Nastri v. Department of Homeland Security

Pro Se

Question(s) Presented

  1. “Can the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (hereafter MSPB, or Board); make decisions; solicit, hire, promote, transfer, reassign, or fire staff; select, refer, refuse, adjudicate or dismiss cases; retain in-house counsel; represent itself in Court and argue the position of the Board; have counsel serve as counsel to themselves, or concurrently serve as the chief executive of the Board, counsel for the chief executive and Board, Inspector General functional oversight for themselves and over the Board; or, be enabled to or otherwise obstruct due process or otherwise deprive the civil rights or civil liberties of complainants or other appellants—without any operable quorum of the Board; or, in the absence of any Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed leader of the Board; or, without any Member thereof?”
  2. “And, notwithstanding, or in the alternative, arguendo the Board was not insolvent or operating ultra vires, do this Court’s holdings in McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 72 U.S. 10 (1963), Walker v. Southern Ry., 385 U.S. 196, 87 S. Ct. 365, 17 L. Ed. 2d 294 [1966], as well as the 2nd Circuit’s holdings in Fay v. Douds, 172 F.2d 720 (2d Cir. 1949), ((accord, Fitzgerald v. Hampton, 467 F.2d. 755 (D.C. Cir. 1972)), et seq, or related, apply to appellants whose remedies before the Board, et al, have been constructively exhausted (whether by equivalently intolerable conditions for the specific petitioner, plaintiff or appellant), because of the Board’s inability to provide timely review, relief, or due process of law; or for those who wish to be heard before a Court, because of the gravity of the questions and issues involved, or because the appellant can make a substantial showing that their Constitutional Rights were violated?”
  3. “Furthermore, should the MSPB or the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the so-called Special Counsel of the Board, comply with laws, rules, regulations, and the tenants of professional misconduct; can the MSPB remand for further investigation or otherwise hold the OSC accountable for violating same; and, can an appellant or other complainant to the MSPB or OSC, aggrieved and harmed by their violation of these, and deprived of their rights thereto, pursue legal claims in Court against them?”

Posts About this Case

Proceedings and Orders
October 20, 2021
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/5/2021.
November 8, 2021
Petition DENIED.
January 5, 2022
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
January 24, 2022
Rehearing DENIED.