1!U
`
`FILeEP~
`WAY 3 0 2023
`
`rj
`
`i
`
`23°??
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE
`UNITED STATES
`
`PALANI KARUPAIYAN et al
`—Petitioners
`
`V.
`Tata Consultancy Services et al
`—- Respondents
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Third Circuit
`Docket-23-1303
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
`CERTIORARI
`Palani Karupaiyan.
`Pro se, Petitioner,
`1326 W. William St
`Philadelphia, PA 19132s
`palanikav@gmail.com
`212-470-2048(m)
`
`
`
`FILeEP~
`WAY 3 0 2023
`
`rj
`
`i
`
`23°??
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE
`UNITED STATES
`
`PALANI KARUPAIYAN et al
`—Petitioners
`
`V.
`Tata Consultancy Services et al
`—- Respondents
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Third Circuit
`Docket-23-1303
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
`CERTIORARI
`Palani Karupaiyan.
`Pro se, Petitioner,
`1326 W. William St
`Philadelphia, PA 19132s
`palanikav@gmail.com
`212-470-2048(m)
`
`
`
`1
`
`, -
`
`I.
`
`Question Presented
`Petitioner’s prayed reliefs were
`National importance of having the US
`i)
`Supreme Court decide or conflict with
`USSC ruling, or importance of similarly
`situated over millions of citizens or the
`first impression is raised at USSC.
`Petitioner’s prayed 10 reliefs were as Writ of
`Mandamus or Prohibition or alternative so the
`questions were part of three test condition
`requirement of the Writs.
`When Salahuddin v. Cuomo. 861 F. 2d 40 -
`ii)
`Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1988 ruled
`that
`“this Court [USCA 2nd Cir] has repeatedly
`cautioned against Sua Sponte dismissals of pro
`se civil rights complaints prior to requiring the
`defendants to answer”.
`Dist Court sua sponte dismissing the complaint
`before defendants to answer and USCA3 failed to
`vacate Sua Sponte Dismissal is error.
`When Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v.
`in)
`Mercury Constr. Coro.. 460 US 1 - Supreme
`Court 1983 (^footnote [61 ruled that
`More fundamentally, a Court of appeals has no
`occasion to engage in extraordinary review by
`mandamus "in aid of [its] jurisdictionfn]28
`U. S. C. § 1651, when it can exercise the same
`review by a contemporaneous ordinary appeal.
`See, e. g., Hines v. D Artois. 531 F. 2d 726, 732,
`and n. 10 (CA5 1976).
`
`i
`
`
`
`11
`
`Following USCA3’s ruling is error
`Mandamus relief is unavailable because he
`may challenge the District Court’s disjnissal
`order through the normal appeal process. See In
`re Nwanze. 242 F. 3d 521, 524 (3d Circuit. 2001)
`(noting that, “fgjiven its drastic nature, a writ
`of mandamus should not be issued where relief
`may be obtained through an ordinary appeal”)
`(citation omitted).
`
`n
`
`
`
`■7
`
`111
`
`II.
`Parties to the Proceeding
`PALANI KARUPAIYAN; P. P.; R. P. are petitioners
`Respondents are
`TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, (TCS);
`RAJESH GOPINATHAN, individually and in
`his official capacity as MD, CEO of TCS;
`TATA GROUP OF COMPANIES;
`JOHN DOES, ex-CEOs of TCS
`
`in
`
`
`
`IV
`
`III.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Question Presented.........
`II. Parties to the Proceeding
`III. Table of Contents............
`IV. Table of Authorities
`V. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`VI. Opinion(s)/orders/Judgment(s) BELOW (from
`Dist Court and USCA3).............................................
`VII. Jurisdiction..........................................................
`VIII.
`Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
`Involved
`IX. Statement of the Case......................................
`a) Dist Court Proceeding and ruling......
`b) USCA3 Proceeding and ruling.............
`X. TCS Business Model.........................................
`a)
`In India....................................................
`b)
`In USA.....................................................
`XI. TCS Business wrongdoings.............................
`XII. Purpose of outsource........................................
`XIII.
`Pro se pleading standards........................
`All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)..........
`XIV.
`XV. Reliefs should be granted under Rule
`8(a)(3)/54(c) or without Rule 12(b)’s requirement.... 7
`
`1 m I
`
`V
`
`Vll
`1
`
`1 1
`
`2
`
`3 3 3 445 5 6
`
`6 7
`
`IV
`
`
`
`0
`
`V
`
`XVI. Why USCA3 Will not able to grant the
`Appellant’s Writs/Injunction(s) reliefs................
`XVII. USSC’s Writ against Lower Court(s)....
`XVIII. USSC’s Rule 20.1 and Rule 20.3..........
`XIX.
`Three test Conditions for grant the Writs (of
`10
`Mandamus, prohibition or any alternative)............
`11
`XX. Reasons For Granting the Writ(s)....................
`1) Writ against Tata Consulting Services
`(“TCS”) and it’s Parental entity or affiliates
`that they should not discriminate the US
`citizenship AND favor of foreign nationals
`against US citizen in employment or in
`application for employment..............................
`2) Order that (i)TCS should not outsource
`US Corporate Jobs (ii) TCS should insource
`all the US Corporate IT/BPO project back to
`United States within 6 months of this Court
`order (iii) TCS should not involve in Tax
`evasion and Money Laundering against
`United States and its Local govt(s).................
`3) Order that TCS should not access to
`HI, LI, B1 work permit visa from Dept of
`Labor/ United States Citizenship and
`Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and
`Invalidate all the HI, LI, B1 visa previously
`obtained................................................................
`4) Order that TCS should deposit to US
`treasury the 3 times of Money TCS took out
`of United States by Outsourcing and lock/jail
`
`8 8 9
`
`11
`
`13
`
`14
`
`v
`
`
`
`• ^
`
`VI
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`the TCS’s CxO until all the money recovered
`and deposit to US treasury...............................
`5) Order to transfer the ownership of TCS
`and its affiliate companies/Business in USA-
`to the petitioner Palani Karupaiyan................
`6) Order that TCS should pay the
`petitioner $15 million dollars for [Reasonable
`money for time and effort of the [P]laintiff,
`pain and suffering and all expenses and costs
`of this action........................................................
`7) Order that TCS should pay the
`petitioner for failure to hire, Title VII,
`Disability status/ GINA, US citizenship
`discrimination, favoring foreigner against
`US Citizen, and Section 1981/ 1988 claims .... 19
`a) Against Lower Courts................................
`21
`8) Order to vacate the sua sponte order of
`dismissal the complaint.....................................
`9) Order to appoint guardian ad litem or
`alternatively pro bono attorney........................
`10) Order that TCS should pay $20 million
`dollar to the Minor Petitioners PP and RP
`(“Minor Petitioners”)..........................................
`XXI. Conclusion.....................................................
`
`21
`
`22
`
`26
`27
`
`vi
`
`
`
`0
`
`Vll
`
`IV.
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`23
`
`7
`
`ANKENBRANDT, as next friend and, mother of L. R.,
`23
`et at. v. RICHARDS et al 504 U.S. 689 (1992)
`Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland,. 346 US 379
`8, 10
`- Supreme Court 1953
`Bayron v. Trudeau, 702 F.2d 43, 45 (2d Cir. 1983);. 21
`Bethel School District No. 403 Et Al. V. Fraser, A
`Minor, et al . 478 U.S. 675 (1986)........................
`Board Of Education Of The Westside Community
`Schools (Dist. 66) et al. V. Mergens, By And
`Through Her Next Friend, Mergens, Et. 496 U.S.
`23
`226 (1990),.................................................................
`Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F. 3d 757 - USCA, 7th Cir.
`7
`2002
`Boyer v. CLEARFIELD COUNTYINDU. DEVEL.
`AUTHORITY. Dist. Court, WD Penn 2021
`Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for DC. 542 US
`11
`367 - Supreme Court 2004
`CJLG v. Barr, 923 F. 3d 622 - Court of Appeals, 9th
`25
`Circuit 2019
`De Beers Consolidated Minesv. V. United States.
`9, 10
`325 U. S. 212, 217(1945)
`English v. MISYS INTERNATIONAL BANKING
`SYSTEMS. INC.. Dist. Court, D. NJ 2005.........
`Erickson u. Pardus. 551 US 89 - Sup. Ct 2007....
`Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co.,414 U.S. 86, 88 (1973). 12
`Estelle. 429 U.S.. at 106. 97 S.Ct. 285
`
`12
`
`6 6
`
`Vll
`
`
`
`V1U
`
`Ex parte Peru. 318 U.S. 578, 585, 63 S.Ct. 793, 87
`L.Ed. 1014 (1943)....................................................
`9
`Fries v. Barries. 618 F.2d 988, 989 (2d Cir.1980.... 21
`Hines v. D'Artois. 531 F. 2d 726, 732, and n. 10 (CA5
`1976)
`i, 8, 10, 22
`Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, v. Sebelius. 568 US 1401 -
`Supreme Court 2012
`1, 10
`Hodge u. Police Officers. 802 F. 2d, 58 - Court of
`Appeals. 2nd Circuit 1986.................................
`23
`Hohn u. United States. 524 US 236 - Supreme Court
`1998...............................................................................
`Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60,
`65-66, 99 S.Ct. 383, 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978)............
`In re Gault. 387 US. 1, 36-37, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 *632
`L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)
`25
`In re Nwanze. 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Cir. 2001)...ii, 9,
`22
`Jacob WINKELMAN. a minor, by and through his
`parents and legal guardians. Jeff and Sandee
`WINKELMAN. et al. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL
`DISTRICT. 550 U.S. 516- 127 S.Ct. 1994 (2007). 23
`Katz v Tata Consulting Service Dist Court for NJ
`Docket 22-7069 (BRM)(JRA).................................
`12
`Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.. 452
`U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct.2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981)
`25
`Maclin v. Freake, 650 F. 2d 885 - Court of Appeals:
`7th Circuit 1981.....................................................
`23
`Mathews, 424 U.S.....................................................
`25
`McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Trans. Co. 427 U.S.
`273,287, 96 S.Ct. 2574, 49 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976).... 19
`
`1 7
`
`vm
`
`
`
`IX
`
`Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F. 3d 492 - USCA, 3rd
`22
`Cir. 2002
`Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital u. Mercury Constr.
`i, 8, 9, 22
`Coro.. 460 US 1 - Supreme Court 1983
`Novak v. World Bank, 20 Fair Errwl.Prac.Cas.
`12
`(BNA) 1166, 1167 (D.D.C. 1979)............................
`Novak v. World Bank. No. 79-0641, 1979 U.S. Dist.
`12
`LEXIS 11742 (D.D.C. June 13, 1979)...................
`Osei-Afriye v. The Medical College of Pennsylvania.
`22, 24
`937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991)
`Pa. Bureau of Correction v. US Marshals Service.
`474 US 34 - Sup Ct 1985.......................................
`re US. 139 S. Ct. 452.................................................
`Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F. 3d 1177- USCA9
`2011
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.. 319 U. S. 21, 26
`8
`(1943)
`Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 403, n. 3 (1970).... 1
`Salahuddin v. Cuomo. 861 F. 2d 40 - Court of
`Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1988
`i, 21
`Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park. Inc.. 396 US 229 -
`14
`Supreme Court 1969.................................................
`Tabron v. Grace. 6 F. 3d 147 - Court of Appeals, 3rd
`23
`Circuit 1993.............................................................
`Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks. 281 U. S.
`548, 569-570.............................................................
`Statutes
`
`7 9
`
`25
`
`21
`
`28 U. S. C. § 1254(1)
`28 U. S. C. § 1651 ....
`
`2
`1, 8, 22
`
`IX
`
`
`
`X
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)
`28 U.S.C. § 1654....
`28 USCS 1651(a)....
`42 U.S.C. § 1981...........
`42 US Code § 1988........
`8 CFR 214.2(h)..............
`16
`8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)
`16
`All Writs Act..................
`1,7
`The Americans with Disabilities Act...................
`2
`The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act..... 2
`The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
`(NJLAD)
`Title VII.
`Rules
`Rule 12(b)(6).
`Rule 17(c)....
`Rule 8(a)(3)....
`S.Ct. Rule 20.1
`S.Ct. Rule 20.3
`Constitutional Provisions
`
`7
`22
`10
`
`2 2
`
`2
`2
`
`7
`25
`
`7 9 9
`
`14th amendment
`FIRST AMENDMENT
`
`25
`23
`
`x
`
`
`
`1
`
`V.
`
`Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
`
`Petitioner respectfully prays that a Writ of
`Certiorari to review the opinion/ judgment/ orders of
`USCA3’s (docket 23-1303) and US Dist Court for New
`Jersey- Newark div (Dist docket 22-cv-1349) below.
`
`VI.
`
`Opinion(s)/orders/Judgment(s)
`BELOW (from Dist Court and
`USC A3)
`
`1. USCA3’s Opinion dated Apr 7, 2023 (App.l)
`Hon. HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit
`Judges
`2. USCA3’s Order dated Apr 7, 2023 (App.4)
`3. Dist Court Sua Sponte order dismissal of
`complaint Jan 27 2023. Ecf-5 (App.5)
`Hon. Esther Salas USDJ; Hon. Jose R. Almonte
`USMJ
`
`VII.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`In Hohn v. United States. 524 US 236 -
`Supreme Court 1998@ 258 (“Rosado v. Wyman. 397 U.
`S. 397, 403, n. 3 (1970) (a Court always has
`jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction)).
`Hohn @264 (“We can issue a common-law writ
`of certiorari under the All Writs Act. 28 U. S. C. §
`1651.)
`Hobby Lobby Stores. Inc, v. Sebelius. 568 US 1401 -
`Supreme Court 2012® 643
`The only source of authority for this Court to
`issue an injunction is the All Writs Act, 28
`U.S.C. § 1651(a) and
`
`1
`
`
`
`2
`
`Following a final'judgment, they [Petitioner]
`may, if necessary, file a petition for a writ of
`certiorari in this Court.
`On Apr 07 2023. United States Court of
`Appeals for 3rd Cir entered opinion and
`Order. App.l to App.4
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under
`28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).
`
`VIII.
`
`Constitutional and Statutory
`Provisions Involved.
`
`All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)
`Title VII,
`The Americans with Disabilities Act;
`(iii) The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
`(GINA)F; and
`(iv) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act
`42 U.S.C. § 1981
`
`42 US Code § 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of
`civil rights
`
`The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
`(NJLAD)
`26 U.S. Code § 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat
`tax, 26 U.S.C. § 7203 and § 7206(1)
`
`18 USC § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to
`defraud United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1956. money
`laundering law.
`.. and more
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`IX.
`Statement of the Case
`a) Dist Court Proceeding and ruling
`
`On Mar 14 2022, Plaintiff filed employment
`related complaint against the respondents US Dist
`Court of New Jersey-Newark div under and timely
`served the complaint to all defendants.
`On Jan 27 2023 Dist Court granted the forma
`pauperis and dismissed the complaint by Sua Svonte
`when no defendants appeared/ answered App.5
`Timely Petitioner filed Notice of Petition for
`Writ of Mandamus, Prohibition or Alternative
`App.13 and Notice of Appeal. ECF-7.
`Plaintiff filed Motion for reconsideration of dismissal
`of complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus,
`Prohibition or alternative under All Writs Act/ 28
`U.S.C. § 1651 which was denied by text order.
`
`b) US CA3 Proceeding and ruling
`
`2023, USCA3 entered NOT
`On Apr 07
`PRECEDENTIAL opinion (App.l) and order (App.4~)
`entered.
`USCA3’s ruled that
`(i)
`“ we will deny in part and dismiss in part the
`petition”
`Mandamus relief is unavailable because he
`may challenge the District Court’s dismissal
`order through the normal appeal process. See In
`
`(ii)
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Cir. 2001)
`(noting that, “fgjiven its drastic nature, a writ
`of mandamus should not be issued where relief
`may be obtained through an ordinary appeal”)
`which is error by Moses 460 US 1(1983)
`Footnote[6]
`
`TCS Business Model
`
`X.
`TCS is specialized in outsourcing the US corporate
`Information Technology (IT) software development/
`Back office Process Jobs (BPO) to their offshore
`development center in India.
`
`a) In India
`
`1.
`Every year TCS recruits many thousands
`college outs in India and give free complete training
`them for 3 years with salary, bring some of these
`trained engineers to USA in HI, LI visas by labor
`certification fraud, US immigration fraud by perjury
`violation, US Citizenship discrimination and use
`these engineers against US based over 40 aged
`employees who have more experienced, Expertise
`than TCS’s Indian engineers and These engineers
`from India help the US corporate to transfer the job
`to India for outsourcing. This Modus operandi not
`only discrimination against US based over 40 ages
`employees/citizens, deny the employment to fresh
`college out of US citizen.
`2.
`TCS has offshore development center in India
`for the software development on behalf their
`business/IT development partner in United States
`(US’s Corporations)
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`b) In USA
`
`By Offshore development, TCS and its business
`1.
`partners evade the tax liability against US and Local
`Govts including payroll tax and properties tax.
`2.
`TCS has framework to help and outsource the
`US corporation’s Information technological Job (IT
`Jobs)/ Back office Business Processing outsourcing
`(BPO) to India and for evade the tax liabilities.
`Immigration fees. Labour certification fees, tax
`liabilities including payroll tax and false claims
`against United States and its Local Govts for
`money laundering purpose. Racketeer (Rico)
`crimes. These US corporations are the client/IT
`development, business partners to TCS.
`3. TCS does not own any properties in United States. In
`India, TCS owes 1.5 million Sq foot office in India for
`the purpose of outsourcing operation.
`“The total development area of the campus is expected
`to be around 1.5 million square feet. Once all the
`applicable permissions are received, the construction
`of Phase I is expected to be completed by March 2016.”
`https://www.tcs.com/tcs-software-development-
`campus-
`indore#:~:text=The%20total%20development%20are
`a%20of.bv%2()the%2GMadhva%20Pradesh%2()gover
`nment1
`
`XI.
`
`TCS Business wrongdoings
`
`1. TCS does outsource operation in all states of United
`States and has software development/ software
`implementation contract with most fortune 500 US
`corporations.
`
`1 After this civil action/complaint filed, this URL was
`removed.
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`2.
`TCS does cash delivery to the managers who
`•work in the US corporations helped TCS for the
`purpose of tax evasion including payroll tax, money
`laundering by outsourcing the US software
`development contracts. These money transaction
`happening/ happened secretly, untraceablv using
`outsourcing the IT Job/BPO jobs to India.
`3.
`The Individual Respondents were individually
`also benefited by outsourcing, preferring/favoring
`foreigners against US citizen in employment because
`foreigners help the TCS to outsource where the US
`citizens' should not help the TCS to outsource.
`4.
`In India, TATA Group habitually buying Court
`Orders, paying terrorists organization to run the
`business without any disturbance.
`
`XII.
`
`Purpose of outsource
`
`The purpose of TCS’s outsourcing is to evade
`the Dept of Labor’s Labor certification fee (which is
`perjury crime), Immigration fee, payroll tax to US and
`Local Govts, tax liabilities, properties tax to the Local
`Govts in US, Secretly, untraceably transfer the
`money out of US in the name of outsource and pay the
`money/cash in India to the US corporate manager
`who agreed/helped the outsourcing.
`Pro se pleading standards
`Erickson v. Pardus. 551 US 89 - Sup. Ct. 2007 @
`2200
`
`XIII.
`
`A document filed pro se is "to be liberally
`construed," Estelle. 429 U.S.. at 106. 97 S.Ct. 285,
`and "a, pro se complaint, however inartfullv pleaded,
`must be held, to less stringent standards than formal
`pleadings drafted by lawyers.
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`XIV.
`
`All Writs Act,'28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)
`
`In Pa. Bureau of Correction v. US Marshals Service.
`474 US 34 - Sup Ct 1985 @43
`The All Writs Act is a residual source of authority
`to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by
`statute.
`
`XV.
`
`Reliefs should be granted under
`Rule 8(a)(3)/54(c) or without Rule
`12(b)’s requirement
`
`In Bontkowski v. Smith. 305 F. 3d 757 - USCA,
`7th Cir. 2002@7Q2 “can be interpreted as a request for
`the imposition of such a trust, a form of equitable relief
`and thus a cousin to an injunction. Rule 54(c), which
`provides that a prevailing party may obtain any relief
`to which he's entitled even if he "has not demanded
`such relief in [his] pleadings." See Holt Civic Club v.
`City of Tuscaloosa. 439 U.S. 60, 65-66, 99 S.Ct. 383,
`58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978);
`In Boyer v. CLEARFIELD COUNTY INDU.
`DEVEL. AUTHORITY. Dist. Court, WD Penn 2021
`“Thus a prayer for an accounting, like a request
`for injunctive relief, is not a cause of action or a
`claim upon which relief can be granted. Rather, it
`is a request for another form of equitable relief,
`i.e., a "demand for judgment for the relief the
`pleader seeks" under Rule 8(a)(3) of the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure. D****As such, it too is
`not the proper subject of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
`D***Global Arena, LLC, 2016 WL 7156396, at *2;
`see also Bontkowskiv. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 762
`(7th Cir. 2002.
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`XVI.
`
`Why USCA3 Will not able to
`GRANT THE APPELLANT’S
`WRITS/lNJUNCTION(S) RELIEFS
`
`In the Dist Court this petitioner filed i) Notice of
`appeal and ii) Notice of Petition for Writ of
`Mandamus. Prohibition or alternative. As per the
`Moses footnote [6], USCA3 shall not able to grant the
`injunctive reliefs along with the appeal.
`In Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury
`Constr. Cory., 460 US 1 - Supreme Court 1983
`@footnpte [6].
`More fundamentally, a Court of appeals
`has no occasion to engage in extraordinary
`review by mandamus "in aid of fits]
`jurisdictionfn]," 28 U. S. C. § 1651, when it
`can exercise the same review by a
`contemporaneous ordinary appeal. See, e.
`g., Hines v. D'Artois. 531 F. 2d 726, 732,
`and n. 10 (CA5 1976).
`
`XVII.
`
`USSC’s Writ against Lower
`Court(s)
`
`Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 US
`379 - Supreme Court 1953®383
`As was pointed out in Roche v. Evaporated
`Milk Assn.. 319 U. S. 21, 26 (1943), the
`"traditional use of the writ in aid of
`appellate jurisdiction both at common law
`and in the federal Courts has been to
`confine an inferior Court to a lawful
`exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to
`compel it to exercise its authority when it
`is its duty to do so."
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`Bankers @383 there is clear abuse of
`discretion or "usurpation of judicial
`power" of the sort held to justify the writ in
`De Beers Consolidated Minesv. V. United
`States. 325 U. S. 212, 217 (1945).
`
`XVIII.
`
`USSC’s Rule 20.1 and Rule 20.3.
`
`In re US, 139 S. Ct. 452 - Supreme Court 2018 @ 453
`S.Ct. Rule 20.1 (Petitioners seeking
`extraordinary writ must show "that adequate
`relief cannot be obtained in any other form or
`from any other Court" (emphasis added));
`S.Ct. Rule 20.3 (mandamus petition must "set
`out with particularity why the relief sought
`is not available in any other Court"); see also
`Ex varte Peru. 318 U.S. 578, 585, 63 S.Ct. 793,
`87 L.Ed. 1014 (1943) (mandamus petition
`"ordinarily must be made to the intermediate
`appellate Court").
`USCA3 denied petitioners’ petition and ruled that
`Mandamus relief is unavailable because he may
`challenge the District Court’s dismissal order
`through the normal appeal process. See In re
`Nwanze, 242 F. 3d 521, 524 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting
`that, “[gjiven its drastic nature, a writ of
`mandamus should not be issued where relief may
`be obtained through an ordinary appeal”)
`
`The above USCA3’s ruling conflict with USSC when
`S. Court 1983
`USSC ruled that Moses 460 US 1
`@footnote[6].
`More fundamentally, a Court of appeals has
`no occasion to engage in extraordinary
`review by mandamus "in aid of [its]
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`jurisdiction[n]," 28 U. S. C. § 1651, when it
`can exercise the same review by a
`contemporaneous ordinary appeal. See, e. g.,
`Hines v. D'Artois. 531 F. 2d 726, 732, and n.
`10 (CA5 1976)
`Also the above Substitute the Test-1 of 3 tests
`requirement of grating the Writs in the US Supreme
`Court.
`
`XIX.
`
`Three test Conditions for grant
`the Writs (of Mandamus,
`PROHIBITION OR ANY ALTERNATIVE)
`
`Test-1: No other adequate means [exist] to attain
`the relief [the party] desires
`Or it (injunction) is necessary or appropriate in aid
`of our jurisdiction (28 USC§ 1651(aY)
`Or
`
`“the party seeking issuance of the writ must
`have no other adequate means to attain the
`relief fit] desires
`
`Test-2: the party's 'right to [relief] issuance of the
`writ is clear and indisputable
`Or Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 US
`379- Sup.Ct 1953
`clear abuse of discretion or "usurpation of
`judicial power" of the sort held to justify the
`writ in De Beers Consolidated Minesv. v. United
`States. 325 U. S. 212, 217 (1945)
`Or Hobby Lobby Stores. Inc, v. Sebelius. 568 US 1401
`- Sup.Ct 2012
`“whatever the ultimate merits of the applicants'
`claims, their entitlement to relief is not "indisputably
`clear”
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`Or the Petitioner must demonstrate that the
`"right to issuance of the writ is clear and
`indisputable." Cheney. 542 U.S. at 380-81, 124 S.Ct.
`2576
`Or Cheney u. United States Dist. Court for DC. 542
`US 367-Sup.Ct 2004
`Defendant owes him a clear non-discretionary
`
`duty
`Test-3: a question of first impression is raised.
`Or
`
`"the issuing Court, must be satisfied that the
`writ is appropriate under the circumstances”
`
`XX.
`
`Reasons For Granting the Writ(s)
`
`Writ against Tata Consulting Services
`1)
`(“TCS”) and it’s Parental entity or affiliates
`that they should not discriminate the US
`citizenship AND favor of foreign nationals
`against US citizen in employment or in
`application for employment
`
`Test-2: Because of US Citizen should not help TCS
`to outsource the US corporate jobs, and foreign
`national employees should help TCS to outsource,
`TCS frame the business model to refuse
`employment/discriminate the
`US
`citizen in
`employment.
`Foreigner employees, for their Job security, every
`effort to help TCS to outsource the US corporate
`IT/BPO Jobs so TCS preferred to employ the foreigner
`over US citizens.
`Test-3: Favoring foreigner against US Citizen in
`employment is discrimination.
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`In Novak v. World, Bank. No. 79-0641, 1979
`U.S. Disk LEXIS 11742 (D.D.C. June 13, 1979), the
`plaintiff argued that defendant had a policy of
`discriminating against United States citizens in
`violation of Title VU's prohibition against national
`origin discrimination. The Court held that such a
`claim — i.e., discrimination against U.S. citizens —
`alleges discrimination based only on citizenship and
`thus was barred by the holding in Espinoza2. Id. at *3.
`(Cited in Enelish v. MISYS INTERNATIONAL
`BANKING SYSTEMS. INC.. Disk Court, D.NJ 2005)
`In Novak v. World Bank. 20 Fair
`Enwl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1166, 1167 (D.D.C.1979),
`Discrimination against a United States citizen in
`favor of an alien has been labeled reverse Espinoza
`See the Class action suit by Katz v Tata
`Consultins Service Dist Court for NJ Docket 22-7069
`(BRM)(JRA), how TCS is discriminating the US
`citizen and favoring the foreigner against US citizen
`in employment. 70% of TCS employees in USA are
`non-US citizen. 12% of TCS employees in USA are US
`citizen who work in Marketing, Sales, Admin staff to
`focus the outsourcing.
`By-product of discriminating the US Citizen,
`Outsourcing cause the tax evasion, money laundering
`against the United States and local Govts, knowledge
`drain to Nation’s STEM knowledge sector.
`
`2 Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co.,414 U.S. 86, 88 (1973).
`
`12
`
`
`
`r
`
`13
`
`2) Order that (i)TCS should not
`outsource US Corporate Jobs (ii) TCS
`should insource all the US Corporate
`IT/BPO project back to United States
`within 6 months of this Court order
`(iii) TCS should not involve in Tax evasion
`and Money Laundering against United
`States and its Local govt(s)
`
`Test-2: By outsourcing US Corporate IT/BPO jobs,
`TCS does/did tax evasion (including payroll tax),
`Money laundering
`Test-3: The foreigner employee(s) to do the US
`Corporate Jobs, the [potential] employer need to get
`approved Labor Certification from Dept of Labor that
`No US Citizen is available to take the jobs. So the
`potential employer can hire foreign employee without
`discrimination US citizen. The outsourcing, put the
`foreigner at front, automatically discriminate the US
`citizen in employment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)
`and 8 CFR 214.2(h) (hl-b visa).
`When the US corporate Jobs are outsource, TCS
`involves Tax evasion including Payroll tax against
`United States and its Local govts. 26 U.S. Code §
`7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax, 26 U.S.C. § 7203
`and § 7206(1)
`The business model of the TCS that it encourage
`the US Corporate managers to Outsource so US
`corporate can evade taxes, these tax evaded money is
`paid to US corporate managers in India which is
`silently, secretly, untraceablv happened/ happening.
`These TCS / US Corporation’s activities where
`violation in 18 USC § 371 - Conspiracy to commit
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`offense or to defraud United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1956,
`money laundering law.
`In Sullivan u. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 US
`229 - Supreme Court 1969 @ 239-240
`Compensatory damages for deprivation of a
`federal right are governed by federal standards, as
`provided by Congress in 42 U. S. C. § 1988, which
`states:
`
`"The jurisdiction in civil . . . matters conferred
`on the district Courts by the provisions of this
`chapter and Title 18. for the protection of all
`persons in the United States in their civil rights,
`and for their vindication, shall be exercised and
`enforced in conformity with the laws of the
`United States, so far as such laws are suitable
`to carry the same into effect
`For the above reasons, petitioner pray this
`court for his prayer to be granted.
`
`3)
`Order that TCS should not access to
`HI, LI, B1 work permit visa from Dept of
`Labor/ United States Citizenship and
`Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and
`Invalidate all the HI, LI, B1 visa previously
`obtained.
`
`Test-2: TCS get Hi, Ll, B1 work visa for the purpose
`of employ few foreign employees in US Corporate
`office as temp contract employee and these foreign
`employees help the US Corporation and TCS to
`outsource the IT Jobs to India. These foreign
`employees play every tricks against US citizen
`employees including abuse of at-will termination to
`outsourcing purpose.
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`Test-3:
`TCS has over 556,986 employees globally,
`every year adding many thousands headcount and
`has 20,000 employees in the US which is its top client
`and revenue market. Out of 20,000 employees, most
`m
`of them
`foreigner
`working
`were
`Sales/Marketing/office Administrative position to
`outsource the US Corp Jobs. 70% of the TCS
`Employees in USA were India/Asian nationality. 12%
`of TCS employees in USA App.14. were US citizens
`who were used as Sales/Marketing /Administrator
`staff to negotiate the US Corporation managers / help
`the US cooperate Jobs outsource to India. App.14.
`This is the Second class action lawsuit against TCS
`for pattern & practice of TCS discriminating US
`Citizen in employment. As previously stated, these
`temp work visa holders used/abused by TCS/US
`Corporations to outsource US corporate job and
`consequently caused/for tax evasion and money
`laundering, US citizen discrimination and favor the
`foreigner against US citizen discrimination in
`employment.
`See the Class action against Katz v TCS which
`clearly states that the previously obtained hi, LI visa
`were thru perjury crime of TCS against Dept of Labor.
`So this court should invalidated all the hi, LI visas
`obtained by TCS.
`This order should compel the TCS to hire US
`citizens, TCS will not discriminate the US Citizen,
`favor the foreigner against US Citizen in
`employment.
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`4) Order that TCS should deposit to US
`treasury the 3 times of Money TCS took out
`of United States by Outsourcing and
`lock/jail the TCS’s CxO until all the money
`recovered and deposit to US treasury
`
`Test-2: TCS outsourced the US corporate jobs
`without US Dept of Labor certification3 that when US
`citizen were available and able to take the Jobs and
`evade the USCIS fees, Payroll tax against US and
`local govts i.e TCS illegally outsourced and money
`laundered.
`Test-3: Any wrongdoing with Dept of Labor
`certification is perjury crime. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)
`and 8 CFR 214.2(h) (hl-b visa)
`By Illegal outsourcing, without Dept of Labor’s
`Certification, TCS did Tax evasion including payroll
`tax, money laundering, corrupt corporate business
`practices.
`TCS CxOs and Ex-CEOs, Ex-CxOs should be lock
`until these 3 times outsourced money recovered and
`deposited to US Treasury. These Top officials were
`personally economically benefitted/gained by
`outsourcing.
`So petitioner prays this Court to order that
`TCS should deposit 3 times of money to US treasury,
`
`3 Foreigner to do the US based Job, [Potential employer to
`foreign employee(s), need to get Labor Certification from Dept of
`Labor that no US citizen is available to take the job so the
`potential employer need to hire foreigner. In outsourcing, TCS
`did not get Labor certification, simply outsourced and evaded the
`tax including payroll tax.
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`the money TCS took out of US thru outsourcing and
`lock these TCS’s CxOs, ex-CxOs until all money
`recovered and deposited to US Treasury. These wrong
`doings were did by these Top officials were done
`knowingly, intentionally.
`
`5) Order to transfer the ownership of
`TCS and its affiliate companies/Business in
`USA to the petitioner Palani Karupaiyan.
`
`Test-2; To escape from the crime and perjury crime
`(such outsourcing, money laundering, tax evasion,
`perjury crime against Dept of Labor, USCIS) against
`US the TCS Executive officers including CxO were
`not living or having office in USA and continuously
`doing such perjury crimes against United States, US
`citizenship discrimination and favoring foreigner
`against US Citizen in employment wrong doing also
`continuously, repeated, knowingly, intentionally done
`by TCS.
`Test-3: The best to way to stop the TCS and its CxOs
`continuously, repeatedly doing crime against United
`States (such outsourcing, money laundering, tax
`evasion, money laundering, perjury crime against
`Dept of Labor, USCIS) is trans
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
