All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government
authorities only, not human/creators in accordence with God’s laws, All codes,
rules and regulations ere unconstitutional and lacking in duc proccss….
Rodrigues v United States Department of Labor 769F.2d 1344 (1985)
” Rodrigues v. United States Secretary of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir.
[From the appeal transcript:]
” [U UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
”  No. 84-1712
”  1 985 .C09.40322 <http ://www. versuslrc ; 7 69 F .2d 1344
”  decided: August 26,1985.
”  SHERWOOD T. RODRIGUES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF LABO& RAYMOND J. DONOVAN, ET AL.,
”  Although a mere allegation of a constitutional violation would not be sufficient
to avoid the effect of a statutory finalrty provision, see Reid v. Engen, 765 F.2d 1457,
1461 (9th Cir. 1985), the record before us indicates that Rodrigues may have
cognizable due process claims. Rodrigues does not make a facial attack on the
constitutionality of the FECA procedures themselves, but, instead, asserts that the
procedures are unconstitutional as applied to him. Gven the Secretary’s failure to
provide a hearing after the suspension of benefits, despite Rodrigues’s request for one,
and the Secretary’s considerable delay in deciding Rodrigues’s claim, we do not frnd
the due process challenges insubstantial. See Cleveland Board of Education v.
Loudermill,4T0 U.S. 532, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 105 S. Ct. 1487, (1985) (“At some point,
a delay in the post-termination hearing would become a constitutional violation.”
(citation omitted)); Kelly v. Railroad Retirement Board, 625 F.2d486,490-91 (3d Cir.
”  We do not mean by this to express any opinion on the ultimate merit of
Rodrigues’s due process claims. We defer to the district court in the first instance. We
simply conclude that, on the basis of the record before us, Rodrigues’s due process
contentions appear to be more than mere allegations included in the complaint to
create iurisdiction where none would exist otheruise.
19850826 O 1998 Versuslaw Inc. “