In Re: Earl D. Smith, v Richard Roudebush, Veterans Medical Center

Docket No: 0120130700, Appellant’s statement in opposition, and Memoranda in Support

     I., Earl D. Smith, submit Appellant’s statement of opposition, and attached Memoranda in Support in reply to Appellee’s statement of opposition brief, filed on March 1, 2013 on the above case.

     Appellee’ statement in opposition to my appeal states: “It is Appellant’s ultimate burden to establish the Agency breached the settlement agreement”. The record does not show representation by someone I was in agreement, or advised of the right to be separately represented, in a part of the proceeding (revocation) where a question of law was decided. The burden shifts to the appellee to prove I was separately represented, or advised of the right to be separately represented, in these instances.

Addressing the issue of breach would be a waiver of my claim of retaliation. Signing the Agreement didn’t impair or injure me.

     Closing the case before the time allowed to revoke the Agreement is what impaired or injured me. The “Agency” has impaired, or injured me, and claimed I injured myself. In other words, I would further injure myself if were to address the issue of breach. The Agency brings up the issue of revocation, then it goes to the issue of breach. It never actually examines the issue of revocation, It just starts out on this issue.

     It cannot address the issue of revocation without waiving its position on the issue of breach. The issue of revocation in itself disputes the issue of breach. The 7 day revocation interval was an essential element of the agreement. It cannot be interpreted that signing the agreement waived the 7 day interval to revoke it. If signing the Agreement waived the 7 day interval to revoke it, the Agreement in itself is a violation of the ADEA.

Respectfully Submitted,

Earl D. Smith