MollysPoker.com :: View topic - Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

MollysPoker.com
Gambling Forums

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Molly's Poker Home Page

Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

MollysPoker.com Forum Index -> rec.gambling.sports

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal in Philadelphia at 4247 Locust St?

[email protected] wrote:

Quote:

[email protected] wrote:

I wonder what GOD thinks of the vile PSYCHOPATH who
authored the 9-11 comments below

I don't think G*d would be happy with you, Ray, or any of the other
nitwits in this OFF-TOPIC thread speaking for Him or presuming that
they know how He feels on a particular subject.

Agreed!
And a good thing I'm not one of those "nitwits"
speaking for HIM or presuming to know how HE feels,
....although I hope this statement doesn't qualify:

"I don't think G*d would be happy with you, Ray"

Gary Collard
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:01 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal in Philadelphia at 4247 Locust St?

[email protected] wrote:

Quote:

Or for putting an asterisk in His name, one would think.

--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
[email protected]
http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/

"The tax code is a daily mugging."
-- Ronald Reagan

Trianna
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:01 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

DrEvilHypnosis wrote:

Quote:

...

Brian is a classic "kiss up/kick down" type, and you're seeing it
here.

Oh, boo! You got that line off of the BBC.
It was used to describe the Junior President's new UN candidate,
today.

You're so damned unoriginal, you can't even cipe an original insult -
and even when you plagarize, you get it so far out of context that
you
just simply get it completely WRONG.

Mr. Parker would love to do some "kicking down" but there's no down
from where he is. It's funny.

T.

Daniel
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

Ray Gordon wrote:

Quote:

Uh huh, we already know what kind of judge of charachter you are.

Quote:

He's like the bully who thinks someone won't fight back and then
tries to be
their friend when he does.

SO why don't you fight back? he has told you numerous times to quit
your bitch ass whining and sue him.

Quote:

Guys like him are a dime a million.

Jealous?

Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:03 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal in Philadelphia at 4247 Locust St?

Quote:

Or for putting an asterisk in His name, one would think.

Some religions believe it to be offensive to speak the name of G*d, so
they use the asterisk.

And why is OFF TOPIC garbage from pervert forums being cross posted to
a sports gambling forum? What a sad existance it must be sitting in
front of the computer on a beautiful spring day typing useless flaming
trash to some nutcase zero with one hand and jerking off with the
other. I have a life so I'll go back to lurking in the hope that some
useful sports related material might actually be posted. Have a nice
day.

Gary Collard
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:02 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal in Philadelphia at 4247 Locust St?

[email protected] wrote:

Quote:

Or for putting an asterisk in His name, one would think.

Some religions believe it to be offensive to speak the name of G*d, so
they use the asterisk.

Intersting...ust make the text of holy books hard to construct!

Quote:

And why is OFF TOPIC garbage from pervert forums being cross posted to
a sports gambling forum?

Because Ray used to fancy himself a sports guy in addition to his various
perversions and psychoses.

--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
[email protected]
http://sarcastipundit.blogspot.com/

"The tax code is a daily mugging."
-- Ronald Reagan

Atlanta Ranger
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Private Criminal in Philadelphia at 4247 Locust St?

"Gary Collard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Quote:

[email protected] wrote:

And why is OFF TOPIC garbage from pervert forums being cross posted to
a sports gambling forum?

Because Ray used to fancy himself a sports guy in addition to his various
perversions and psychoses.

I thought it was because Center City Ray was a cross dresser so he cross
posted. I'm sure he's burned a few crosses too.

Ray Gordon
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:04 pm Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

Quote:

Time to clear the record again just in case there's an idiot or two
who
would believe that idiot's lies.

Judge BRODY (not Judge Kelly) ordered the psych exam for reasons I
considered wholly invalid.

But the Judge didn't think it was invalid. The Judge is a licensed
attorney and a Judge, with a FAR superior knowledge of the law to even
an "experienced" pro se, as any paralegal would know.

As any LAWYER would know, the Third Circuit has more authority than a
DISTRICT JUDGE. Have you even read the precedent in the Third Circuit? I
quoted it extensively in my pleadings.

Since the appeal will be heard by the Third Circuit, I believe they will
follow their precedents, which in this case are quite numerous.

Lord knows if the rulings had gone the other way and the other side had
appealed, you wouldn't have hesitated to mention the importance of the
appellate court.

Quote:

The main reason it was ordered was that I had
pled damages for "emotional distress" rather than "pain and
suffering."
Apparently, and this is something few pro-ses would ever know (even
experienced ones), when one pleads damages for emotional distress, the

defendant has a right to hire its own expert to measure the alleged
damage.

Demonstrating your obvious lack of knowledge of the letter of and
application of the law, as noted in another ruling.

Actually, there's another Supreme Court ruling regarding the liberal
construction of pro-se pleadings that should have nipped that in the bud as
well. Further, I have argued that since the court "granted" my motion for
appointed counsel (which is allowed in Title VII cases), I should have had
an attorney all along, and the attorney would have pointed this out.

Most of the Rule 35 precedent was designed for personal-injury cases, where
it is far more relevant than in a Title VII case.

My "employability" has never been in question anywhere else. At the time of
the motion, I was employed. Penn submitted not a shred of evidence in
support of its conclusory allegations: it offered no affidavits, no
witnesses, and no testimony.

Quote:

I withdrew that claim to make that irrelevant, but the judge ordered
the
exam anyway. Despite my having been employed througout that, the
judge said
my employability was somehow in question (how an employed person can
be
unemployable is beyond me, but that's what the judge -- said).

You claimed employment discrimination. Being able to prove
employability is central to the case. As any paralegal would know.

Actually, Judge Brody addressed your specific claim after the disability
count was dismissed. Penn tried to move for dismissal of the entire action
(including the race, gender, and retaliation claims), claiming that they had
been "prejudiced" for exactly the same reason you cited.

The judge whose knowledge you just showed such respect for kicked that
argument, by pointing out rather simply that with that logic, *any* Title
VII Plaintiff could be put in the position of having to prove their
employability.

Penn's initial defense was also not based on anything related to this.
Generally, initial defenses not raised are waived. Their argument was that
they simply didn't see my resume in their database.

Quote:

I then moved the court for leave to file an interlocutory appeal
(that's an
interim appeal that puts the case on hold while the appeal is heard,
rather
than waiting for the case to end and then appeal), arguing that the
examination could not be undone if the order were overturned on
appeal.

Ever heard of disallowability of evidence? Any trained paralegal would
be aware that, on appeal, or in a new trial, the Judge could order the
results out of evidence. Obviously, you missed that lesson in
paralegal school. Oh, that's right, you never WENT to paralegal
school, even thiugh one of the top paralegal schools in the country is
right in your hometown, the Paralegal Institute.

PA does not require paralegals to be licensed.

As for your argument, excluding the exam from evidence wouldn't have undone
the exam. That was the basis of the request for the interlocutory appeal.

Quote:

Permission for that interlocutory appeal was denied. I considered
that a
violation of my constitutional due process rights given that the exam
constituted a loss of freedom/liberty without due process.

Obviously, the Judge, a licensed attorney and a Judge, thought
otherwise, based on his

HER

Quote:

professional training in the law. as noted,
you are NOT an attorney and, as a Judge noted, have little knowledge of
the letter of nor the application of the law.

The judge said "PRESUMBALY," not that I actually didn't know the law.
Further, there's no need to point this out, as any bad legal arguments can
be kicked.

In a case like this, the Third Circuit will have the final say regardless.

Quote:

I was left with
no choice but to refuse the exam if I wanted to preserve my asserted
constitutional right to liberty.

And how would submitting to a psychiatric examination interfere with
your liberty?

It's confinement and very invasive medically.

Quote:

Was this not just a psychiatric examination, but a
sanity evaluation, with the possibility of forced institutionalization?

You realize of course that it's illegal to require a job applicant to submit
to these exams, don't you? The scope of the exam was also not limited.

Quote:

If it was not, your argument is specious as a general exam, which YOU
have asserted was to determine your employability

I made no such assertions. That I'm EMPLOYED should refute any claims of
unemployability.

Quote:

and the level of the
damage you suffered on an emotional and psychological level, does not
carry enough weight to forcibly institutionalize someone.

I wasn't concerned about that at all. My concern was for all workers in my
situation as well as me.

I also raised the issue that employability is the domain of the Social
Security Administration, and if it was truly in question, I should have been
referred there for the exam.

Do you think the SSA would have authorized disability benefits for me on the
weight of a defense-sponsored exam in a Title VII case?

I even had letters from people at Penn where I interviewed that praised my
"extensive qualifications" for work there. Those were people I actually
interviewed with face-to-face. If they were lying, I'd have a cause of
action for fraudulent misrepresentation. Take your pick.

Quote:

Nice try,
but that's something they even teach in Psych 101.

Is that before or after they go over the licensing requirements for
psychologists?

Quote:

On appeal (the appeal is going to be
submitted to the Third Circuit for review on April 18, 2005), I have
argued
that when a psych exam is ordered, that an interlocutory appeal should
be
automatic, as well as arguing that the exam never should have been
ordered
in the first place.

Good luck. You will need it. And, from what precedent seems to
indicate in such appeals, you won't even get a hearing based on that
pleading.

What is the precedent in the Third Circuit regarding Rule 35 exams? You got
a cite?

I cited the Third Circuit's own rulings in this case, most of which are
quite favorable to plaintiffs.

Quote:

I understand that this is way over your head, but try to get someone
to
explain this to you. Now if you want to debate, you can address
these
points; if you want to make a fool of yourself, you can ignore the
points
and continue your stupid flaming, although you seem to have no logical

tactics at your disposal.

See above. I have pointed out the flaws in your statements pretty
well. I can also cite references in case law, but I refuse to do your
homework for you.

I already cited the case law. I suspect you don't cite it because you don't
have anything that supports your position.

If the Third Circuit agrees with you, they agree with you, and the law
becomes very hostile to Title VII plaintiffs. All that would do is require
me to get "smoking gun" evidence before I go to trial against another
employer (that can be done but it's protracted).

On the other hand, if the Third Circuit agrees with ME, my case becomes a
lot stronger, and I get my $1,000 back.

Quote:

I also understand that "principle" doesn't seem to be in your
vocabulary,
but I have many of them. If/when the Third Circuit corrects the
erroneous
ruling, I will have won a victory not just for myself, but for any
other
worker who finds themselves on the receiving end of this tactic.

Principle. Let's see - "office whores and trader trash," "no lives of
worth were lost"

Irrelevant to the matter at hand. Also protected Title VII speech since
it's against people who I can prove discriminated against me.

Just an excuse many use for retaliation, a pretext I can uncover by
comparing reactions to me to reactions to others.

Quote:

(re: 9/11) and baseless claims of hypno-rape that have
been repeatedly refuted by actual clinical experimentation,

Actually, they haven't been, but again they aren't relevant. Your attempts
at proof-by-assertion fail.

Quote:

for
openers. Yep, you have principles - but some of them seem to be very
flawed in their logical basis.

My principle is that everyone deserves equal opportunity for employment, and
Title VII plaintiffs shouldn't have to endure the cheap shot of a
defense-sponsored, "pre-employment" psych exam that would be illegal in any
other setting.

Quote:

One day I will construct a very interesting timetable regarding what
else
was going on at Penn while they were calling me unemployable in
federal
court pleadings.
--
Ray Gordon,

And it will amount to squat as none of the incidents directly impinge
on your action.

Wrong. It shows how they treated me compared to how they treat others. It
speaks to any pretext I might allege.

Quote:

Until you can show a direct cause and effect
relationship, what happened in other departments means zilch with
regards to your case.

That's for a judge or jury to decide.

Quote:

Look up the term "relevant evidence" for a good definition of what I'm
talking about.

If my attitude is relevant, so is theirs. Lots of precedent supporting
that.

On another note, how can Penn argue on the one hand that it has a
"universal" opinion regarding my employability, while on the other, claiming
a decentralized system of individual departments that do the hiring?

They can't have it both ways.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

Quote:

I already cited the case law. I suspect you don't cite it because you don't
have anything that supports your position.

I wonder if he will ever snap and go on a gun rampage or if he will forever
remain just a Usenet k00k? Any psychology types have an opinion?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Alex
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

in article [email protected], Ray Gordon at
[email protected] wrote on 4/18/05 1:15 PM:

Quote:

Lord knows if the rulings had gone the other way and the other side had
appealed, you wouldn't have hesitated to mention the importance of the
appellate court.

And you wouldn't have hesitated to crow about the "triumph" you had and
downplayed the significance of any appeal.

Hypocrite.

Ray Gordon
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:02 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

Quote:

If both of those statements are true, it means the important ruling in this
case has not yet been handed down.

Which it has not.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

Alex
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:02 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

in article [email protected], Ray Gordon at
[email protected] wrote on 4/18/05 9:02 PM:

Quote:

Lord knows if the rulings had gone the other way and the other side had
appealed, you wouldn't have hesitated to mention the importance of the
appellate court.

And you wouldn't have hesitated to crow about the "triumph" you had and
downplayed the significance of any appeal.

If both of those statements are true, it means the important ruling in this
case has not yet been handed down.

Which it has not.

More evasion from USENET's biggest hypocrite.

Ray Gordon
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:01 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

Quote:

Lord knows if the rulings had gone the other way and the other side had
appealed, you wouldn't have hesitated to mention the importance of the
appellate court.

And you wouldn't have hesitated to crow about the "triumph" you had and
downplayed the significance of any appeal.

If both of those statements are true, it means the important ruling in
this
case has not yet been handed down.

Which it has not.

More evasion from USENET's biggest hypocrite.

All briefs have been filed with the Third Circuit. The three-judge panel
got the case for review TODAY, or will have when the court opens.

Then they will read the pleadings, rule on the pleadings, and notify the
public and the parties.

It's a very simple process, just a slow one. Nothing that's done or said
from this point forward will have any effect whatsoever on the outcome of
the case.

Let the system do its thing.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

Kiddon
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Are there any REAL lawyers who post to this group?

Sam Sloan wrote:

Quote:

On 12 Apr 2005 23:56:17 GMT, User3247 <[email protected]> wrote:

I didn't think so.

Yes there is. Kiddon isone.

Sam Sloan
____________________________

Yeah, but he hasn't posted here in nearly two months.

kiddon

p.s. See
http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/form/courtforms/state/pa/pa000003.pdf

Krus T. Olfard
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 am Post subject: Re: Private Criminal Complaints: Philadelphia

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

Quote:

Pauline proves once again that while she has such a problem with
me, she
doesn't have the BALLS to try to solve it.

She's also wrong: the courts only have to sign off on certain
types of complaints.

If so, then quit your infernal "plastic toy sabre-rattling"
and go ahead and sue - <defamatory snip
We're all waiting...

Brian is a classic "kiss up/kick down" type, and you're seeing it
here.

He's like the bully who thinks someone won't fight back and then
tries to be
their friend when he does.

Guys like him are a dime a million.

Still more expensive than Gordon.

Alex is also a kick-down/kiss-up type. They are ultimate phonies.

Look at how they measure "success" in life.

Well, ray (dismissed) baybee, I measure success in a number of different
ways but you are certainly an example of one of the ways I measure failure.

--

KTO

------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.

Display posts from previous:

	MollysPoker.com Forum Index -> rec.gambling.sports	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum