*=fl
`
`1
`
`No.
`
`Supreme Court, U.S.
`FILED
`JUN 1 1 2020
`
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`Michael Garry
`
`Petitioner
`
`v
`American Standard Trane U.S. Inc. “et al”. Respondents
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Forma
`Pauperis to the Supreme Court Of Wisconsin
`
`r
`
`( Name of Court that last ruled on the case)
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN FORMA PAUPERIS
`
`Michael Garry
`28, Frigate Crescent
`Sun Valley
`Fish Hoek
`Cape Town 7975
`South Africa
`Email:—< mgarry@mweb.co,za>
`Tel. 27-21-7854070
`
`\ /*.ip
`hi i,j -i • i:
`b V.a b Vbfe b b w fa q t_
`3
`
`

`

`Questions Presented
`
`i '
`
`(1) The Wisconsin Supreme Court was manifestly wrong in rejecting the Petitioner’s
`Appeal for Review, when it failed to consider mitigating, newly discovered
`evidence.
`Such error was structural, instead of issuing a mandate immediately as required
`under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 41(d) (1) (2), it clearly
`contravened applicable rules of Appellate Procedure, when it dismissed the
`appeal as moot.
`
`Should this Court issue a Writ of Certiorari, when The Wisconsin Supreme Court
`clearly contravened applicable Rules of Appellate Procedure and unjustifiably
`departed from ordinary judicial procedures, when extraordinary circumstances
`existed.
`Should this court order the Wisconsin Supreme Court to issue a mandate to the
`Wisconsin Labour, Wisconsin Circuit and Appeals Courts to comply with this
`Court's authority, rules and precedents.
`
`

`

`List of Parties
`[X} All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
`A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgement is
`the subject of this petition is as follows.
`
`American Standard Trane US Inc.
`
`Ingersol Rand
`
`f
`
`Travelers Insurance
`
`Ernst & Young.
`
`1, Centennial Avenue
`101, Piscataway Township.
`NJ 08854-6820
`New Jersey
`Tel. 1732-652-7100
`
`800. E Beaty Street
`Davidson
`NC 28036
`Tel. 704-655-4000
`
`485, Lexington Avenue
`New York
`NY 10017
`Tel. 1-971-778-6000
`
`5, Times Square
`NY 10036
`New York
`Tel. 212 - 773 -3000
`
`

`

`*
`
`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENT
`^■vyy;^ yi >’ t
`
`r.":/
`
`v,.* ^'r::
`
`*0 .rf-iJ'J'
`
`-■•CV' !•/*•
`• Ui‘- f$£
`; . .* -.lif.j* ,? :t k.
`: ^ri:< ■ ynil'm-.Mq 3<’- i*s :. .-yen? ;!•? t^Pag©
`;lot h * :• ..riiFt ri’ir k
`
`?'!*L>r;^£ !
`
`;:-.v. i'
`
`r; ;•
`
`)!'<
`
`Opinions Below
`' ; - i / \ !p
`ri Vi' n •
`i •#
`Jurisdiction
`’,
`\:n ft
`. jy t
`vt'?,'*'
`-T
`ConstitutionaPand'Statutory Provisions Involved—
`‘ bR !<.
`.03,
`j ,.;j‘
`/“7
`Statement of the Case--—
`r*
`3 '
`7' i
`o\
`CO-' -
`Reason for Granting Petition
`: ik.
`
`Conclusion
`
`»1 •
`
`:’-.r
`
`.; i::r
`
`Index To Appendices
`
`Appendix (A) Order of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
`'•-A
`
`Dated March 11,2020
`
`Appendix (B) Order and decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
`'
`° ‘ v "
`Dated April 5,2018
`
`Appendix (C) Order and decision of Wisconsin Supreme Court.
`Dated May 28, 2002
`
`Appendix (D) Order of Wisconsin Appeals Court. Dated April 15, 2002
`
`Appendix (DD) Order of Wisconsin Appeals Court for Reconsideration
`Dated May 20, 2002
`
`Appendix (E) Order of State of Wisconsin Circuit Court for
`Reconsideration
`Dated Nov. 9, 2001
`
`Appendix (F) Order of “ Motion to Dismiss” Wisconsin Circuit Court
`Dated Sept. 19, 2001
`
`

`

`*
`
`A
`
`f
`
`Appendix (G) Decision of Wisconsin Labour & Industry Review Commission . v.
`. !■
`Dated August 21,1996
`
`Appendix (H) Order of Wisconsin Labour & Industry Court to dismiss
`Dated March 29,1996
`\
`Appendix (I) Copy of Affidavit of Petitioner denying alleged Arabic Contract
`Dated February 6,1995 ' :
`in • ,
`
`: A
`
`\
`
`i
`
`Appendix (J) Petitioner’s Brief for Reconsideration to Appeal Court
`Dated April 28, 2002 -
`1 i
`!
`
`- ♦ t
`Appendix (K) Copy of Respondent’s to Wisconsin Circuit Court
`Dated May.11, 2001
`
`k
`
`i
`
`1
`
`* ■ ’■
`
`J
`
`* I
`
`p
`
`j
`
`t
`
`I
`
`I
`
`Appendix (L) Copies of documents disclosed by (ICIJ) linking American
`Standard Inc. to the off shore entity TRANE SA . .;
`Dated February 18, 2020
`r\> ■
`\ '
`• .*
`J J
`I
`Appendix (M) Copy of letter from Petitioner to Travelers Insurance filing
`American Contracts
`Dated March 11,1993
`
`. f T
`Appendix (N) and (NN) Copy of letters from Petitioner requesting all documents
`from from his file. Dated Dec. 1,1993, and January 11,1994
`
`J
`
`1
`
`iM
`
`/
`
`*
`
`Appendix (O) Copy of letter from Respondents with list of document from the
`Petitioner’s personnel file.
`Dated May 3,1994
`»
`Appendix (P) Copy of Letter from Petitioner trial judge objecting to admission of
`Alleged Arabic Contract by the Respond. Dated Dec. 9,1994.
`. \
`il f
`«
`Appendix (Q) Copy of letter from trial Judge accepting the Alleged Arabic Contract
`over Petitioner’s head objection.
`Dated Jan. 26,1995
`J
`Appendix (R) Copy of Alleged Arabic Contract and Respondents un-credited
`translation
`Dated Dec. 9,1994
`r r
`■ i
`* *
`Appendix,(S) Copy of letter from Trane of final settlement offer
`■ j
`Dated Nov. 24,1992
`
`1
`
`i.
`
`1
`
`4
`
`r
`
`i
`
`Appendix (T) Copy of Respondents final Brief, with attached “Chain of Command”
`last page
`Dated March 9,1995
`
`l
`
`r.
`\
`Appendix (U) Copy of Petitioner’s brief
`
`Appendix (V) Copy of Swiss Commerce Register.
`
`t
`
`Dated February 7,1995
`< i
`'I fci
`Dated 1996 & 2014
`
`Appendix (W) Copy of American Employment Contract. Dated Dec. 1,1978
`
`

`

`Appendix (X)>iDiseovery "letter^pf'Appoifitment" from Lt Mooney n&psti (f)}
`Dated July 10,1979
`Srs9 ,r’ v-ouAbf 1st*
`
`Appendix (Y) CopyiofAmericanEmpIbymentGontfact. /Dated Nov<10,i 1984 .cqqA
`c'iur rbtsM bow
`Appendix (Z) Copy of Sultan of Oman Medical Tribunal and medical scans.
`v;;rtoO jii&A ‘.•-.y.' . pnebnv •*!'■•/I \ s /k.l;1AUDated May./-'
`31,1992 3 v.eutdeT
`Appendix (A2) copy of letter from Swiss lawyer
`Dated May 13,1996
`<Wl* -oF/q. ■ r./pisb** ">o^h i/.; W-v- / uss .r5]ttf/‘i
`nu/quqA
`Appendix (B2) Copy of letter from Ernst & Young London officer stating
`connection to Switzerland.
`Dated January 4, 2014
`'•zu,' /-‘Gi*- v .-'W afn-P/o, ;-=..c
`-.*) z ,.a
`Appendix (C2) Copyof letter,from parent company Ingersol Rand denying
`responsibility.
`Dated April 28, 2009
`b *£•!»?:! i.LKJh vr; i *Goi‘>;3v :/;ry/ij'Vi;i h; /ivxoC (\) X-!
`Appendix (D2) Copy of Salary cheque/irr’v He . . p cDhted»Nov.11,1990
`.v39-' "3 vmq' 3/3 ’/quCi
`Appendix (E2) Copy of letter from service manger Peter Justice to la Crosse
`i: requesting medical expenses, t, 3 n Dated March 26;.1991v:pi -<
`f ;3f .} r / rq/.u
`Appendix (F2) Copy of internal La Crosse memo from Orlin Midlien to Elain
`/3- fr f Bakkeri, unilaterally taking Petitioner’s bonus as laid down in his ' -.vacoA
`; • “3 ('American contract to pay for i'terminal indemnity"Dated Oct. 18,1992
`
`Appendix (G2). Copy of newspaper article from CEO of South African post
`A. -•
`Service apologising for;podrrservice. '
`2017.x v
`xt'ti >'i. c-' /< i’ t ;u * v-S
`,<3jF
`r '^t ,t ,;-i
`Appendix (H2) Copy of letter from South African lawyer in trying to instigate a
`/ rx'/rj ; Claim iriSotith j^frica’srl
`rr Dated July/1431997 > xh ■ q :A
`,, .
`, bef/fj
`erL * i -n"■'.*'3 3i'X-V ;!V
`Appendix (I) Copy of Order from UK court in trying to instigate a claim in the
`Hr o j Uhited;Kingdom. ^ bp
`/...ux
`t/ Dated AugpsL24;{2006
`i>x ■:»
`'s wo
`JC ..nal vv*3-
`V"
`Appendix (J2) Copy of letter form lawyer in Oman trying to instigate a claim
`t « icln the'SultanateidfyOmani - oO o/kw bD;ated April 8/2009or,
`b -
`tcdBip-:-/
`Appendix (K2) Copy of Order from New York Worker’s Compensation Board
`Dismissing claim 1 > I >ni o .. ; . Dated May 31 ,'2013.: p
`x/fi' w* o.-.
`Appendix (L2) Copy of letter from New York Court of Appeals.
`’LffRifti. ol" /h/
`2>hZ's''a ::i?j .snfcl fp-isi ;>;t *KDatedkJuly 3t, 2015 op
`Appendix (M2) Copy of .Order from New York Supreme Court, Appellate
`Division. Denying claim.
`Dated March 4, 2016.
`rmr tv
`> J
`..•qojxT'/'i ‘cqC'3 •3.:? qA
`Appendix (N2) Copy of Order of New York Appeals Court dismissing claim
`, . q r- ,j -^Dated June.7, 2016
`fv ;; j
`
`1
`
`t
`
`f.\y,
`
`. /J b,. '.i
`
`'3UJ
`
`‘Oi:X-/T .
`
`ft
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITY
`
`Page
`
`91
`
`0 ......
`4,9
`
`..
`ri i
`
`2
`
`'
`
`;\V,
`13,
`v'
`.13
`i J
`V
`, ■■.‘•12.;
`kv /
`:
`' 14 r
`9
`l .....4
`
`971
`
`3
`2,3,9
`
`Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Treasury. 2,7,8,11
`Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115,1118 (1st Cir. 1989)
`3
`. i ■
`t r
`Cheney, 542. U.S.
`14
`Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA1998):
`: 3 -
`. \5;
`Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2007);
`Fox v Vice 131S.Ct 2205 2211
`Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972),
`Handal v American Farmers Mut. Cas. Co„ 79 Wis. 2d.67, 255 N.W.
`2d.903,
`r 4
`Hazel-Atlas Glass 322 U.S. 238 (1944),
`Herring V U.S.A. It was argued: July 15, 2005
`Hertz Corp. v. Friend - 559 U.S. 77,130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010)
`Hollingsworth, 558 U.S.
`Horton v Haddow, 186 Wis 2d184, 519 N.V. 2d 736 (1994)
`Independent Oil and Chemical Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter &
`Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927, 929 (1st Cir. 1988);
`J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro.957 2011,
`Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601,615 (1948).
`Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566, 569 (Fla. 1985) (Boyd, C.J.,
`concurring specially).
`Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 587 U.S.(2019),
`Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976),
`McCormick §56; California Evidence Code §356.
`■Miller v. Hanover Insurance, 785 N.W.2d 493 (2010)
`Richard S. v. Dep’t of Dev. Servs., 317 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2003).
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21,24 26 (1943)). t ,
`Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n. 19 (1982);
`Samuel Barely Steele v Vector Management; MLB Adva,
`State of New York, Respondent, v. Phillip RIBACK, Appellant
`Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104,109-10 (1964)
`U.S. Supreme Court Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)
`U.S.A v Richard A. Lundwall and Robert W. Ulrich, 97 Cr. 0211 (BDP)
`United States v. Beltran-Gutierrez, 19 F.3d 1287,1289 (9th Cir. 1994),
`United States Brenton 104F.3d 1275
`U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
`U.S.Accountability Office
`Federal Corporate law of the U.S.A
`TRANE S.A ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database.https://offshoreleaks.icij.org.”
`
`13
`. 2,7,11c
`, 3
`4,7,10
`5,9
`11,14
`6
`• ,3
`,:9
`11,14
`6,10
`. 12
`5,6,9
`,12
`13
`12
`13
`4,8
`
`i;
`
`>
`
`v»
`
`77
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`5th Amendment, Due Process Clause
`14th Amendment Due Process Clause
`
`•*
`
`•4
`
`

`

`' r'm
`V
`
`- y* .
`
`• /. -
`u ■
`
`.■ tv ■
`
`1.
`
`Statutes
`
`■*
`
`ini rcr « iftrvi ™ ei1 ,|t ' 1: ‘ r'‘1 r!w,Fii'3, ^ll v nl . hrucH ninisl.ii 'iv-Min.-4IA
`.1®™£* f l?!?v,
`? if) ?r.rx pa rr hvn spo .q-oo i.o i-cnv .-J?/. a.
`28 U.S.C § 60 (b) Invalidating a Judgment for Fraud.
`o .. «, v 8,13, ^
`28 USd 11254 0)WritSACt’
`i,t- "T'T* 8* b9 o8 -iU\ ,o,::'jsK»
`Our i >H*e).-. \rr or: or,1 v11' Oj»vi «■ nra
`28 U.S.C. §1257 (a)
`rrsc r-r^rjsrti ojVmxoB
`28 U.S.C. § 1332
`,(f;\cru = •<„
`0 U ;'0> r. :’9/! v
`u t
`u
`’a; 0) (,rc, ,\0 bs ?u8Y , oO <5rT t.-vi si **rpfi * nan. i»mA v h.b ’.c« 1
`Wis.Stats. § 808.10
`J.bP
`Wis.Stats § 809.62 (1g)(a) (1r)(a)(c)(d),
`8
`(rr r) 8 U 3SC 8<:c
`Wis.Stats§102.23(1) (a)
`H
`cO'JS .er V Ut hru.Mt. C’Rvv J! A 8 ' i
`Wis.Stats.§ 806.07 (1) (b) (c) (h)..
`r ro .2 (jZr r :n; er«. - v nKpassimH
`Wis.Sec § 102.18(3)
`“ '
`‘
`2 U rt: ’ju^n ' r;
`Wis.Sec. §. 102.03(5)
`_ .
`XA „ A tfrrf.-iofri'/mpv .uh.iz hiw aor .'vobu.H ■ r.oK
`Federal Rules of Appellate
`.nuurlO bn. ' 0 : .Jxivv nnl
`' ■nor »;n«;r) os?; ^ bs l rap ..oj r, ciuro
`r,0S r ° crjasrii' v .LfJ yicn'riOPtVi 9,y.L'il:<V t
`Rules «P;"t)e.U,rC3 3."roF 'rw‘B.3
`; .V :t.->iuuh.i,'i
`FI
`e r:.s
`i j ,r,-j8) (^oor *n r>oe ,c:»c bp o?- ■; \> atera »/ ?. '•• a
`.(yL'Ltn < ci'iisy.-)
`SUP. CT 10(a)
`(810°; 3 ') '"8r* ,'ir* nm.TioO ^ppcrioxB bnf> 3t*ili.uoo2. v on1^ j
`Sup. CT. 12
`.(SVPI * 8IT. S L1 cf- opbnblB . uvorijn.V
`SUP. CT 13
`cry tboO X‘ .-jorO -.oV'U-.O :<*c?
`‘
`SUP. CT. 20.1
`( 'J' .1 k'fT oV f!\t 'J3'\
`T'.r ibH v ..
`Oi.v.r
`Wis. Rule (3C804;0i(i)(2)(a)(c)(4)-O^or / lut ..nv^rf vcC .o iqoCi
`•passim-'1'1
`7.1(a)(lj(2j (b)(1)(2) '■ a U rtr ,n jr A * -v. b^.cqr.vT 3,8 ; >c '•
`Federal Rule
`o Rule 26 (1)(a)(C)(E)(F)(3)(A)(iii)(B) FTS 2 U rV.> Jn* 2 / uifc 'passim1-q
`F Rule 52 (5) (6) Questioning Evidentiary Supportv ciun'a vieu’l 6 ' '
`’Rule 56 Summery Judgement^ JtH oi'lin0: .■ 1<r',ofcq5»ori ,!'nY v'nl- 6 3
`i-r r,
`Rule 106 Remainder of related writing, or Vecor’ded'statements ’lU; 1
`2
`1 .DC
`or. bRule 4011 (Test for relevant Evidenceybom-l t.tjeis.b* A Jkiu') en.o *Qi .8.0
`^ Rule 402 (4) (b)
`. 0 ' .j
`‘V fu-loP fci 6 tav-bruJ /\ bn.rb'fi e^- F'-U
`(4- >pt »:;a ‘■•T.st .vfjvjr ,;t..'i f v 1 ii> Q-naili jH v
`tjabnU
`P o’...
`H'.'.'i bCOyOt ,ujr: .)8 r,-. -'.passim i'J
`Restatement of Contracts § 74
`nc.firi.^iTi) J 0{. ncrtvxB bn j
`8 U
`r. 1
`.0
`U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Regulations
`rji-'itn yti!< !• if in
`Rule 10b-5, §10(b) of the Exchange Act, and §17(a)(1)^of thefSecurities'Tn 1
`Act, and as defined inThe U.S: Securities and Exchange Commissionii01 ^ 13 pT
`(b) of Regulation AB ( § 229.1101(b) (1) (2)
`
`n \
`
`r*i
`
`, i ■
`
`. *
`
`'■ -M-A
`
`. ■*/ ‘
`
`. , / /
`
`; / ^ v
`
`\
`
`a. ‘j . *»'. i bn- •
`oc
`eejr.'O u 5:'Cl ,iicrri,'i t ,
`
`

`

`IN THE
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`[ ] For cases from federal courts:
`
`The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix
`the petition and is
`[ ] reported at
`; or,
`[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[ ] is unpublished.
`
`The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix
`the petition and is
`[ ] reported at
`; or,
`[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[ ] is unpublished.
`
`to
`
`to
`
`[ ] For cases from state courts:
`
`The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at
`Appendix /}__to the petition and is
`[ ] reported at
`; or,
`[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[X] is unpublished.
`
`The opinion of the U//o \/j]J
`appears at Appendix //__to the petition and is
`[ ] reported at
`; or,
`[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`is unpublished.
`
`court
`
`1.
`
`

`

`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`Decision of Supreme Court of Wisconsin case No. L.C. 2001CV255
`Michael Garry v American Standard Trane US Inc. Dated March 11,2020
`See Appendix (A)
`
`Decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin case No. L.C.2001CV255
`Michael Garry v American Standard Trane US Inc. Dated April 5, 2018
`See Appendix (B)
`
`Decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin Order,
`Case No. 02-0099. Michael Garry v Trane Company
`L.C. No. 01- CV-255)
`See Appendix (C)
`
`Dated May 28,2002
`
`Decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals 02- 0099 Michael Garry v Trane
`Company and Wisconsin Labour andlndustry Review Commission ( L.C. No. 01-CV
`255)
`See Appendix (p )
`
`Dated April 15, 2002
`
`Decision of Reconsideration by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals 02- 0099 Michael
`Garry v Trane Company and Wisconsin Labour andlndustry Review Commission
`(L.C. No. 01-CV - 255)
`See Appendix ipjf)
`
`Dated May 20,2002
`
`Decision for Reconsideration by the Wisconsin Circuit Court Branch 16
`(Case No. 01-CV 0255) Michael Garry v The Trane Company and
`Labour and Industrial Review Commission.
`See Appendix (E)
`Dated November 10,2001
`
`Decision to dismiss Petition by the Wisconsin Circuit Court, Branch 16,
`Michael Garry v The Trane Company and the Wisconsin Labour
`and Review Commission. Case No. (01-CV- 255)
`See Appendix (F)
`Dated November 19,2001
`
`Decision to dismiss by Wisconsin Labour and Industry Review
`Commission. Case No. 93013168 Michael Garry v The Trane Company
`See Appendix (G)
`Dated August 21,1996
`
`Decision to dismiss by Wisconsin Labour and Industry Court
`Case No. 9^13168 Michael Garry v The Trane Company
`See Appendix ,(£/)
`Dated March 29,1996
`
`

`

`4
`
`4
`
`,4
`
`;
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`• (
`
`t
`
`i
`
`*
`
`;
`4 .
`*
`[ ] For cases from federal courts:
`,
`’ . ■ '
`. .
`,
`r
`l
`,
`.
`,
`1 •
`\ , i
`#
`The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case
`' was _
`\
`«
`i ,
`[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
`
`, <-
`[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of
`i i
`- ') Appeals on the following date:
`_ , and a copy of the
`<
`order denying rehearing appears at Appendix_!__ _
`r
`[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
`"‘r' . to and including _
`(date) on
`i_ (date)
`.* r
`t_, l i
`‘ in Application No.
`1 “ “
`'.A—
`* it.
`t 1
`• f 1
`■
`• • t
`: I : if,
`r.fi
`j i
`; t. - 'j
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).
`,i i,o -■
`’ w HI’
`l ' •.
`, t
`I
`
`i
`
`f
`
`I '
`
`i
`
`i
`
`. j
`
`j
`
`' 1
`
`1
`
`, 1 1
`
`< t
`
`,
`
`*
`i r
`
`f
`
`*' . ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ i 1
`[ ] For cases from state courts:
`
`’
`
`t
`
`i
`
`The date on which the highest state court decided my case was
`A copy of that decision appears at Appendix__ Q.__
`
`[ ] A timely petition for rehearing, was thereafter denied on the following date:
`,//j ? A ___ , and a copy of the order denying rehearing
`appears at Appendix /}
`.
`
`M
`
`Kit
`
`[ ]' An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
`to and including '* "
`__(date) in
`_ (date) on _L
`Application No.__ A
`i
`j ,
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).,
`
`f
`
`i
`
`I,
`
`1 ,1. 1 *
`
`• r i
`
`;
`
`* h «
`
`. > . 1 , \ ■
`,r ■ 1 I V c
`
`T ■! -.1 ! l
`
`t
`
`■ i
`.1 ,
`
`t ,
`
`i
`
`’ yi ■
`
`■
`
`i
`
`\
`
`, • s
`
`\ *
`
`

`

`Statement of Jurisdiction.
`The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its order on March 11,2020 (App. A)
`This Court’s jurisdiction is timely invoked under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
`28 U.S.C. § 1254, 28 U.S.C. §1257 and Rule 10 (a) and 13, of the Rules of the
`Supreme Court of the United States.
`Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Rules
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41 governs issuance of an appellate court
`mandate and provides, in pertinent part: —
`(2) Pending Petition for Certiorari.
`
`(A) A party may move to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a Writ
`of Certiorari in the Supreme Court. The motion must be served on all parties and
`must show that the certiorari petition would present a substantial question and
`that there is good cause for a stay.
`
`(B) The stay must not exceed 90 days, unless the period is extended for good cause
`or unless the party who obtained the stay files a petition for the writ and so
`notifies the circuit clerk in writing within the period of the stay. In that case, the
`stay continues until the Supreme Court’s final disposition.
`
`(C) The court may require a bond or other security as a condition to granting or
`continuing a stay of the mandate.
`
`(D) The court of appeals must issue the mandate immediately
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case presents the kind of extraordinary circumstances in which this Court
`exercises its discretionary authority to issue a Writ of Certiorari.
`
`The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s refusal to issue a mandate clearly contravenes
`applicable rules of appellate procedure and effectively thwarts this Court’s decision
`to decline review of the Petitioner’s petition for Writ of Certiorari.
`
`The appeal was in pursuance of 28 USCA § 60 Invalidating a Judgement for Fraud
`by failing to consider this mitigating newly discovered evidence and rejecting the
`Petitioner’s appeal out of hand. It should instead have issued a mandate
`immediately as required under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 41
`(d) (1)(2)
`
`The Wisconsin Supreme Court refusal to issue the mandate was manifestly wrong
`and defied this Court’s precedent. Ryan v. Schad, U.S 133 S. Ct. 2548 (2013)
`
`

`

`Cone v. West Virginia Puip& Paper Co. 330 U.S. 212 (67 S.Ct. 752, 91 L.Ed. 849)
`
`The petition was appropriately brought under Wisconsin Rules of Appellate
`Procedure 808.10, and 809.62 and all the appropriate sub section of that rule,
`(1g)(a) (1r)(a)(c)(d), the review being appealed in pursuance of 28 USCA§ 60 (b2)
`(3)(d3) Invalidating a Judgement for Fraud.
`U.S. Supreme CourtHazel-Atlas Glass Company v. Hartford -Empire Company
`322 U.S. 238
`
`The Petitioner’s Appeal for Review to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was premised
`on newly discovered evidence disclosed to him in February 2020, by the
`International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, (ICIJ ), which revealed that the
`Respondents had wilfully concealed evidence from the petitioner and the
`Wisconsin Courts, that TRANE SA, was a shell company. (Emphasis added)
`See:-‘TRANE S.A ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database, https://offshoreleaks.icij.org”
`
`The- Respondents conspired with Mossack Fonseca of the Panama Paper’s fame
`exacerbating this concealment, by constituting a labyrinth of other shell companies
`around the world revealing an intentional act of jurisdictional manipulation to
`disenfranchise the Petitioner from any legal jurisdiction.
`See Appendix (L) copies of documents disclosed by (ICIJ) linking American
`Standard Inc. to the TRANE SA entity. (Emphasis added)
`Was the Wisconsin Circuit and Appeals Court’s Abuse of
`Discretion “Arbitrary, and Capricious.”
`
`In the Petitioners appeals in 2001 and 2002 respectively, to Wisconsin Circuit and
`Appeals Courts, it shows from the record that they erroneously exercised their
`discretion by failing to comply with state and Federal Statutes, and Rules of
`Procedure. Wis. Stats §102.23(a), Restatement of Contracts Statute § 74
`(1932)Wis.§ stats.806.07 (1)(b)(c)(h) Rule 804.01 (1)(2)(a)(c)(1)(4) and or Federal
`Rule 26 (1 )(a)(C)(E)(F)(3)(A)(iii)(B) and Rule 7.1(1)(2) (b)(1)(2) Rule 56 (a)(c)(B)(4)
`(c) Summery Judgement, Rule 52 (5) (6), Questioning Evidentiary Support, Rule
`401 Test for Relevant Evidence,Rule 402 (4) (b) the fact is of consequence in
`determining the action.
`The Wisconsin Labour Court Erroneously Exercised its Discretion
`Structural error is prevalent in this case, the trial judge in the Wisconsin Labour
`Court erroneously exercised his discretion by allowing, the Respondents, on two
`separate occasions to file new evidence in contravention of state and federal Rules
`of Procedure Wis. 804.01, Federal Rules 26 and 7.1(a) (1)(2) (b)(1)(2).
`The Respondents’ Case Was Procured By Fraud.
`The broad scope of the Respondents’ fraud and its pervasive effect on
`the proceedings in the Wisconsin Labour, Wisconsin Circuit and Appeals Courts,
`requires a full appellate review of the court records.
`
`

`

`By falling to make any disclosure prior to the court hearing they wilfully violated rules
`of Procedure and Evidence. Indeed their entire scheme of the filed false material
`evidence, and their wilful manipulation of the Rule of Procedure pertaining to
`disclosure was fraudulent.
`
`U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of Regulation, Rule 10b-5, ideology or
`rules of shell companies was subverted by American Standard Inc / The Trane
`Company §10(b) of the Exchange Act,'and §17(a)(1) of the Securities Act as under
`item 1101 (b)AB (§229.1101(b)’
`
`Petitioner asks this Court to grant certiorari to exercise its supervisory power, as set
`forth in Supreme Court Rule 10(a), because the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has
`grossly and unjustifiably departed from ordinary judicial procedures. This Court’s
`intervention is critical to ensure the integrity of the appellate process and to curtail
`the wilful refusal to comply with this Court’s rules and precedent.
`
`. «
`
`

`

`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`The Petitioner had an accident at work while lifting a pump. He slipped and fell
`backwards falling out of the engine compartment of an A/C unit.
`
`. He sustained hernia and protrusion of the nucleus pulposus, compression of the
`discs at the bottom and neck area of his back and injury to his left knee, and other
`serious injuries that only manifested at a later date.
`
`The injuries were serious enough that a medical tribunal deemed him disabled and
`unable to work again.
`See Appendix (Z) Copy of medical tribunal decision
`
`Because the Petitioner had signed employment contracts with The Trane Company
`La Crosse, Wisconsin, he obtained the service of a pro-bono lawyer who opened a
`case in the Wisconsin Labour Court for Workman’s Compensation.
`
`This was to claim for health and medical care, loss of salary, and now punitive
`damages for causing unnecessary pain and suffering.
`
`Prior to the court hearing, on several occasions, the Petitioner’s lawyer requested,
`all documents relating to his employment from his personal file, under Wisconsin
`804.01 and Federal Rule 26 pertaining to discovery, the Respondents failed to
`comply to this request.
`
`The failure to comply with this request resulted in the Petitioner going to court
`without being able to cross examine the Respondents, regarding the contents of any
`of these documents. This was in violation of Rule 804.01 (1)(2)(a){c){4) and or
`Federal Rule 26 (1)(a)(C)(E)(F)(3)(A)(iii)(B) pertaining to discovery, as required
`under the Wisconsin and Federal Rules of Procedure.
`See Appendix (N) (NN) Copies of letters from Petitioner requesting all documents
`from from his file.
`Dated Dec. 1,1993, and January 11,1994
`
`During the hearing of February 24 1994, the Respondents having contravened Rules
`Procedure, the trial judge made a ruling to allow the record to be left Open for the
`Petitioner to be able to receive these documents from his file and submit any
`evidence from any these documents.
`
`On May 3 1994, 10 weeks after the court hearing, the Respondents produced what
`was represented to be a complete list of the Petitioner’s personal file.
`See Appendix (O) Copy of letter from Respondents with list of document from the
`Petitioner’s personnel file.
`Dated May 3, 1994
`
`However there was concealment of critical documents by the Respondents,
`because neither a Letter of Appointment, nor copies of two American Employment
`Contracts, were disclosed in their response, which violated Rule 804.01 (1)(2)(a)(c)
`(4) and or Rule 26 Federal (1)(a)(C)(E)(F)(3)(A)(iii)(B)(4)(b)(1).
`
`The Letter of Appointment would have been critical in proving that the Petitioner’s
`
`1
`
`I
`
`

`

`contract was executed in La Crosse, Wisconsin which under the :-Restatement of
`Contracts § 74 (1932) Provides “A contract is made at the time when the last act
`necessary for its formations is made, and at the place where that final act is done.”
`
`Structural error is defined as "an error that permeate[s] the entire conduct of the trial
`from beginning to end or affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds."
`See : Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, 2009
`U.S.Dist. LEXIS 103373 (D. Or. Nov. 5, 2011)
`See : Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976),
`
`Both American Employment Contracts stated under Disputes, as following
`“ If the employee and Trane disagree with the terms of his employment under
`this agreement, the dispute shall be referred to Trane’s parent company, The
`Trane Company, a Wisconsin Corporation with its principle place of business
`in La Crosse, Wisconsin, U.S.A. The laws of the state of Wisconsin shall be
`the governing law of any disputes under this agreement.” (emphasis added)
`
`The Letter of Appointment stated in pertinent part
`“Please review the contract carefully and advise if you have any questions, if
`you decide to accept our offer of employment (and we hope you do) please
`sign it and insert the date you will be free to join us. Send both copies to La
`Crosse, we will counter-sign it and return one for your records.”
`(Emphasis added)
`See Appendix (W) American Employment contract page (3 & 4) section(14)
`Dated. December 15,1978
`See Appendix (X) American Employment Contract page (4) section (15)
`Dated. November 10, 1984
`See Appendix (Y) Page 2, final paragraph, “Letter of Appointment”
`Dated July 10 1979
`Over seven months after the court hearing, the Petitioner’s lawyer was informed by
`letter on December 7,1994, that the Respondents had filed into the record, an
`alleged “Arabic Contract,” to which the Petitioner objected.
`See Appendix (P) Copy of letter from the Petitioner’s objecting to the alleged “Arabic
`Contract”
`Dated Dec. 9, 1994
`See Appendix (R) Copy of alleged one page “Arabic Employment contract”.
`
`However, without any legal opinion given, the trial judge over- ruled the Petitioner’s
`objection, forgoing his ruling,” that the record had only been left open to allow the
`Petitioner to receive and submit any evidence from any documents from his
`personnel file,” and received the alleged Arabic Employment Contract into the
`record.
`See Appendix (Q Copy of letter from Adm. Law judge Phillips, overruling Petitioners
`objection
`Dated January 26,1995.
`
`This was an Abuse of Discretion by the trial Judge by allowing the Respondents to
`file this evidence in contravention of Rule 804.01 (1)(2)(a)(c) Trial Preparation :
`Material (4) Sequencing and timing of Discovery, and or Federal Rule 26 (1)(a)(C)
`(E)(F)(3)(A)(iii)(B) under sub sections (C) Time for Initial Disclosure, 3(A) (iii)(4)(b)(1)
`Form of Disclosure. See Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566, 569 (Fla. 1985) (Boyd,
`C.J, (concurring specially).
`
`

`

`This alleged “Arabic contract” was a further misrepresentation and violation of
`Federal Procedure Rule 106 “Reminder of, or related writing or recorded
`statements.”
`
`The Petitioner swore an affidavit to the court, that this alleged “Arabic Contract” was
`one page of a five page application form, which the Trane Company made to the
`U.A.E Ministry of Labour for a work visa for him. See McCormick §56; California
`Evidence Code §356.
`See:-Appendix (I) Copy of Affidavit
`See Appendix (U) Copy to Petitioner’d brief page (4) last Paragraph
`Dated February 27, 1995
`
`Subsequently, three months later, on March 9, 1995, which was now 13 months
`after the Court hearing, there was further infringement of evidence by the
`Respondents by their introduction of alleged new evidence that was completely
`materially different from the infringing evidence of the alleged “Arabic Contract”.
`The Respondents now stated, that the Petitioner was employed under contract to
`TRANE SA, an entity registered in Switzerland. (Emphasis added)
`
`This was again Abuse of Discretion and impartiality by the trial judge in allowing
`this alleged new evidence, into the record, in contravention now of Rules of
`Procedure 7.1(1) (2) (b)(1)(2) pertaining to Corporate Discovery as well as State
`Rule 804.01 and Federal Rule 26. See:— Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566, 569 (Fla.
`1985) (Boyd, C.J., concurring specially).See ; United States Court of Appeals :-
`Samuel Barely Steele Plaintive V Vector Management; MLB Adva, Insurance, 785
`N.W.2d 493 (2010)
`See Appendix (T) Page (1) Copy of Respondents brief and attached
`list at end, of Chain of Command.
`Dated March 9,1995
`
`The following is the verbatim evidence from the Respondents Brief, which was
`allowed to be filed into the court record in violation and defiance of State and
`Federal Rules of Procedure. :-
`“At the time of his injury, the applicant was based in Oman and was an
`employee of Trane S.A.
`Trane SA. is a Swiss corporation, that does no business in Wisconsin.
`Trane S.A. is wholly owned by The Trane Company, a Delaware corporation
`that also conducts no business in the United States.
`The Trane Company (the Delaware corporation) is wholly owned by American
`Standard Inc. which is headquartered in New York State.
`Trane the entity in La Crosse, Wisconsin is a division of American Standard.”
`(emphasis added)
`See :Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA1998): “The basic standards
`governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward.”
`The requisite fraud on the court occurs where : “it can be demonstrated, clearly and
`convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme
`calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a
`matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the
`presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defence.”
`Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115,1118 (1st Cir. 1989)
`
`3
`
`

`

`See Appendix (I) Copy of Order of Wisconsin Industry and Wisconsin Labour Court.
`Dated March 29,1996
`See Appendix (T) Page (1) Copy of Respondents brief. Dated March 9,1995
`Attached with a copy of the Respondents Chain of Command.
`
`The Respondents, surreptitiously constituted this shell company in the tax haven
`country, Switzerland, and by subterfuge, wilfully misrepresented this to the
`Wisconsin Courts, that this entity in Switzerland was the Petitioner’s employer.
`See Appendix (V) Copy of Swiss Commerce register. Dated. 1996 and 2014
`
`The disclosure by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, (ICIJ ),
`to the Petitioner in January 2020, reveals the concealment of evidence by the
`Respondents that TRANE SA was a shell company, and by constituting a labyrinth
`of shell companies around the world, reveals an intentional act of jurisdictional
`manipulation to disenfranchise the Petitioner from any legal Jurisdiction.
`See:-‘TRANE S.A ICIJ Offsho