Pros And Cons Of Mark Armstrong

COMES NOW R. Mark Armstrong, PG (pro se) (“Plaintiff”), and hereby files a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial under seal; while it is reviewed by the Department of Justice. The causes of action includes, but are not limited to:
1. Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses 42 U.S.C Section 1983 First Amendment as controlled by Garcetti_v._Ceballos1, the speech the Plaintiff was terminated for was not job required or job related. The Plaintiff spoke of unethical conduct that is basically bribery.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
"Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye. John Milton, Areopagitica, (1644), in R.M. Hutchins, ed., 32 Great Books

Whistle blower protection. The Plaintiff requested an answer to the simple question is there a personal relationship between anyone at the Casper Landfill and anyone at the State DEQ. The City answered there was not and then they were informed about the marriage relationship between the manager Langston and the permit issuer Anderson.
4. Breach of Contract / Intentional infliction of emotional distress, for prima facie tort Tortuous Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing5. The Plaintiff offered a Settlement which seems to have been accepted with consideration. If this offer/ acceptance/ consideration is considered a contract it was violated. If the Jury does not consider this Settlement Offer a Contract it still indicates the worth of the property taken without due process and the Defamtion.
5. Defamation where the Defendant acted in bad faith and with malice. When the Defendant refused to allow the Plaintiff to return to work they did not allow him to clear his good name. When the Defendant's wrote the and plead that the speech was job required they knowing lied to the Court, which then caused a determination not consistent with the facts. When the Defendant continued to damage the Plaintiffs

Qui Tam (Defendants Dale Anderson and C Langston as Individuals and the City of Casper) False Claims Act, {31 U. S. C. §§ 3729-3733 FCA, 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)-(g) under the The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972)) [33 U.S.C. § 1367] : Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (1976) [42 U.S.C. § 6971] : Retaliation under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)}6, and Defendants DEQ if United States intervines7. A false record was produced when the Casper landfill was permitted and the buffer zone required was not maintained. The location standards were not adhearded to and this is in essences a False Record. When a permit is generated that falsifies the compliance with regulatory requirements and federal funds are used to bring waste to the facility a False Claim is