Federal District Court - Perjury and/or Contempt

[kmckenn]

What is the name of your state? Ohio: (This is a FEDERAL COURT proceeding)

This case involves "sexual harassment" but most significantly retaliation and wrongful termination for complaining to the defendant of the harassment. The defendant has answered my complaint.

Small Calendar:

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thr Fri Sat
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 1 2
3 4 5
------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's allegations:

* September 24, 2004 - (Plaintiff) met with (HR Manager) in regards to (Harasser). (Harasser) hostiliy confronts (Plaintiff) for meeting with (HR Manager). (Plaintiff) informs (HR Manager) of confrontation. On this date (Other Person) recieves (disturbing) letter at residence from (Harasser).

* September 27, 2004 - (Other Person) instructs (Plaintiff) to read letter. (Plaintiff) insists (Other Person) to turn it in to management. (Plaintiff) informs (HR Manager) of letter, and action need be taken.

* Sept 28 or 29, 2004 - (Other Person) finally turns in letter to (Supervisor).

* October 1, 2004 - (Harasser) is terminated for being a threat.

------------------------------------------

"4 (Defendant) admits that on or about September 24, 2004, (HR Manager) met with Plaintiff regarding (Harasser) and a letter (Harasser) sent to (Other Person). On this same date, (Defendant) suspended (Harasser) pending further investigation."

"5 (Defendant) admits that on or about September 28, 2004, (Other Person) provided it a copy of a letter sent to (Other Person) by (Harasser)."

"6 (Defendant) admits it terminated (Harasser) as alleged in Plaintiff's complaint.

------------------------------------------

FACTS - As a first hand witness, the first day the Harasser was not in the workplace was Monday, Oct 4, 2004. The defendant "admits" they terminated Harasser on Friday October 1, 2004. If the Harasser was indeed terminated as ALLEGED, and ADMITTED on October 1, 2004, there was NEVER any "suspension" at all. The Defendant is contending that it took immediate and effective action 4 days prior to knowledge for what the action was based on. The assertion of the alleged, ficticious suspension is a VOLUNTARY addition into that admission. No where was "suspension" in the Plaintiff's allegations, that day or any other day.

I can ALMOST overlook the "... and a letter..." because it could be a harmless act of humanity by an attorney thrown into this case... BUT, the last sentence in regardds to the SUSPENSION... by the fact it was a VOLUNTARY assertion and ADMISSION, and NOT a harmless oversight of poorly prepared Attorney, I would like to make issue of this to the court as a blatant/wanton mis-representation, and representative of the defendant.

Could someone please point this poor Pro-Se litigant in the right direction to properly SPANK the defendant and/or their councel for TANGIBLE in accuracy, by their own admission(s)?!?!?!?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Could someone please point this poor Pro-Se litigant in the right direction to properly SPANK the defendant and/or their councel for TANGIBLE in accuracy, by their own admission(s)?!?!?!?

No problem. You need to start here.

 

[kmckenn]

OK, it looks to me like that link is of no value, I interpreted it as flaming me, or this thread.

Is this the best there is to offer as advice?

Kevin

 

[stephenk]

what is your legal question? The defendant has answered your complaint. Now start your discovery and prepare for trial.

Have you at least consulted with an attorney about your case?

 

[You Are Guilty]

OK, it looks to me like that link is of no value, I interpreted it as flaming me, or this thread.

Is this the best there is to offer as advice?

Kevin

And this, folks, is the precise reason why lawyers love to deal with pro se litigants. They are just so perceptive!

Read it again, Spanky and this time, try using that thing in your head and not the thing you're sitting on.

 

[kmckenn]

The point was... that the defendant *VOLUNTEERED* an express false statement. They *CLAIM* to have enacted disciplinary action 4 days prior to the triggering event.

They CLAIM to have suspended the harasser on the 24th due to "The Letter" that wasn't known to them until the 28th.

More importantly, they NEVER suspended the harasser, and they have expressly stated it's existence FALSELY.

It's simply impossible for law enforcement to allege that they jailed Oswald for assinating Kennedy FOUR DAYS before he was assinated. To expressly, voluntarily make such a statement before a court should warrant a pretty severe measure in response.

THAT is my question, what is the most effective way for me to make issue of that contemptuous/perjurous statement! ???

Kevin

 

[BelizeBreeze]

The point was... that the defendant *VOLUNTEERED* an express false statement. They *CLAIM* to have enacted disciplinary action 4 days prior to the triggering event.

They CLAIM to have suspended the harasser on the 24th due to "The Letter" that wasn't known to them until the 28th.

More importantly, they NEVER suspended the harasser, and they have expressly stated it's existence FALSELY.

It's simply impossible for law enforcement to allege that they jailed Oswald for assinating Kennedy FOUR DAYS before he was assinated. To expressly, voluntarily make such a statement before a court should warrant a pretty severe measure in response.

THAT is my question, what is the most effective way for me to make issue of that contemptuous/perjurous statement! ???

Kevin

And so?

It's called a trial for a reason.

Geeez, if more people appeared pro se we'd have no need for Ringling Brothers

 

[kmckenn]

Ya, the american public has this NAIVE notion that there is something resembling integrity, and accountablity, that explicit contempt and/or perjury within a Federal Court shouild be something resembling a taboo.

I for one can state, that it is INCOMPREHENDABLE to me to think of myself making blatantly false statements in a Federal Court, I have this naive notion that I would have some sort of sever punitive measure imposed upon me. Little did I know that this is common place in our Courts?

 

[kmckenn]

"Geeez, if more people appeared pro se we'd have no need for Ringling Brothers"

"Read it again, Spanky and this time, try using that thing in your head and not the thing you're sitting on."


I would like to APPLAUD your indignation.

Many in life live with aspirations of rising above those around them, there are those who do so on their own merits, and then there are those who attempt to achieve that status by not rising above those around them, but by degrading those around them.

Your WISDOM from this point forward will be viewed with a new perspective. And I thank each of you for VOLUNTEERING your own CONTEMPT of the spirit of these forum's.

I hope your actions afford you the PRIDE you deserve.

 

[HomeGuru]

oh brother, yet another one**************..

 

[kmckenn]

Guys, gals, ladies, gentlemen...

Let's clear one thing up here, I am *NOT* "Pro-Se" by choice. It's a very long story, and would take one huge thread to get it all out. I became "Pro-Se" out of necessity (filing dead line - 90 days after EEOC dismissal), and I am in process of attempting to resolve that. I am only here and now because I am, and time is ticking on me... Like it or not, I'm on the floor, and I have the ball, I didn't ASK to be here.

While out on the floor, and without a clue, I turned to a (this) section of the crowd that claims to offer free advice/help, when I ask(ed) what I should do, I get the equivalent of laughing at me, and calling me a dumbass, and with people like me, who needs a circus....

*THANKS* for the "HELP" guys...

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Guys, gals, ladies, gentlemen...

Let's clear one thing up here, I am *NOT* "Pro-Se" by choice. It's a very long story, and would take one huge thread to get it all out. I became "Pro-Se" out of necessity (filing dead line - 90 days after EEOC dismissal), and I am in process of attempting to resolve that. I am only here and now because I am, and time is ticking on me... Like it or not, I'm on the floor, and I have the ball, I didn't ASK to be here.

While out on the floor, and without a clue, I turned to a (this) section of the crowd that claims to offer free advice/help, when I ask(ed) what I should do, I get the equivalent of laughing at me, and calling me a dumbass, and with people like me, who needs a circus....

*THANKS* for the "HELP" guys...

Go for the three-pointer then because the ref isn't going to shoot it for you.

 

[kmckenn]

Ah, the good news is, I looked up posts from both of the TROLL's that posted in this thread, and guess what... The lack of value in what they say, is not confined to this thread.... go figure!

If it walks like a Duck, if it QUACKS like a duck.... ____________ (<-- Que for the board TROLL's)

 

[badapple40]

I would NOT file any type of motion for contempt or otherwise. I would confirm the statements in the depositions that will be taken with their witnesses.

Then, when this gets in front of a jury, I would then slam their witnesses with it. The impeachment (your cross exam of their witnesses) would look something like this:

Q: Mr. ___, you stated that you took immediate action against Mr/Ms. ___ (the harasser), correct?
A: Yeah, thats right.

Q: And that was, according to you, a suspension, correct?
A: Yeah, thats right.

Q: Because you realized immediately that not only what Mr/Ms. ___ (the harasser) was doing was wrong, but also illegal, correct?
A: Yeah, thats right.

Q: And that suspension, the suspension of Mr./Ms. ___ (the harasser) was prompted by your discovery of what was going on, correct?
A: Yeah, thats right.

Q: And your discovery of Mr./Ms. ___ (the harasser)'s conduct was through the letter and written complaint drafted by the Plaintiff, correct?
A: Yeah, thats right.

Q: And the suspension occurred on September 24, 2004, correct?
A: Yeah, thats right.

Q: And you are sure about that date, correct?
A: Yes, absolutely certain.

Q: And the reason you are certain is that Mr./Ms. ___ (the harasser)'s employment records indicate the suspension date was on September 24, 2004, correct?
A: Yes, thats right.

Q: And you always keep accurate employment records, right?
A: Thats correct.

Q: Because if there was some discrepency, that might indicate that you put this information after-the-fact, to cover up the fact you didn't take proper action immediately, right?
(Objection from the other side, etc.)
A: Right.

Q: Sir, I'd like to draw your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit A, which is a fair and accurate copy of the letter/complaint that the Plaintiff sent to you, right?
A: Thats right.

Q: And that letter was dated September 28, 2004, correct?
A: Thats right.

Q: And that date, the date the Plaintiff sent you the letter, is 4 days after you previously claimed you received the letter and suspended Mr./Ms. ___ (the harasser), right?
A: Well, uhh, I must have been mistaken...

Q: I see, well, I specifically asked you if you were certain about the date before, and you responded you were, right?
A: Well, uhh, I guess...

Q: The reason that your records and testimony indicated September 24, before the complaint was even received, is because you altered the records after the fact, isn't that correct?
(Objection from the other side)
A: Well no, we would never do that.

Q: And I suppose your answer to my previous question is as trustworthy as your answer as to whether you suspended Mr./Ms. ___ (the harasser) following the receipt of the complaint, right?
(Objection from the other side).


(you get the point, this guy/woman now looks like a total idiot in front of the jury and you've raised the inference that they've doctored the records after the fact to cover up)

Pointing this out to the other side, at this point, during depositions, or at any other time prior to trial lets them prepare for it, and undermines your case. If they have the time to respond, they'll simply state that they were mistaken about the dates, and turn a powerful impeachment tool at trial into a small oversight on the part of their attorneys.

Keep it in your pocket, and destroy them at trial with it.

But thats just my take on it.

And, as an aside, this comes from an attorney licensed in Ohio, including both the federal courts (Northern District and Southern District), and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Because if you make a big stink about it, the other side will respond and wiggle out of it.

 

[john123456]

I would NOT file any type of motion for contempt or otherwise. I would confirm the statements in the depositions that will be taken with their witnesses.

Then, when this gets in front of a jury, I would then slam their witnesses with it. The impeachment (your cross exam of their witnesses) would look something like this:



Pointing this out to the other side, at this point, during depositions, or at any other time prior to trial lets them prepare for it, and undermines your case. If they have the time to respond, they'll simply state that they were mistaken about the dates, and turn a powerful impeachment tool at trial into a small oversight on the part of their attorneys.

Keep it in your pocket, and destroy them at trial with it.

But thats just my take on it.

And, as an aside, this comes from an attorney licensed in Ohio, including both the federal courts (Northern District and Southern District), and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Because if you make a big stink about it, the other side will respond and wiggle out of it.

Badaddple40: (Badapple even)

Good job! I am sure the OP appreciates your expertise.