Is this the right place to post this?

[Doggydaddy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Minnesota

Does anybody know if I can go to the state attorneys office, or the county attorneys office and file a claim of discrimination by prejudice on DEED?

I was involved in an appeals hearing, where my former employer made false and slanderous claims against me, and stated that I quit when I was actually fired!

I have a police report that the officer states that he was called to the company to witness, and he states these three different words, to witness my dismissal, that I was being terminated, and that I was being fired.

My former employer has made numerous slanderous, libel statements about me, and every time he stated something in the appeals hearing, I had bold and blatant documents to contradict his testimony.

There were even three times the judge asked him about a phone call he said he made of a specific date, and when I got the phone records for that whole month and asked him to point out which date he said he called, he stumbled and I pleaded with the hearing judge that I was getting a little exhausted constantly pouring out the documentation porvbing without a douobt that his testimony was pure perjury and his credibility was crap.

The judge ruled against every speck of documentation that three lawyers told me were slam dunk proof of perjury.

The judge stated that the proponderence of evidence, that my former employer provided, was more convincing and and more believable than mine. More believeable that a police report, more convincing than a phone record, more convincing than a police report that told of how a large amount of drugs were removed from a company locker, when he stated that nobody was involved with drugs in his company.

The intial judges decision sounds like a make believe wannabe para legal wrote it out. There are twenty some words mispelled, and used out of context, and when I filed for a reconsideration with the same judge, the ruling has now come back contradicting the intial ruling before it, and the judge still stands by the ruling even though there is blatantly sound and bold perjury throughout the whole testimony of my former employer.

I also should add, that the judge stated that the proponderence of evidence provided by my former employer was more convincing than mine?

My former employer only sent a two page letter before the hearings. There was nothing else sent by this man. He had no documentation to support anything he claimed, and his word was all the judge made her ruling on.

This is truly a mishandled case, especially how one ruling boldly contradicts the other, and the ruling by the judge was made through bold and blatant perjury, which makes this case totally mishandled, and without a just a unbiased ruling.

Would the state attorneys office, or county attorneys office even consider sitting down with me and even listening to what I would have to say about the discriminatory prejudice ruling made in this case???

Thanks for any time spent to read this and offer any help...What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[eerelations]

Discrimination is only illegal if it's based specifically on things like race, religion, age (only those over 40), gender or disability. I can't find anything in your post that indicates that the appeals decision was based on any of these things.

If the appeals hearing you're talking about was a UI appeals hearing, then all you can do is schedule another appeal. If it's too late for that, or you've run out of appeals, then the only possible thing you can consider doing is to sue your former employer in civil court for whatever monies you've lost as a result of being disentitled to UI benefits. Before you embark on something like this, I strongly recommend you consult with an attorney to help you estimate your chances of winning such a lawsuit, as I suspect such chances may be low.

Sorry, I'm sure this isn't the answer you wanted to get, however it is true, accurate and correct.

 

[Doggydaddy]

Perjury is not allowable and a just ruling cannot be made through it.

As with most postings I see on this site, and I must say, I was skeptical about even asking a legal question, since there are no "real" attorneys that sit and give "real" legal advice on this site, as it states on this site in a couple places, and even though I was vague in what I wrote, I gave a rough cut of what I am experiencing with DEED, which is the Department of Employment and Economic Development, or what some refer to it as, UI.

Everybody is aware, who is concious, and aware of things around them, that this country is in a deep recession. Budgets are cut, money is scarce, and every place in government, the money belts are being tightened. This would also include DEED.

They are scattering to find the money to hand out to those laid off, fired, and whatever else they can apply for benefits from DEED. DEED has been known for also getting caught for denying claims when the said claims were legitimate and should have been paid out to the applicant.

There have been numerous suits filed against this outfit, which is widely known for not handling cases just and fair as they should have. This is one of those cases which is surely a candidate for a suit to be filed, and I will be seeking out others in these last six to twelve months with simular false renderings made against them by DEED, when overwhelming evidence has been submitted, and a decision was concluded that went against them.

That is what my question was about. Perjury was ignored, allowed, and a ruling was made based upon this perjury. This is not law of any sort, employment wise or any other. There is no statute written on any legal ground, in any book, anywhere, that states, that when sound and blatant proof is submitted and seen by a judge of any sort, conducting a legal proceeding, in which represents and is directed through the specifics of a law, that when evidence is provided to prove perjury, that a judge of any sort, just puts it aside, and says to himself, or herself, that a person lied about this and that, and I am overlooking it, because my decision will not be based upon this perjury.

When someone objects to perjury being allowed, when someone finds and points to more than thirty five possibly forty times within testimony, where someone is not telling the truth, and shows the judge the proof, and it can be heard blatantly on a recording, there is no sane or legitimate judge on this planet who would allow and sit back and make a ruling based off of perjury, especially when there is sound and bold evidence to back this claim.

So, sir...., in your comment about it being an uphill battle, and the chances being slight...., I must disagree with your decision, based upon, the fact that you failed to read the part about the perjury, and how there is bold and sound proof to back up my claims that my case was handled grossly with prejudice, for who cares what reason, and I don't even have to have a reason.

The recording of the hearing, the testimony of my former employer, supplying perjury unsolicited, over and over, time and time again, one contradiction after another, and the judge never challenging this person on any of it, and the letters and evidence I submitted to the judge to look at this perjury and yet, her little para legal wannabe, instead, failing to even seeing the errors, just paints over it thinking that somehow they can and will get by with mishandling this case is absurd in the least.

Put whatever color lipstick you want on it "sir", or is it "lady", but perjury is perjury and to hand dwon a ruling and somehow allowing and permitting perjury just because you are under orders to cut costs, and eliminate as many cases, does not dismiss or change the fact that there was a gross injustice handed down here from a misinformed judge, if that is what this person actually is in real life, or if this was just a make believe wannabe.

The fact is it will all come out i a court with a real judge and a jury, because I have received twenty six inquiries from various people in St. Paul Minnesota alone, who have had their cases thrown out, of UI court when proof was given and rejected that was based on Perjury allowed and ignored by this same aledged judge.

My main question was if I could go to the states attorneys office and file a motion or complaint against UI, or even the county attorneys office, but since getting the twenty six inquiries from people who also had their cases mishandled, a class action petition will be handed to the states attorneys, and or the county attorneys office, and if they want to prop themselves up with and show theuir support of theuir little inane brothers and sisters, then I will petition a couple news agencies and a few ambulance chasing stations, and start soliciting a few attorneys in the meantime, and look into a suit against old Minnesota for gross negligence and misrepresentation of government officials, hired to prevent what it is they are now in line representing .

And as far as proving if this case was mishandled, if for some reason budget cuts and the need to have to reject claims because there is no money, I won't show this, and no attorney will have to show this, and the sole purpose of the suit against the state will not be presented on these terms. The fact of the matter will show that this judge or whatever it is, is misrepresenting "itself", and is not conducting "itself" in the manner that best represents Unemployment law, or the statutes in which DEED is to operate.

If there are any other people who would like to weigh in, opinionwise, as to how they feel I could possibly turn the screw slowly enough to possibly have the twenty six cases and my case as well, be taken seriously by the states attorneys office or county attorneys office, and maybe prolong, or maybe even eliminate a class action suit against the state, then I am open to hear or read the comments.

I will not entertain those who post just to try and provoke a response, through sarcasm, or ignorance. I don't play that game, and if you post a reply expecting a reply, sorry, your posting will purely be for your own entertainment and those who like seeing it, and for the administrators who permit trivial and meaningless comments.

Thank you for any help that will be offered as help.

 

[eerelations]

I was not sarcastic, nor am I being so now. In fact, I apologized for providing you with information that, while accurate, I suspected you wouldn't like. That apology was sincere. I am quite mystified that you would respond to a sincere apology with such hostility.

If you were so certain that:

a) you already knew the answers to your questions, and
b) the responders here are not qualified to give you accurate and correct information, then

why did you bother posting here in the first place?

This too is not sarcasm, just simple curiosity.

 

[applecruncher]

Would the state attorneys office, or county attorneys office even consider sitting down with me and even listening to what I would have to say about the discriminatory prejudice ruling made in this case???

Contact them and find out. Hire a real attorney. btw, your posts are way too long, rambling, and pompous.

 

[pattytx]

since there are no "real" attorneys that sit and give "real" legal advice on this site

Yes, there are, but you can bet none of them will ever respond to you.

 

[Zigner]

As with most postings I see on this site, and I must say, I was skeptical about even asking a legal question, since there are no "real" attorneys that sit and give "real" legal advice on this site...

I don't have time to read all the crap - just refer to this, which is on EVERY page:



IMPORTANT NOTICE
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS PAGE WERE NOT REVIEWED BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF OR ATTORNEYS AT FREEADVICE.COM. Thousands of professionally prepared and reviewed questions and answers in 130 legal categories are to be found at the Question and Answer pages at FreeAdvice.com.
FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding. Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of FreeAdvice. Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction who you have retained to represent you. To locate an attorney visit AttorneyPages.com. Copyright since 1995 by Advice Company. All Rights Reserved.

 

[commentator]

From reading your post, I am hazarding a guess that you were filing for your unemployment benefits after being fired from your job. You lost your initial decision granting benefits, and after an appeal and an appeal hearing, you were again denied benefits. The decision which was not, incidentally made by a judge in a court of law, but by an unemployment insurance decision maker of some type, usually called a "referee" went against you, and stated that your employer was for whatever reason, more believable than yourself.

The letter which informed you of this also told you that you are eligible to request another appeal, to the state unemployment "Board of Review" In this appeal level, another board will reveiw the material presented at the hearing, which is usually taped. They will determine if unemployment law has been properly followed.

Beyond this, you can take the case to Civil Court, if you are crazy enough to want to chase this down to the bitter end, having lost three appeals. But you can't sue your department of labor (DEED in MN) for denying your unemployment benefits.

These processes have all been specifically set up. It doesn't profit the agency one iota if you are approved or not approved. They must for some reason, have found your evidence not adequate to prove that the employer did not have a good and documented misconduct reason to terminate you. This would have nothing to do with whether other employees were using drugs or not. It would have no "fairness" issues involved. Just the facts according to unemployment law.

 

[commentator]

Incidentally, on another read, whether you were fired, or whether you, at some point during the process of being fired, announced that "You can't fire me, I quit!" makes very little difference as to whether you are approved for unemployment, except that quitting makes it very much more likely that you won't be approved.

Just because they said you were terminated, and you said you had quit does not mean you should have to be approved for benefits. Even if you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt it was a 'quit' before or while they were attempting to terminate you, you would still be determined to be ineligible for unemployment if they had a good reason to terminate you. This is true even if during the termination process,(or even before the process was begun,) you announced that you were quitting.

Because when you quit your job you must prove, according to unemployment law in every state, that you were quitting your job for a good work related reason. "Because they were about to fire me" is not considered a good work related reason. And as we all know, an employer can fire an employee for any reason.

And as for taking it to the press and to governmental officials because you have talked to several other people who have been denied benefits by this particular unemployment official, there is another stage of appeal beyond the hearing, the board of review of hearings, which will determine if due legal process has been followed. All these people should have followed through with this next step. Not all of them could have been conspired against in some sort of great state plot.

I do not envy the appeals hearing officer who had to sit through a hearing with you, I'm sure it was an unpleasant experience for all concerned. But it certainly can be reviewed, these hearings are always taped, and a Board of Review decision may even go in your favor, though I am hard pressed to see how the fact (even if it is proven eleven different ways) that you quit when they said you were fired makes you any more eligible for benefits.

But eventually, all the whine and moan will die out as you determine that yes, they can do this to me. They have and they will. This situation has happened many times before. Maybe you will have paid lots more money to attorneys before you figure this out, but that's no one's problem but you own.