Sworn Labor Complaint
Wow, incredible info! You can use the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) for govt documents! Okay, some of this is blacked out to try to save some hassles for some people, but not sure they deserve it after reading it all.
HOW ON EARTH DID THIS GET TOSSED BY THE COURTS WITHOUT A JURY TRIAL?
- THAT LOOKS VERY ILLEGAL CONSIDERING THE INFO.! There seemed to be constant problems - assaults, blatant discrimination, etc. - all kinds of things that should not be happening, and no way should the sworn testimony below be ditched by a court while supported by other evidence and multiple "witnesses" (lol) for the YMCA's side were shown to have given rather dubious or perjurous affidavit testimony.
The YMCA also was shown to have lied to the labor investigator in pretending
1) that they were totally surprised by such allegations,
2) that it was the 1st they'd heard of such things, &...
3) that they'd never known of any problems involving Mr. Noack in all his years there up 'til they received the labor complaint.
Yet, that was proven by many documents to be a shameless lie! It would seem possibly 2 to 4 of the YMCA's witnesses - (about 4 total) - gave false info. in various ways as shown by the evidence (see also pp. 19-20 of the "Petition" docs.), and the HR rep (likely responsible for the YMCA's version given to the labor board) stated in her "internal investigation" that they'd been in contact with Noack & his superiors repeatedly about problems he'd experienced. Other documents show Noack in contact with superiors in prior years about other matters. I'd also imagine if someone slammed anyone's pay by about $3/hr for a summer, they'd have something to say about it (http://supremelyunjust.weebly.com/proven-pay-problems.html). Just sayin'. By the way, another site (http://stillsupremelyunjust.yolasite.com/lies-to-labor-agent.php) shows the YMCA absolutely LIED to Texas labor officials -- a state felony -- yet without a single arrest, so far! What's with that? Favoritism?
When Noack appealed his case in the 5th Circuit Court, one case cited as precedent was from the same 5th Circuit Court, concluded just prior to his own. Noack cited Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada, where it had been said (read it slowly),
“… 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, wouldn't evidence of assaults, male-bashing emails, disparate wages, etc. show motives of later things, too? See below that Noack gave sworn testimony to lots of bad acts against him that shows...(see above quote). By Law, in "summary judgment", the motion's non-movant (Mr. Noack, here) must get the benefit of the doubt, and all of his sworn statements & feasible conclusions must be regarded as fully true. That is so in order to protect the weak from being unduly & unjustly railroaded out of court. If you look at Noack's arguments section of the Petition document (1st page) of this blog, he proved his sworn testimony cannot be disregarded as if no valid evidence and he had much other documented evidence, too! (Yet, personal testimony is pretty much the only "evidence" the YMCA had).
People, this is apparently utter proof of judicial corruption, right here!!!
-- and the Courts covered for each other? Well, see http://supremelyunjust.weebly.com/email-evidence.html, for more real "body-damage" exposure of judicial dirt!! BTW, if there were no guilt, wouldn't a jury be able to perceive that, and why refuse to attend court-mandated mediation and then, instead, quickly & improperly railroad Mr. Noack out of court?
Also, the 5th Circuit Court ignored its own recent legal precedent, and the Supreme Court either didn't care or had so many cases they simply couldn't take them all. (The USSC gets about 1,000 requests per year, it seems -- far too many cases for them to do them all.) Mr. Noack was shrewdly, discreetly, illegally & unConstitutionally kept away from a jury. It seems the judges didn't want him to win and simply kicked him out!
( -- Of course, the affidavit testimony below is Mr. Noack's view, his sworn, notarized claims, and this page is simply reporting that public information. YOU decide what to believe.) Still, there seems no legal way this case could be dumped with this kind of testimony, as jurors (not judges) are the ones who legally get to decide the truthfuless of witnesses' testimony. Some funny news though, Lawless America (http://lawlessamerica.com/) seems to be interested in incorporating Mr. Noack's problems into a movie being made about judicial corruption in America. The poor man won't likely get anything from that, itself, but when it exposes the corruption in this case, that might somehow help Mr. Noack to finally gain some justice & get out of his tent (See pages 1 & 3 of this website).
Remember, the claims in these documents are the views of the person giving the statements.
There has been no trial. No jury was allowed to decide who was telling the truth.
Mr. Noack's allegations, here, are the only sworn, notarized testimony in the case, aside from his own deposition statements.
All YMCA witnesses said their testimony was witnessed by a notary, but none was. (So, they lied.) Yet, it was all allowed & preferred, though some additional statements of theirs were shown to be false, as well -- some exceedingly perjurous.
The testimony, below, is here to help show the plausibility of inappropriate court activity, as a public service for the cause of justice.
HOW ON EARTH DID THIS GET TOSSED BY THE COURTS WITHOUT A JURY TRIAL?
- THAT LOOKS VERY ILLEGAL CONSIDERING THE INFO.! There seemed to be constant problems - assaults, blatant discrimination, etc. - all kinds of things that should not be happening, and no way should the sworn testimony below be ditched by a court while supported by other evidence and multiple "witnesses" (lol) for the YMCA's side were shown to have given rather dubious or perjurous affidavit testimony.
The YMCA also was shown to have lied to the labor investigator in pretending
1) that they were totally surprised by such allegations,
2) that it was the 1st they'd heard of such things, &...
3) that they'd never known of any problems involving Mr. Noack in all his years there up 'til they received the labor complaint.
Yet, that was proven by many documents to be a shameless lie! It would seem possibly 2 to 4 of the YMCA's witnesses - (about 4 total) - gave false info. in various ways as shown by the evidence (see also pp. 19-20 of the "Petition" docs.), and the HR rep (likely responsible for the YMCA's version given to the labor board) stated in her "internal investigation" that they'd been in contact with Noack & his superiors repeatedly about problems he'd experienced. Other documents show Noack in contact with superiors in prior years about other matters. I'd also imagine if someone slammed anyone's pay by about $3/hr for a summer, they'd have something to say about it (http://supremelyunjust.weebly.com/proven-pay-problems.html). Just sayin'. By the way, another site (http://stillsupremelyunjust.yolasite.com/lies-to-labor-agent.php) shows the YMCA absolutely LIED to Texas labor officials -- a state felony -- yet without a single arrest, so far! What's with that? Favoritism?
When Noack appealed his case in the 5th Circuit Court, one case cited as precedent was from the same 5th Circuit Court, concluded just prior to his own. Noack cited Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada, where it had been said (read it slowly),
“… 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, wouldn't evidence of assaults, male-bashing emails, disparate wages, etc. show motives of later things, too? See below that Noack gave sworn testimony to lots of bad acts against him that shows...(see above quote). By Law, in "summary judgment", the motion's non-movant (Mr. Noack, here) must get the benefit of the doubt, and all of his sworn statements & feasible conclusions must be regarded as fully true. That is so in order to protect the weak from being unduly & unjustly railroaded out of court. If you look at Noack's arguments section of the Petition document (1st page) of this blog, he proved his sworn testimony cannot be disregarded as if no valid evidence and he had much other documented evidence, too! (Yet, personal testimony is pretty much the only "evidence" the YMCA had).
People, this is apparently utter proof of judicial corruption, right here!!!
-- and the Courts covered for each other? Well, see http://supremelyunjust.weebly.com/email-evidence.html, for more real "body-damage" exposure of judicial dirt!! BTW, if there were no guilt, wouldn't a jury be able to perceive that, and why refuse to attend court-mandated mediation and then, instead, quickly & improperly railroad Mr. Noack out of court?
Also, the 5th Circuit Court ignored its own recent legal precedent, and the Supreme Court either didn't care or had so many cases they simply couldn't take them all. (The USSC gets about 1,000 requests per year, it seems -- far too many cases for them to do them all.) Mr. Noack was shrewdly, discreetly, illegally & unConstitutionally kept away from a jury. It seems the judges didn't want him to win and simply kicked him out!
( -- Of course, the affidavit testimony below is Mr. Noack's view, his sworn, notarized claims, and this page is simply reporting that public information. YOU decide what to believe.) Still, there seems no legal way this case could be dumped with this kind of testimony, as jurors (not judges) are the ones who legally get to decide the truthfuless of witnesses' testimony. Some funny news though, Lawless America (http://lawlessamerica.com/) seems to be interested in incorporating Mr. Noack's problems into a movie being made about judicial corruption in America. The poor man won't likely get anything from that, itself, but when it exposes the corruption in this case, that might somehow help Mr. Noack to finally gain some justice & get out of his tent (See pages 1 & 3 of this website).
Remember, the claims in these documents are the views of the person giving the statements.
There has been no trial. No jury was allowed to decide who was telling the truth.
Mr. Noack's allegations, here, are the only sworn, notarized testimony in the case, aside from his own deposition statements.
All YMCA witnesses said their testimony was witnessed by a notary, but none was. (So, they lied.) Yet, it was all allowed & preferred, though some additional statements of theirs were shown to be false, as well -- some exceedingly perjurous.
The testimony, below, is here to help show the plausibility of inappropriate court activity, as a public service for the cause of justice.
