No. 11-1332 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit _______________________ ROY A.

SLAY Plaintiff Appellant v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Defendant Appellee ________________________ Appeal From The United States District Court For The District Of Rhode Island ________________________ Brief For Roy A. Slay Pro se, Roy A. Slay 131 Canonicus Street Tiverton, RI. 02878-1101 Tel. (401) 636-1371

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES..2 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.....................................................................3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........4 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS...8 I. II. Statutory Background.8 Facts and Prior Proceedings..11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...12 ARGUMENT...14 I. CONCLUSION ..15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM

- ii -

TABLE OF CASES Alexander v. FBI, 971 F. Supp. 603 (D.D.C. 1997) (Privacy Act permits claims for damages resulting from leaks of confidential information). Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000) (limiting availability of RICO). Haley v. Retsinas, 138 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir. 1998) Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 1999) Linn v. United Plant Guard, 383 U.S. 53, 62 (1966) (applying First Amendment principles to definition of protected speech under NLRA) Neal v. Honeywell, 191 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 1999) (emotional distress damages included in special damage award) New England Stone, LLC v. Conte et al, 962 A.2d 30 (R.I.2009) Pettway v. American Cast Iron, 411 F.2d 998 (5th Cir. 1969) (broad interpretation of protected activity). Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F. Supp. 1191 (N.D. Iowa 1994) (interpreting law broadly to protect whistleblowers)

-iii-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The United States District Court For The District Of Rhode Island had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 : US Code - Section 1331. Following the district courts entry of dismissal. Roy A. Slay filed timely notice of appeal on March 25, 2011. The United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 : US Code - Section 1291: Final decisions of district court. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was violated by management at Bank of America N.A. 2. Whether the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was violated by management at Bank of America N.A. 3. Whether management at Bank of America N.A. violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 4. Whether management at Bank of America N.A. conspired in the Obstruction of Justice, Retaliation Against AWhistleblower. 5. Whether the False Claims Act, Whistleblower Antiretaliation is applicable to Plaintiff - Appellee. 6. Whether management at Bank of America N.A. violated Rhode Island Title 28 Labor and Labor Relations, 28-44-18, Employment Security - Benefits. 7. Whether management at Bank of America N.A. violated Rhode Island Whistleblower Laws, 28-50-1, 28-50-3 & 28-50-4. -2-

8. Whether Rhode Island Title 11 Criminal Offenses, 11-52-2, 11-523 & 11-52-6, Computer Crime, were violated by management at Bank of America N.A. 9. Whether Rhode Island Title 19 Financial Institutions, 19-14.9-4 & 19-14.9-5 Rhode Island Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, were violated by management at Bank of America N.A. 10.Whether Rhode Island Title 28 Labor and Labor Relations, Section 28-5-7 (i) & (6) Fair Employment Practices, were violated by management at Bank of America N.A. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Federal Laws Sarbanes-Oxley Act Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Bank Secrecy Act 15 U.S.C. 2087 : Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 18 U.S.C. 1513 : Obstruction of Justice, Retaliation Against Whistleblowers 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733: The False Claims Act State of Rhode Island General Laws 11-52-2 : Access to computer for fraudulent purposes 11-52-3 : Intentional access, alteration, damage, or destruction -3-

 11-52-6 : Civil action 19-14.9-4 : Acquisition of location information 19-14.9-5 : Communication in connection with debt collection 28-5-7(4)(i) & (6) : Unlawful employment practices 28-44-18 : Discharge for misconduct 28-50-1 : The "Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act" 28-50-3 : Protection 28-50-4 : Relief and damages STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case involves the computer system information security breech, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, obstruction of justice, retaliation against a Whistleblower the Plaintiff Appellant in this case Roy A. Slay v. Bank of America, N.A., by Kenneth D. (Ken) Lewis (former CEO and President of Bank of America Corporation), his management team at Bank of America and Ernst & Young. I the Plaintiff Appellant Roy A. Slay was terminated on the morning of 03/09/10 around 10:12 am after arriving to work for my 9:30 am to 6:00 pm shift by manager Randel George and the call center director David K. Anderson. Reason given at time of termination by Randel George, You are a threat to management; we cant have you making threats against management. We are releasing you from -4-

your assignment. On 03/03/2010 around 1:20 pm shortly after the half hour lunch break, one week prior to my termination, my new manager Randel George comes over and tells me to log off the phone, We need to talk. I replied ok; let me finish logging my last call. I finish and log off the phone and locked my computer and walk over to his cubical and he is not there. I then proceed to look for him. I hear him calling me from Dave Anderson office. I proceed into Dave office. I say hello to Dave and take a seat at a small table facing Randel with my back to Dave. (Randel) Roy the reason for the meeting is we just got some disturbing news. Will Torres said you threaten him. I replied with disbelief, Threaten him? (Randel) You said to him, weve got a problem. I replied yes, Im at lunch and he comes by and sees me, he asks whats going on Roy?( Randel) replies, Roy we have heard that you said you got Peter Connell fired. Did you say this to an associate, yes or no? I replied, I said I think it was my letter that got him fired. (Randel) replies, Did you say you got him fired, yes or no. I replied, so you had this information when we meet earlier today? (Randel) replies, Yes! I replied, No! what I said was, I think it was probably my letter. (Dave Anderson) replies, What letter? was my name in it? (Randel) replies, Ok, Mr. Slay, we wanted to be clear. I replied, ok. -5-

(Randel) replies, you can go. Later that day, around 3:40 pm, (Randel) sends me an instant message to come over to his cubical. I sign off the phone and lock my computer and go over to his cubical. (Randel) leads me to the old managers Edna Coleman office he replaced. I take a seat as he shut the door. (Randel), then states that he wants me to do the right thing and apologize to Will. I replied, No problem. (Randel) then states that all he wanted when we were in the meeting with Dave is a, yes or no answer. I should have followed his lead. Dave didnt need to know about the letter. Listen to what Im saying. Please apologize to Will. I said ok. (Randel) Are we good? I replied, Were good! (Randel) Im going on vacation and I dont plan on coming in here tomorrow. With that, I wished him a pleasant vacation. The termination of Plaintiff Appellant Roy A. Slay by Randel George and David K. Anderson was in retaliation for the complaint I, Mr. Slay submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation Division of Banking regarding a serious computer system customer information security breach at Bank of America. Once David K. Anderson got a copy of my complaint and read it, he then confided with other management and HR on how to get rid of me. So, with the -6-

second hand reports he received on my comments taken out of context by coworkers, David K. Anderson had nothing else he could use to terminate my employment. After 2 years of service, not one reprimand in my employee file, I was accused of making threats against management. I Roy A. Slay didnt threaten any manager at Bank of America N.A. For what purpose? I have never had an employer accuse me of threating management and then terminate my employment for it during my 25 plus years of work history. My, Mr. Slay Unemployment Insurance was denied due to false & inaccurate documentation provided by Nathan Vinson at Ernst & Young Unemployment Insurance Department, ( Nathan Vinson) which took over representation of Bank of Americas claims from TALX effective 01/01/2010. In Mr. Vinson email to Randel George regarding an Unemployment Insurance Claim for me Mr. Slay. Mr. Vinson answer to question (1). What was the final incident? Explain in detail what happened, when, where, and who was involved. Mr. Vinson, Associate threatened to have senior management fired to his fellow peers. Threats were unfounded and unnecessary. When Roy was confronted with these allegations he admitted to saying this but provided no reason for his comments. Associate had also taken responsibility for the termination of a previous leader -7-

(Peter Connell) and that was not the case. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS I. Statutory Background A. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act' (in the Senate) and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' (in the House), is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002, which set new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. B. The GrammLeachBliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. GLB compliance is mandatory; whether a financial institution discloses nonpublic information or not, there must be a policy in place to protect the information from foreseeable threats in security and data integrity. Major components put into place to govern the collection, disclosure, and protection of consumers nonpublic personal information; or personally identifiable information includes: -8-

 Financial Privacy Rule Safeguards Rule Pretexting Protection 15 USC, Subchapter I, Sec. 6801-6809 Disclosure of Nonpublic Personal Information. C. Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, The Dodd-Frank Act is to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. D. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (or BSA, or otherwise known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act) requires financial institutions in the United States to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering. Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax -9-

E. evasion, or other criminal activities. F. United States Department Of Labor 15 U.S.C. 2087 : Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 G. United States Code 18 U.S.C. 1513 : Obstruction of Justice, Retaliation Against Whistleblowers H. United States Code 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733: The False Claims Act I. Rhode Island Computer Crime 11-52-2 : Access to computer for fraudulent purposes 11-52-3 : Intentional access, alteration, damage, or destruction : & 11-52-6 : Civil action J. Rhode Island Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 19-14.9-4 : Acquisition of location information K. Rhode Island Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 19-14.9-5 : Communication in connection with debt collection L. Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices 28-5-7(4)(i) &(6) : Unlawful employment practices M. Rhode Island Employment Security Benefits 28-44-18 : Discharge for misconduct N. Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act 28-50-1 : 28-50-3 : Protection & 28-50-4 : Relief and damages -10-

II.

Facts and Prior Proceedings A. Roy A. Slay v. Bank Of America Corporation 1. Factual Background I the Plaintiff Appellant in Roy A. Slay v. Bank Of America Corporation filed this case in Rhode Island Superior Court on 09/13/10. My case, Civil Action, File No. 10-5127 was removed to the United States District Court For The District Of Rhode Island by Bank of America, N.A. on 10/04/2010. A Motion to Dismiss my case was held, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond. Judge Almond didn't allow me to finish my prepared statement or inform him on what happen. Judge Almond didnt have the complete file for my suit and didnt know what a computer name is. Judge Almond proceeded to ask me questions and point out that I didnt have a case. Judge Almond had to disclose at the end of the hearing that he was once employed by the Defendant Appellee council law firm. I submit a request to have him removed due to interest. My case was closed on 03/16/2011due to Magistrate Judge David L. Martin bias hearsay Report and Recommendation without a jury trial per my Due Process claim as granted under the Fourteenth Amendment. -11-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This case is basically he said, she said. I the Plaintiff Appellant Roy A. Slay provided documentation to back up my case. I was under Oath during the Motion to Dismiss hearing. There are State and Federal laws that are in my favor. The Defendant Appellee Bank Of America, N.A. defense is based on second hand hearsay. In essence, it was a group effort by management at Bank of America to maneuver me into a position of servitude. I had to endure embarrassment when a collection agency kept calling my place of work and the rep for the collection agency finally gives up in trying to speak with me, tells the co-work in the call center that she was calling to collect on a debt and that she was going to garnish my wages and hangs up. My co-worker yells over to me in the Bank of America Order to Pay Call Center, Roy, she said she was going to garnish your wages!) loud enough for 20 other co-workers to hear her. Talk about unprofessional and to and to the embarrassment this co-worker brought up the incident a couple of days later, by asking me, Roy, youre on the up and up with us? Another co-worker nearby nearly fall off his chair from laughing so hard. I went to my manager Peter Connell and explained the situation and asked him to have a discussion about how to handle a call like that. He went to his manager Edna Coleman and she decided it -12-

wasnt an issue. I was advised to call the Advice and Council line by a rep on the employee assistance line. I called Advice and Council and informed the rep on what had transpired. It was a serious matter and I was told something would be done. I was never informed of any action taken. Never the less, this was one of several calls to Advice and Council regarding matters that Management in the call center were hostile with regarding me. I was threatened by my manager Peter Connell upon arrival to work. Inappropriate emails were constantly been sent to me. Some co-worker got away with doing things that was against policy like visiting inappropriate websites on their work computer and making inappropriate comments about customers or hanging up on a customer would be grounds for termination per management had repeat offenders and they either got promoted to other departments or left on their own accord. I have done nothing but try to be a productive citizen in society, a valued employee at every job I have ever had. I havent had any disciplinary actions against me before I was terminated by Randel George and David K. Anderson at Bank of America or for any job Ive held in the past 25 year of employment. My termination was simply retaliation. Bank of America has the emails that I received from customers and sent, recorded phone calls, performance evaluations, attendance record and computer record. None of this was subpoena for this case. -13-

ARGUMENT This case needed to go to a Trial Jury. I have been denied that right. I the Plaintiff Appellant Roy A. Slay have presented evidence and Statutes and Regulations that reinforce my argument. The Defendant Appellee Bank Of America, N.A. has no evidence. Its argument is based on hearsay by those individuals cited.

-14-

CONCLUSION The forgoing motion should be granted per the Federal and State of Rhode Island Statutes and Regulations. Respectfully Submitted, Pro se, Roy A.Slay 131 Canonicus Street Tiverton, RI. 02878 TEL: (401) 636-1371

-15-

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Rule 32(a)(7)(C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation in Rule 32(a)(7)(B). The foregoing brief is presented in proportionally-spaced font typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman font. This brief, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App.P.32 (a)(7)(B)(iii), contains 2,990 words, as counted by Microsoft Word 2010.

this 14th, day of July, 2011.

Pro se, Roy A. Slay 131 Canonicus Street Tiverton, RI. 02878 TEL: (401) 636-1371

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Roy A. Slay v. Bank of America N.A. United States Court Of Appeals For the First Circuit Court of Appeals Case No.: 11-1332 I hereby certify that I the Plaintiff Appellant Roy A. Slay filed the Brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit by overnight mail. I further certify that a copy of the Brief, Appeals Case No. 11-1332, has been forwarded via overnight mail, postage prepaid, to: EDWARD ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP c/o Caroline F. Turcotte &Barbara V.G. Parker 111 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA. 02199 this 14th, day of July, 2011.

Pro se, Roy A. Slay 131 Canonicus Street Tiverton, RI. 02878 TEL: (401) 636-1371