This is an unprofessional Collection cite. That wishes for Speech and Debate with Regards to the topics collected and Special Libraried. I wish for defense of Fair Use Doctrine, not for profit, educational collection.

"The new order was tailored to a genius who proposed to constrain the contending forces, both domestic and foreign, by manipulating their antagonisms" "As a professor, I tended to think of history as run by impersonal forces. But when you see it in practice, you see the difference personalities make." Therefore, "Whenever peace-concieved as the avoidance of war-has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member" Henry Kissinger
The World market crashed. There was complete blame from the worlds most ruthless power on the world's most protective and meditational power. So I responded with: "We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism [The Communist Chinese Party's (CCP) Economic Espionage Units called the MSS] are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. ... The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous she or he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst" Therefore, like Dr. John Nash would probable think: This is because of our lost state craft of tracing scientific coding in the intelligence community of the algorithmic code of the Communist espionage agents. As "The Communist [CCP's economic espionage units called the MSS] threat from without must not blind us to the Communist [CCP's economic espionage units called the MSS] threat from within. The latter is reaching into the very heart of America through its espionage agents and a cunning, defiant, and lawless communist party, which is fanatically dedicated to the Marxist cause of world enslavement and destruction of the foundations of our Democracy/Republic." J. Edgar Hoover. Which allows the Communist to shape the future and powers that be. As "Our citizens and our future citizens cannot share properly in shaping the future unless we understand the present, for the raw material of events to come is the knowledge of the present and what we make it"
Lieutenant General Leslie R. Groves



http://rideriantieconomicwarfare.blogspot.com/

http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisii.blogspot.com/

http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisiii.blogspot.com/

http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisiv.blogspot.com/


If you have any problem with IP or copyright laws that you feel are in violation of the research clause that allows me to cite them as per clicking on them. Then please email me at ridereye@gmail.com
US Copy Right Office Fair Use doctrine. Special Libary community common law, and Speech and Debate Congressional research civilian assistant. All legal defenses to copy right infringement.

Wruckers room

A Country a People a Culture Stays great cause it does not allow itself to be attacked or oppressed. The USA is currently run by a grid of losers to the Communist Chinese oppression. Racist Latin's leaders more worried about allowing Mexico to invade our grids to take over. African Racist Progressive more worried about taken over US European heritage muscle influence and base closures. European American's more worried about the Communist Chinese Proxy Warriors instead of the root of the matter like we did during the Cold War against the Russian Puppetted state of China's Bolshevist proxy warriors. A grid of losers and not one can figure out a simple plan to get us out of deficit to compete against the Communist State Owned Enterprise's. A country and culture does not stay great cause of some kind of ideological perspective that their theory will win. Even if they are massively being destroyed by a foreign state. Free Trade does not work in a neo-mercantilism world. The US alone has lost 3,000 Export Business over the last 18 years. Accumulative to 55,000 just to the Communist State Owned Enterprises of a mono fascist party state. This then would have been around currently with our civil needs, we would be in $34 trillion dollars of surplus if we would have fought the Communist like we did during the Cold War. As during the cold war we where spending around 15 trillion a year just on space race. These days thanks to oppressed weak leaders we are cutting everything and running scared from grid speech and grid maneuvers.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Letter for settlement for bad interview.

I am not an attorney
Dear such and such

During my interviews with first and second I told both of them i was political active. Neither of them asked what political party I was in. As it is illegal as per employment law in an interview to ask political affiliation. As it will draw out conflicting political ideas that have nothing to do with work or employment. However, manager in his interview. When I was asked a little about me, I said the same thing I always say. Which is who I am I am very political. However, they are not supposed to ask and when manager asked I was very scared and felt like I would discriminated against and asked if it would matter. He said no. However, today when I went in to find out why i was not hired he did not say it was because I did not meet the work quality or abilities. It was because i was not a good fit. This is the case law for Republican Prop 32 Supreme Court issues with employment discrimination and political issues. Also please see the below cited law on my filing of my EEOC claim.

If manager wishes to keep his record clean I am more than willing to settle outside of the corporate structure with a legal written document that I will not bring suit.
Or else I am going to scar his record in his career for scaring me when he asked the illegal question.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Above letter has not yet been responded too. Thus I move for next step in war.

Two violations

"He asked me my political affiliation Then he asked me my feelings on the Presidential Campaign. Then I was told that i was not hired as I did not fit in. The reason was nothing to do with my skills. My claim"

For me it is no big deal. I am very educated and worked cases against military employment, nuclear science, city employment mass clients, and whole countries with strategies. So this is easy, also I had many personal EEOC settlements to teach managers lessons on law and proper etiquette. So tomorrow I begin attack this man. As I heard his hiring practices could be based around his parting practices of possible relations to drugs and narcotics as he hires illegal immigrants. In a place that hangs my Great Uncle Westmorelands picture in a Jeep as a US General.

In all reality it makes my legal resume look great, one expunged, one repealed, couple EEOC battles, and then a possible battle for cognitional political fight if the current under my case review firm does not settle in courts. For Prop 32 cognition.

It was a perfect job, the guys where really cool, really liked me, nice environment great perks, 2 minutes on motorcycle from my house about 10 minutes on bus. So perfect. Then this bungwhole who probable has never read FLSA management laws in his life violates my employment rights as a Republican man.

"Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII."

Case falls under religious affiliation laws.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

"Religion based illegal interview questions in US arise, when an employer makes religion oriented queries not related to the concerned job profile."

http://www.lexuniverse.com/employment-laws/us/Religion-Based-Illegal-Interview-Questions-in-US.html

going to ask for $15,000 as the case alone to open will cause the staff on hand to take up around that amount for a month worth of research and time. Not to mention the length of any employment case is worth at least $150,000 a case. So then I will settle for $10,000. Now I just need to crack my FLSA management books on political questioning in the interview and its illegal nature to create biased discrimination in the mind of the manager for the hiring practice.

Let me work up my document so the attorney does not think I am a dip poo and low ball me as if I do not know it is free to file cases in the court for unemployed and plus it just makes my law school and paralegal resume look better if I have cases of my own battled by me. Like the repealed congressional law, the expunged record and the two cases I helped my friends out with EEOC managers, one a sex battery employment case, the other a same thing that I am going through.

I think I might just go buy a book on religious discrimination in the work place. As the EEOC and California and Supreme Court define politics as religion. I think it is worth the loan. I would like to see full detail on this. Maybe push it $20 if the case law is strong on it. As I ran cases with thousands of clients. Working on case of my own is nothing. I can take this trail and crucify the business and then place it on news per my grid work and intel friends in conservative media. I will look for the supreme court case too that I remeber having the exact words of you just do not fit in it.

I still have my litigation by numbers book. I just used that thing by the book to run cases. Plus I have my calendering key too so I do not get sanctions for missing responses. I think I will shoot higher. The entity is a corporate major national firm. They do not want my poor european face in the news with the current massive issue of jobs and economy.

lets call my candy store the law book store see if they have any sweets for me on my cognitional appetite to chop heads.

I can feel the quickening now when that check walks in the door of the mediation room or they say we will fight it. yaaaaa, roll the heads

This one is a good cite "EEOC has defined the act to include intentional discrimination bust also acts that have discriminatory impact" pg 435 law of business 9th edition Barnes Dworkin and Richards

I also have a professional professor working up a nice piece for me too. that should be good tonight or tomorrow I should receive it out of his memory banks for free. As he loves to see folks get their heads ripped off by poor folks like me especially folks that really help the community with their volunteer work like I did with regards to military and economic warfare.

"Court rulings and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") guidelines
prohibit the use of all pre-employment inquiries that disproportionately screen out
members of minority groups or members of one sex and are not valid predictors of
successful job performance or which cannot be justified by "business necessity." See
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)"
http://www.pacificu.edu/offices/hr/training/interview/pdfs/LegalOrIllegalInterviewQuestions.pdf


http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/publications/dfeh-161.pdf

oh I can't stand this I must go to the library and see the manual on religious (political under defined terms) premployment discrimination due to asking question. I must it is a quest, I must open the book of power and tool to cut heads.

There is a nice nut shell I love nut shells.

This is almost better than thinking I am seeing Meghan McCain yesss oh yesss off I go again to the public alaw library to look through mounds of books on good stuff for my claim.


https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=4-129+Labor+and+Employment+Law+129.syn&srctype=smi&srcid=38D7&key=530215c1e6e64bf2d471dcc3d2a690d0

I need to buy this article. above stated I am really upset I did not get the job and even more so I seriously feel like I was discriminated on by the illegal political questions. However, if I win this case I can get back into school with the money so that is great too. So I need to work hard on it and find the experts and treatise to make sure I can win if I need to take it to court.

"we must vigilantly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, military service, or any other non-merit based factor."

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/internal/eeo_policy_statement.cfm

how to file in case I forgot
http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-fed.cfm

I need to find the state one too. I will go state first
http://www.workplacefairness.org/file_CA?agree=yes
go to local one

ok I think I have a solid case. I worked tends of thousands of clients cases in my last firm. I know when there is a good case based on claim when I find enough to write a demand letter. Through the EEOC for mediation. As I will seek justice through the courts and pray for proper management training and laws implement through court order if settlement is not reached.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/agencies_CA#1

ok everything is online.


-Griggs v Duke Power co (1971) 401 US 424, 28 L Ed 2d 158, 91 S. Ct. 849
Business necessity test burden shifts to employer to show standard of question being job related.
-Concept is that it is more than merely convenient but something less than absolutely necessary for survival of the enterprise Albernarle Paper Co. V Moody (1975) 422 US 405, 45 L Ed 2d 280
-Concept of business necessity and bona fide occupational qualification are closed related and my overlap Gunther v Iowa State Men’s Reformatory 8th Cir. 1980 612 Fd 1079
-Government Code Section Section 12900-12996 Cal Fair Employment and Housing Act
-Standard
1. Disparate impact against business
2. If elimination of question had bad impact on the business
Hardy v Stumpf (1978) 21 C3d 1, 145 CR 176
- Plaintiff cannot refute business necessity just without advantage an altern selection method that would have compared business utility with a less adverse impact Calds v County of Los Angeles (9th Cir 1985) 770 F2d 1421
-Outrageious legal word eregiounsnes of the employers conduct
- Confidentiality of the employer
“gut reaction of act”
Fact patterns
Religion or Creed
-Disparate treatment intent discrimination because of membership in prohibited class
McDonell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct 1817

-Preponderance of evidence
Transword Airlines, Inc. v Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 105 S. Ct. 613
-Discriminate test, prima facia case under disparate treatment id cited Mcdonell Douglas Corp case
1. The Plaintiff is member of protected class
2. applied for job was available for and qualified for
3. despite qualifications was rejected
4 employer continued to seek applications “went other way”
-  Saint Mary’s Honor Center v Hicks 509 U.S. 502, 113 S. Ct. 2742
“The Plaintiff must still carry his or her ultimate burden of persuasion that the employers real reason wsa discriminatory”
Jeff admitted to the end reason was I did not fit in. Thus the Political questions where to fit his end reason of fitting in and not for the proper reason of skill level.
-id cited “where plaintiff can establish a prima facia case of discrimination, a triable issue of fact always remains whether the employers proffered reason for termination was the real reason for termination or whether the termination decision was infected with discrimination intent”
-The FEHC “test for determining whether a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that an adverse employment decision was caused at least in part by a discriminatory motive” DFEH v Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc. (1987) FEHC Dec. No 87-18
-Proof of discriminatory intent in a disparate treatment action may be directly circumstantial, or inferred from statistical evidence. Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec 2000e to 200e-17; Mary v University of Southern California, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1021
-Substantial negative reliance on an illegitimate criterion
- Concept of unintentional discriminative is illogical – Discriminatory impact, not need attempt , is required to challge Title VII claims Boyd v Ozark Air lines, Inc. 419 F. Supp. 1061, 13 Fair Emple Pract Cus. (BNA) 529
-Even though the disparate impact theory concern’s employment practices that exclude entire groups of people, individual Plaintiff may bring complaints under the theory. In such circumstances the plaintiff is simply claiming that he or she was particularly impacted by an employer practice which has an adverse impact on the group or groups to which the plaintiff belongs. Connecticut v Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 102 S. Ct. 2525
-Use statements of Republicans take up majority of welfare statistics
- Injunctive relief order is what I will be seeking if they do not settle to stop trail. That will force a court order for the firm to change its management practices and properly educated their managers.
- Religion or creed
1. You  cannot be asked if you have a religion or creed. Government Code Section 17704, 12940
2. You cannot be asked your Religious group creed Gov Code Sec 19704, 12940
3. You cant be asked about religious or creed days you observe Government Code Section 19704, 12940
www.fehc.ca.gov./act/decision.asp



The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. 
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html


From what I have read it is a very arguable triable offense in the court systems as differences of opinions on political discrimination allowed or not allowed. Thus that is what I am planning on the fact I can take it to court and have it heard before the people. Is all I want as that is the settlement push.


Education Code section 45293 provides that no question may be asked of a candidate for a classified services position of any public school system regarding his or her political or religious opinions or affiliations, race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or marital status, nor may any candidate be discriminated against on any of these bases.
http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch2

Government Code section 19703 prohibits the asking of any questions relating to political or religious affiliations of any state employee or employment candidate.
http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch2

Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from adopting or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing employers from participating in politics or controlling the political activities or affiliations of employees.
http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch2

government code defines Religions as Political in california
Executive Order No. B-54-79 (1979). In addition, "[w]ithin 30 days after receipt of notice of termination of a career executive assignment, the affected employee may appeal to the State Personnel Board upon the grounds that the termination was effected for reasons of age, sex, sexual preference as prohibited by Governor's Executive Order B-54-79 (4/4/79), marital status, race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability as defined in Government Code section 19231(a)(1), religion, or religious opinions and affiliations, political affiliation, or political opinions. After hearing the appeal, the board may affirm the action of the appointing power, or restore the affected employee to the career executive assignment." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 548.13.)
Race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer and genetic characteristics), genetic information, marital status (including domestic partnershiop), sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions), age (40+), sexual orientation, gender (including gender-identity or the perception that the person has any of these characteristics); denial of family and medical care leave; alcohol and drug abuse, political affiliation.
CAL.GOV'T CODE §§ 12926, 12940, 12949; CAL.LAB.CODE §§ 1025, 1101 et seq.

There are many other laws dealing with employment that also follow the suit. 

Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) prohibits discrimination against applicants, employees and participants in WIA Title I-financially assisted programs and activities, and programs that are part of the One-Stop system, on the ground of age. In addition, WIA prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, political affiliation or belief, and for beneficiaries only, citizenship or participation in a WIA Title I-financially assisted program or activity. Section 188 of WIA is enforced by the
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/agedisc.htm#.UMVVR-TAfKg

 California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from preventing or punishing an employee’s political activity.


Race, religious creed, color, national
origin, ancestry, physical disability
(including HIV and AIDS), mental
disability, medical condition (cancer
and genetic characteristics), marital
status (including domestic
partnershiop), sex (including
pregnancy, childbirth or related
medical conditions), age (40+),
sexual orientation, gender (including
gender-identity or the perception that
the person has any of these
characteristics); denial of family and
medical care leave; alcohol and drug
abuse, political affiliation.
CAL.GOV’T CODE §§ 12926, 12940,
12949; CAL.LAB.CODE §§ 1025,
1101 et seq.


California Supreme Court has read its statute as covering discrimination in hiring, even though the statutory text refers just to actions with regard to “employee

Gay Law Students Ass’n v. Pac. Tel.  & Tel. Co., 595 P.2d 592, 610 n.16 (Cal. 
1979).
http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v16n2/Volokh.pdf


Jury Splits on Political Discrimination Case against Iowa

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/employment_discrimination/

According to the Department of California Social Services:
The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as California Government Code sections 19700 through 19706, prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political beliefs, disability, marital status, ancestry, sexual orientation, age and retaliation. If you feel you have been discriminated against, you have the right to file a complaint directly with CDSS Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office.
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/CDSSWEB/PG121.htm
Examples of areas it is illegal to ask you about as an applicant/candidate include:
·         Political Beliefs
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/CDSSWEB/PG121.htm

The California State Discrimination Complaint has a place for political Affilation
http://www.dre.ca.gov/files/pdf/forms/re154.pdf

In case he lies there was a man with a bald head and white hair that day that heard him and also the other two that let me through and did not violate any manager interview laws also know about it.

I do not really worry about that as my Three Uncles in the DOD's as Generals base off my word the deaths of human beings. And if I say this guy is lying they will find something on him legally to gain me my justice.


http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/eeocomm/mw/Papers/2009/data/papers/19.pdf 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)