Federal District Court - Perjury and/or Contempt

[acmb05]

I have no legal advice

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."

However the way I read it is the HR manager knew of the letter on the 24th because they met with the plaintiff to discuss it. So during this meeting with the plaintiff(you) did you happen to mention or discuss that a letter was sent to someone else because that is what the HR person is saying. They may not have had a copy of said letter till the 28th but they seem to know it existed.

 

[kmckenn]

BadApple: You ROCK! THANKYOU for what this forum is meant to be.

As far as the last post, in the knowledge of *WHEN* and "The Letter"... "The Letter" was not known, nor discussed in anyway by anybody but the Harasser and the Other Person until the 28th. The (innaccurate) implication is that THAT was what was discussed on the 24th, it was not, at all... During the workday of the 24th, the Other Person didn't even know about it until they got home from work.... Workday on the 24th, only the Harasser had knowledge of its existence, and even they may not have known it would have gotten into the Other Persons hands by the 24th.

Kevin

BADAPPLE, again, THANK YOU!

 

[kmckenn]

BADAPPLE40: I am sincerely, genuinely looking for competent legal representation in this matter. The DEFENDANT in this case is EXTREMELY VUNERABLE, and they are a EXTREMELY EXTREMELY *BIG* Co.

I *NEED* HELP, and if you are in Ohio, we should at least talk.

 

[acmb05]

The way this sentence is written here

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).

implies that the HR and you talked about this letter on this date. If that is not what happened then this sentence should be written a different way.

You should have left the second part of this sentence out of it.
"and a letter (Harasser) sent to (Other Person)."

 

[kmckenn]

acmb: I agree... but I am the plaintiff, and that is the defendants statement, claiming to have had a conversation and taking EFFECTIVE and IMMEDIATE measures, to something that hadn't happened yet.

Bottom line is, the defendant screwed up everything imaginable in this situation, they are now going back to try to coverup that complete negligence and incompetence, and trying to fabricate things they did not do. When you try to make up events that did not happen, in its creation, it will inevitably be impossible to have happened.

They never did SUSPENDED the harasser, the entire SUSPENSION scenario is fabricated. They can not prove they suspended the harasser, its a fictious event, they in their own ignorance scheduled this fictious suspension into a tangibly impossible timeslot (4 days prior to the triggering event).

This is only ONE of many such slip-ups/cover-ups, their entire defense is laced with comparable inequities.

 

[badapple40]

I am willing to make a referral for you and point you in the right direction to get quality employment law representation, but in all probability cannot represent you. I work for (and am a partner with) one of Ohio's largest law firms, whose clients tend to be large corporations. The firm may even be on the other side of this case (in which case I cannot even offer you any advice). Why don't you identify who the defendant is in this matter, and who they are represented by (defense attorneys name + firm), before we go any further?

If my law firm is not representing the defendant, we can chat a bit further about this matter and/or I can make an appropriate referral for you.

 

[kmckenn]

BADAPPLE40: You have a private message...

 

[kmckenn]

Just tossing this out there...

The thought that HAD crossed my mind was to.... request the defendant to produce proof/documentation that they:

A) had a conversation about a letter on the 24th.
B) suspended the harasser at all.

As I said, I am a first hand witness, and I know the harsser's first absense was Oct 4th. They already "admit"'d that they TERMINATED the harasser on Oct 1st. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the to "prove" they suspended the harasser at all, let alone on the 24th, 4 days prior to their knowledge of "The Letter".

I'd thougth it would be pretty incriminating for them to state upfront that they can not support their statements, right out of the gates... Basically impeaching the defendants credibility before things even started.

 

[acmb05]

ok

"As I said, I am a first hand witness, and I know the harsser's first absense was Oct 4th. They already "admit"'d that they TERMINATED the harasser on Oct 1st".

Since Oct. 1st was on a Friday and they were terminated on that date then it is only reasonable that the 4th would be their first day absent from work, Unless of course they worked all weekend.

Now since Sept. 24th was also a Friday I would have to ask if the harrasser was in the work plce on Sept 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th. He would have to have been at work and working on the clock to be considered not on suspension.

How also do you know that when they "suspended" the harrasser he did not tell them he had sent a letter to someone else? There are a number of ways the company could say they knew about this letter before the person got it in the mail.

 

[kmckenn]

I was within 10-15 feet of the harasser the entire week of the 27th, on Sept 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, and the 1st. A/the key point being, they did not, could not have EVER "suspended" the harasser, if in fact they did TERMINATE the harasser on the 1st (end of business day) as they expressly ADMIT'd they had.

NO ACTION that would have prompted absense from the workplace prior to Monday the 4th happened at all. The harasser was there, I witnessed it myself. Nor did they (again, I am the one that was in the "conversation") converse about The Letter with ME on the 24th, as that is impossible, because I did not know of The Letter until the 27th. THEY did not become aware of The Letter until the 28th, I *KNOW* I was a party in those events. They simply did not EVER *SUSPEND* the harasser at all, let alone on the 24th.

 

[acmb05]

what I'm asking is

were you in the room when the company HR talked to the harrasser? if you were not then you dont know what he told them. I know YOU were there when the HR department talked to YOU. But what about when they talked to HIM

 

[stephenk]

Was your Complaint verified? Was the Answer to your Complaint verified?

If no, then the answer was filed based on information and belief. Don't hang your hat on victory solely on the Answer. Conduct your discovery first.