QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
Skip to Messages


Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            11416-11431 of 11431  11400-11415 >>
way out
11:40 PM ET (US)
Salt water taffy I doubt if they care if you take pictures when you drop off your paperwork. Why would that matter to anybody?
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
11:15 PM ET (US)
H.R.4959 - EEOC Transparency and Accountability Act

Salt water taffy
02:20 AM ET (US)
Veteran status applies. Disability accommodation requests are much more complicated to answer. Of course, none of them have actually worked. In the administrative process, particularly before the social security administration, I have requested to the agency, awaiting a hearing on a disability accommodation of having everything put in writing opposed to either appearing in person, and / or any telephone hearing. Of course I do believe they have an agenda in entrapping me. I have given the SSA all that they requested in writing on my "what they call" is a recertification of my SSI payments, although they have paid me since 1999, but discovered...but for their fraud in 1995, they should have been paying me SSDI benefits from that time or prior to that time. They cut my benefits off in March, April, May, June and July without due process because I have had no hearing, and they received everything they asked for, by me in writing. They are angry because I took pictures of each and every time I dropped off my paperwork to them outside and inside if their building. I saw a glimpse of their exhibits, they are trying to make it appear as though it is me who is not cooperating, but if have phone records which prove otherwise. It's very complicated. The state too have fabricated things.
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
11:28 AM ET (US)
Salt Water, couple of questions 1) Are you a veteran? and 2)have you requested disability accommodations in either the court and/or the administrative system?
Salt water taffy
09:18 AM ET (US)
Pa code: (look at section (4))

Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness.

 A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.

   (1) To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.

   (2) Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. This comment is not intended to restrict the appropriate functions of the courts in statutory or common law review.

   (3) When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule.

   (4) It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters heard fairly and impartially.
Salt water taffy
09:13 AM ET (US)
The problem is "I get it more than you could ever realize" and I am disabled from a brain injury. The Supreme Court has actually turned down an IFP application from me and literally cited I abused the court system! No lie! After I got past the devastation of believing I could one day have great grandchildren who could one day become a judge or whomever and read that order, I picked myself back up (off the floor, no less) and went about the next appeal differently. In our circumstance the major problem is the government continues to break the law causing additional lawsuits and all we had ever needed was a judge to explain that all that had to be done was to "amend" the complaint in order to add the additional violations, but because there was no rule, law, or regulation out there that permitted them to do that, the defects in the complaint remained defective because we never knew what they were! I will give you an example. Without a legal education, we could never had known this. Did you know that in a legitimate tort claim that if you ask for an amount of damages which exceeds your statutory cap, the complaint ( if you are proceeding pro se and have been given in forma pauperis status) can be dismissed under 28 u.s.c. 1915 (e)(2)(b)(1) as being frivolous? Who could even know that? Which means if your states cap on damages is $500,000 and you ask in your relief in excess of $600,000, the court could dismiss it for being frivolous. However, that rule, ( at least in Pennsylvania) would allow a federal court judge to inform you of that particular defect, thus (we would hope) allow an individual to amend the complaint and cure the defect. Last word...be careful if you are proceeding before the Supreme Court. I do not understand the appeal process because of comprehension problems, but they will not hesitate to issue an order that goes outside the realm of "denied" or "granted"
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
09:00 PM ET (US)
ohhhh K I just filed a petition with the supreme court....Pro Se Case Law up to and including US Supreme Court rulings have been in place for years, but the "work-around-it-excuse" has been in place just as long. This issue about Pro-se litigants is simply being re-addressed with updated case law. I am not a pessimist because as I said above, I just filed a petition with the supreme court. The issue I filed has been very cut, dry and simple, but the technicalities are what usually prevails. the appellate court stated with reference to my pro-se status was something to the effect...although we understand and sympathize with the appellate being pro-se blah blah blah.............---...the higher up you go in the federal court system the slimmer your issue gets. I am willing to bet there are things the PO was doing throughout the processing of the employees claims to manipulate the cases so that when/if you get to the federal court system, they will have a technical defense that your pro-se status cannot over come and can get them off the hook and a lot of claims are not heard because of this "administrative-manipulation"..it is real subtle the way they do it....hindsite is 20/20. I don't fault anyone for taking their claim all the way but ....well, I wish you the best...keep after them....I am....
Edited 07-10-2014 09:52 PM
Salt water taffy
07:52 PM ET (US)
/14421 I am not only going to bank on it, I am going to use it to have the case reversed, because that is the only reason that an amendment was not allowed, and specific instructions weren't given. Now that that is new law, I have a basis for reversal! I would like to believe that my 15 years in federal court was not a useless effort, and that finally some are beginning to understand some of the problems that a pro se faces when they are up against government agencies who improperly violate a citizens civil rights. <s>
11:08 AM ET (US)
5,954 signatures - lets keep it going!!! Share the link on Facebook.
Deleted by author 07-08-2014 08:24 PM
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
06:56 PM ET (US)
@Salt water taffy - don't bank on it
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
12:02 PM ET (US)
Good case find Marvin.
Salt water taffy
09:16 AM ET (US)
/11412. Millbrook v. United States reversed the original case of Pooler v. United States,(reversed on March 27, 2013, 27 years to the day) which was the interpretation by the third circuit court of appeals which caused our tort claim to fail 28 years ago against the United States Postal Service and two postal inspectors, which I have been working on for 28 years in and out of federal court in order to obtain the relief for the ongoing injuries which soo many other government agencies joined in on to create additional harm and in CIVIL CONSPIRACY to prevent us from being heard on these issues, stop any and all subsidies, etc. it is so up fathomable, that is can't say anymore pertaining to this, except for the fact of why we are STILL waiting for justice to prevail!! The government needs to step up and admit their errors!!!
Salt water taffy
09:06 AM ET (US)
Judges have some flexibility in dealing with pro se litigants
Samuel C. Stretton, The Legal Intelligencer
July 1, 2014 | 0 Comments

Samuel Stretton
Judges have some flexibility in 
dealing with pro se litigants.
What are a judge's obligations to pro se litigants, if any?
It does appear there are more pro se litigants than in the past at the appellate level and sometimes at the trial level. Obviously, the old notion that a person representing himself or herself has a fool for a lawyer doesn't seem to apply in this modern age. Few pro se litigants do very well. Many of them end up removing any chance they might have had of a favorable result by their own ineptitude.
Under the new Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge has to uphold the law and perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. This duty is found in Rule 2.2. Comment 4 to this new rule notes: "It is not a violation of this rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters heard fairly and impartially."
Therefore, the new rules specifically allow a judge to assist a pro se litigant to some extent. This perhaps could be accomplished by telling the pro se litigant what kind of motion to file. The rule appears to allow the judge to provide some instructions to a pro se litigant in terms of how to present an argument or case. All of this assistance, of course, would be done in open court without any ex parte communication.
The rule allows a judge to provide perhaps a little more time to the pro se litigant's cause to ensure the litigant knows how to present the case and perhaps guide the litigant in so presenting. But there is a limit to what a judge can do to accommodate a pro se litigant, even under Rule 2.2. A judge cannot give a pro se litigant any real advantage. A pro se litigant has to meet deadlines like everyone else. Similarly, a pro se litigant has to file and present an understandable and readable pleading or brief. Total incoherence cannot be tolerated by any court.
But the new Code of Judicial Conduct recognizes pro se litigants apparently are going to be a force for years to come. Therefore, courts have provided some flexibility to accommodate the needs of pro se litigants under the impartiality and fairness rule.

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=12...gants#ixzz36G7InWFF
12:55 AM ET (US)
Check out; Griebsch v. Weaver, 7:05-cv-0958, US District Court for the northern district of New York, 2005 IS Dist. Lexis 44250, September 16, 2005, Decided
Core Terms: Certification, Scope of employment, mail, postal service, defamatory statements, intentional infliction of emotional distress
Acting solely for personal motives unrelated to furtherance of the employer’s business.

or go to lexis under terms: "not" or outside or beyond w/5 scope w/5 employment and postal w/5 worker or employee or suspervisor or manager and defam! and personnal w/10 motive or inten!
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
04:26 PM ET (US)
Issue #1: Liberality in dealing with Pro Se litigants:
^     All messages            11416-11431 of 11431  11400-11415 >>