My Case(s)

Discussion of my specific case where Michigan law and the Constitution are ignored in favor of court POWER.
James E. White
Site Admin
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:17 pm

My Case(s)

Unread post by James E. White »

Today's courts (at least Michigan courts and the U.S. Supreme Court) no longer adhere to the law, as I found out when I needed honest, high integrity judicial support to stop Michigan State University's theft of some of my earned vacation time (or its equivalent in dollars) or to collect an Unemployment Insurance Benefit guaranteed by Michigan law but denied via a Michigan State University (MSU) fraud supported by the Michigan courts, without themselves actually reading the law.

Which of the following are guaranteed by the Constitution (and plain Justice before that): 1) correct arithmetic, 2) valid logic, 3) prompt and fuss free correction of mistakes, 4) law interpretation in English (or the language it is/was written in), 5) self-defense, 6) court awarded damages for violation of one's rights? I (and maybe you) would think "all 6." But the U.S. Supreme Court to date has only solidly endorsed #5 as being a right. Granted that most lower courts will throw out #1 cases and such cases won't be appealed and that success of appeals often rest on a higher court overturning a lower court's #2 invalid logic (or, unfortunately, using invalid logic themselves to thwart real Justice). Recall Hamilton's "love of power" paragraph in USA Founders Thoughts Federalist No. 15.

Further, while you might believe that for civil suits you have a right to a jury trial, that (according to the government, Federal and Michigan) is not true, the Constitution's Amendment VII plain language be damned. The courts have now written very subordinate rules (i.e., way below "supreme Law of the Land"5) so that the courts, and government parties, can simply pretend they don't understand how you're following (or not?) those rules to simply pitch you out of court without trial on the merits of the law thus totally violating the very reason the 7th Amendment was written in the first place, for "the People" to have a check on the power (or its abuse) of judges and Justices6.

In my case the Michigan Courts never looked at the arithmetic: $5,087.39 per month times 12 months equals annual pay of $61,048.68 which, divided by 2,080 hours in a pay year, yields a rate of $29.35 per hour and multiplying that times 102 hours of earned vacation results in a correct pay amount of $2,993.70 thus a discrepancy of $389.44 from the $2,604.26 that MSU calculated. MSU did acknowledge part of their mistake in that they subtracted 94 from 102 hours and originally arrived at 0 rather than the correct 8 which they promised to pay for but then did not. They didn't even try to address the $154.64 discrepancy of 94 times $29.35 = $2,758.90 rather than $2,604.26.

Further MSU, the Michigan UIA, a Michigan ALJ, the Michigan UIAC, and the Michigan courts all chose to ignore Michigan law, in particular the "However…" sentence of MCL 421.48(2). [my emphasis in all]
MCL 421.48(1) An individual shall be considered unemployed for any week during which he or she performs no services and for which remuneration is not payable…

(2) All amounts paid to a claimant by an employing unit or former employing unit for a vacation or a holiday … as the result of the separation…shall be considered remuneration … under section 27(c) …. However, payments for a vacation …, or the right to which has irrevocably vested, after 14 days following [such] shall not be considered wages or remuneration within the meaning of this section.
[re "irrevocably" per the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) Article 21 Vacation Pay

-159 An Employee may take vacation at any time during the year with permission of the supervisor and in accordance with departmental requirements.

-171 An Employee will receive payment for unused vacation when terminating employment.]
The State of Michigan through its employees, administrative agencies, lawyers, and judiciary have gone to extraordinary lengths to abuse their power and to ignore the MCL 421.48(2) "However" sentence and the CBA paragraph -159 "departmental requirements" of which, by definition, there are none on layoff (which is not "termination" per CBA -171 and other exhibits).

More than just the above can be found in the case put before the U.S. Supreme Court where the ultimate plan of MSU (so they thought) came to fruition by their signaling the U.S. Supreme Court, through waiver responses (Nov 19 1922 and Dec 01 1922), that the Supreme Court should just deny certiorari. Except the Supreme Court's Constitutional responsibility is clearly set out at Constitution Article III, § 2, 2. "In all Cases … in which a State shall be Party" and Article III, § 2, 1. "[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." I contend that correct arithmetic, valid logic, and law interpretation in English are all 9th Amendment rights and all have been ignored by the State of Michigan and the Supreme Court. The Courts choose to ignore those rights to "fly off from the common centre," you, "the People," and "Justice," in "judicial" and "Justice" POWER plays.

5 U.S. Constitution Article VI clause 2 (or paragraph 2).
6 See Federalist No. 83 (search "federalist papers" at gutenberg.org)

ATTACHMENTS
JamesWhiteVsMSU20181023_AmendExhibits_redacted.pdf
(Arithmetic Issue)
(4.08 MiB) Downloaded 2444 times
20-301-AE-C30_JamesWhiteVsMSU20200730_UIAC_Appeal_Brief_Appendix_reduced.pdf
(Denial of Unemployment Insurance Benefit)
(5.49 MiB) Downloaded 2440 times
CoA_re_20-191-AS_JamesEWhite_UIAC_20210222_Leave_to_Appeal_Appendix_reduced.pdf
(Superintending Control)
(4.55 MiB) Downloaded 2516 times
Many megabytes of case files beyond the ones above can be requested by contacting jim@usareset.net.
James E. White
Site Admin
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:17 pm

Re: My Case(s): Layoff Law Violation (Part I)

Unread post by James E. White »

The following links are in order to my posts on Bluesky that show the basic documentation of my layoff case in which the courts and administrative agencies have very clearly exercised POWER to reject justice, the law, and even the Constitution.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... wxiexrks2j Original "layoff" letter.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... z6w7ciak2l UIA "Vacation Pay" Questionnaire and my responses.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... 4ber3v5c2o UIA Redetermination, my query, and UIA useless response.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... 6d5vmpkk2j My review of the law where "However" shows Redetermination was wrong.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... dqspufic22 MSU's fraudulent vacation declaration and entries.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... ftnmrnbs2h My union contract pages showing MSU's violation.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... kpl7qhyc2z ALJ Hearing Transcript where MSU claims "practice" not contract.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... ngidhpz22y The ALJ decision where the "However..." sentence is ignored.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... qkcqkdpc2d Different ALJ opposite decision in similar case plus burden of proof error.
James E. White
Site Admin
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:17 pm

Re: My Case(s): Layoff Law Violation (Part II)

Unread post by James E. White »

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... 6xo64fq22s My response to ALJ showing "However..." sentence, etc.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... eax2o3cs2p The ALJ response again ignoring "However..." and my appeal filing.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... lgiqigwk2u The first MCAC response, ignoring "However...," union attorney rehearing request, and 2nd MCAC denial.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... nynz54pk2w The law and rules allowing me another rehearing/reconsideration request.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... qkwhmdwk2d My rehearing/reconsideration/etc. request to the MCAC.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... tcdbeqw22w The MCAC stonewalled with no response so I sent a status query then filed a court Complaint.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... yi7gu5622q The UIAC (was MCAC) response including year overdue "Notice."

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... 7seww3i22k My Brief (excerpts) to the 30th Circuit Court.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... jvxfefik2o The complete 30th Circuit Court denial and my commentary on its major errors.
James E. White
Site Admin
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:17 pm

Re: My Case(s): Layoff Law Violation (Part III)

Unread post by James E. White »

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... ron2s6fc2o My reconsideration request to the 30th Circuit Court.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... txkdxka22m The 30th Circuit Court reconsideration denial (not even for the correct case!)

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... kr6rlnxc2q My Questions in my Appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... krkcitlc2q The Michigan Court of Appeals denial.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... zeabihx22d My reconsideration request to the Michigan Court of Appeals and their denial.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... kwfyo72k2k My Appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court Questions and their denial.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... sr4m4phk2m My Arguments for Reconsideration to the MI Supreme Court (and an outside the rules UIA lawyer nonsense reply).

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... stc4heb226 The MI Supreme Court Reconsideration Denial pseudo-reason in violation of the Michigan Constitution.

OK, doesn't Michigan have to obey the US Constitution? On to the US Supreme Court...
James E. White
Site Admin
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:17 pm

Re: My Case(s): Layoff Law Violation (Part IV)

Unread post by James E. White »

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... 4nug2zhk2q My questions to the US Supreme Court and their Dockett.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... 4qgon2lc2q My Questions on Reconsideration to the US Supreme Court and Blackstone notes on law understanding.

https://bsky.app/profile/jim-at-usarese ... od7dzu722x In a different but related continuation of the saga where a CLERK of the US Supreme Court is violating the US Constitution by denying on a FALSE basis that the US Supreme Court is US Constitutionally obligated to review a citizen of a State vs their State case.

YOUR feedback for or against me welcome.
Post Reply