has changed with the "earmarks" from Piper Rudnick - what once was unlawful is now precedent - there is no due process in company/union panel hearings or the courts for American workers with respect to discharges - companies can interpret any action by a worker as a violation of law and brand that worker as a criminal).

But "exceptions" were the constant norm in this case. Judge J. Frederick Motz just as quickly approved O'Shea's motion to appeal. The ink of his signature probably wasn't even dry yet as the delivery clerk was still heading out of his chambers - as if knowing the 4th Circuit was awaiting the case, as his wife, Federal Appeals Court Judge Diana Gribbon Motz conveniently sits as an appeals judge - to the very court Dan O'Shea was appealling to.

Note a conference showing both Judge Motz' in attendance. Federal Judge Diana Gribbon Motz gave a luncheon speech sponsored by Piper Rudnick, the lobbyist firm representing UPS that was allowed by her husband, Judge J. Frederick Motz to engage in discovery with the Teamsters while O'Shea was denied all discovery, and of course, where did Mrs. Motz begin her law career? - with Piper Rudnick.

At the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Dan O'Shea and his family were "informed" by an appeals court clerk that his case had one of the most experienced clerks on his case.

That initial comfort was merely a facade.

Eight months later, two weeks before the change in the Federal Rules of Procedure mandating that ALL opinions be "published", the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rushed a one-paragraph, unpublished "affirmed" decision refusing to explain how an American worker can be denied the right to be charged or plead in response, a right to council for defense, a right to a trial by jury and be determined guilty in a federal court, when no federal question existed with respect to that law, denied all proper jurisdiction and branded as a criminal in a public opinion.

One unlawful act compounded upon another by a company, a union, a government agency and the judicial system as they disregarded time after time their own rules, regulations, policies, procedures, precedent, the law and fundamental constitutional rights the government and judiciary are responsible to protect.