Finally, someone has an answer to homophobic protesters.
Chris Pesto of Syracuse University found the perfect answer to a group who came to campus to protest homosexuals.
The sinfully dressed protester is Michelle Deferio who protested with her father, Jim Deferio. They are evangelists who commonly protest on the streets against homosexuals.
Here is Pesto’s own description of the event:
Today (Wednesday, November 18th) I left my voice lesson and noticed two adults on campus holding signs that said “Homosexuality is a sin”. First, I would just like to say that I support people with their own opinions. I think that everyone is entitled to their right to think what they want. However, when someone comes on my campus, where I pay tuition to live, I don’t think it’s appropriate to rub such a hateful sign in someone’s face. I decided that because this woman thought it was okay to make me feel uncomfortable in my home, I would retaliate and make her feel just as uncomfortable, if not more.
This woman was wearing a ankle-length corduroy skirt, which, as we all know, is a fashion nono. So, in order to make her feel uncomfortable, I stood next to her and held a sign that said Corduroy skirts are a sin! I don’t think I have ever drawn so much attention in my life. SO many people asked to take a picture with me, I got laughs, high fives and there were the few that even cursed off the woman standing behind me.
As I drew interest to what was going on with myself and the woman with the hateful sign, I started to draw a crowd that stood with me in support. Before I knew it I had 100+ people holding signs for gay rights asking people to honk their horns to support. I was interviewed by a news station, and more than 5 student organization papers, and the post standard of syracuse.
I never expected anybody to come stand by me and support and I appreciate it so much that everyone came! It meant so much and it proved to those ignorant people that we aren’t afraid, and we will put up a fight.
I’m proud that Syracuse has such a homosexual friendly community.
According to an article in
For the story, click here.
I have read a few excellent stuff here. Definiteely worth bookmasrking for revisiting.
I surprise how so muxh effort you put to make onne of these fanmtastic informative site.
Jericho,
I suspect one day Carlinism will become a recognized philosophy. Until some dipstick turns it into a religion and starts adding and making things up.
I do not understand gay people, I think it’s unnatural and I usually find their behaviour very unnatural…
However,
I have an even harder time understanding these mad moronic anti-gay protesters. They’re clearly mental and shouldn’t be out on the streets. I’d be wearing a sign that said: ‘Religion is bullshit’ but hey, that’s just me and my humble university-educated clean-conscience rationality.
I respect 3 commandments, George Carlin’s:
– Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.
– Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.
– Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
Justice where there was none: Mr. Jonathan Turley, Sir;
I need your help, please! I believe that the courts may have gotten away with injustice on a member of the Armed Forces who was asked to lay down her life and take up the call to duty in Iraq for a year.
I live in LaMarque, Texas and taught Special Education in the Clear Creek Independent School District for two years.
I did my best in trying to convey what has occurred and I pray that you understand what I am saying.
My name is Romona Mayeaux and I was fired as a Teacher of Special Education from Clear Creek Independent School District (CCISD) on May 25, 2004. I went thru a school board hearing and subsequently received a right to sue from EEOC based on Title 7 racial discrimination and the right to sue was amended to include docking my pay for military duty instead of being afforded the 15 military days for duty when provided with military orders (can be provided upon request). CCISD noted in their evidence that they could demote me to the position of an aide (this position does not require a college degree) as long as my pay stayed the same. This was not true and it did not stay the same. The fact that I was demoted to the position of an aide, my check was constantly docked and I was docked military pay.
My check went from approx. $1500.00 every two weeks to approx. $400.00 or $800.00 on several occasions. USCA5 853-859. The district said that they could demote me and that my pay status never changed. It changed constantly. I have documentation that the school reported me absent and docked my pay but their documentation shows me present for work. Also I have documentation that I was on orders for my military duty but the district coded me as sick leave and dockets my pay again. I can not leave work on military leave with out presenting the Principals secretary my orders. I had a nightmare of docked pay. I also submitted a notarized affidavit from a White male that noted he always used his military days and was never docket pay like I was. (Submitted into evidence this item is also listed in EXHIBIT M: under “Affidavit of William A. James). USCA5 865. Judge Samuel B. Kent ignored this evidence and in fact, he did not address it.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court but they did not address at all the stay. The Supreme Court did not give any reason but agreed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. I do not understand why no one corrected the unjust put on me and the future for any military personnel. All of the evidence I submitted was ignored as well. Judge Kent did threaten to put me in jail if I continued to put in evidence….. page 1
Again, I did not want to inundate you with so much as to turn you off from at least giving me a chance to get what I consider, lost justice.
Please help me to understand how I have all of this evidence indicating discrimination and falsity of their evidence, the United States Government behind me…., and I still lost. Please Help! And Thank you,
CW3 Romona Mayeaux
Army National Guard
281.384.5328
My attorney filed against CCISD based on title VII Racial Discrimination in late April 2005. The case was initially set for trial on March 7, 2006. In February, as a CW3 Warrant Officer in the Army National Guard, I received notification that I would be deployed to Iraq and quickly notified my attorney and he notified the court and the Defendant. (Exhibit A: Plaintiff Original Complaint).
I asked my Attorney, Mark Aronowitz, on several occasions to request and file for a stay with the courts according to the SCRA. (Exhibit B: E-mail dated April 3, 2006 to Mr. Aronowitz again requesting a stay). Mr. Aronowitz did request a stay on several occasions according to the SCRA but Judge Samuel B. Kent refused to acknowledge the request. According to the SCRA, the SM, on their own motion or thru someone else, request the stay and it would not be considered an appearance.
My report date for deployment to Iraq was March 13, 2006. Mr. Aronowitz did inform me that Judge Samuel B. Kent said he was not going to give me the stay. I then asked him for written documentation from Judge Kent stating that he was refusing to give me a stay (and the reason why) that was due me by virtue of the SCRA (noting that the stay was not automatic, but upon the request of the SM) and thus denying me my Civil Rights by his denial. I never received such documentation from the Judge.
Mr. Aronowitz put in a joint motion for a continuance with the Defendants to mediate the case for March 7, 2006 and if the case was not mediated successfully, to obtain a stay as pursuant to the SCRA. (Exhibit C: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE-Paragraph 4-14)
I, on my own motion, had the requested stay submitted to the district court by a friend who had my power of attorney and the request was stamped received by the court on April 6, 2006. (Exhibit D: The requested stay that was stamped received by the courts to include 1. My military orders to Iraq 2. Service members Civil Relief Act and 3. A notarized letter from my Commander.)(Exhibit E: CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-CV-00262)The stamped requested stay was not entered on the docket. (Requested Stay and Docket enclosed).
Page 2
Judge Samuel Kent met only with my attorney and made a ruling regarding my submission of the stay. (Exhibit F: Transcript of Status Conference before the Honorable Samuel B. Kent with only Plaintiffs attorney, Mark Aronowitz present). Judge Samuel B. Kent reprimanded and b-rated my attorney, Mark Aronowitz on allowing the SM to submit the stay to the courts, ex-parte. That submission was not ex-parte because the SCRA states that the SM can submit the request for a stay on her own motion and that it would not constitute an appearance. During the x-parte meeting Judge Kent had with my attorney alone, he made a ruling regarding the requested stay without the defendant’s attorney present.
Exhibit G: ORDER SIGNED ON 27 APRIL, 2006 CANCELING DOCKET CONTROL DEADLINES AND SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE for January 18, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. – AGAIN IGNORING THE REQUESTED STAY. Judge Samuel B. Kent threatened Mr. Aronowitz, Ms. Mayeaux and anyone else who submits any evidence to the court with jail time. Refusing to rule on the requested stay according to the SCRA, Judge Kent, in its stead, stopped all court proceedings and set a status conference for January 18, 2008……to give the SM time to get back from Iraq and re acquaint herself back into society…
My attorney, Mark Aronowitz, said that this was Judge Samuel Kent’s version of the stay. Therefore, I tried not to bother about the case until I return in order that I may devote my thoughts, actions and deeds on serving my country and completing all missions given to me by my Commander to the highest level of success because I was told by virtue of the status conference (stay) that nothing was to happen until I returned. The stay meaning that everything ceased on the trail until I returned-that was misrepresentation by Judge Kent to the court and the Plaintiff who was away at war in Iraq
Days prior to my deployment to Iraq, my mission changed and I was deployed to Bagram, Afghanistan. My mission again was diverted to Kuwait in August. I had not heard from my attorney until February 15, 2007 (EXHIBIT H: 1st and only communication from Plaintiff responding to he and Judge Kent resetting the case for 14 days contrary to what the Honorable Judge Kent gave me for over 5 months after my return from war. I became much stressed because I knew that I had to be present if anything were to happen on the case in order for me to better assert my defenses. E-mail where I terminated our Attorney-client relationship. At that time, I e-mailed him back and fired him as my attorney because Judge Kent said that the case was not going to be heard until January, 18, 2008.
Unbeknownst to me, Judge Samuel Kent, for no apparent reason except that CCISD’S attorneys were his friends and he (out of the blue and disrespect to the stay) came back and reset the status conference for January 12, 2007 while I was still on active duty out of the country. (EXHIBIT I: NOTICE OF RESETTING on November 8, 2006 that I was totally unaware of). My attorney tried telling the Judge that his client was still
Page 3
deployed and would not be back until around the month of May, 2007. Judge Kent
ignored his statement at the status conference on January 12th and reset the trial to May, 2007. (EXHIBIT J: TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE JUDGE KENT, MARK ARONOWITZ AND MILES BRADSHAW (attorney for defendant). Mr. Aronowitz was afraid to continue arguing with Judge Kent for fear of being put in jail because Judge Samuel Kent says that he is the law in Galveston and no one can stop him for doing what he wants to do. (I beg the difference-there is a higher power).
Prior to the resetting of the trail date, Judge Samuel Kent allowed CCISD to file a summary judgment motion and required my attorney to respond without me being present. My testimony and input should have been crucial evidence. (EXHIBIT K: AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER that set the trial for May 29, 2007—which did not happen because Judge Kent ruled on the summary judgment in CCISD’S favor on March 26, 2007 and I my orders from deployment to Iraq ended April 2, 2007. Judge Kent was aware that I would not return until after May….according to my attorney and what he said in the status conference.
Before I returned from deployment, Judge Kent granted CCISD’s motion for summary judgment with prejudice on March 26, 2007 (EXHIBIT L: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) and my orders were concluded on April 2, 2007 (can get a copy upon request). Judge Samuel B. Kent admitted all evidence from the defendants and he stated, “Although I do not believe CCISD’s version of the events, I believe them over the Plaintiff saying that she did not do it. During Judge Kent motion to grant summary judgment for the moving party, he made several credibility assessments and that is the job of the jury, and not the judge. Everything that CCISD alleged and all of their evidence, he admitted as to the reason for his decision and all of the plaintiff’s evidence, he ignored; which did identify evidence to the contrary.
The Plaintiff proved a prima facie case for discrimination and then CCISD came back with their nondiscriminatory reason(s) for their firing. Then the plaintiff showed that all of the reasons that CCISD alluded to were false and that CCISD knew them to be false when they alleged them. Judge Kent dismissed all of the affidavits, legal documents, e-mails, and other documentations that the Plaintiff submitted indicating that CCISD’s statements were false, thus alluding to discrimination. Page 4
I believe the law states that in order for the non moving party to survive summary judgment: 1. when the moving party showed their non discriminatory reason(s) for firing the Plaintiff, they have to show that with their evidence, no jury would find anything to the contrary and that they would win if they went to court and they would win as a matter of law 2. The plaintiff then would need to show that their proffered reasons were false and that the moving party knew they were false when they offered them. 3. The moving party can have 150 monks testify to the truth of what the Plaintiff did or did not do but all the Plaintiff need is one town drunk to say that what the moving party alleged is of the contrary and then summary judgment would not be granted, as a matter of law. I submitted e-mails, official legal documents, affidavits, the stamped stay accepted by the court that was not put in the record (on the docket) but addressed by Judge Kent in his meeting alone with Mark Aronowitz where he made a ruling without the defendants lawyers in the courtroom or on the record. EXHIBIT M:
1. USCA5 983-984 partial false time line submitted by defendant
2. USCA5 1011 Plaintiff Mayeaux Supplementary Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Fees and Expenses pg. 9.
3. USCA5 991 Plaintiff Mayeaux’s Reply to Defendants Opposition Regarding Withdrawal and Extension
4. USCA5 985-987 Defendants opposed to an extension of time for Plaintiff to supplement her response to Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and cost and defendant prays that the Court deny Mark Aronowitzs motion to withdraw. (I just came back from Iraq, hiring new attorney, fighting summary judgment in which I was not aware of while in Iraq, fighting Judge Kent inviting the district to sue me for over $75,000.00 when the case was to be ceased (according to his order) while I was away in Iraq, I proved a prima v case for discrimination and Judge Kent now is saying that it is a frivolous case and ordered CCISD to sue the plaintiff.
5. Affidavit of LaTarsha Lloyd (parent) indicating that Mr. Caterina, Amanda Kyle, and Lavonia James fixed documents against Ms. Mayeaux. This was submitted to the trial court, Judge Kent, and it was accepted in the school board hearing as what happened. Judge Kent ignored this notarized evidence but gave credence to the defendant’s documents and witnesses over mine.
6. Affidavit of COL Kenneth Kubasik (RET), stating that the evidence CCISD submitted to the courts regarding the student T.C. Laws was false (USCA5 587—schedule of T.C. Laws printed out on Thurs, October 2, 2003, 03:06 pm, after the correction was made by the Counselor- Mrs. Williams) was blandly fraudulent and his evidence was completely ignored. COL Kubasik indicated that the student was on his class roster during the one month in question and that he was placed there by the counselor (person in charge of scheduling) and not Ms. Mayeaux. COL Kubasik did not have any adverse actions taken against him for having the student in his class for that month but Ms. Mayeaux was fired because she was accused of putting the student in Mr. Kubasik’s class. The counselor did not have any adverse actions nor did the special education coordinator who was responsible as well for placing the students in the correct class. Page 5
7. E-mail from Albert Perez to Ms. Mayeaux dated 9/20/2003 submitted into evidence that the Student T.C. Laws was placed in COL Kubasik’s class but that he was going to be moved into my class and the counselor, Mrs. Barbara Williams was correcting the situation. The e-mail also states my confirmation of this mistake by the counselor, the correction being made by her, and that I had spoken with Mandy Kyle about the mistake on the counselor’s part. Judge Kent again ignored this evidence and stated that I had not evidence that would show that CCISD’s evidence was false. . (I added new evidence: the students schedule, student and teacher matrix of where teacher/aides and students were for each period of the day – some in the handwriting of the aides and official printed CCISD schedule of student…..T.C. Laws.
8. Notarized Affidavit of Mr. William A. James (submitted to the courts) who stated that he was always allowed his 15 days military leave of absence and was never docked. I was demoted to that of an aide and I was docked for days that I was at school and for military days. I even have evidence where CCISD said I was not at school but I showed documented evidence that I was at school for that period but the school district docked my pay as well. My check would show approx. $1,400.00 each pay period and after the district demoted me; my pay would vary from approx. $400.00, or $800.00. Some were corrected, but not all.
9. E-mail from Mandy Kyle 11/10/2003 asking for my list of rewards for my students for good behavior. On the same page, e-mail back from Mayeaux to Kyle showing the list of rewards for great behavior and for academic success. (USCA5 1060). Letter to parents indicating the new point system I implemented in my class (USCA5 1062), the point system that Ms. Mayeaux generated with the same list of rewards listed within the point system. CCISD said that I did not have this system, that I did have it, that I did not…..and maybe that I did. Then Judge Kent said that it was not that I had the point system but that I did not have it the way CCISD said I should have it, but there is no point system listed anywhere in the evidence that showed what CCISD said was a sufficient point system. JUDGE SAMUEL KENT took it upon himself to falsify information to the courts when he indicated, See Non renewal Hr’g Tr. At 101:1-102; 25, 141: 19-25, 192:1-, “Where the reference is not to a point system, but to an individual education plan (IEP)”. See Notice of Procedural safeguards under the heading: What is an ARD Committee. Which states that the IEP is not the sole responsibility of the teacher but a committee which consist of the Principal/Vice Principal (an administrator), special education teacher, regular education teacher, parent/guardian and the student? USCA5 1071-1072.
10. NEW EVIDENCE that I had but not submitted because my attorney, David Lopez said that he can not put in all of the evidence that I have because it would be too much and that the Judge would put us both in jail. He said that I was Page 6
11. fighting summary judgment and that the evidence I put in should be more than sufficient to prove a that the summary judgment should not be granted as a matter of law because I had evidence to prove the contrary of what CCISD offered. A). T.C. Laws schedule for 2003-2004 indicating that he was in COL Kubasik’s class. B). Handwritten matrix written by myself showing where all of the students were and which aide were to assist them and where. C). A handwritten matrix schedule written by my aide Ms. L. James and Mr. Cyrus Taybienpour which indicated where all of the students were and with what teacher.
(EXHIBIT O: He even ignored the stay that was requested several times by my attorney, that was submitted to the courts by my own motion and stamped received by the court (USCA5 970) and subsequently when my second attorney David Lopez brought it to his attention. The stay that was stamped received by Judge Kent’s court was not only “not ruled on” but ignored altogether. This action, or non action on the stay (USCA5 1183-1185) caused Judge Samuel B. Kent to violate the Plaintiff’s Civil Rights and he violated her civil rights subsequently as well for not allowed the Plaintiff to submit additional paperwork to get an extended stay if necessary. Judge Kent falsified evidence and documents (EXHIBIT N: NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD USCA5 1071-1072. Under the heading: What is an ARD Committee). Judge Kent stated that the plaintiff’s problem was not only that she did not have a point system, but that she did not have an Individual Education Program (IEP) for the child (that was not in evidence by the district but something that Judge Kent added). Judge Kent also said that CCISD had a thorough investigation but no thorough investigation was in evidence. That is a false statement and fraudulent evidence that Judge Kent added because an IEP is a document that is not completed by the teacher alone but by an ARD committed which consists of the Principal or Vice Principal (an administrator), a special education teacher, a regular education teacher, the parents or legal guardians and the student itself and he made several credibility assessments that is the job of the jury, and not the judge. Judge Kent decided who was right and who was wrong. He dismissed all evidence that I put forth saying that I had to put in a lot of evidence but the law ( as the laymen in myself read) only have to put forth one piece of evidence to show that what CCISD is saying is false….thus an inclination of discrimination. In Judge Kent’s order for summary judgment for the defendant, he never addressed the stay that was not ruled upon that was requested by the plaintiff over and over and over again.
The trial court and the 5th Circuit of Appeals abused its discretion in denying SM’s SCRA stay, not ruling on it and by ignoring the copy of the requested stay that was stamped received by the court but was not placed on the docked. The 5th Circuit of Appeals did not address the stay at all but only said that more time for discovery was not warranted and should have been done prior to my deployment. The Plaintiff indicated that Judge Kent erred when he did not give the stay or at least address why he did not give it to the SM. The trial court judge, Judge Samuel B. Kent also threatened to place the Plaintiff in jail or anyone that has her power of attorney if she submitted or allowed to be submitted anything else. The Summary Judgment was granted in favor of
the defendants on 27 March, 2007 and the Plaintiff was released from active duty on
page 7
April 2, 2007. Plaintiff immediately asked for 70 of the 90 days continuance since I returned from Iraq but Judge Kent and the 5th Circuit court of appeals both denied that request. Judge Kent was aware of the requested stay several times but not only did not rule on it, he ignored it.
EXHIBIT P: Judge Kent denied the Plaintiff change of counsel when she returned from war and Judge Kent ordered CCISD (the defendant) to sue Mr. Aronowitz and Ms. Mayeaux for filing a frivolous law sue. How can this be frivolous when the Plaintiff proved a prima facie case for discrimination, the Unemployment allow her to get her unemployment because they ruled that she was not fired for bad work performance, and the EEOC gave the Plaintiff a right to sue for discrimination and for docking her pay without good cause?
EXHIBIT Q: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HON. SAMUEL B. KENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Excerpts:
1. Argument and Authorities
2. Standard of Review
3. Legal Analysis
4. In Reeves, the Supreme Court held that in most cases a plaintiff need only establish that the proffered reason was false to show that the proffered reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Reeves, supra. Thus, in most situations a plaintiff need only raise a fact issue as to whether the defendant’s proffered reason was false to defeat summary judgment, See Evans v. City of Bishop, 238 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 2000) (reversing employer’s summary judgment in race case where court concluded plaintiff raised a fact issue on discrimination by establishing prima facie case and rebutting employer’s proffered reason for its adverse action); Blow v. City of San Antonio, 236 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2000) (reversing employer’s summary judgment in race case because there was an issue of fact regarding truthfulness of employer’s proffered reason); Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2000) (reversing employer’s summary judgment in age case and finding that by proving a prima facie case and raising a fact issue on the falsity of employer’s proffered reason, plaintiff established inference of discrimination.
5. In the instance case, CCISD does not dispute that the Plaintiff is a member of the requisite protected class (i.e. African-American)…
*** The SCRA reflects the combined effort of the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs and will serve as a source of important protections for our service members, active and reserve, in the future. Page 8
*** The SCRA substantially revises the portion of the SSCRA where the SCRA mandates an initial stay. The SCRA mandates an automatic stay for at least ninety days upon the service members’ request.
*** Service members who remain unable to appear may use similar procedures 2 request further stays at the discretion of the court. (The initial request was not addressed at all, thus depriving SM of her Civil Rights of the initial stay and then the ability to request any additional stays due to the SM upon her request.
*** EXHIBIT R: THE COLOR OF LAW. According to the F.B.I., it is a federal crime for anyone acting under the “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or the U.S. Law.
***EXHIBIT S: FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE IS ALSO A COLOR OF LAW CRIME. Alone with Judge Samuel B. Kent, CCISD also provided false evidence to the court as well. They submitted to the trial court and the 5th circuit court of appeals that the Plaintiff was granted a stay. Of course, no where in the court documents does that request (motion) and Judge Kent’s response are indicated in the court documents. CCISD also submitted to the trial court my evidence as theirs in the matter of the point system.
***EXHIBIT T: MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT. Motion to set aside judgment
In law, a motion to set aside judgment is an application to overturn or set aside a court’s judgment, verdict or other final ruling in a case. Such a motion is proposed by a party who is dissatisfied with the end result of a case. Motions may be made at any time after entry of judgment, and in some circumstances years after the case has been closed by the courts. Generally the motion cannot be based on grounds which were previously considered when deciding a motion for new trial or on an appeal of the judgment, thus the motion can only be granted in unusual circumstances, such as when the judgment was procured by fraud which could not have been discovered at the time of the trial, or if the court entering the judgment lacked the jurisdiction to do so.
Motions to set aside judgments entered in civil cases in the United States district courts are governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (see below). The rule is quite straightforward; its court room application is mostly exactly as stated.
Page 9
Motions to set aside judgment in criminal cases are rare: in U.S. jurisprudence the writ of
habeas corpus is the usual method of attacking a criminal conviction after the right of appeal has been exhausted.
[edit] Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order
(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any
Page 10
other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of Coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
[edit] Who can appeal?
The appellant (Romona) is the party who, having lost part or their entire claim in a lower court decision, is appealing to a higher court to have their case reconsidered. This is usually done on the basis that the lower court judge erred in the application of law, but it may also be possible to appeal on the basis of court misconduct, or that a finding of fact was entirely unreasonable to make on the evidence.
Page 11
An appellee (CCISD) is the party to an appeal in which the lower court judgment was in its favor. The appellee is required to respond to the petition, oral arguments, and legal briefs of the appellant. In general, the appellee takes the procedural posture that the lower court’s decision should be affirmed.
An appeal by leave or permission requires the appellant to move for leave to appeal; in such a situation either or both of the lower court and the appellate court may have the discretion to grant or refuse the appellant’s demand to appeal the lower court’s decision. A good example of this is the U.S. Supreme Court in which at least four justices must agree to hear the case if there is a constitutional issue.
In the United States federal courts, the parties’ names always stay in the same order as the lower court when an appeal is taken to the circuit courts of appeals, and are re-ordered only if the appeal reaches the United States Supreme Court.
Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence. An affidavit which reflected a better grasp of the facts close in time to the actual events may be used to refresh a witness’ recollection. Materials used to refresh recollection are admissible as evidence. If the affiant is a party in the case, the affiant’s opponent may be successful in having the affidavit admitted as evidence, as statements by a party-opponent are not considered hearsay.
Some types of motions will not be accepted by the court unless accompanied by an independent sworn statement or other evidence, in support of the need for the
MARK Aronowitc (lawyer) AND CCISD:
motion. In such a case, a court will accept an affidavit from the filing attorney in support of the motion, as certain assumptions are made, to wit: The affidavit in place of sworn testimony promotes judicial economy. The lawyer is an officer of the court and knows that a false swearing by him, if found out, could be grounds for severe penalty up to and including disbarment. The lawyer if called upon would be able to present independent and more detailed evidence to prove the facts set forth in his affidavit.
Page 12
Good job Mr. Pesto. I don’t know if the corduroy skirts are a no-no,but since two of my daughters graduated from Syracuse, you need that kind of skirt just to stay warm.
Mr. Jonathan Turley, Sir; I need your assistance. You are a brilliant Attorney and I seek your help urgently. I hope this is the right forum to get this information to you.
My name is Romona Mayeaux and I was fired as a Teacher of Special Education from Clear Creek Independent School District (CCISD) on May 25, 2004. I went thru a school board hearing and subsequently received a right to sue from EEOC based on Title 7 racial discrimination and the right to sue was amended to include docking my pay while on orders for military duty instead of being afforded the 15 military days for duty when provided with military orders (can be provided upon request). I obtained and submitted an affidavit from other white Teachers who indicated that they were never docked pay while on military orders but that information and evidence was consistently overlooked. CCISD noted in their evidence that they could demote me to the position of an aide (this position does not require a college degree) as long as my pay stayed the same. This was not true and it did not stay the same. My docked checks were also submitted as evidence. The fact that I was demoted to the position of an aide, my check was constantly docked and I was docked military pay, nothing was done about it and
My check went from approx. $1500.00 every two weeks to approx. $400.00 or $800.00 on several occasions. USCA5 853-859. The district said that they could demote me and that my pay status never changed. It changed constantly. I have documentation that the school reported me absent and docked my pay but their documentation shows me present for work. Also I have documentation that I was on orders for my military duty but the district coded me as sick leave and dockets my pay again. I can not leave work on military leave with out presenting the Principals my orders. I had a nightmare of docked pay. I also submitted a notarized affidavit from a White male in my same position that noted he always used his military days and was never docket pay like I was. (Submitted into evidence this item is also listed in EXHIBIT M: under “Affidavit of William A. James). USCA5 865. Judge Samuel B. Kent ignored this evidence and in fact, he did not address it.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court but they did not address at all the stay that was requested by my attorney and documented from the courts while I was deployed originally to Iraq. The Supreme Court did not give any reason but agreed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Samuel Kent indicated that he can do whatever he wants to do and no one can stop him. I do not understand why no one corrected the injustice put on me and the future of any military personnel. All of the evidence I submitted was ignored as well. Judge Kent did threaten to put me in jail if I continued to put in evidence…..Judge Kent consistently ignored evidence and he said there is nothing that I could do about it. Again, I did not want to inundate you with so much as to turn you off from at least giving me a chance to get what I consider, lost justice.
Please help me to understand and direct me to someone who can assist me in this endeavor. I have all of this evidence indicating discrimination and falsity of their evidence and proof of discrimination. The United States Government is behind me…., and I still lost. It seems as though Judge Samuel Kents statement that, “he runs Galveston Courts” and no one can do anything about it” is correct. Please Help and I look forward to your guidance as soon as possible. Thank you,
CW3 Romona Mayeaux
Army National Guard
281.384.5328
romona.mayeaux@us.army.mil and romonamayeaux@gmail.com
Mr. Jonathan Turley,Sir; I need your assistance. You are a brilliant Attorney and I seek your help urgently. I hope this is the right forum to get this information to you.
My name is Romona Mayeaux and I was fired as a Teacher of Special Education from Clear Creek Independent School District (CCISD) on May 25, 2004. I went thru a school board hearing and subsequently received a right to sue from EEOC based on Title 7 racial discrimination and the right to sue was amended to include docking my pay while on orders for military duty instead of being afforded the 15 military days for duty when provided with military orders (can be provided upon request). I obtained and submitted an affidavit from other white Teachers who indicated that they were never docked pay while on military orders but that information and evidence was consistently overlooked. CCISD noted in their evidence that they could demote me to the position of an aide (this position does not require a college degree) as long as my pay stayed the same. This was not true and it did not stay the same. My docked checks were also submitted as evidence. The fact that I was demoted to the position of an aide, my check was constantly docked and I was docked military pay, nothing was done about it and
My check went from approx. $1500.00 every two weeks to approx. $400.00 or $800.00 on several occasions. USCA5 853-859. The district said that they could demote me and that my pay status never changed. It changed constantly. I have documentation that the school reported me absent and docked my pay but their documentation shows me present for work. Also I have documentation that I was on orders for my military duty but the district coded me as sick leave and dockets my pay again. I can not leave work on military leave with out presenting the Principals my orders. I had a nightmare of docked pay. I also submitted a notarized affidavit from a White male in my same position that noted he always used his military days and was never docket pay like I was. (Submitted into evidence this item is also listed in EXHIBIT M: under “Affidavit of William A. James). USCA5 865. Judge Samuel B. Kent ignored this evidence and in fact, he did not address it.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court but they did not address at all the stay that was requested by my attorney and documented from the courts while I was deployed originally to Iraq. The Supreme Court did not give any reason but agreed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Samuel Kent indicated that he can do whatever he wants to do and no one can stop him. I do not understand why no one corrected the injustice put on me and the future of any military personnel. All of the evidence I submitted was ignored as well. Judge Kent did threaten to put me in jail if I continued to put in evidence…..Judge Kent consistently ignored evidence and he said there is nothing that I could do about it. Again, I did not want to inundate you with so much as to turn you off from at least giving me a chance to get what I consider, lost justice.
Please help me to understand and direct me to someone who can assist me in this endeavor. I have all of this evidence indicating discrimination and falsity of their evidence and proof of discrimination. The United States Government is behind me…., and I still lost. It seems as though Judge Samuel Kents statement that, “he runs Galveston Courts” and no one can do anything about it” is correct. Please Help and I look forward to your guidance as soon as possible. Thank you,
CW3 Romona Mayeaux
Army National Guard
281.384.5328
romona.mayeaux@us.army.mil and romonamayeaux@gmail.com
I nominate Chris Pesto for the Young Man of the Year Award. You gotta love someone with a sense of humor like that. That’s one fine way to counter hatefulness.
Good on everyone most everyone involved.
If there was ever a kick ass award by kicking ass with your mind i think this kid has got it locked up. Kudos Chris Pesto Kudos
HILARIOUS!
Someone buy that lad a drink.
Hire that young man.
He was confronted with a problem. He intelligently reasoned a solution to the problem and he met with great success.
Oh stop it or I’ll scratch your eyes out. (said with a lisp)
Hey Universities are for academonic Freedom so long as it does not congest the colon track of administration.
Jesus Loves you, But I’m his FAVORITE.
Associated Press – October 30, 2009 7:24 PM ET
POCATELLO, Idaho (AP) – An Idaho State University engineering professor who was suspended in August says he has been fired, despite backing from a faculty appeals board.
A university faculty appeals board determined a week ago there wasn’t enough evidence to fire Sadid, but Vailas was not obligated to follow that recommendation.
Sadid, who was suspended for what administrators say is unprofessional and insubordinate behavior, contends his history of speaking his mind about problems at the school led to the disciplinary action.
http://www.kpvi.com/Global/story.asp?S=11417740
Chris Pesto of Syracuse University
You win the BIL Creative Combat Citation.
Good show.