Update: Santiglia vs. Sun Microsystems

--- Bacon's comments on Guy Santiglia ---

Out of the several thousand Sun employees in the reduction
in force 19 months ago, only Mr. Santiglia has turned his lay-off
into a career, filing increasingly dramatic pleadings and
developing a conspiracy theory in which everyone, even the
Administrative Law Judge, is out to get him. He is a self-styled
hero for the embattled U.S. workers everywhere, and believes he
is entitled to prevail not because he can prove his legal claim
but because he has a cause.

Lest the Board conclude that Complainant's pro se status makes it
necessary to bend the rules into pretzel shapes, it is important

recall that during all times related to the hearing Mr. Santiglia
was represented by counsel. In fact, his counsel is a staff

with FAIR, this country's most well-funded and harshest critic of
immigration. Mr. Santiglia's lawyer was well versed in the issues
raised in the hearing, and as a licensed attorney is required to
know and adhere to the rules of procedure and evidence. The fact
that Mr. Santiglia chose to discharge his own counsel alter

on his case is irrelevant to whether Mr. Santiglia is subject to
the same rules as every other litigant. Par from being villains,
many of these professionals received their degrees here and are
seeking long term residence in the U.S., and all pay full state
and federal taxes as well as comply with all labor and employment

They are not the enemy.

The evidence that these three people are seeking to file now
under the guise of "briefs" is the same material Complainant
offered at the hearing; self-serving opinions and conclusions
from angry people. None of these people had any role in the
decision to lay off Mr., Santiglia. None had any authority to
hire or fire in his department with Sun. And most important,
none carne forward in a timely and proper manner to provide
any legitimate information at the hearing. or course, the ALJ
could not and did not admit as evidence the mere conclusions of

--- Bacon's comments on Rob Sanchez ---

Nothing about Mr. Sanchez claimed expertise in the H-1B program

that threshold test.

As Mr. Sanchez states directly, he wants to raise issues way

Santiglia's claims of the violations committed by Sun

Mr. Santiglia and Mr. Sanchez want to attack the H-1B provisions
themselves because they do not believe the United States should

employers the right to hire foreign nationals in these

Their argument has no place before DOL, which is charged with
implementing only the LCA part of the H-1B process. That argument

only be made to Congress, which is the exclusive legislative body
allowed under the U.S. Constitution to confer immigration

Allowing Mr. Sanchez to opine now violates Sun Microsystems' due

rights.

--- Bacon's comments on Joe Valley ---

Mr. Valley offers not a single bit of information about who he is,
why he thinks he is entitled to submit a "brief', or what he adds
to the proceedings. On the basis of these inadequacies alone his
"brief' request must be denied. The fact that he is a complete
strangers to these proceedings until the appellate process is well
underway means that he has failed to meet a single one of the

--- Bacon's comments on Robert Smith ---

Mr. Smith has provided information about himself and his purported
information about the underlying; complaint. The information fails
to meet any of the requirements for admitting his testimony as

Mr. Smith was not present at the hearing, was not identified as a
witness so that he could be deposed, and was a virtual stranger to
the proceeding until Mr. Santiglia and his counsel attempted to
introduce random emails from him. They were rejected by the ALJ as

being "textbook hearsay."

--- Bacon's comments on Norman Matloff ---

Mr. Matlof 's "brief", which he characterizes as an expert's

of the statute and the regulations. They cannot be admitted

doing grave harm to the requisite fairness of any appeal process.

Mr. Matloff tried to have himself certified as an expert by the

in this proceeding without any factual basis to do so. The ALJ

that his testimony was not that of an expert in the LCA area but a

self-styled expert in deciding what the law should be. Legal
determinations are, of course, solely the business of the Judge.

this pleading he continues the same exaggerated claims of his

He lists himself as a member of the college of engineering at the
University of California at Davis [hereafter UCDavis], not a field
relevant to the drafting, implementing, enforcing or auditing of

LCA process. But more troubling than his characterizing his
anti-immigration career as LCA expertise is his inability to state

position and opinions objectively or professionally. By reacting

arguments against his alleged expertise as though they are a

attack he confirms that he is, in fact, not a schooled expert but

on a crusade. That may make him passionate, but as the ALI agreed,

not snake him eligible to testify.

His zeal, for instance, appears to have led him to misuse the

of California at Davis' official stationary, if he has the

permission to use its letterhead to engage in a diatribe against

specifically or employment-based immigration in several, it would

interesting to see it. However, the University of California not

employs many H-1Bs itself, but also includes numerous

exchange scholars in its faculty and relies upon the lush tuition
charged foreign students to support its programs. The University

endorse Mr. Matloff s views, and with the use of this letterhead

continues to misrepresent his credentials. The record confirms

Mr. Matloff has absolutely no knowledge about why Sun decided to

Complainant in its November 2001 layoff. He has never been had any
relationship with Sun, and has never been inside Sun to review its

business records in regard to LCA documents, procedures, postings

materials. In short, he is neither an expert witness nor an

and can add nothing to this proceeding except hostility and bias.

The Briefing Order stated that, "[t]he Complainant
and other parties and interested persons aggrieved by the ALJ's
Decision and Order, shall file a brief in support of the Petition
for Review . . . on or before May 28, 2003." A subsequent Briefing
Order extending the time from May 28 to June 27 also referred to
"other parties and interested persons." Order Granting Extension
of Time and Amending Briefing Schedule, ARB No. 03-076, issued
May 27, 2003.

The Briefing Orders may seem to imply that the Board authorized
entities other than the named parties below and the Administrator
to file briefs in Santiglia's appeal. Any such implication was
unintended. As explained above, ' 655.845(a) limits the

entitled to petition for review to the named parties below and to
the Administrator. The briefing order applied only to parties

the meaning of ' 655.845(a).

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. ' 655.845(a), the last day for filing a

for review of the ALJ decision below was March 21, 2003. Sanchez's
petition was out of time. Therefore, Sanchez's petition for review
is DISMISSED as untimely filed.

A finding of willfulness that leads to debarment is a
severe penalty, life threatening to any technology employer,
given the limited number of U.S. engineers, especially in the
advanced degree areas.2 Because debarment has such draconian
consequences, only the most severe violations merit a finding o
either willfulness or substantiality.

The appellant/complainant in this case failed to meet the
most basic requirements of his burden and quality of proof.

Complainant repeatedly tried to introduce into evidence
unverified records.

Only the INS or its successor, DHS, can enforce the
immigration laws, including the determination as to whether
someone is properly classified in a particular visa category.

Mr. Santiglia's personal pain is understandable. As most
everyone in the working world has experienced in one way or
another, losing a job can be a serious blow to one's sense of
self. However, the layoffs in the country over the last few
years are a reflection not of any personal animosity toward the
workforce, but the economic reality of having to reduce costs to
stay in business at all. Millions of people have faced what Mr.
Santiglia faced, most with far more time on the job than the
four months he had, and has found a way to move on.