Adams v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Pro Se

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether CAFC made an error in their decision to dismiss CAFC 2023-1698 (DC- 3443-18-0288-1-1) which was about DIA’s Admin Judge’s Failure to Postpone Clearance Hearing Long Enough For Me To Get A Lawyer, And DIA’s Admin Judge’s Failure To Consider My Legitimate Discrimination and Retaliation Concerns in the Clearance Revocation Hearing, And whether Employer Discrimination is going to be allowed to flourish in the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). And whether CAFC Violated Constitutional Law when they failed to address the discrimination by MDA and DIA.”

2. “Whether anyone or any organization can deny access to EEO records in a Discrimination Case, Complaint or Appeal. And whether MDA can intentionally withhold vital evidence they have in their possession that would change the outcome of the CAFC decision, such as the H: harddrive containing dates, times, and people for numerous instances of disparate treatment, discrimination and retaliation, the EEO records of the discriminators and the EEO records of the discriminating organization, and The FBI investigation that cleared Mr. Adams of any wrongdoing.”

3. “Whether CAFC can deny an Oral Argument Request for a case of this magnitude and have justice prevail. And whether Mr. Adams’ Sixth Amendment Rights were violated when CAFC disregarded/ignored his request for an oral argument, in effect, denying him of his right to be heard, and denying him of his right to face his accuser.”

Posts About this Case

Proceedings and Orders
January 25, 2024
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
February 20, 2024
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).