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

TOPIC:

Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            11451-11466 of 11466  11435-11450 >>
11466
Comment for the day!
08-23-2014
12:16 AM ET (US)
I'm living proof that even stupid ugly people have sex!
11465
KIMMIEKPerson was signed in when posted
08-22-2014
11:45 PM ET (US)
We try not to acknowledge people in this forum without a star by their name-- You need to sign up.
11464
Comment for the day!
08-22-2014
10:25 PM ET (US)
11462 was not written by 11461
11463
RIKSNYPerson was signed in when posted
08-22-2014
04:21 PM ET (US)
Oh, an @ sign, now nobody will know what you mean.
11462
Comment for the day!
08-22-2014
03:35 PM ET (US)
I also like bestiality and chicks with di@ks!
11461
Comment for the day!
08-22-2014
01:19 PM ET (US)
You know that expression....Don't do this at home! Stay out of Court...if the government violates your rights, find another Country you like and move there, no lie! We as a people have lost the ability to say that "we" are the government. "We are supposed to be, you know" but they have watered us down so much that " we" are no longer part of "We the people" Laws can only be upheld and followed when the ones who violate those laws, in order to make them their own admit when they have made the mistake AND FIX THE PROBLEM(s), themselves!
11460
Salt water taffy
08-17-2014
07:28 PM ET (US)
Bill Moore v. Hartman

USPS For 23 years he has sought this right to have his case presented before a group of his peers. The case has been argued six times in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and once in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. Following a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the United States Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by U.S. postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution, which was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled, 5-2, that in order to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.
11459
Jeanne
08-11-2014
08:07 PM ET (US)
I love comics a lot of comic die of depression
He mafe laugh 1009 times
So sad fir his private pain

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:01 PM, QT - Wow! <qtopic-35-gpw3WiCzYXzg7@quicktopic.com> wrote:
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
11458
Wow!
08-11-2014
08:01 PM ET (US)
Never underestimate the demons attached to Bipolar Disorder! With my deepest regrets and sympathy to Robin Williams family. So sorry for your loss. Be kind to people....you never know what they could be suffering from!
11457
Deleted by author 08-09-2014 08:38 PM
11456
Question
08-08-2014
10:32 PM ET (US)
/11455 this is even worse. The appellate court wants cost of 4 appeals, which amounts to over $2,000. Apparently, that leaves out the indigence argument. I don't get this, I swear. First and foremost there is no money. Next the local rule states that a three judge panel can review a one judge decision. " A single judge may entertain and may grant or deny any request for relief which, under the Federal Rules for Appellate Procedure or an applicable statute, may properly be sought by motion, except that a single judge may not dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or other proceeding. The action of a single judge may be reviewed by a three judge panel of the court" how is it that the three judge panel "included" the one judge who denied relief? Am I reading this wrong?
11455
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08-08-2014
05:06 PM ET (US)
Question, the closest that I know of is filing "forma pauperis ". I don't think the Courts provide accommodations unless it is (maybe) a physical accommodation (such as wheel chair bound, deaf, blind)
11454
Question
08-08-2014
03:07 PM ET (US)
Anyone have any case law or cases which supports court appointed counsel for civil litigants that have psychological impairments? Or where any appellate court in this country has defined "exceptional circumstances" in order to have one appointed?
11453
.??
08-08-2014
03:03 PM ET (US)
Why is this all soo hard? I don't get this, I swear! How can people violate your rights, and then make it your responsibility to fix "their" mistakes?
11452
-----
08-08-2014
05:54 AM ET (US)
Or.....You're mind is working at its best when you're being paranoid.
You explore every avenue and possibility of your situation
at high speed with total clarity.” Banksy
11451
RIKSNYPerson was signed in when posted
08-07-2014
10:51 PM ET (US)
"Even paranoids have real enemies." --Delmore Schwarz
^     All messages            11451-11466 of 11466  11435-11450 >>