__________________________________________

Glenn D Ferren, )

P.O. Box 472 ) D.C. No. CV-01-00104-JDS

Superior, MT 59872 )

Plaintiff - Appellant, )

v. ) Request for EN BANC Rehearing

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

THE INTERIOR; Gale Norton, et al., )

Defendants - Appellees )

__________________________________________)

Consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of its

decisions; the MEMORANDUM dated Filed Jan 17 2006 in this matter

Before: HUG, O'SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN (No. 04-35870)

is in direct conflict with the MEMORANDUM dated Filed Nov 22 2002 in this

matter Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and SILVERMAN (No. 02-35341).

In (No. 02-35341) the district court decision was Vacated and Remanded and

therein the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals directed the district court to provide guidance

to the pro se Plaintiff. (Supplement to Informal Brief of Appellant, exhibit "EE")

The District Court ignored this Memorandums directive and did not provide guidance to

the pro se Plaintiff; finding for the Defendant on procedure rather than upon the merits

of Plaintiffs case.

In order to ensure uniformity of its decisions, Plaintiff requests en banc rehearing by

the full court as fulfillment of the intent and principals of our Democracy.

Plaintiff requests an en banc rehearing to protect and affirm Plaintiffs First Amendment

Right to Freedom of Speech;

Evidence presented shows intent by the Defendant to stop or impede Plaintiffs

publications (1998 - 1999), email (1999), and Plaintiffs Internet Web site (1999 - 2000),

(Supplement to Informal Brief of Appellant - Exhibits B1,B2,D,E,M,N,P,U),

The intent to silence Plaintiff has always been the driving force behind Defendants

actions. Charges made against Plaintiff are mere pretext for Defendants true agenda

which was to remove Plaintiff or to force his resignation, to marginalize Plaintiff.

Plaintiff requests an en banc rehearing to affirm Plaintiffs Seventh amendment right to

trial by jury; "in suits at common law…the right of trial by jury shall be preserved…",

Plaintiff has requested trial by jury since his original district court filing in 2001.

Plaintiff requests an en banc rehearing and contends that the Plaintiff does not have to

prove his case to either district court or appeals court judge(s) prior to a trial before jury;

Plaintiff requests an en banc rehearing to protect his right to Equal treatment under the

law; "…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

Fourteenth Amendment Sec. 1.,

It is the responsibility of the court to protect the rule of law and to ensure that

Constitutional protections and federal law are applied equally to all citizens,

Plaintiff was subjected to a performance review despite his record of exceptional

performance, whereas none of the (3) equal peers to Plaintiff were subjected to this

biased "administrative review" with its pre-directed and pre-determined conclusions.

Plaintiff requests an en banc rehearing to deal with a question of exceptional importance;

Plaintiff has the civil right to be free from discrimination,

Evidence from US EEOC investigation shows that Plaintiff and other males over 40 were

the victims of improper personnel actions best defined as discrimination based upon age

and sex. (US EEOC Appeal No. 01A03959, Hearing No. 320-AO-8196X, Agency

decision Vacated and Remanded and Order, Exhibit "CC", "With regard to numerosity,

we note that the class agent identified ten potential class members. However, as noted in

the EEO Counselor's report, these potential class members also identified ten other

potential class members…"),

But even though a reasonable person would so conclude, Plaintiff need not show that

Defendants age and sex discrimination was intentional, as a result of Defendants

personnel actions of "details" and "directed reassignments" used against

male employees over 40, (Supreme Court, Smith v. City of Jackson, No. 03-1160.)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has failed to consider all material points of evidence,

facts, and law, and has failed to construe all material allegations in favor of Plaintiff.

This case deserves en banc consideration because of its exceptional importance;

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals must be consistent and uniform in all its decisions;

The court must rehear en banc to protect Plaintiffs Constitutional rights;

The court must rehear en banc to ensure Plaintiffs right to trial;

The court must rehear en banc to protect Plaintiffs right to equal justice under law;

The court must rehear en banc to protect Plaintiffs right to be free from discrimination;

Defendants, as Agents of the US Government, should not be allowed to practice

age and sex discrimination or personnel abuses of retaliation and reprisal;

Federal law prohibits age discrimination, prohibits actions that "deprive any individual

of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee."

BLM age and sex motivated "directed reassignments" against males over 40 directly and

adversely affect an employee's status, both in terms of duties/rank and in the work place

society by changed perspective or attitude toward and treatment of the reassigned

employee by fellow employees.

Plaintiff can testify that in fear for their own career security fellow employees avoid

associations and social interaction with the reassigned employee (see in Exhibit "L"),

Civil Service and non-government employment opportunities are deprived by the stigma

of a "removal" and the "misconduct" label that is forever attached to the Plaintiffs

career employment history,

Effectively blacklisting the former employee from future Civil Service positions.

Defendants should not be allowed to use tools of oppression such as "directed

reassignments" to silence civil servants and destroy promising civil service careers.

Defendant had no legitimate basis for detailing Plaintiff or reassigning Plaintiff from the

Miles City BLM office…logically, you don't move an employee that is routinely

rewarded as a top performer with the Agency and is described as the "best systems

administrator", "to promote the efficiency of the service", based on a report that says he

is not doing his job. A reasonable person would question the report.

Plaintiff was not only a top performer and also delivered support services with an

exceptionally high percentage of co-worker satisfaction. (Exhibits "J, L").

In MEMORANDUM dated Jan 17 2006, the court erred saying…"his employers were

not aware of his alleged whistleblowing activities at the time he was transferred";

(Supplement to Informal Brief of Appellant, pg 18, "Additional evidence exists…")

evidence submitted by Plaintiff shows that Defendants were aware,

(Supplement to Informal Brief of Appellant, Exhibits "B,Q,U,X"), and note that

Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs Publications, "Letters to the Editor" regarding

BLM related subjects, listing Plaintiffs Web site URL/address (circa May 1998 - 2000).

Plaintiff had a duty to resist Defendants improper and prohibited personnel actions

and the right and duty to reveal those actions to the public.

Defendant has as a matter of course attempted to portray Plaintiffs actions to reveal

Defendants own misconduct as misconduct by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff directs a personal request to Judges REINHARDT, RYMER, and

SILVERMAN to bring this matter before the full court for Rehearing EN BANC;

Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter before a non-biased district court,

or award of Request for Relief to Plaintiff.

Affirming the Billings District Court invalidates the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

(in No. 02-35341), denies Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights, and serves to weaken the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authority over the district court.

Dated January 25, 2006, Respectfully submitted;___________________,Glenn D Ferren

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

===================================================

GLENN D FERREN, ) No. 04-35870

) D.C. No. CV-01-00104-JDS

Plaintiff(s) - Appellant, )

)

Vs. ) Petition for Rehearing

Gale A Norton, Secretary of the ) Request for en banc Rehearing

United States Department of Interior; )

Et. al, ) Defendant(s) - Appellees. )

===============================================

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Petition for Rehearing,

Request for en banc Rehearing, was served upon the Defendant(s) or Defendants

addressed as follows: US Department of Justice, United States Attorney,

District of Montana, P.O. Box 3447, Great Falls, MT. 59403

____________________________________