Hot Email Evidence!
Powerful stuff! - A series of workplace emails shown as they happened, in reverse-order, - except for the last page (separate). The courts apparently didn't want to regard these emails, but can they merely pick & choose what facts they want? I've marked them up to draw attention to some things and show dates and times more clearly. They were from Mr. Noack's last months on his job. Also interesting is that the last page proves they lied when they wrote up Mr. Noack. They made up some garbage about him making such a fuss in the office that everyone was "walking on eggshells" all week, but aside from the man calling his boss out on that in one of their emails, the person mentioned on the last email page here said she didn't know anything was going on. That seems to show they lied in writing him up - shows retaliation, IMO. I also now know that person's desk was beside Mr. Noack's - they worked only 4' - 6' away from each other. So, she would know if all that happened. Mr. Noack was evidently under pressure before he left the YMCA!
The evidently crooked federal judges involved need to be impeached. How can people discriminate against blacks and men in childcare and with school-age kids in this day & time? "Equality" means equal treatment, right? Is it really necessary for a white boy or girl to NOT be taught by blacks, and what about all those YMCA childcare sites with no minority staff but maybe some minority kids? Was the YMCA forbidding the hiring of whites for sites like that? I doubt it. Plus, it seems unequal to treat men as liabilities if they pass the same background checks.
- No, the 5th Circuit Court chose sides rather than upholding the Law and giving it to a jury. These emails made during work hours show there was reason to believe he was or could have been discriminated against - a jury has to decide that.
Below these pages is some dynamite info. -- don't miss it: AMAZING PROOF of wrongdoing against Mr. Noack!
...but first, see these pages that two courts claimed to show no possibility of discrimination or of having facts to dispute over. and remember, all but the last page are in reverse-chronological-order.
The evidently crooked federal judges involved need to be impeached. How can people discriminate against blacks and men in childcare and with school-age kids in this day & time? "Equality" means equal treatment, right? Is it really necessary for a white boy or girl to NOT be taught by blacks, and what about all those YMCA childcare sites with no minority staff but maybe some minority kids? Was the YMCA forbidding the hiring of whites for sites like that? I doubt it. Plus, it seems unequal to treat men as liabilities if they pass the same background checks.
- No, the 5th Circuit Court chose sides rather than upholding the Law and giving it to a jury. These emails made during work hours show there was reason to believe he was or could have been discriminated against - a jury has to decide that.
Below these pages is some dynamite info. -- don't miss it: AMAZING PROOF of wrongdoing against Mr. Noack!
...but first, see these pages that two courts claimed to show no possibility of discrimination or of having facts to dispute over. and remember, all but the last page are in reverse-chronological-order.
First of all, did you notice a few times above, the comments about "walking on eggshells"? Well, that not only is shown to be apparently untrue in that last page, but defies the same supervisor's prior comments on an evaluation of Mr. Noack's work where she stated (last page there) that he "relates well to his peers and supervisor." (http://supremelyunjust.weebly.com/evaluations-of-mr-noack-by-3-different-supervisors.html) In fact, all of the work reviews shown in court records show the man had good relations with supervisors and coworkers.
Indeed, all his supervisors highly regarded his professionalism & good relations with peers, staff, supervisors, children & parents, as seen in the work evaluations entered as evidence in the court case. Mr. Noack being the "non-movant" in the "summary judgment" motion, the Law stipulates all MUST be considered in his best light and all "justifiable inferences" drawn in his favor. As legal, valid evidence, the above emails cannot be ignored. The judges did just that. That is especially noticeable in view of Mr. Noack's sworn testimony and other evidence presented.
Indeed, all his supervisors highly regarded his professionalism & good relations with peers, staff, supervisors, children & parents, as seen in the work evaluations entered as evidence in the court case. Mr. Noack being the "non-movant" in the "summary judgment" motion, the Law stipulates all MUST be considered in his best light and all "justifiable inferences" drawn in his favor. As legal, valid evidence, the above emails cannot be ignored. The judges did just that. That is especially noticeable in view of Mr. Noack's sworn testimony and other evidence presented.
|
|
|
There are many comments made (simply in these emails) which, taken in his best light as true, (as required by Law), would have strong implications that Noack and others were discriminated against. Judges cannot decide whom is telling the truth or lying without a jury, and the supervisor's own comments appear to condemn the YMCA simply due to the raw facts. They reveal the YMCA apparently used illegal employment practices, as it is not lawful to do what the woman herself indicated they were doing - whether they did it to Mr. Noack or not. At that point, knowing the YMCA had admitted to doing discriminatory practices, it shows they could have done so with Mr. Noack, too, and that supports the fact his claims could very well be true. That is proper logic -- justifiable inferences, considering the emails involved him.
Considered in his "best light" with such "justifiable inferences", that itself creates a conflict in a material fact -- it legally derails any summary judgment against him! The courts plainly ignored the Law, broke faith, and violated their oaths of office. (Such willful misbehaviors probably constitute an impeachable offense for the judges). Now, there was much other evidence, too, including indisputable proof they lied to both the labor board and in court affidavit testimony. Adding that on top of all this shows the Summary Judgment was totally ILLEGAL, unlawful, etc.
Now, this will all get more interesting! Why? -- Because you will see more absolute proof of judicial wrongdoing (IMO).
Among the things mentioned in Noack's "petition" arguments (first page of this site), the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel stated the following (p.7 of their decision):
"Other documents, such as Egger's response to his allegations
affirming that the YMCA sought to have a diverse workforce, cannot support a
finding of discrimination. Such statements do not show discriminatory intent."
(-emphasis in red for this article, not in original)
WRONG-O!!
by Law, the intent WAS already shown -- Did the judges not recall the Law Mr. Noack cited to them?
Mr. Noack had cited Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada , where the same court had said,
“ … evidence of prior bad acts is admissible for other purposes,
including proof of intent, plan, motive, knowledge,
and absence of mistake or accident.
This rule is equally applicable to discrimination cases. ”
So, the intent was there via "prior bad acts", like physical assaults permitted, ridicule, proof of disparate pay, proof of a sudden smashing of his wages by almost $3/hr one summer while fulltime (without any wrong on his part, then pushed back up), a male-bashing email, a rant of "I hate men", lack of staffing support, prior reverse-discrimination in work duties, etc., plus Egger's own admission that the YMCA allegedly had a practice of making hiring decisions based on seeking diversity (which is illegal discrimination). Again, Mr. Noack was the non-movant in the motion for summary judgment, so by Law, “the nonmoving party’s evidence ‘is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [that party’s] favor.“’ Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 US. 541, 552, 119 S. Ct. 1545, 143 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1999) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255,XXXXX 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). You can also see some 5th Circuit Court info for another case in item "II. Standard of Review" at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1545106.html as well as citations of addition summary judgment law in Noack's Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the main page or in the pdfs shown at STILL Supremely Unjust - http://www.stillsupremelyunjust.yolasite.com.
Also, the parts in bright red (above) show the 3-judge panel acknowledged the female supervisor's stated reason did refer to her alleged orders and that her commands (whatever they were) were supposedly for the sake of diversity. The court didn't consider the YMCA had sites with all-female & all-white staff and that about half of kids are boys, but somehow Noack was regarded as a liar - not "in his best light" as summary judgment Law required - while the YMCA, though already proven to have repeatedly lied & been perjurous, was automatically considered truthful in the excuse given - again not in Noack's best light).
Plus, there are problems in the excuse given, legally, too. EEOC Law forbids steering based on race in multiple ways. See EEOC's "Example 5" and "Example 6" at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html. Additionally, another link (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm) shows that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under "UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, SEC. 2000e-2 (j) [Section 702]", states,
" ( j ) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance
"Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization,
or joint labor-management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group
because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which
may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted
to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training
program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community,
State, section, or other area. "
(- color-coding & bold letters done for emphasis)
Yes, Judges criminally-ignored the evidence and the Law!
They broke their oaths of office and should step down or be impeached.
Also, Mr. Noack's case should be placed back into the courts for a jury trial, as required by Law!
So, there was apparently a judicial "smoke & mirrors" campaign of injustice against Mr. Noack.
1) some kind of commands were evidently real & had been given - Noack (alone) indicated what they allegedly were.
2) the supervisor apparently confirmed them, as said, since she didn't dispute them but rather gave a reason for them.
The judges admitted the YMCA's alleged orders were intended to secure a diverse workplace. How? - Well, the YMCA said they intended to reflect the background of the local community. So there is no question here: it was illegal, and the judges ignored the facts & the Law. Otherwise, what would happen with the judges' & YMCA's ideals, here, if a poor racial minority soul can't find work close to home and seeks it elsewhere in a white-majority community? They'd be so out of luck!
The Judges Errors On "Intent"
NEWsFLASH! - With the EEOC, "intent" doesn't exclude guilt (-real intent or not). There are strict guidelines.
See the first sentences of an EEOC page for businesses, at http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm (under "Supreme Court Cases"). When there is unlawful discriminatory impact because of race or gender in a case where the action at question is neither "job-related" nor justified by "business necessity", the plaintiff is not required to prove motive (since 1991, when the Civil Rights Act of 1991 overturned the Wards Cove decision). Employer "justification" and intent (or lack of discriminatory intent) were no longer permitted as excuses for harmful actions. There was a period when the defendant's burden was reduced to simply producing evidence of "business justification", but that has not been so since 1991 -- 21 years ago, and courts know that. Discrimination is not okay simply because an employer says it was accidental! Also, Noack showed the YMCA had lied repeatedly - to the labor board & to the court, so they were already proven deceptive. Plus, his statement's show what he was experiencing back then, [while doing his FT job & the work of TWO unfilled PT positions (for one 40hr paycheck)].
The Law does say, however, that summary judgment is proper ONLY when the “movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact" and that all must be viewed in the non-movant's (Noack's) best light, etc., etc. (Again, for more on that, see http://research.lawyers.com/Summary-Judgment-Motion.html and various Fifth Circuit Court cases for "summary judgment Standard of Review" - like half-way down the page, here:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1545106.html.) That last link shows the judges REALLY screwed the Noack case, BAD! The evidence, here,..is a smidgeon of all that he gave!
Considering all of the above and the actual email-statements made, Noack was clearly wronged. A juror could easily believe that he gave an accurate recounting of what his supervisor had said; and, if so, that would show a violation of EEOC Law outright. Other evidence on record plus the fact the YMCA was proven to have lied repeatedly (and blatantly) in this case could also lead a juror to believe the employer was merely making up a lousy, fast excuse that was not real or true. If that could be reasonably possible, it must be regarded as so, at this phase, as the Law dictates that in order to prevent injustices.
The judges in district court, appealate court & the U.S. Supreme Court are sworn to uphold these Laws. They know these things as they are among some of the most common legal principles in the USA [although I agree with Mr. Noack that "summary judgment" should not be allowed to usurp the Constitution's guaranteed rights to citizens - such as for a trial by jury (in the 7th Amendment, part of our Bill of Rights)].
So we see judges very apparently made up excuses for a violation of the Law and that judges & courts refused to follow the Law - both EEOC Law & the Law regarding summary judgment! They knew, and they did contrary, anyway. Is that accidental? It would include several judges at the least. Really, is it accidental that several judges ignored the Law & put a self-litigating poor man out of court without a jury (cf. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/13/241)
while.....
1) evidence documents showed the employer blatantly lied in affidavit testimony to the court,
2) other documents showed the employer also had lied horribly in its testimony to the labor investigator,
3) labor logsheets show that, after the lying testimony, the EEOC closed the case without questioning any YMCA witesses,
4) and that the YMCA withheld evidence for several months past the federal 30-day deadline while using false documentation to indicate they had sent it (- all proven by USPS code, postmark, etc.),
plus, documents showing the YMCA....
5) withheld additional evidence disclosures that were court-ordered (w/out any penalty & no stated reason from the judge),
6) sent a lot of evidence on encrypted CD
7) ....while simultaneously filing for summary judgment,
8) there was sworn testimony from Noack about a great number of illegal activities by the YMCA,
9)....a confession by the YMCA (in a court hearing) that they took documents from one of Noack's sites (which Noack would face penalties for if TX DFPS had found the documents to be missing) - (also interesting is that Mr. Noack, if found by State officials to be lacking those items, could have gotten into trouble for not meeting State requirements, and that could have given the YMCA an excuse for firing the man for not keeping his sites managed well enough, as per his job requirements),....
10) a disputed write-up done on Noack for ONE hour of legitimate overtime needed by him to keep YMCA & TX DFPS regulations (due to a State-required immediate investigation and report by him on a child's claim of at-home abuse),.....
11)sworn testimony about unpaid overtime (which the YMCA paid upon Noack's resignation, acknowledging it in their own internal investigation, asking if there were any others and stating there had been incorrect timekeeping practices, admitting to at least some measure of unlawful employer activity),
12) there was documented email evidence showing his supervisor had sent Mr. Noack a male-bashing, sexist joke,
13) and that documented evidence showed two new, female, part-time employees doing the same work with less experience were being paid far more than Mr. Noack (full-time, years of training & exp.),
13) ....and more (as other documented evidence shows in his case records).
Mr. Noack proved by Law in his "petition" document arguments (main page) that he had the quality of evidence needed for going to a jury trial - that the types of evidence he produced were literally deemed "sufficient" for forcing a trial in other cases. - The brazen judges simply ignored the Law & the Constitution!
All of that makes it impossible for me to believe there was anything other than gross illegal conduct in the courts! If our U.S. Congress is going to go after Roger Clemens over mere sports doping, then they sure need to look into this!
Considered in his "best light" with such "justifiable inferences", that itself creates a conflict in a material fact -- it legally derails any summary judgment against him! The courts plainly ignored the Law, broke faith, and violated their oaths of office. (Such willful misbehaviors probably constitute an impeachable offense for the judges). Now, there was much other evidence, too, including indisputable proof they lied to both the labor board and in court affidavit testimony. Adding that on top of all this shows the Summary Judgment was totally ILLEGAL, unlawful, etc.
Now, this will all get more interesting! Why? -- Because you will see more absolute proof of judicial wrongdoing (IMO).
Among the things mentioned in Noack's "petition" arguments (first page of this site), the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel stated the following (p.7 of their decision):
"Other documents, such as Egger's response to his allegations
affirming that the YMCA sought to have a diverse workforce, cannot support a
finding of discrimination. Such statements do not show discriminatory intent."
(-emphasis in red for this article, not in original)
WRONG-O!!
by Law, the intent WAS already shown -- Did the judges not recall the Law Mr. Noack cited to them?
Mr. Noack had cited Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada , where the same court had said,
“ … evidence of prior bad acts is admissible for other purposes,
including proof of intent, plan, motive, knowledge,
and absence of mistake or accident.
This rule is equally applicable to discrimination cases. ”
So, the intent was there via "prior bad acts", like physical assaults permitted, ridicule, proof of disparate pay, proof of a sudden smashing of his wages by almost $3/hr one summer while fulltime (without any wrong on his part, then pushed back up), a male-bashing email, a rant of "I hate men", lack of staffing support, prior reverse-discrimination in work duties, etc., plus Egger's own admission that the YMCA allegedly had a practice of making hiring decisions based on seeking diversity (which is illegal discrimination). Again, Mr. Noack was the non-movant in the motion for summary judgment, so by Law, “the nonmoving party’s evidence ‘is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [that party’s] favor.“’ Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 US. 541, 552, 119 S. Ct. 1545, 143 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1999) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255,XXXXX 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). You can also see some 5th Circuit Court info for another case in item "II. Standard of Review" at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1545106.html as well as citations of addition summary judgment law in Noack's Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the main page or in the pdfs shown at STILL Supremely Unjust - http://www.stillsupremelyunjust.yolasite.com.
Also, the parts in bright red (above) show the 3-judge panel acknowledged the female supervisor's stated reason did refer to her alleged orders and that her commands (whatever they were) were supposedly for the sake of diversity. The court didn't consider the YMCA had sites with all-female & all-white staff and that about half of kids are boys, but somehow Noack was regarded as a liar - not "in his best light" as summary judgment Law required - while the YMCA, though already proven to have repeatedly lied & been perjurous, was automatically considered truthful in the excuse given - again not in Noack's best light).
Plus, there are problems in the excuse given, legally, too. EEOC Law forbids steering based on race in multiple ways. See EEOC's "Example 5" and "Example 6" at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html. Additionally, another link (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm) shows that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under "UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, SEC. 2000e-2 (j) [Section 702]", states,
" ( j ) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance
"Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization,
or joint labor-management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group
because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which
may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted
to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training
program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community,
State, section, or other area. "
(- color-coding & bold letters done for emphasis)
Yes, Judges criminally-ignored the evidence and the Law!
They broke their oaths of office and should step down or be impeached.
Also, Mr. Noack's case should be placed back into the courts for a jury trial, as required by Law!
So, there was apparently a judicial "smoke & mirrors" campaign of injustice against Mr. Noack.
1) some kind of commands were evidently real & had been given - Noack (alone) indicated what they allegedly were.
2) the supervisor apparently confirmed them, as said, since she didn't dispute them but rather gave a reason for them.
The judges admitted the YMCA's alleged orders were intended to secure a diverse workplace. How? - Well, the YMCA said they intended to reflect the background of the local community. So there is no question here: it was illegal, and the judges ignored the facts & the Law. Otherwise, what would happen with the judges' & YMCA's ideals, here, if a poor racial minority soul can't find work close to home and seeks it elsewhere in a white-majority community? They'd be so out of luck!
The Judges Errors On "Intent"
NEWsFLASH! - With the EEOC, "intent" doesn't exclude guilt (-real intent or not). There are strict guidelines.
See the first sentences of an EEOC page for businesses, at http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm (under "Supreme Court Cases"). When there is unlawful discriminatory impact because of race or gender in a case where the action at question is neither "job-related" nor justified by "business necessity", the plaintiff is not required to prove motive (since 1991, when the Civil Rights Act of 1991 overturned the Wards Cove decision). Employer "justification" and intent (or lack of discriminatory intent) were no longer permitted as excuses for harmful actions. There was a period when the defendant's burden was reduced to simply producing evidence of "business justification", but that has not been so since 1991 -- 21 years ago, and courts know that. Discrimination is not okay simply because an employer says it was accidental! Also, Noack showed the YMCA had lied repeatedly - to the labor board & to the court, so they were already proven deceptive. Plus, his statement's show what he was experiencing back then, [while doing his FT job & the work of TWO unfilled PT positions (for one 40hr paycheck)].
The Law does say, however, that summary judgment is proper ONLY when the “movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact" and that all must be viewed in the non-movant's (Noack's) best light, etc., etc. (Again, for more on that, see http://research.lawyers.com/Summary-Judgment-Motion.html and various Fifth Circuit Court cases for "summary judgment Standard of Review" - like half-way down the page, here:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1545106.html.) That last link shows the judges REALLY screwed the Noack case, BAD! The evidence, here,..is a smidgeon of all that he gave!
Considering all of the above and the actual email-statements made, Noack was clearly wronged. A juror could easily believe that he gave an accurate recounting of what his supervisor had said; and, if so, that would show a violation of EEOC Law outright. Other evidence on record plus the fact the YMCA was proven to have lied repeatedly (and blatantly) in this case could also lead a juror to believe the employer was merely making up a lousy, fast excuse that was not real or true. If that could be reasonably possible, it must be regarded as so, at this phase, as the Law dictates that in order to prevent injustices.
The judges in district court, appealate court & the U.S. Supreme Court are sworn to uphold these Laws. They know these things as they are among some of the most common legal principles in the USA [although I agree with Mr. Noack that "summary judgment" should not be allowed to usurp the Constitution's guaranteed rights to citizens - such as for a trial by jury (in the 7th Amendment, part of our Bill of Rights)].
So we see judges very apparently made up excuses for a violation of the Law and that judges & courts refused to follow the Law - both EEOC Law & the Law regarding summary judgment! They knew, and they did contrary, anyway. Is that accidental? It would include several judges at the least. Really, is it accidental that several judges ignored the Law & put a self-litigating poor man out of court without a jury (cf. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/13/241)
while.....
1) evidence documents showed the employer blatantly lied in affidavit testimony to the court,
2) other documents showed the employer also had lied horribly in its testimony to the labor investigator,
3) labor logsheets show that, after the lying testimony, the EEOC closed the case without questioning any YMCA witesses,
4) and that the YMCA withheld evidence for several months past the federal 30-day deadline while using false documentation to indicate they had sent it (- all proven by USPS code, postmark, etc.),
plus, documents showing the YMCA....
5) withheld additional evidence disclosures that were court-ordered (w/out any penalty & no stated reason from the judge),
6) sent a lot of evidence on encrypted CD
7) ....while simultaneously filing for summary judgment,
8) there was sworn testimony from Noack about a great number of illegal activities by the YMCA,
9)....a confession by the YMCA (in a court hearing) that they took documents from one of Noack's sites (which Noack would face penalties for if TX DFPS had found the documents to be missing) - (also interesting is that Mr. Noack, if found by State officials to be lacking those items, could have gotten into trouble for not meeting State requirements, and that could have given the YMCA an excuse for firing the man for not keeping his sites managed well enough, as per his job requirements),....
10) a disputed write-up done on Noack for ONE hour of legitimate overtime needed by him to keep YMCA & TX DFPS regulations (due to a State-required immediate investigation and report by him on a child's claim of at-home abuse),.....
11)sworn testimony about unpaid overtime (which the YMCA paid upon Noack's resignation, acknowledging it in their own internal investigation, asking if there were any others and stating there had been incorrect timekeeping practices, admitting to at least some measure of unlawful employer activity),
12) there was documented email evidence showing his supervisor had sent Mr. Noack a male-bashing, sexist joke,
13) and that documented evidence showed two new, female, part-time employees doing the same work with less experience were being paid far more than Mr. Noack (full-time, years of training & exp.),
13) ....and more (as other documented evidence shows in his case records).
Mr. Noack proved by Law in his "petition" document arguments (main page) that he had the quality of evidence needed for going to a jury trial - that the types of evidence he produced were literally deemed "sufficient" for forcing a trial in other cases. - The brazen judges simply ignored the Law & the Constitution!
All of that makes it impossible for me to believe there was anything other than gross illegal conduct in the courts! If our U.S. Congress is going to go after Roger Clemens over mere sports doping, then they sure need to look into this!
