Below is the entire brief as submitted to the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit February 2010. I alleged abuse of power resulting in the violation of my human rights, civil rights and liberties. I presented case law to demonstrate a denial of access to court, and requested relief in the form of a new right to sue letter from Attorney General Holder who has to weigh in on this case because I challenged the constitutionality of three acts of Congress relative to abuse of power. A decision was to have been forthcoming since the end of May 2010. A response from the court is still pending as of today, August 3, 2010.
If there is one key element at play in the situation I find myself in as the victim of the longterm cover up of public corruption having its basis in racism (breathe…) is being innundated neck high in minutae. When you combine the intentional misdirections and omissions on the part of those public officials who gave in to, and/or looked away from this situation, you have what appears to be standard bureaucratic incompetence.
The New Jersey Administrative Code, § 10:90-6.5 (a) 2.(Recipient contribution) states that “TRA recipients shall contribute 65 percent towards housing costs.” Subsection 10 comprises the admin code (law) for New Jersey’s public social services agency. TRA stands for Temporary Rental Assistance. Although the above code states that TRA recipients must contribute 65% towards housing costs, there exists no formulas or explanations as to why this is so anywhere else in the social services code, other pertinent New Jersey Work First documentation or other referent documentation from various other private social services agencies/research groups.
That’s because the code that explains it all is found in N.J.A.C. § 5 under the Department of Community Affairs. N.J.A.C. § 5:42-2.8 Subsidy Calculations (re: the State Rental Assistance Program).
(a) The calculation of tenant portion of rent and State Rental Assistance Program (S-RAP) is as follows:
Gross annual income: $2520.00 (based on a $210/mo cash assistance benefit).
Deduct: $400.00 (head of household deduction for disabled).
This leaves: $2120.00
Divide by 12 =: $176.66
The tenant (disabled) will pay 25% of his or her adjusted income for his or her portion of the rent: $44.00 (deducted from $210.00) would leave a cash benefit of $166.00
Currently I am being forced to pay 65%, or $136.00 towards the rent leaving with a cash benefit of $74.00/mo.
If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bulls..t. Although I found this nowhere in the N.J.A.C,, I guess you have to read between the lines to “get it.” All of this is being done to cover the butts of corrupt, racist, and well connected NYC administrators.
I am in the process of appealing the decision of the admin law judge.
One year ago I had achieved my 30th anniversary on the job at a salary of $84,000/yr. I was fired in October 2009 due my disability that was caused, in large part, because I was dropped from payroll the same day I was to have had reconstructive ankle surgery in April 2009. Without income after November 2009, I was homeless by April 2010.
After applying for welfare, I was provided with assistance but am being forced to pay 65% of my monthly cash assistance grant ($134.00) towards my rent even though the state will pay up to the $1052/month fair market price for rent and my rent is less than the fair market price.
After finally getting a fair hearing scheduled, on June 16, 2010, Administrative Law Office Judge Kimberley Moss explained that her hands were tied and that she must affirm the agency decision that I pay 65% of my $210/month towards rent despite the fact that I presented evidence demonstrating that my Housing Cost Burden was far above the average family’s Housing Cost Burden as described on page 1 ABCDNJ.org’s Housing Terms and Facts.
A family’s Housing Cost Burden is considered average when the household pays up to 30% of its income on housing AND UTILITIES. 31% to 50% of the household’s income is considered moderate and over 50% is considered severe with regard to the payment of RENT AND UTILITIES. I am being forced to pay 65% of my cash assistance grant towards RENT ONLY. $74.00/month isn’t even enough to pay utilities, let alone phone or any other essentials, laundry, clothes, soap, toilet paper, deodorant, etc.
After explaining that her hands were tied, Judge Moss stepped down off the bench and handed me a form to sign withdrawing my fair hearing request. When I asked her what would happen if I refused to sign the withdrawal form, she stated that we would have to have a hearing. When I asked her wasn’t that a fair hearing that we had just had, Judge Moss advised that we would now have to go “on the record.” even though she never advised that we were “off the record.”
For those who continue to doubt, this is but more evidence that political partnerships run deep and the mighty Hudson River is not a barrier to corruption.
The intention is that I not live through this. Silence is consent…
New York State of Mind: Paterson Notifies Bloomberg
When it comes to the major political players, media tends to report only on scandals of a personal nature while the political underworld continues its corrupt activities unchecked. I sent Governor Paterson detailed information on what was going on at the City of New York Human Resources Administration in the hopes that he would call for an investigation. I advised the Governor that I had already sent Attorney General Cuomo and Comptroller DiNapoli detailed information on the matter in February 2008 but received no response. To date I have received no acknowledgment of my February 2008 package, including email correspondence and voicemails/transcripts to either the AG of the Comptroller. The truth is being suppressed while I remain disabled and without income due to some very powerful political partnerships.
“When you talk about gangster mentality in America I think its best to start at the White House, state house, city hall, school, mosque, church, synagogue, and then get to gangster rap because they’re all on the same continuum. You’re talking about levels of corruption, levels of graft, uhh in terms of the 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not get caught.”, getting over by any means. I mean that’s a very human thing, a very American thing. This goes from the elite to the middle class and all the way down and it has a long history, going back to Adam”.
This is an excerpt of the brief that I submitted to the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
The Goal: Ignore, Deny, Suppress and no one of consequence will ever find out. This is bigger than the NYPD blue wall of silence…
January 2007
HRA Commissioner Review of 2006 Investigation of Alleged Acts of Official Misconduct Status: No Follow Up by HRA/Office of Legal Affairs
After being denied a written copy of charges/written final disposition of the charges against her, plaintiff hand delivered a package to then HRA Commissioner Verna Eggleston in January 2007 reporting that plaintiff believed that she had been set up by HRA Special Investigator Michael Harris and that PC on the job, as well as her home computers had been hacked into by HRA staff. A few days later, plaintiff received an undated letter from lawyer Paul Ligretsi from the HRA Office of Legal Affairs advising that they were in receipt of plaintiff’s letter to Commissioner Eggleston, that they would review the situation, and that no further information was necessary from plaintiff unless requested by OLA. Though, to plaintiff’s knowledge there was no follow up by OLA, Mr. Lisgretsi’s acknowledged of receipt of her January 2007 hand delivered package to Commissioner Eggleston confirms that HRA was aware of plaintiff’s allegations of having been set up by HRA Special Investigations as well as the unauthorized intrusions into her home computers as early as January 2007. Shortly after receiving the above package from plaintiff on January 9, 2007, if not on the same day, Commissioner Eggleston announced that she was stepping down, in mid term, as the head of HRA.
Following is an excerpt from the brief I submitted to the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit.
The Set Up
February 2006
Charged With Alleged Acts of Official Misconduct
Status: Denied Written Explanation/Final Disposition of Charges
In February 2006, plaintiff was brought up on charges of alleged acts of official misconduct. This is a well established tactic that government agencies take against disfavored employees, being those who might have reported wrongdoing and/or corruption on the part of management as described on pages 2 and 3 of the Project on Government Oversight’ s Whistleblower’s manual. Also described therein is that while the agency subjects the disfavored employee to various forms of retaliatory harassment, management is often also in the process of generating trumped up charges against that disfavored employee which sometimes leads to criminal charges against that disfavored employee.
The fact that plaintiff was brought under investigation in February 2006 after having been positioned to speak out on the intentional mismanagement of the agency’s multimillion dollar in order to protect herself as early as 1994 ties together all of the prior retaliatory acts as alleged by plaintiff as having taken place between 1994 and 2006 and establishes a hostile work environment via those continuing violations that extended into 2009 when plaintiff was terminated while out on medical leave after having been dropped from payroll on April 2, 2009 – the same day she had originally been scheduled for reconstructive ankle surgery.
The fact that plaintiff was denied a written list of charges and a written final disposition of same, points to the possibility of a future malicious prosecution against the plaintiff, especially given the scope of the corruption involved. Also key to this scenario is the fact that plaintiff was not advised of her rights with regard to the May 3, 2006 investigation interview by Special Investigator Harris or by District Council 37 union rep Tyler Hemingway and the fact that key evidence in the form of the April 8, 2006 voicemail by plaintiff’s husband’s ex, Candice Sena whereon she said she was the person who had plaintiff investigated in the first place was never requested by Special Investigations Officer Harris. Furthermore, as in the proceedings above, there was no paperwork relative to the investigation in plaintiff’s personnel file.
Following is an excerpt from the brief I submitted to the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. It speaks to the suppression of evidence due to paperwork that had been removed or was never included in plaintiff’s personnel file.
January 2005
Internal EEO Complaint
Status: Final Disposition Unknown
After enduring over ten years of discrimination and retaliatory harassment in a hostile work environment, on or about January 21, 2005, plaintiff once again contacted the HRA Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, this time regarding the escalation of tensions between herself and then supervisor, Renee LiCorish based on the verbal disparagement of plaintiff by making it seem as though plaintiff was incompetent in front of other white and male staff when plaintiff received no formal training on the IBM system and processes as well as the ongoing downgrade of plaintiff’s assignments over the years that landed her in a dead end position, supporting a dead IBM technology with no possibility of advancement. EEO Counselor Donald Lemons advised that if plaintiff hadn’t actively pursued promotions and was denied, it would be difficult to prove discrimination. Plaintiff countered that she had been blackballed and passed over for assignments that she had never been made aware of. Mr. Lemons also advised that HRA management would, as most employers do, side with their managers so there wasn’t much he could do to help the plaintiff. Mr. Lemons advised that he would keep plaintiff’s file open for a year in case any new issues came up. As with her previous complaints against the agency, there was no record of her January 2005 complaint in plaintiff’s personnel file as of May 3, 2006.
The following is an excerpt of the brief from my case pending at the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit in New York City
August 2000
EEOC Class Action Complaint
Status: Unresolved
In September 2000, a group of approx 36 employees of the City of New York Human Resources Administration’s IT arm, Management Information Systems, met with Attorney William T. Martin at his Court Street office to discuss the class action complaint filed with the EEOC that was based on pattern and practice violations with regard to MIS as a “racially stratified workplace which confers favor on Caucasian employees” and discriminates against black, non-white, and female employees. There was no follow up or mail communication from the EEOC to the complainants with regard to the status of the complaint nor was there a complaint number provided. The above supports plaintiff’s allegations that HRA and the EEOC have a long term partnership which calls into question the EEOC’s ability to remain impartial. The above paperwork was missing from plaintiff’s personnel file as of May 3, 2006
Following are excerpts from my case pending in the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit in New York City
March 2000
Local 1180 Class Action Grievance Alleging Patronage, Favoritism, Cronyism, and Nepotism
Status: Unresolved
In 2000, plaintiff and other MIS staff members in CWA Local 1180 broadbanded union titles, including Computer Associate, met with the President of Local 1180, Arthur Cheliotis, at MIS offices at 111 8th Avenue with regard to the pattern and practice of consistently selecting white and male employees in the majority and giving them promotions to higher levels in titles (i.e., II, III, and IV). There is no test required to be promoted to higher levels of broadbanded titles. Selections are supposed to be made on based on seniority, education/training, and experience. While white males enjoyed selection for the higher level titles of broadbanding, blacks, non-whites and women employees at MIS remained in the lower levels for years and often never got past level I regardless of seniority, education, training, or experience as was the case with plaintiff.
**************************
***
Many of the non-white staff languished in lower level titles for decades. This above is a clear demonstration of the political partnerships that the City of New York has, in this case, with a large municipal labor union. This item has been
Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty
Pronunciation: in-ˈte-grə-tē
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
Date: 14th century
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness
synonyms see honesty
from MerriamWebster Online
SocialVibe