Misrepresentation and Dispute in Human Rights The Judgment of the Federal Court is Unfair



<div _ngcontent-c17 = "" insidehtml = "

One problem with federal courts is that they are too expensive and too hard for the average American to follow.

At the same time, they are the United States' governing body for resolving human rights complaints. When the average American, most of them unable to hire a lawyer, has no choice but to change.

This situation creates predictable problems that have been described in more detail recently decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the September semester based in Chicago.

Three judges 7th The circuit board alleges that Edith McCurry, a United States citizen, filed a long and "grievous" complaint about discrimination, race, disability and discrimination against his former employer, Service Services. Kenco Logistics, which manages the Illinois warehouse management services owned by McCurry, a former employee of the factory's human resources department, also argued that Kenco and Mars conspired to violate its civil rights. .

Kenco filed a motion to dismiss McCurry's complaint because McCurry failed to comply with the federal court's Rule 7.1 (D) requirement requiring her to respond to "everything" and the "facts" set forth in the motion. Kenco. U.S. Judge Colin S. Bruce interpreted the entire Kenco facts as admitted by McCurry. Then he dropped her case.

The Appeal Record is a Message

McCurry trusted counsel to file an appeal to Circuit 7, Jordan T. Hoffman, who appears to be a specialist in tax law. & nbsp;

On the 7thth The circuit board upheld the dismissal of McCurry's case, which was termed Hoffman's long-term appeal "unreasonable" because it did not prevent Judge Bruce from enforcing Rule 7.1 (D). As a result, the panel said the appellant's appeal had no evidence to support its claim. In addition, the committee called Hoffman's length "obscene" and instructed him to "show why they should not be punished or otherwise disciplined."

Inside oral arguments, a member of the court's appeals board almost immediately suspended Hoffman and asked: & nbsp; "Do you agree that Ms. McCurry has not complied with local laws in response to the summary judgment?"

Hoffman said McCurry was "technically trying to deal with & lsqb; rule & rsqb; but she could not. & Nbsp; However, he said, Judge Bruce should "respect" the evidence and evidence in the case, including evidence from McCurry and her boss.

Never Post Positions

The judge then expressed their belief that McCurry complained about being a victim of racial discrimination when she was not promoted to the human resources department manager even though she never applied for the job.

Hoffman replied that the job was never posted, in violation of Kenco's policy, so McCurry didn't get a chance to claim the position.

"In addition," he said, McCurry "has 15 years of experience in handling HR tasks related to benefits, discipline, dismissal, and leave of absence …" Hoffman argues that Kenco hired by a 17-year-old white woman McCurry who had only two years of limited experience with no special HR degrees.

Kenco is represented by a professional consultant, Julia & nbsp; P. Argentieri, affiliated with Jackson Lewis, a national law firm with an office in Chicago. Argentieri said it was not in violation of Kenco's policy to recruit candidates without posting them. That, of course, to raise the question of whether Kenco's failure to have such a policy is evidence of discrimination.

Rule 7.1 (D)

It is not surprising that a former clergyman failed to comply with the apparent local law adopted by the U.S. District Court. to incorporate the national laws of the Civil Code.

The record, Rule 7.1 (D) (1) (a) – (c) requires the plaintiff to respond to a summary court motion to "clarify, in various subdivisions: (1) unreliable facts; (2) the content of the disputed material, (3) the facts of the dispute; (4) the necessary and necessary facts; and (5) any additional facts of fact. ”

There must be a court system that works properly but Rule 7.1 (D) is not easy to understand and may not even be considered by former priest staff:

  • The law states that solicitors are voluntary, most of them have not graduated from law school and / or have not acted on the 7th appeal.th Circuit, they are aware of the law.
  • Even if there are rules to be aware of local, is unlikely to have an attorney represent themselves and know that there is a special law that describes looga response to the motion of the defendant.
  • Volunteers may not understand what constitutes "something" and in fact "informal". This is a strong legal term. Basically it refers to a fact that will change the outcome of the case.
  • It's unclear & nbsp; it means Rule 7.1 means when it tells prosecutors to "know, separate subdivisions" of material and informal facts. This is the phrase apparently requiring the plaintiff to deny or admit any fact, separately. Why didn't they say that?

McCurry's charges can be objectionable, difficult to understand and, to some extent, incomprehensible, but so are court rules.

The federal court system costs nearly $ 8 billion in taxpayers a year. Shouldn't some of these billions be dedicated to improving the system by making it more accessible and affordable to people who pay their bills?

The panelists were Diane S. Sykes, who wrote the vision, and Michael Y. Scudder, Jr., and Amy J. St. Eve. The lawsuit is Logistics Services Inc. McCurry v. Kenco, LLC., Et al, No. 18-3206 (November 7, 2019). Section 7 serves Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin

">

One problem with federal courts is that they are too expensive and too hard for the average American to follow.

At the same time, they are the United States' governing body for resolving human rights complaints. When the average American, most of them unable to hire a lawyer, has no choice but to change.

This situation creates predictable problems that are outlined in the diagram of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.

Three judges 7th The circuit board alleges that Edith McCurry, a United States citizen, filed a long and "grievous" complaint about discrimination, race, disability and discrimination against his former employer, Service Services. Kenco Logistics, which manages the Illinois warehouse management services owned by McCurry, a former employee of the factory's human resources department, also argued that Kenco and Mars conspired to violate its civil rights.

Kenco filed a motion to dismiss McCurry's complaint because McCurry failed to comply with the federal court's Rule 7.1 (D) requirement requiring her to respond to "everything" and the "facts" set forth in the motion. Kenco. U.S. Judge Colin S. Bruce interpreted the entire Kenco facts as admitted by McCurry. Then he dropped her case.

The Appeal Record is a Message

McCurry trusted counsel to file an appeal to Circuit 7, Jordan T. Hoffman, who appears to be a specialist in tax law.

On the 7thth The circuit board upheld the dismissal of McCurry's case, which was termed Hoffman's long-term appeal "unreasonable" because it did not prevent Judge Bruce from enforcing Rule 7.1 (D). As a result, the panel said the appellant's appeal had no evidence to support its claim. In addition, the committee called Hoffman's length "obscene" and instructed him to "show why they should not be punished or otherwise disciplined."

In an oral argument, a member of the court's appeals committee almost immediately suspended Hoffman and asked: "Do you agree that Ms. McCurry has not complied with local laws in response to the summary judgment?"

Hoffman said McCurry "technically tried to do something about it [the rule] but she could not. ”However, he said, Judge Bruce should“ respect ”the evidence and evidence in the case, including evidence from McCurry and her boss.

Never Post Positions

The judge then expressed their belief that McCurry complained about being a victim of racial discrimination when she was not promoted to the human resources department manager even though she never applied for the job.

Hoffman replied that the job was never posted, in violation of Kenco's policy, so McCurry didn't get a chance to claim the position.

"In addition," he said, McCurry "has 15 years of experience in handling HR tasks related to benefits, discipline, dismissal, and leave of absence …" Hoffman argues that Kenco hired by a 17-year-old white woman McCurry who had only two years of limited experience with no special HR degrees.

Kenco is represented by a professional adviser, Julia P. Argentieri, who is affiliated with Jackson Lewis, a national law firm with an office in Chicago. Argentieri said it was not in violation of Kenco's policy to recruit candidates without posting them. That, of course, to raise the question of whether Kenco's failure to have such a policy is evidence of discrimination.

Rule 7.1 (D)

It is not surprising that a former clergyman failed to comply with the apparent local law adopted by the U.S. District Court. to incorporate the national laws of the Civil Code.

The record, Rule 7.1 (D) (1) (a) – (c) requires the plaintiff to respond to a summary court motion to "clarify, in various subdivisions: (1) unreliable facts; (2) the content of the disputed material, (3) the facts of the dispute; (4) the necessary and necessary facts; and (5) any additional facts of fact. ”

There must be a court system that works properly but Rule 7.1 (D) is not easy to understand and may not even be considered by former priest staff:

  • The law states that solicitors are voluntary, most of them have not graduated from law school and / or have not acted on the 7th appeal.th Circuit, they are aware of the law.
  • Even if there are rules to be aware of local, is unlikely to have an attorney represent themselves and know that there is a special law that describes looga response to the motion of the defendant.
  • Volunteers may not understand what constitutes "something" and in fact "informal". This is a strong legal term. Basically it refers to a fact that will change the outcome of the case.
  • It is unclear what is meant by Rule 7.1 when it tells prosecutors to "identify, subdivide" things and informal facts. This is the phrase apparently requiring the plaintiff to deny or admit any fact, separately. Why didn't they say that?

McCurry's charges can be objectionable, difficult to understand and, to some extent, incomprehensible, but so are court rules.

The federal court system costs nearly $ 8 billion in taxpayers a year. Shouldn't some of these billions be dedicated to improving the system by making it more accessible and affordable to people who pay their bills?

The panelists were Diane S. Sykes, who wrote the vision, and Michael Y. Scudder, Jr., and Amy J. St. Eve. The lawsuit is Logistics Services Inc. McCurry v. Kenco, LLC., Et al, No. 18-3206 (November 7, 2019). Section 7 serves Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin

.