Antonio Goodwin v. AT&T Corporation

This case concerns the central issue of whether Antonio Goodwin was employed by AT&T, AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Inc., AT&T Corp., or any AT&T-related entities/Companies. WHY THE FIFTH AMENDMENTOFTHE CONSTITUTION, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, WAS VIOLATED BY JUDGE DANIEL J. ALBREGTS, GLORIA NAVARRO, FRIEDLAND, NELSON, AND BADE.THE 63 INTERNAL AUTHENTIC AT&T EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTS PROVE BEYOND AN REASONABLE DOUBT MR ANTONIO GOODWIN WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF AT&T,SENT DIRETLY FROM AT&T CORPORATE OFFICE TO THE EEOC. ON JANUARY 3, 2023 Why The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause was violated by Judge Daniel J. Albregts, Gloria Navarro, Friedland, Nelson, and Bade regarding Mr. Antonio Goodwin filing sanctions against AT&T on Document 51 and 54 on April 10, 2025, against AT&T, Pamela M. Phillips, and Stacey Campbell for making false employment statements under oath by stating Mr. Antonio Goodwin was never an employee of any AT&T companies. The Judges did not take any of Mr. Antonio Goodwin’s evidence into consideration, as well as ignored Mr. Antonio Goodwin’s 900 authentic AT&T employment documents in front of Judge Daniel J. Albregts, Judge Gloria Navarro, Judges Friedland, Nelson, and Bade. The Judges violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Mr. Antonio Goodwin’s 900 authentic AT&T employment documents were filed 3 months before the Rule 11 sanctions were filed against Mr. Antonio Goodwin on June 5, 2025. The Judges ignored Mr. Antonio Goodwin’s 900 authentic AT&T employment documents from April 10, 2025, through March 31, 2026, and through the June 2, 2026 Order. Furthermore, from September 10, 2025, through June 2, 2026, Mr. Antonio Goodwin’s dispositive motion consisting of 1,053 AT&T employment documents and 5,000.00 AT&T employee images was never ruled on, which was filed on September 10, 2025, under ECF Nos. 131, 134, and 136, ECF Nos. 155 and 156, ECF No. 174, and ECF No. 199. Furthermore, Antonio Goodwin’s 63 authentic AT&T employee documents were sent directly from AT&T Corporate Office to the EEOC on January 3, 2023, which was filed before any sanction was granted on December 30, 2025, regarding Mr. Antonio Goodwin’s AT&T employment with AT&T. In civil litigation, this is an absolutely serious violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. 2. WHY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED REGRADING THE MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT FILED ON JUNE 9, 2026 BASED ON THE EXISTING DISCOVERED JANUARY 3, 2023 63 AUTHENTIC AT&T EMPLOYEE DOCUMENTS SENT DIRECTLY FROM AT&T CORPORATE OFFICE TO THE EEOC IN THE LAWSUIT AGAINST AT&T. WHICH THE 63 AUTHENTIC AT&T EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTS PROVE BEYOND AN REASONABLE DOUBT MR ANTONIO GOODWIN WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF AT&T, THIS WAS A MATERIAL CONTRADICTION OF AT&T & PAMELA M. PHILLIPS' DECLARATION, AT&T/ PAMELA M. PHILLIPS QUOTE “THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF MR ANTONIO GOODWIN EVER BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF ANY AT&T COMPANIES. WHICH IS A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BY THE JUDGES., ALSO SANCTIONS WAS WRONGFULLY IMPOSED ON MR GOODWIN BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DANIEL J. ALBREGTS AND DISTRICT JUDGE GLORIA M. NAVARRO, FOR MR ANTONIO GOODWIN STATING HE WAS AN AT&T EMPLOYEE AND MR GOODWIN STATING AT&T/STACEY CAMPBELL COMMITTED PERJURY/FRAUD ON DOCUMENT 54 AND 51. WHICH MR ANTONIO GOODWIN FILED 900 AUTHENTIC AT&T EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING CLAIMS AGAINST AT&T/STACEY CAMPBELL. ALSO MR ANTONIO GOODWN WAS WRONGFULLY SANCTION FOR MISSING A IN PERSON DEPOSITION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 AFTER THE AUGUST 12, 2025 DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE AND AFTER THE FINAL RULING WAS MADE REGARDING EXTENDING THE DISCOVERY CUT OFF DATE ON NOVEMBER 25, 2025 IN THE US DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA. .WHICH THE RULING/ORDER WAS MADE ON NOVEMBER 25, 2025 3 MONTH PAST THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 IN PERSON DEPOSITION DATE.ON DOCUMENT 123 AND 133 (FRAUD ON THE COURT). WHICH AT&T/STACEY CAMPBELL IN PERSON DEPOSITION ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2025 WAS INVALID & FRAUD HOWEVER SANCTIONS WAS STILL IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF ANTONIO GOODWIN BY JUDGE DANIEL J ALBREGTS AND JUDGE GLORIA NAVARRO FOR MISSING AN INVALID IN PERSON DEPOSITION AFTER THE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE ON AUGUST 12, 2025.. THIS IS A SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, AND MR ANTONIO GOODWIN REQUEST FOR THE MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT FILED ON JUNE 9, 2026 AS WELL AS A SPECIFIC WRITTEN FINDINGS OF EACH CATEGORY FOR THE ILLEGAL FRIVOLOUS DISMISSALS BY JUDGES FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, AND BADE. WHICH MR ANTONIO GOODWIN REQUEST HAVE BEEN IGNORED AND VIOLATED UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THE JUDGES NEVER GRANTED WRITTEN FINDINGS FOR CASE NUMBER 26-927 IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL. UNJUST When litigants raise a Fifth Amendment due-process argument, they often contend that: •Material evidence was not considered. •They were denied a meaningful opportunity to present their case. •The court failed to rule on critical issues. •Sanctions or dismissal were imposed without adequate procedural protections. •The proceedings were fundamentally unfair. 3.Why The Fifth Amendment due process Clause was violated where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin filed a dispositive motion on September 10, 2025 that should have been granted in Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s favor, where the dispositive motion filed on September 10, 2025 proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin was an employee of AT&T, AT&T Inc., and AT&T Corp., where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin filed more than 1,053 documents ECF Nos. 131, 134, and 136, ECF Nos. 155 and 156, ECF No. 174, ECF No. 199, identifying Antonio Goodwin on AT&T, AT&T Inc., and AT&T Corp, documents as an employee of those entities, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin received an AT&T envelope dated January 17, 2022 containing his full name, employee number, AT&T password, clothing-order records, AT&T phone number 1-800-331-0500, and the att.com/returns website, where a live AT&T customer service agent confirmed in writing “this is AT&T,” where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin preserved those text messages, where PlaintiffAppellant Antonio Goodwin has a video-recorded phone call message from AT&T stating “this is AT&T” from his employee document, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin has a live agent texting Mr. Antonio Goodwin stating “this is AT&T” from PlaintiffAppellant Antonio Goodwin’s AT&T employee document connected to the AT&T work phone number 1-800-331-0500, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin offered to conduct a Zoom video-recorded call with the Court, AT&T, and counsel to call 1-800-331-0500 live to verify employment, where Documents 155, 156, Exhibit A, Document 174, and Document 199 proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin was an AT&T employee, where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s AT&T employee clothing order, the AT&T phone number 1-800-331-0500, the AT&T video voice message stating “this is AT&T,” and the AT&T live-agent text message stating “this is AT&T” proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin was an AT&T employee, where this evidence directly contradicts the February 26, 2024 declaration of Pamela M. Phillips stating she conducted an “exhaustive search” and found “no records” of employment, where that declaration identified AT&T Inc. at 208 S. Akard St., Dallas, Texas, which matches the corporate identity in Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s documents, and where the lower court nevertheless allowed sanctions proceedings to move forward while that dispositive motion remained unresolved through the December 30, 2025 sanctions hearing. 4 Why invalid sanctions was imposed or upheld based on the September 25, 2025 in-person deposition where Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin’s dispositive motion filed September 10, 2025 ECF Nos. 131, 134, and 136, ECF Nos. 155 and 156, ECF No. 174, ECF No. 199, remained pending and Would have overpowered, eliminated, mooted, or taken the September 25, 2025 in-person deposition out of the equation entirely, where the deposition occurred after the discovery cutoff date, where ECF No. 123 filed September 3, 2025 was only a motion, where ECF No. 133 filed September 11, 2025 was only a reply, where Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts did not issue the relevant ruling until November 25, 2025 after the deposition date had already passed, and where sanctions should not be recommended or imposed while dispositive motions remained pending, while no order compelled the deposition at the relevant time, while the deposition occurred after the discovery cutoff, and while THE 63 AUTHENTIC AT&T EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTS PROVE BEYOND AN REASONABLE DOUBT MR ANTONIO GOODWIN WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF AT&T, SENT DIRECTLY FROM AT&T CORPORATE OFFICE TO THE EEOC IN THE LAWSUIT AGAINST AT&T ON JANUARY 3, 2023. 5 WHY THE FEDERAL FALSE-STATEMENT, PERJURY, AND DECLARATION-UNDER-PENALTY-OF-PERJURY WAS NOT IMPOSE AGAINST AT&T, PAMELA M. PHILLIPS AND STACEY CAMPBELL I & Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause Violated Plaintiff respectfully contends that the record raises serious issues under federal false-statement, perjury, and declaration-under-penalty-of-perjury laws because AT&T, Pamela M. Phillips, and Stacey Campbell maintained for nearly three years that Antonio Goodwin was never an employee of any AT&T company, while AT&T’s own records sent directly to the EEOC include 63 authentic AT&T employee documents identifying Plaintiff’s AT&T Mobility LLC employee history, AT&T employee number, name, passcode, AT&T write-ups, AT&T coaching records, AT&T EEOC response materials, and AT&T employment-related documents connected to AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T, AT&T Inc., and AT&T Corp. Plaintiff respectfully contends that Pamela M. Phillips’ declaration is materially contradicted by AT&T’s own documents because the declaration stated that there were no records showing Antonio Goodwin was ever employed by any AT&T company. Plaintiff contends that this statement was false, material, and prejudicial because it was used to support AT&T’s position that Plaintiff’s employment evidence and claims were frivolous or unsupported. Plaintiff respectfully contends that these facts implicate, at minimum, the following federal statutes and legal concerns: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 — False Statements to the Federal Government. Plaintiff contends that AT&T, Pamela M. Phillips, and Stacey Campbell made materially false employment statements within matters involving federal jurisdiction, including the EEOC proceedings and federal court proceedings, by asserting that Plaintiff was never employed by any AT&T company despite AT&T-generated employment records.Which may Constitute as a Felony. 18 U.S.C. § 1621 — Perjury. Plaintiff contends that any sworn statement or declaration made under oath denying the existence of Plaintiff’s AT&T employment records may constitute perjury if the statement was knowingly false and material. 18 U.S.C. § 1623 — False Declarations Before Court or Grand Jury. Plaintiff contends that any false declaration submitted in a federal court proceeding concerning Plaintiff’s employment status may implicate 18 U.S.C. § 1623 if the declaration was knowingly false and material. 28 U.S.C. § 1746 — Unsworn Declarations Under Penalty of Perjury. Plaintiff contends that Pamela M. Phillips’ declaration, if submitted under penalty of perjury, carried the same seriousness as sworn testimony and should not have been accepted without meaningful review once Plaintiff presented AT&T records contradicting it. 18 U.S.C. § 1503 — Obstruction of Justice. Plaintiff contends that if false employment statements were knowingly used to influence the federal court’s handling of Plaintiff’s case, sanctions, dismissal; or frivolousness determination, such conduct may raise obstruction-of-justice concerns. 18 U.S.C. § 1519 — Falsification or Concealment of Records in Federal Matters. Plaintiff contends that if employment records existed and were concealed, misrepresented, omitted, or contradicted by declarations in a federal matter, such conduct may raise concerns under federal record-falsification or concealment laws. Fraud on the Court. Plaintiff contends that the false employment statements were not minor factual disputes. Plaintiff contends that the employment-status issue was central to the entire case, the sanctions, the dismissal, and the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of the appeal. Plaintiff therefore respectfully contends that the contradiction between the Phillips declaration and the 63 AT&T/EEOC employee documents raises a serious fraud-on-the-court issue requiring judicial review. Plaintiff respectfully acknowledges that criminal determinations are for the United States Attorney, the Department of Justice, or the appropriate federal authorities. Plaintiff raises these statutes to show the seriousness, materiality, and extraordinary nature of the false-employment-record issue and why recall of the mandate is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the 63 AT&T employee documents sent directly from AT&T to the EEOC on January 3, 2023 Which proved that AT&T had employment records concerning Antonio Goodwin employment with AT&T. AT&T, Pamela M Phillips and Stacey Campbell Premediated Concealment of vital employment evidence Plaintiff-Appellant Antonio Goodwin, proceeding pro se, respectfully moves this Court to recall the mandate in Ninth Circuit Case No. 26-927.