- Posted April 3, 2012 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Does racism still exist, and where does it start?
- Pres Obama's SOTU: Issue Call to Action to Unemployed and Uninsured Denied Coverage by GOP
- President Obama Admit it: State of the Union is Weak Because of Racism and Political Retaliation
- Uncontrollable Joy at OBAMACARE Event in Houston, TX
- Extreme RacismTrayvon Martin Murder and Trial
- Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi Supporters Rally in Houston
RACISM: Eliot Spitzer’s Perjured Declaration Denied Me JUSTICE
The New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed seven perjured declarations in federal court to support his summary judgment motion. Mike Russo, New York State Assistant Attorney General, G. Goncalves, Diversity Management, Superintendent A. Andrews, Sergeant William Reed, James Berbary, Deputy Superintendent of Administration, Mary Beth Lindsay, Senior Personnel Clerk and Lee Gould, Director of Personnel signed the sworn perjured declarations. The declarations were filed to prevent a jury from ruling that the Defendants violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended.
In 2002 I filed a Writ of Certiorari and nine Appendixes (exhibits) with the Supreme Court. Although I filed the case without an attorney I was confident that that my case would be reviewed and remanded back to the district court of Western New York. My confidence was based on my religious faith and my research of previous ruling by the Court.
I appealed the Second Circuit affirmation of the Western District Court of New York summary judgment order for Respondents - New York State Departments of Correctional and Civil Services. Jurisdiction is proper in the United States Supreme Court because a court of appeals (The Second Circuit) has departed from accepted judicial ruling on retaliation in Title VII cases.
In my Writ I wrote in part: “This case is not a private litigation but is a process in which the public has substantial interest, bearing in mind the policy established by Congress that unlawful
Employment practices so threaten the fabric of our society that their effects are inherently irreversible. As was said in United States v Hayes International Corporation, 5 Cir. 415 F.2d 1038, 1045, where an “employee is discriminatory denied a chance to fill a position for which he is qualified and has the seniority to obtain it, he suffers irreparable injury as does the labor force of the country as a whole.
The United States Supreme Court precedent summary judgment rulings in the following cases: Anderson v Libby Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) and Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc 530 U.S. 133 (2000) were not followed by the lower courts. Anderson v Libby Lobby, Inc. states “moreover and in an action that turns on the intent of a party – as Title VII actions do – and wherein a plaintiff proceeds without the assistance of counsel, this Court must be especially mindful of its duty to believe all evidence submitted by the non moving and to draw “all justifiable inferences in her favor” Anderson, at 255. “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence and the drawings of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Anderson v Libby Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986.) Sgt. Reed, Berbary, Goncalves, Andrews, Mary Beth Lindsay, Lee Gould, and Mike Russo’s credibility were clearly an issue in this case.
The Court in Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc 530 U.S. 133 (2000) stated prima facie case combined with sufficient evidence to disbelieve employer’s explanation always creates jury issue of whether employer intentionally discriminated); Combs v Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (CA11 1997) (same), cert. denied.
Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg in her concurring opinion in Reeves, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) stated “The Court holds that an employment discrimination plaintiff may survive a summary judgment motion as a matter of law by submitting two categories of evidence: first, evidence establishing a “prima facie case” as that term is used in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green 411 U.S. 792, 802, (1973); and second, evidence from which a rational fact finder could conclude that the employer’ proffered explanation for its actions was false.”
Reeves 530 U.S.133 (2000) stated prima facie case combined with sufficient evidence to disbelieve employer’s explanation always creates jury issue of whether employer intentionally discriminated.