Dennis Lee Maxberry v. Daniel P. Driscoll, Secretary of the Army, on behalf of the Board of Correction of Military Records Agency

2 Can a presumption of prejudice be so heinous that it; establishes a contract 3 according to a contract or equity servitude under the Tucker Act? 4 The United States Court of Appeals for Military Crimes and the Air Force 5 can’t review the Petitioner’s case, or cases that isn’t dishonorable, or other than 6 honorable so equitious in a Discharge is a procedural flaw, yet, a forced consent 7 8 by a wayward Commander Judge, Jury, and Attorney was arbitrary and capricious 9 affects caused by his very own teammates which was staged; caused his discharge 10 as General under Honorable without equitous yet equitious. Would be 11 Discrimination at Executive Order 9981 and 9982 at Title 10 U.S.C. § 1034 12 Yamashito? 13 The United States Court of Appeals for Military Crimes states that the 14 Petitioner didn’t commit a crime, and yet a false statement caused a consent, and 15 the consent wasn’t a criminal action on part of the Petitioner his discharge was 16 17 sta ged i sn ’t th at Di scrim in ati on atEO 9981, and 9982? 10 U.S. Code § 1034, 18 “Yamashita”. 19 EXECUTIVE ORDER QUESTION 20 1. The Veteran the Petitioner who was charged with unlawful threats and 21 was treated like a criminal in his official duties as the Quartermaster. American 22 School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 187 U.S. 108. 23

1. Caused a very hostile environment that caused arbitrary taking of the 24 Petitioner/Veteran’s income and other possible survivor properties while serving 25 26 his country. (FTCA) Title 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Barr v. Matteo, and Poolman v. 27 Nelson, F. 2d, at 307-308. 3. Who was B eing Bio eked from the B argain through forced (Order as attached) consent violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment E.0.9981.

2. There was no nature of commitment to establish a committee to prejudical claim(s) against the Petitioner/VeteranDLM.

3. The Petitioner Veteran was discriminated against in a very hostile way and there was not committee to support or help the protected class Veteran at EO 9981 and9982.

4. The Petitioner did not attend Church due to his very heavy assignment duty and on Sunday based on his Christianity I stayed at the Barracks. Church of LukumiBabaluv. City of Hialeah. Employment Div., Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. smith 494 U.S. 872.