Sunday, February 19, 2017

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. vs. Harford Glass Co.

I previously blogged about an employer who lied to the Maine Department of Labor, telling them that I had quit. I didn't quit, and I continue to try to get the Maine Department of Labor to reverse the decision denying me unemployment benefits.

The Unemployment Commission on January 31, 2017, affirmed the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings, which had affirmed the decision of the Bureau of Labor...or whatever. They're all birds of a feather, and they flock together. By now I know the chances of getting justice if you are just an average Joe are pretty slim, I've asked for a reconsideration anyway.

I have 6 months from the date of the alleged violations of employment law, to file a complaint with the EEOC. That deadline will come around the end of March. But anyway, there is no deadline to get a decision reversed when someone commits fraud. Here's a Wikipedia article about the Supreme Court case that affirmed that.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Look a likes - Gorsuch and Stewart II

I don't know if I can handle Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court of the United States. He looks too much like Judge Hal Stewart II.
Neil Gorsuch










Judge Hal Stewart II

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Lawyers reprimanded

Under both state and federal laws, an employee who notifies an employer of illegal policies and practices in the workplace, and who is fired for doing so, is protected by what are called Whistleblower statutes.

The Maine Human Rights Commission took two years to investigate, then dismissed my complaint against Ken and Deb Martin, so I filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of Aroostook County in December of 2013. My case was being presided over by Judge Hunter for the most part. Yes, he's the judge who imprisoned me. Read about it in the last paragraph of a former post of mine.

Though the Committee for Judicial Responsibility and Disability dismissed my complaint against Hunter, it later reprimanded an attorney for doing what Hunter had done: attempt to get a signature, or assist and allow the prosecutor to, at a time when Pete (my husband) was without an attorney. I was away from home doing seasonal work at Wyman's of Maine in Cherryfield when I first read the story on my break in the factory's cafeteria. The Ellsworth American story is titled "Two area lawyers reprimanded". While I've provided a link to the newspaper's website, I can't find the story online. I did save the newspaper clipping, so I'll quote from it:
In a second order also issued July 20, Ellsworth attorney Steven A. Juskewitch was similarly sanctioned for his "repetitive improper conduct and inappropriate action" for communicating with a woman who was not his client, and who had no lawyer, in an effort to obtain her signature "on documents that would ultimately benefit his client..."
In that story, it's also mentioned that former Hancock County Assistant District Attorney William B. Entwisle of Sedgwick was sanctioned for actions "arising from his failure to turn over discovery materials to the defendants or their lawyers in two separate criminal cases he was prosecuting."

Anyuhow, after the Superior Court dismissed my claim against the Martin's, I appealed to Supreme Court of Maine, which upheld Judge Stewart's dismissal of my complaint. The decision was signed by none other than Justice Ellen Gorman. She's the judge who ruled summarily against us in a lawsuit several years ago in which my son had broken his arm, and been misdiagnosed as having a dislocation. That treatment displaced the fracture...requiring surgery. I blogged about this, in 2007. On my homepage, type in "Gorman" in the search bar at the top left corner of the screen and you'll bring it up...along with other unjust decisions she's made.




Hungry for Justice - Panel finds no bias in MHRC?

Here's a link to a post I made in October of 2011 after being fired from my waitressing job at the Long Lake Sporting Club.

So, I filed a complaint with The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) regarding the Martin's. Soon, the MHRC gagged me. That is, they made me sign a statement agreeing not to discuss (or write about) the case while they performed their so-called preliminary investigation. Sounds to me like a violation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech...by a Commission that's supposed to protect human rights? 

Regardless, I refrained from blogging about what the owners of this small town, family-owned restaurant in Sinclair Maine had done. It took two years for the MHRC to complete it's investigation; and they found there was NRG - that is No Reasonable Grounds to believe that discrimination occurred. 

Last fall the governor ordered an investigation of the Commission, worried that the Commission was biased against employers! And guess what? Well, read about it here. The story's title, LePage’s probe of human rights panel finds no bias against businesses, leaves no doubt in ones mind of what the outcome was. Any reasonable person would have found that the Commission is biased... against employees! How else can you explain this, from the story? 
The report found that in 2014, only 5 percent of the cases filed with the commission resulted in the commission finding reasonable grounds that there was a violation.
You can see for yourself from the pdf's of the meeting minutes at the Commission's website. The MHRC didn't take Michael Aftkin's case, and he ended up winning a lawsuit against his employer. 

Or you can believe the MHRC. They posted about the findings of the investigation at their website, under news or archives, titled "News flash: MHRC is not biased!" And can you guess what they feel is needed in order to advance the MHRC's good work? You'll find the answers at the law firm PretiFlaherty's website in a post titled "Governor's Panel supports Maine Human Rights Commission" at 13. Increase the MHRC’s budget.