\
`
`l Tfia
`
`’ •*** »
`t „ i-rwiM. —a,.
`FILED
`JUN 0 7 2023
`
`r 23=78
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE
`UNITED STATES
`
`PALANI Karupaiyan et al
`—Petitioners
`
`V.
`Arnaud Vaissie et al
`— Respondents
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Third Circuit
`Docket-23-1288
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
`CERTIORARI
`Palani Karupaiyan.
`Pro se, Petitioner,
`1326 W. William St,
`Philadelphia, PA 19132
`palanikav@gmaii.com
`212-470-2048(m)
`
`
`
`l Tfia
`
`’ •*** »
`t „ i-rwiM. —a,.
`FILED
`JUN 0 7 2023
`
`r 23=78
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE
`UNITED STATES
`
`PALANI Karupaiyan et al
`—Petitioners
`
`V.
`Arnaud Vaissie et al
`— Respondents
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Third Circuit
`Docket-23-1288
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
`CERTIORARI
`Palani Karupaiyan.
`Pro se, Petitioner,
`1326 W. William St,
`Philadelphia, PA 19132
`palanikav@gmaii.com
`212-470-2048(m)
`
`
`
`+t
`r
`
`™
`»
`
`p-
`
`Es
`
`avwey
`V
`i iV
`I
`
`aaeeetitn cetiteoe
`
`* ^ i
`.
`.
`motets
`; -y- I
`.<:
`s
`I
`wot
`ey
`ji '
`sig ft > wks of
`<
`!
`:.'
`*
`.
`—-
`i
`
`'
`
`i
`
`%t
`
`
`
`1
`
`I.
`Question Presented
`Petitioner’s prayed 9 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 9 reliefs were as Writ of
`Mandamus or Prohibition or alternative so the
`questions were part of three test condition
`requirement of the Writs.
`ii)
`Lower -Courts ruled
`Plaintiff [petitioner] contends, however, that the
`judgment in the Prior Action was not “on the
`merits” because it was premised on pleading
`deficiencies under Rules 8 and 10 and on his
`failure to comply with Court Orders under Poulis
`v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.. 747F.2d 863
`(3d Cir. 1984). While Plaintiff is correct as to the
`bases of the prior dismissal, he is incorrect as to
`the preclusive effect of such dismissals.
`■ Lower Courts’ decisions about preclusive effect on
`Meritless (not on merits) order is incorrect as below
`
`Semtek Int'l Inc, v. Lockheed Martin Coro.. 531
`US 497 - Supreme Court 2001@502 -503
`("The prototypical] [judgment on the
`i)
`merits is] one in which the merits of fa party's]
`claim are in fact adjudicated [for or] against
`the [party] after trial of the substantive
`issues ").
`ii)
`Semtek @503. In short, it is no longer
`true that a judgment "on the merits" is
`
`
`
`11
`
`necessarily a judgment entitled to claim-
`preclusive effect; and there are a number of
`reasons for believing that the phrase
`"adjudication upon the merits"does not bear
`that meaning in Rule 41(b).
`
`iii)
`
`When Moses H. Cone Memorial
`Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.. 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 (CAS 1976).
`Following USCA3’s ruling is error
`Mandamus relief is unavailable because he
`may challenge the District Courts dismissal
`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
`
`
`
`Ill
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Parties to the Proceeding
`PALANI KARUPAIYAN; P. P.; R. P. are
`petitioners
`Respondents are
`ARNAUD VAISSIE, Individually and in his official
`capacity as CEO of International SOS;
`DESSI NIKALOVA, Individually and in her official
`capacity as director, product engineering of the
`international SOS;
`ACCESS STAFFING LLC;
`MIKE WEISTEIN, Individually and in is official
`capacity as principal, product engineering of Access
`Staffing LLC;
`KAPITAL DATA CORP;
`KUMAR MANGALA, individually and in their
`official capacity as founder and CEO of the Kapital
`Data Corp;
`KARUPAIYAN CONSULTING INC;
`GREGORY HARRIS, individually and in his official
`capacity as team leader, mobile applications of the
`international SOS;
`INTERNATIONAL SOS (“ISOS”)
`Related Case
`Palani Karupaiyan v. International SOS et al.
`
`USSC- Docket 21-7532
`
`m
`
`
`
`1 m i
`
`n
`
`IV
`
`Vll
`
`IV
`
`IV.
`
`Table of Contents
`I. Question Presented..........................................
`II. Parties to the Proceeding.................................
`III. Related Case......................................................
`IV. Table of Contents..............................................
`V. Table of Authorities..........................................
`VI. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.......................
`VII. Opinion(s)/orders/Judgment(s) BELOW (from
`Dist Court and USCA3)...........................................
`VIII.
`Jurisdiction.................................................
`IX. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions
`Involved.....................................................................
`X. Statement of the Case......................................
`a) Dist Court Old Docket...........................
`b) Dist Court Proceeding and ruling.....
`c) US CA3 Proceeding and ruling.............
`XI. International SOS’s Business..........................
`XII. ISOS’s Purpose of outsource............................
`XIII.
`All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)...........
`XIV.
`Reliefs should be granted under Rule
`8(a)(3)/54(c) or without Rule 12(b)’s requirement....7
`XV. Why USCA3 was not able to grant the
`Appellant’s Writs/ Injunction(s) reliefs..........
`XVI.
`USSC’s Writ against Lower Court(s)
`
`1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7
`
`8 8
`
`IV
`
`
`
`V
`
`I
`
`v
`
`XVII. Pro se pleading standards.........
`XVIII. USSC’s Rule 20.1 and Rule 20.3
`Three test Conditions for grant the Writs (of
`XIX.
`11
`Mandamus, prohibition or any alternative)...........
`12
`XX. Reasons For Granting the Writ(s)....................
`Writ against International SOS that
`1)
`ISOS should not discriminate the US
`citizenship AND favor of foreign nationals
`against US citizen in employment or in
`12
`application for employment.............................
`2) Order that (i) International SOS should
`not outsource it’s IT/BPO jobs, (ii)
`International SOS should not involve in Tax
`evasion and Money Laundering against
`United States and its Local govt(s).................
`3) Order that International SOS should
`deposit to US treasury the 3 times of Money
`International SOS took out of United States
`by Outsourcing and lock/jail the
`International SOS’s CEO when International
`SOS fail to deposit the money within 3
`months of this Court order...............................
`4) Order for 50% Copyright ownership of
`ISOS’s i) Mobile ASSIST application and
`ii)Mobile Web management application to
`petitioner Karupaiyan......................................
`5) Order that International SOS should
`pay the petitioner $15 million dollars for
`[reasonable money for time and effort of the
`
`9 9
`
`13
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`[P]laintiff, pain and suffering and all
`expenses and costs of this action.....................
`6) Order that International SOS should
`pay the petitioner for Title VII, Section
`1981/1988, ADA, ADEA, GINA, US
`citizenship discrimination, favoring foreigner
`against US Citizen, and PHRA claims...........
`a) Against Lower Courts..............................
`7) Order to vacate the Dist Court order of
`dismissal of lst-amended Complaint against
`ISOS and Access Staffing, ECF-34, 35:
`App.5, 12 and USCA3’s Order App.4..............
`8) Order to appoint guardian ad litem or
`alternatively pro bono attorney.......................
`9) Order that International SOS should
`pay $20 million dollar to the Minor
`Petitioners PP and RP (“Minor Petitioners”)..30
`31
`XXI. Conclusion
`
`19
`22
`
`22
`
`26
`
`18
`
`VI
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Vll
`
`V.
`
`Table of Authorities
`Cases
`
`ANKENBRANDT, as next friend and mother of L. R
`•>
`et al. v. RICHARDS et al 504 U.S. 689 (1992).....27
`Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland. 346 US 379
`8, 11
`- Supreme Court 1953
`Bethel School District No. 403 Et Al. V. Fraser, A
`27
`Minor, et al. 478 U.S. 675 (1986).....................
`Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.. 767 F.3d 247, 277
`(3d Cir. 2014)..............................................................
`24
`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.
`27
`226 (1990),...................................................................
`Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F. 3d 757 - USCA, 7th Cir.
`2002................................................................................
`Bontkowskiv. Smith. 305 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir.
`2002)...............................................................................
`Bovadiian v. Ciena Companies. 973 F. Supp. 500 -
`Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 1997.............................
`Bover v. CLEARFIELD COUNTYINDU. DEVEL.
`7
`A UTHORITY. Dist. Court, WD Penn 2021
`18
`Carter. 780 F.2d
`Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for DC. 542 US
`367 - Supreme Court 2004
`11
`CJLG v. Barr, 923 F. 3d 622 - Court of Appeals, 9th
`Circuit 2019.........................................................
`29
`Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid
`17
`Costello v. United States. 365 U.S. 265, 286 (1961) 25
`
`7 7
`
`18
`
`Vll
`
`
`
`V1U
`
`vm
`
`2
`
`18
`18
`
`Crooker v. United States Deo't of Justice, 632 F. 2d
`916, 921 (1st Cir.1980)..............................................
`Cunningham. 664 F.2d.................................................
`De Beers Consolidated Minesv. United States.
`9
`325 U.S. 212,217(1945)
`De Beers Consolidated Minesv. United States. 325 U.
`11
`S. 212, 217(1945).
`18
`DeBold. 735
`English v. MISYS INTERNATIONAL BANKING
`SYSTEMS. INC.. Dist. Court, D. NJ 2005..........
`Erickson v. 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
`Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 585, 63 S.Ct. 793, 87
`9
`L.Ed. 1014(1943).............................. .......................
`Hines v. D'Artois. 531 F. 2d 726, 732, and n. 10 (CA5
`ii, 8, 10, 26
`1976)
`Hobby Lobby Stores. Inc, v. Sebelius. 568 US 1401 -
`2, 11
`Supreme Court 2012
`Hodge v. Police Officers. 802 F. 2d 58 - Court of
`27
`Appeals. 2nd Circuit 1986...................................
`Hohn v. United States. 524 US 236 - Supreme Court
`1998
`Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60,
`7
`65-66, 99 S.Ct. 383, 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978).........
`In re Gault. 387 U.S. 1, 36-37, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 *632
`29
`L.Ed.2d 527(1967)
`In re Nwanze. 242 F.3d 521. 524 (3d Cir. 2001)...ii. 9,
`23, 26
`In re Nwanze. 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Circuit. 2001) .ii
`
`12
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`i
`
`IX
`
`27
`29
`
`25
`
`Jacob WINKELMAN. a minor, by and through his
`parents and lesal guardians, Jeff and Sandee
`WINKELMAN. et al.. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL
`DISTRICT. 550 U.S. 5l6- 127 S.Ct. 1994 (2007).27
`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)
`29
`Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.. 349 US 322
`24
`- Sup.Ct 1955.
`Maclin v. Freake, 650 F. 2d 885 - Court of Appeals.
`7th Circuit 1981......... ............................................
`Mathews, 424 U.S....................... ...............................
`McCarter v. Mitcham. 883 F.2d 196, 199—200 (3d
`Cir. 1989)................................................................
`McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Trans. Co. 427 U.S.
`273,287, 96 S.Ct. 2574, 49 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976) ....20
`Montgomery v. Pinchak. 294 F. 3d 492 - USCA, 3rd
`27
`Cir. 2002
`Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr.
`Corp.. 460 US 1 - Supreme Court 1983 ..ii, 8, 10, 26
`Novak v. World Bank. 20 Fair Enwl.Prac.Cas.
`12
`(BNA) 1166, 1167 (D.D.C. 1979)...........................
`Novak v. World Bank. No. 79-0641, 1979 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 11742 (D.D.C. June 13,1979)...................
`12
`Osei-Afriye v. The Medical College of Pennsylvania.
`26, 29
`937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991)
`Pa. Bureau of Correction v. US Marshals Service.
`474 US 34 - Sup Ct 1985.....................................
`Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore. 439 U.S. 322, 327
`(1979)
`
`7
`
`23
`
`IX
`
`
`
`X
`
`Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.. 747F.2d
`i, 5
`863 (3d Cir. 1984)
`Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.. 747 F.2d
`863 (3d Cir. 1984)
`re US. 139 S. Ct. 452
`Robidoux v. Rosensren. 638 F. 3d 1177- USCA9
`2011
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.. 319 U. S. 21, 26
`8
`(1943)..........................................................................
`Rosado v. Wvman. 397 U. S. 397, 403, n. 3 (1970)....2
`Ross v. Bowlby. 353 Pa.Super. 59, 509 A.2d 332
`25
`(1986)
`Semtek Int'l Inc, v. Lockheed Martin Cory., 531 US
`i, 23
`497 - Supreme Court 2001
`Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park. Inc.. 396 US 229 -
`14
`Supreme Court 1969..................................................
`Tabron v. Grace, 6 F. 3d 147 - Court of Appeals, 3rd
`27
`Circuit 1993
`Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks. 281 U. S.
`548, 569-570
`Statutes
`
`5 9
`
`29
`
`22
`
`2
`2, 8, 26
`7
`26
`11
`
`3 3
`
`28 U. S. C. § 1254(1)
`28 U. S. C. § 1651....
`28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)..
`28 U.S.C. § 1654......
`28 USCS 1651(a)......
`42 U.S.C. § 1981......
`42 US Code § 1988...
`
`x
`
`
`
`XI
`
`16
`16
`2,7
`17
`
`3 3
`
`8 CFR 214.2(h)..............
`8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)
`All Writs Act..................
`Copyright Act of 1976............................................
`Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).....
`The Americans with Disabilities Act...................
`The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act..... 3
`3
`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
`29
`
`7 9 9
`
`14th amendment
`FIRST AMENDMENT
`
`29
`27
`
`xi
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`VI.
`
`Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
`Petitioner respectfully prays that a Writ of
`Certiorari to review the opinion/ judgment/ orders
`of USCA3’s (docket 23-1288) and US Dist Court
`for Eastern Dist of Pennsylvania (Dist docket 22-
`cv-3083) below.
`VII.
`Opinion(s)/orders/Judgment(s) BELOW
`(from Dist Court and USCA3)
`1. USCA3’s Opinion dated Apr 19, 2023 (App.l)
`Hon. KRAUSE, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-
`REEVES Circuit Judges
`2. USCA3’s Order dated Apr 19, 2023 (App.4)
`3. Dist Court order dismissal of complaint for
`International SOS defendants. Jan 31 2023. Ecf-
`34 (App.5)
`4. Dist Court order dismissal of complaint for
`Access Staffing defendants. Jan 31 2023. Ecf-35
`(App.12)
`Hon. NITZAI. QUINONES ALEJANDRO USDJ
`
`1
`
`
`
`2
`
`VIII.
`
`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
`
`Following a final judgment, they
`[Petitioner] may, if necessary, file a petition
`for a writ of certiorari in this Court.
`
`On Apr 19 2023. United States Court of
`Anneals 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).
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`IX. 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;
`and
`(iv) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act
`42 U.S.C. § 1981
`42 US Code § 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of
`civil rights
`
`Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA),
`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.
`Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. §§ 101(2) and
`201(a)
`8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A) and 8 CFR 214.2(h) (hl-b
`visa).
`8 U.S. Code § 1188
`The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section -
`101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).
`20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e) (Labor Certification)
`20 C.F.R. §655.101(b)(1) (Temp employment for
`foreigner)
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`X.
`
`Statement of the Case
`a) Dist Court Old Docket
`This case was previously docket with Dist Court of
`Eastern Pennsylvania. Docket# 19-cv-2259, Docket
`entry 46 as below.
`
`46
`
`ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
`COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT
`PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
`THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS PLAINTIFF SHALL
`FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.
`DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS,
`PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ACCEPTING
`ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND
`ADDITIONAL SIX MOTIONS, AND FOR
`ADDITIONAL TIME ARE ALL DENIED AS
`MOOT. THE CLERK OF COURT IS
`DIRECTED TO CORRECT PLAINTIFF'S
`NAME ON THE DOCKET. ETC.. SIGNED BY
`HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON
`5/6/2020.5/6/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES E-
`MAILED. NOT MAILED TO PRO SE.(sg,)
`(Emailed to litigant on 06/16/2020 per
`chambers) Modified on 6/16/2020 (nd, ).
`(Entered: 05/06/2020)
`
`Clearly the above docket entry stated Hon
`Judge TUCKER signed on May 6 2020 to amend the
`complaint within 30 days which was not emailed to
`prose plaintiff until Jun 16 2020.
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`This Old docket, Dist Court dismissed under Poulis
`v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.. 747F.2d 863
`(3d Cir. 1984).
`b) Dist Court Proceeding and ruling
`On Aug 1 2022, Plaintiff filed employment related
`complaint against the respondents US Dist Court of
`Eastern PA under Title VII, Pennsylvania Human
`Relations Act (PHRA), and copyright and so on and
`timely served the complaint to all defendants.
`On Nov 3 2022 Dist Court granted the forma
`pauperis and ordered the plaintiff to serve the
`complaint and summon. ECF-17. App.18.
`On Juan 31 2023, District Court dismissed the
`1st amended complaint for International SOS (ISOS)
`and Access Staffing on the basis of Res Judicata.
`App.5 and App.12.
`In dismissal of complaint, Dist Court ruled that
`
`Plaintiff contends that the judgment in the
`Prior Action was not “on the merits” because it
`was premised on pleading deficiencies under
`Rules 8 and 10 and on his failure to comply
`with Court Orders under Poulis v. State Farm
`Fire and Casualty Co.. 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.
`1984), Dist Court ruled that
`
`“Plaintiff is correct as to the bases of the
`prior dismissal, he is incorrect as to the
`preclusive effect of such dismissals.
`Timely Petitioner filed Notice of Petition for
`Writ of Mandamus, Prohibition or Alternative. ECF-
`44.
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`c) USCA3 Proceeding and ruling
`
`On Apr 19 2023, USCA3 entered NOT
`PRECEDENTIAL opinion (App.l) and order
`(Ann.4) entered.
`USCA3’s ruled that
`(i)
`" we will deny in part and dismiss in part
`the petition”
`(ii)
`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, “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]
`International SOS’s Business
`Defendant International SOS (“ISOS”) is the
`world's largest medical and travel security services
`firm, which count nearly two-thirds of the Fortune
`Global 500 companies as clients. ISOS employed
`10,000+ employees and 2 billion dollars revenue in
`USA which major revenue market of international
`SOS. ISOS home country is Britain/ Singapore.
`ISOS’s Purpose of outsource
`The purpose of International SOS’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, untraceablv transfer the
`money out of US in the name of outsource into
`
`XI.
`
`XII.
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`India and these tax evaded money is benefitted by
`International SOS’s corporate officer who decided
`the outsourcing.
`XIII.
`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”.
`XIV.
`R eliefs should be granted under R ule
`8(A)(3)/54(C) OR WITHOUT RULE 12(B)’S
`REQUIREMENT
`In Bontkowski v. Smith. 305 F. 3d 757 - USCA,
`7th Cir. 2002®762 “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 fhis] 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
`
`XV.
`
`XVI.
`
`Why USCA3 was not able to grant the
`Appellant’s Writs/ Injunction(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
`@foptnote [6].
`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).
`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."
`Bankers @383 there is clear abuse of
`discretion or "usurpation of judicial power"
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`of the sort held to justify the writ in De Beers
`Consolidated Minesv. United States. 325 U.
`S. 212, 217(1945).
`XVII. Pro se pleading standards
`Erickson v. Pardus. 551 US 89- Sup. Ct. 2007
`@2200
`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.
`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 parte 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 opinioned
`that
`
`Mandamus relief is unavailable because he may
`challenge the District Court’s dismissal order
`through the normal appeal process. See In re
`Nwanze. 242F. 3d 521, 524 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting
`that, “[gjiven its drastic nature, a writ of
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`mandamus should not be issued where relief may
`be obtained through an ordinary appeal”)
`
`The above USCA3’s ruling is error when USSC
`ruled that Moses 460 US 1 - Supreme Court 1983
`@footnote[6].
`
`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)
`Also the above Substitute the Test-1 of 3 tests
`requirement of grating the Writs in the US Supreme
`Court.
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`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(a))
`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. 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”
`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 v. 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”
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`XX.
`
`R easons For G ranting the W rit(s)
`
`1) Writ against International SOS that
`ISOS should not discriminate the US
`citizenship AND favor of foreign nationals
`against US citizen in employment or in
`application for employment
`
`Test-2: i) International SOS denied employment to
`the petitioner because of his US Citizenship and
`employed the young foreigner instead of US citizen
`petitioner. ECF-24, FAC@134,147,137,138
`Test-3: Favoring foreigner against US Citizen in
`employment is discrimination.
`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 VII'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 Espinoza1. Id. at
`*3. (Cited in English v. MISYS INTERNATIONAL
`BANKING SYS TEMS. 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.
`
`1 Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co.,414 U.S. 86, 88 (1973).
`
`12
`
`A
`
`
`
`13
`
`Reasons stated above, petitioner prays this
`Court for Writ that ISOS should not discriminate.the
`US citizenship and favor the foreigner against US
`citizen in employment.
`
`2) Order that {H International SOS
`should not outsource it’s IT/BPO jobs, (ii)
`International SOS should not involve in
`Tax evasion and Money Laundering
`against United States and its Local govt(s).
`
`Test-2: International SOS outsourced the IT/ BPO
`jobs to India. ECF-24, FAC@265-267,270-271
`Test-3: The foreigner employee(s) to do the US
`Corporate Jobs, the [potential] employer need to get
`approved Labor Certification2 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).
`
`8 U.S. Code § 1188
`The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section -
`101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).
`20 C.F.R. § 656.17(e) (Labor Certification3)
`
`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, International SOS did not get Labor
`certification, simply outsourced and evaded the tax
`including payroll tax
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`20 C.F.R. §655.101(b)(1) (Temp employment for
`foreigner)
`When the International SOS IT Jobs/BPO Jobs
`were outsourced, International SOS 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)
`ISOS outsourcing is violation in 18 USC § 371 -
`Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United
`States, 18 USC § 1956, money laundering law.
`In Sullivan v. 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
`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.
`For the above reasons, petitioner pray this
`Court for order that ISOS should not outsource the
`IT/BPO jobs and should not involve tax evasion,
`Money laundering,
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`Also Order that International SOS should
`deposit to US treasury the 3 times of Money
`International SOS took out of United States by
`Outsourcing and lock/jail the International SOS’s
`CEO when International SOS fail to deposit the
`money within 3 months of this Court order. Also
`petitioner prays this Court for order that equal
`amount of money ISOS send out for outsourcing,
`ISOS need to pay the plaintiff/petitioner.
`
`3) Order that International SOS should
`deposit to US treasury the 3 times of Money
`International SOS took out of United States
`by Outsourcing and lock/jail the
`International SOS’s CEO when
`International SOS fail to deposit the money
`within 3 months of this Court order.
`
`Test-2: International SOS outsourced the IT/ BPO
`jobs without US Dept of Labor certification4 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 International SOS illegally
`outsourced and money laundered.
`Test-3:
`
`4 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, International SOS did not get Labor
`certification, simply outsourced and evaded the tax
`including payroll tax.
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`Any wrongdoing with Dept of Labor
`certification is perjury crime. 8 USC § 1182(a)(5)(A)
`and 8 CFR 214.2(h) (hl-b visa)
`By Illegal outsourcing, without Dept of Labor’s
`Certification, International SOS did Tax evasion
`including payroll tax, money laundering, corrupt
`corporate business practices.
`International SOS’s CEO 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
`ISOS should deposit 3 times of money to US treasury,
`the money ISOS took out of US thru outsourcing and
`lock these ISOS’s CEO until all money recovered and
`deposited to US Treasury. These wrong doings were
`did by these Top officials were done knowingly,
`intentionally.
`
`4) Order for 50% Copyright ownership of
`ISOS’s i) Mobile ASSIST application and
`ii)Mobile Web management application to
`petitioner Karupaiyan.
`
`Test-2: Petitioner Karupaiyan worked on i) Mobile
`ASSIST application and ii) Mobile Web management
`application. These two applications are core business
`application of ISOS. Petitioner worked software
`parts/modules/codes are unseparately tightly
`integrated ISOS’s core Business application, and
`running. Petitioner was not paid by ISOS or any joint
`employer for the Mobile ASSISTANT, Mobile Web
`Management software developed for ISOS.
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`Test-3: These two applications are ISOS business’s
`Core Application,
`ISOS
`continuously
`is
`benefitted/profited.
`Copyright Act of 1976, and Community for
`Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 US 730 - Supreme
`Court 1989 @753
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
