1. The Pro se presents that the third circuit court decision requires review for due process right violation because the court failed to recognize that the attorney of CFG health system (Mr. Jeffrey McClain) used act of unlawful stealing using the name of New Jersey United District court to command the Human resources of union county college who is the former employer of the pro se to produce all employment records of the pro se without pro se consent which is due process right. The attorney used the name of United state district court of New Jersey to issue a subpoena commanding a document that he intentionally know that it is personal document of the pro se which has nothing to do with medical lawsuit filed and no consent form was signed by the pro se for the release of all employment document which is due process violation (Exhibit IB shows unlawful falsified subpoena document presented to union county college requesting employee employment document; Exhibit 2B showing email from the attorney to the pro se of receival of all his employment document from union county college; See Exhibit 3B showing medical consent form signed by the plaintiff during the case which has nothing to do with employment). The use of acts of fraud violates Rule 60 and Rule 59 of federal civil procedure. The third circuit court hold that the release of plaintiff material document that constitute academic records that contain pro se social security number, date of birth, course grades, pay stubs, resume, marital status is not too personal which requires by the supreme court because this is federal privacy right violation. The act of omission to review federal privacy law as required violates rule 60 and rule 59 which violates due process right of the pro se.

2. The pro se present that third circuit use false statement and misrepresentation of the truth to protect the attorney of CFG health system from falsification, impersonation, and act of stealing by commanding the Union County college to produce and release all employment record of the pro se without his consent to him. The pro se put this claim based on decision statement of third circuit court on quote that "In support, he attached the at-issue documents, which included his pay stubs, resume and cover letter, academic transcripts, and a form bearing his name and

Whether the attorney's use of fraudulent means to obtain the plaintiff's personal employment records without consent violated the plaintiff's due process rights