|
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
I did apply for 90-100 jobs right after I found out Penn's position. I got
four interviews, no offers, and three letters of high praise for my
qualifications. I was not allowed to amend the complaint to include that
part of my job search, and argued that I should have been given leave to do
so.
For this and many other reasons, I expect to win the appeal decisively.
With 90-100 applications returning only four interviews and no offers,
there appears to be more to plaintiff's claims on qualifications than
meets the eye. Considering the statement plaintiff received three
letters of allegedly "high praise" for claimed qualifications, from
90-100 applications, even more questions on those qualifications claims
arise.
In delving into the many messages plaintiff has posted displaying a
total ignorance of such current legal topics as intellectual property,
copyright, DMCA specifics, proper service, rules of evidence and
specific rules of court, it appears plaintiff lacks the most basic
knowledge and understanding of some of the most common legal issues
before the courts today, not to mention proper procedure and process,
along with seriously inadequate research abilities.
Plaintiff maintains
"Had the argument been unsound, Brody could have deemed it pled and
rejected it. That she chose not to do this will give serious pause
to any other employer I might sue on the same grounds. To give you
an idea of what position that employer would be in, I could literally
send them a letter demanding six months' back wages and immediate
placement in a secretarial job. I could do this without applying for
a job, and legally sue them if they did not agree to do this for me."
Plaintiff expresses concern over the possibility "could not every domain
owner simply escape liability by claiming that their websites were
published by anonymous third parties, even if they can't explain
anything else?", yet seriously considers the possibility the judicial
system will provide legal justification for anyone, anywhere, anytime to
demand a position, along with six months back wages, with no requirement
of submitting an employment application? Again, this alone places claims
of qualifications in a legal field under even greater suspicion.
In stating "Judge Brody ruled that I had in fact applied." plaintiff
avoids the obvious fact that Brody did not rule on any alleged
qualifications. I know of no case in the U.S. judicial system in which
an employer has been required, by legal decision, to grant employment to
an unqualified applicant. Beyond the issue of qualifications, work
history, as well as the ability to meet any required specifics such as
background checks, plays a large part in candidate consideration, as do
results of interviews such as ability to communicate, personal
presentation, personal appearance, composure, responses to questions and
interaction with other people. Many employers utilize outsource testing
facilities to screen applicants for specific positions.
Many of these things, work history and qualifications in particular, do
not require an interview to verify and investigate. It would have been
interesting to have seen the case run a full course, but perhaps, if
plaintiff's claims of a possible appeal are accurate, more will be
revealed. There is evidently much more to this case than has been
forthcoming, at this point, from one side of the argument.
HS
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Byte Me <no_way@jose.com> shared the these words:
I thought he had already lost that one?
BM
He did.
But he seems to think that as long as there's even a vague shadow of a
chance that he might be able to file some kind of appeal then he really
didn't lose, he's just taking the long way around to a victory.
Pathetic, ain't it!
Penn's record in the appellate courts is not 100 percent perfect. They've
had favorable lower court rulings overturned on them.
And I will presume not one of those appeallate cases was argued by a
pro-se litigant who was not also an actual trained lawyer.
I have long expected that this case would be exactly where it was. The
reason the dismissal was beneficial to me was that Brody did not rule on my
affirmative action argument, effectively "punting" the issue by saying I
didn't plead an "equal protection claim." I have argued that I did plead
one properly, and showed an idential case from the sixth circuit where a
ruling similar to hers was overturned (that gives me "split authority" even
if I lose on appeal, making the Supreme Court more likely to hear it).
Presuming you do get tossed (which I think is very likely) and you do
get certiorari you're going to have to get a lawyer to argue your case
if you actually did get to the U.S. Supreme Court.
SCOTUS won't hear pro-se cases, you will have to hire a lawyer to argue
it there, the only people allowed to argue at the U.S. Supreme Court are
those who have applied to be permitted to argue before it, and to obtain
the right to argue in the Supreme Court requires you have applied, paid
the fee, and have a bar association number, probably from the state the
case came from.
|
| |
| |
SCOTUS won't hear pro-se cases, you will have to hire a lawyer to argue it
there, the only people allowed to argue at the U.S. Supreme Court are
those who have applied to be permitted to argue before it, and to obtain
the right to argue in the Supreme Court requires you have applied, paid
the fee, and have a bar association number, probably from the state the
case came from.
The chances of Looney Tunes actually going to the Supreme Court are zero.
He does not have the money, no attorney would take the case, and he would
have to travel to DC. Three strikes, and you Mr. Looney Tunes, are out.
Twerp
BM
|
| |
| |
|
