Pages

Viable Third Party Runs

There can be viable third party runs at the local, state, and federal levels. We need 300000 people giving 5 bucks a month to change the world. You can give here.

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

I know why Christopher Dorner picked up a gun #justice #civilrights

 As a black man who was watching the sometimes horrific, sometimes oddly funny (Really you're going to miss "Hangover 3" the most?...Charlie Sheen is your muse?) horror show that were the Christopher Dorner shootings I knew something that other people didn't know: I knew why a black man would pick up a gun as opposed to trying to pursue justice in the courts. I also knew some things about how a lot of disciplinary panels and bodies are rigged games. Not only won't you get justice but a lot of times they're working for your opponent.

For example, it turns out that Christopher Dorner probably could have won a half million dollar settlement in the real courts. The in house "judicial" process that caused him to go on a shooting spree was clearly a joke that nobody let him in on. I really think he would have won any case in front of a jury as a decorated war veteran and fairly decent public citizen. 

I'm involved now in a dispute with serial liar Peter Gidas of Gidas Flowers. The reason I call Peter Gidas a serial liar is that he didn't just lie about what was said or not said -- hard to prove or disprove quite frankly -- but he lied about something that I had written down by way of timed and verified emails whose authenticity hasn't been questioned. (Read the full thing here.) He did that about, rough estimate, at least six times to my count possibly eight if you account for the fact that Peter Gidas might understand subtlety.

I still lost round one. But here's something I know: The PHRC is not the place to go if you want someone to fight for you or if you want justice. In fact, my strategy with the several complaints I've filed  since the early 90s was to file appropriately at the EEOC and PHRC and then go for a right to sue letter because most times a decision won't be rendered by then and most times you're going to lose, especially if your investigator is a republican but more importantly the head of the agency is Republican. That's the current case and controversy behind this state's PHRC.  But it still has some utility as just general fact finding. I've discovered that Peter Gidas has a weak case that won't hold up under the stricter standards of evidence required by either the state or federal courts.  We'll see if my risk pays off within 2 to 4 years. I am not Chris Dorner. I am a patient man who can wait a thousand years for justice.

Here' the summary I wrote characterizing the problems I had with the PHRC's March 26th statement. You can read the full statement and rebuttal. Or: Allow me to Retort.



Summary: So to sum up we think we think we've presented a very compelling case to the reviewer. And if the PHRC no longer advocates on behalf of the victims of racial discrimination then we would ask that the EEOC perform a Substantial Weight Review of the PHRC's final finding.

Just to document the atrocities as it were: We believe that PHRC investigator Catherine Leete did not act impartially because she seemed to cover up the fact that Peter Gidas is in violation of state law regarding false statements and also seemed to ignore this violation by taking his side on almost every subjective issue where the credibility (or in this case incredulity) of the witness should have been taken into account. We not only believe but know that Catherine Leete hid evidence against me and used these statements to form her final determination. We believe that PHRC investigator Catherine Leete committed clear errors of fact or exaggerated the claims of Peter Gidas in order to bolster what is fundamentally a very weak case. Peter Gidas is in for a rude awakening once he's introduced to either the state or federal Rules of Evidence. We also believe that PHRC investigator entered "conclusionary" statements as evidence without any written objective documentation whatsoever. With argument B we argue that subjective evidence -- evidence that is claimed without proof or written documentation -- can't overcome the retaliation claim in the same way that it can't overcome a motion for summary judgment. A retaliatory termination that happened mere hours after a final email declaring that I would be filing a complaint with both the EEOC and the PHRC. With argument C we make the argument that pitting your one lone black employee with hand maps against white co workers with GPS apps violates just about every standard of "fair testing" put forth by both the EEOC and PHRC. We also believe that PHRC investigator Catherine Leete ignored all proofs of pretext including the one where serial liar Peter Gidas pretty much lied to her face about me not telling him about my concerns or my right to sue. We also believe that alleged impartial PHRC investigator Catherine Leete cherry picked the evidence to help respondents and then misinterpreted this evidence where she demonstrates that she doesn't even know the difference between subjective and objective evidence. So, you know, the "little things".

We respectfully ask that this case be assigned further review by the PHRC or that the EEOC begin its Substantial Weight Review.


No comments: