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

TOPIC:

Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            15137-15152 of 15152  15121-15136 >>
15152
Postal Employee AdvocatePerson was signed in when posted
08-17-2019
10:39 PM ET (US)
Here’s a song and dance you’ve heard before; “type your moniker into your browser and hit the Enter key – see what pops up? That is the MAIN (his emphasis) reason you were banned from PEN.”

It’s interesting how I was able to do that between 2006 and 2018, but that did not cause me to be banned. Am I supposed to change my job title or moniker just because Rick says so? No, the main reason I was banned was because I was critical of T&S (his attorneys), and he didn’t like it. I called out the greed ($ 18 mil for 10 years of litigation); the liens on all class members claims for damages; the months of efforts to be named class counsel in Phase II of litigation; as well as requiring 1/3 of the value of the damages (which includes your benefits). Rick doesn’t like truth-tellers if they don’t hold the same views that he does.

It's okay if you’re a misinformation agent as long as you agree with him, you won’t get banned. I don’t think that he understands that a lack of integrity in his discussion forum is a direct reflection on him. With the exception of several knowledgeable posters that have been banned, there are only two posters on PEN’s NRP discussion forum that have maintained some degree of consistency and integrity. If they hadn’t, I would have already called them out. However, even those posters have to come over here to find out what’s new immediately after the Status Conferences.

Rick stated, “My readers and posters understand that some posts are to be ignored at a forum.” [Post # 17750, in case he deletes it later.] Really? Have you explained that to your readers and posters? I think readers and posters are starting to figure out on their own, that many of those posts are not reliable. One would think that a discussion forum dedicated to one specialty subject – NRP – would endeavor to provide as accurate information on this subject as possible. Since that doesn’t seem to be the main motivation, the only conclusion is that clicks to that web site are more important.

I’m not sure what is meant by claiming that “jealousy plays a huge part in your bashing and criticizing of PEN’s forum.” Please explain what there is to be jealous of (which, by the way, is not part of my nature). I guess I’m also supposed to be grateful that he “will continue to allow you to read here”. Whether or not Rick has the ability to totally block me from reading PEN is irrelevant. He would have to block a very large segment of his readers to prevent me from reading what is posted there. On many occasions, readers have sent me screen shots of what is posted on PEN, and there really is no way you can stop me from posting my response(s) here on Postal Reporter. Even when I was unable to access Postal Reporter for a few days, there were many posters who volunteered to post my messages under their moniker. So, it’s actually posters and clients that stand behind me, that I have the most gratitude towards. It’s to them I say – Thank you.
15151
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-17-2019
09:32 PM ET (US)
Mike I agree. The person "Jazzie" seems to be a made up character who cannot back up any of their statements with proof or documentation They seem to think they are an expert that tries to instruct us on eeo, po, and owcp rules. The majority of what they say is inaccurate. They regularly tell us "what we need to know" and then tell us unproven fiction using words out of context with poor grammar. Then they attack anyone who challenges or disagrees with them.
15150
RivkahPerson was signed in when posted
08-17-2019
08:39 PM ET (US)
Why would someone with 15 years in Accounting and Finance take a job doing manual labor in the post office.
15149
Linda
08-17-2019
07:44 PM ET (US)
Was trying to make light of the situation... Nuts are a good source of protein
Edited 08-17-2019 07:59 PM
15148
Linda
08-17-2019
07:39 PM ET (US)
Hey there might be some people that might be mentally challenged anxiety-ridden Etc I don't think it's appropriate on the other side for you to use the word "nut"
15147
Linda
08-17-2019
06:42 PM ET (US)
I did get my mailed copy of my documents, proofs and my NRP file. Good luck All you good people
Edited 08-17-2019 07:05 PM
15146
Linda
08-17-2019
06:27 PM ET (US)
I've been wanting to say this for quite some time. And yes I'm having a glass of wine
15145
Deleted by author 08-18-2019 12:31 AM
15144
mike
08-17-2019
06:05 PM ET (US)
Does anyone really believe that Jzzy is a real person? Ever hear of MIT or other college pranksters posing as victims on these on line forums? When posts go from amazing to incredible to unbelievable they are more than likely the latter.
15143
Linda
08-17-2019
05:59 PM ET (US)
On the other side, I've never read so many filed complaints for one postal worker. has this person ever moved a piece of mail in their life?
Edited 08-17-2019 06:00 PM
15142
wemPerson was signed in when posted
08-17-2019
05:55 PM ET (US)
SMH...keep doing u PEA, u r much appreciated
15141
sameoldthingPerson was signed in when posted
08-17-2019
05:32 PM ET (US)
/m15140 - BRAVO 👏👏👏 I Love reading truths.
15140
Postal Employee AdvocatePerson was signed in when posted
08-17-2019
05:08 PM ET (US)
So again, Rick is calling me “the nut at the other forum”, and that I should “stop relying on others forums to advertise your service.” As I have stated on numerous occasions, my job title is not advertising. That is just a distraction to justify his authoritarian approach to handling conflict. He’s acknowledged that it’s “NOT MY JOB” (his emphasis) to verify the information that’s posted on his discussion forum. Even though I can acknowledge that I am “woefully ignorant regarding Internet forums”, I’m not so ambiguous or ignorant about truth and facts. Those are little details that aren’t so important over on PEN. He states that posting there amounts to “caveat emptor – except the readers are not making purchases.” Most of us know that caveat emptor means “let the buyer beware”. That’s exactly my point about PEN’s NRP discussion forum. There’s so much misinformation that is permitted, that one should beware of what they read. In other words, don’t trust what is posted there. Rick is admitting it. I can’t speak for readers here on Postal Reporter, but I’m willing to bet that most regular readers are confident that what they read in my posts is accurate and factual. That’s why so many have migrated here from PEN. Nevertheless, many, like myself, will read PEN for amusement.
Post # 17749 asked, “who is this person that keep(s) messing with you”? Go ahead and tell him Rick. Perhaps once he finds out that there’s a discussion forum that calls out misinformation, provides accurate and contemporaneous information about the NRP, and doesn’t just cut-and-paste public relations statements by former class counsel, they may want to broaden their sources.
I don’t need to start my own forum as Lu has provided one for us. I already have a full-time job; that’s why I’m working on Saturday. BTW, I haven’t had any complaints from LuAnn (or anyone else) about any of my postings (or articles), and she has never accused me of advertising.
To Jazzie01. You’ve been previously critical of the fact that I don’t have a “liscense” (please learn how to spell) to practice law. I’ve directed you to look up 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605, which allows me, as a non-attorney, to represent federal employees in their complaints of discrimination. I know you haven’t read it because you keep saying the same stupid âull$h!t. My history includes working as a Letter Carrier for eleven years, performing various duties as a Union steward (I never lost a grievance) and Union officer for more than eight years, a BA in Management, and over 25 years actually litigating EEO complaints. In the administrative arena, there’s nothing that an attorney can do that I’m not permitted to do (except be awarded attorney’s fees). I’m also the only non-attorney representative that has presented oral argument to the Special Panel – a case where my client prevailed. And your expertise? Oh yeah. You worked in “Finance and Accounting nearly 15 years.” That sounds like a top-notch qualification to make you an expert in EEO or the NRP.
It was my argument to the AJ that claimants could not accept the partially-accepted FADs, as she was considering, because OFO Vacated all of those FADs, therefore they were no longer a legal document. None of the attorneys, including class counsel, made that argument. My written Objection to the AJ’s Denial of the NRP Activity files to everyone but class counsel, has been incorporated and appended as reference, to the Objection of other attorneys, representatives and pro se litigants. Nevertheless, you think I shouldn’t be representing EEO or NRP clients because I don’t have a license to practice law. Your advice, that retirees are entitled to relocation compensation, was wrong; your experience in Finance & Accounting notwithstanding.
So, Rick, Jazzie01 and whomever else wants to attack my integrity and credibility – bring it on. It’s so much fun to respond.
15139
wemPerson was signed in when posted
08-17-2019
02:52 PM ET (US)
PEA...yep' she is a farst
15138
Postal Employee AdvocatePerson was signed in when posted
08-17-2019
01:27 PM ET (US)
Perhaps maybe. Perhaps finally. Misinformation from Jazzie01 on PEN is catching up to the web host. When questioned and asked for a reference to Jazzie01’s claims, s/he states, “I don’t have anything in writing. However, the union can verify this.” [Post # 17743] How is this poster permitted to continually post information that isn’t sourced?
A simple search on OPM’s website discusses when relocation incentives are paid. “An agency may pay a relocation incentive to a current employee who must relocate to accept a position in a different geographic area if the agency determines that the position is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of an incentive.” All references to a relocation incentive that I could find on OPM’s website deal strictly with active employees transferring to another position. I couldn’t find anything on a retiree’s right to relocation compensation. Similarly, there’s nothing in 39 C.F.R. [the regulation that applies to the Postal Service], and certainly nothing in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that authorizes relocation expenses upon retirement.
How many posters have been deceived by this claim? It may have given some individuals hope, only to find out that it’s not true, and have their hopes dashed. Come on Rick. Clean up your forum before every shred of integrity is gone.
15137
Jeanette
08-16-2019
10:48 PM ET (US)
Newsletter is a joke!!! been getting them too. WOW!! I truly believe the gig is up for the P.O....
^     All messages            15137-15152 of 15152  15121-15136 >>