OUR COMMON GROUND           with Janice Graham

LIVE Saturdays :: 10 pm ET

OUR COMMON GROUND "Race Discrimination in Employment and the EEOC" July 28, 2012 10 pm ET

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (www.EEOC.gov) has the power to investigate discrimination in the workplace. Most of these workplace complaints are filed on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age.

Ricardo Jones charges that  this organization has failed its mission miserably when it involves cases affecting African Americans. When someone makes an official complaint to the EEOC a professional investigation is supposed to be conducted, where investigators look into claims of discrimination at that particular workplace. After 180 days of investigation, the EEOC tells the complainant in writing whether or not their case has any merit and they are issued a ‘Right to Sue’ letter, which allows them to officially sue their employer in federal court.

 

Tonight's Guest Ricardo Jones, former Sr., EEOC Investigator and Federal Whistleblower


Ricardo Jones claims none of this takes place for far too many race discrimination cases filed by African-Americans. According to Jones, an EEOC insider and Whistleblower, who was employed by the New York City Office Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for nine years, “only 1% of the complaints made to the EEOC get investigated dan others (typically those made by African Americans are thrown into the garbage or labeled ‘unfounded.’” Instead of conducting proper investigations, the was just handing out EEOC Right to Sue’ letters.”  

Jones is a veteran and the former Senior Federal Investigator for the new York District of the EEOC from 2001 to 2010. He charges that the  EEOC is a cesspool of corruption and racism. He says, “Blacks working in the United States have no protection from racial discrimination, because the EEOC unfairly rejects almost 97% of all cases filed by Blacks.” “Sellout Blacks in the EEOC and racist white workers in the government agency accept bribes and do their jobs in a sexually charged environment where sexual availability and tolerance of racial injustice places folks on the fast track.”

Jones, whose job was to investigate mostly private sector workplace complaints, was the only investigator in his office who refused to dismiss all Black complaints as ordered by his managers and supervisors and this is one of the reasons that he was fired.

Jones asserts that any complaint filed by an African American--no matter if they were employed by the city, state, federal or private sector--was labeled a “C” (A “C” means an automatic “DISMISSAL”) and the case or file is thrown into the garbage. Not only did EEOC label ALL complaints by African Americans a “C” – they also violated their own policies and procedures to issue a (PDI) pre-determination interview, when they failed to notify African American complainants that no findings of discrimination were found in their cases. On top of that, ‘Right to Sue’ your employer letters were only issued after 180 days but most of the time African American complainants never received any type of pre-determination notices before their cases were dismissed by the EEOC. Jones stated “since the EEOC is not going to investigate your case anyway, all African Americans and others should always just ask for a ‘Right to Sue’ letter --a few days after filing a complaint with EEOC, which is well in their rights.”


He alleged that the agency gave these cases are always met with “lazy investigative work”.  How can the EEOC say that workplace discrimination did not occur simply because the complainants were African Americans and then not even bother to inform complainants of their findings?

We will talk with Ricardo Jones about these charges and how we can fix EEOC to work for us.

 

Tags: Aurora, CO, EEOC, Jones, Ricardo, discrimination, race

Views: 904

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I Ricardo E. Jones Sr, former Senior Federal Investigator of EEOC-NYDO from 4/9/01 to 4/1/10 have direct and indirect knowledge of Federal Investigators, Federal Trial attorneys and managers of the EEOC who have taken money/gifts and/or positions with law firms to fix and throw investigation for personal gain or on orders from Comissioners of the EEOC (Vice Chair Leslie Silverman,Esq). Neomi Earp-campbell while Acting Chair of the EEOC had cases fixed for friends at law firms. This information was given to me by Federal Investigator Sean Oliveria formerly of the EEOC-NYDO. Former Vice Chair Leslie Silverman Esq, fixed decisions for her present employer Proskauer Rose law firm while she was a commissioner at the EEOC. This information was given to my by Nancy Boyd then Deputy Director of the EEOC-NYDO and Nora Curtin Trial attorney/former regional attorney miami-EEOC. Ms. Silverman was a former staff member of the senate sub-committee that over-saw the EEOC. She currently is using her contacts to fix complaints and issues at the EEOC of Proskauer Rose law firm Washington DC. Assistant General Counsel for the EEOC James Lee is a sexual preditor who has sexually harassed many females at the EEOC over his tenure. This information was given to me by Lois Bramble legal clerk at the EEOC-NYDO. Luis Graziano Trial Attorney at EEOC-NYDO has taken money to fix decisions and conciliation at the EEOC. He's a close friend of Assistant General Counsel James Lee of EEOC-Hq's and is also on the take with Graziano. Nancy Boyd fixed decisions for Leslie Silverman at the EEOC. Nancy Boyd is also a close friend of and ex-subordenate of Enforcement Manager Electra Yourke of EEOC-NYDO who worked for Elleanor Holmes-Norton former head of EEOC and NY City Commission of human rights. Ms. Yourke is a racist bigot known by all in NYC and Washington DC. This information was given to me by Ricardo Cuevas Esq and admin judge at the EEOC-NYDO. Clyde Lo-chin Mediator EEOC-Tampa FL, received a bribe from Paul Salvator Esq w/ Proskauer Rose law firm representing Ralph Loren Polo and now working with former EEOC vice chair Leslie Silverman in Washington DC. This information was given to me by my friend Clyde Lo-cin Mediator at Tampa FL EEOC.


This information is just the tip of the iceberg. The above information was in my law suit and sealed by US Attorney Ellen London of the DOJ working for Attorney General Eric Holder. Please google Ricardo Jones EEOC to read more on the above.
 
Ricardo Jones Sr, Former Senior Federal Investigator for the EEOC-NYDO cell  917-803-0583

 

OBAMA'S EEOC (1) AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BLACK AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS.
MR. RICARDO JONES, SR. is a veteran and the former Senior Federal Investigator for the new York District of the EEOC from 2001 to 2010. He describes how ...
youtube.com/watch?v=qqyrvRaY4Ks - Cached

MR. RICARDO JONES, SR. is a veteran and the former Senior Federal Investigator for the new York District of the EEOC from 2001 to 2010. He describes how the EEOC is a cesspool of corruption and racism. Blacks working in the United States have any protection from racial discrimination, because the EEOC unfairly rejects almost 97% of all cases filed by Blacks. Sellout Blacks in the EEOC and racist white workers in the government agency accept bribes and do their jobs in a sexually charged environment where sexual availability and tolerance of racial injustice places folks on the fast track. Jones was fired for refusing to play ball and accept bribes. If you want to file an EEOC complaint please watch this film.
recorded..14 FEB 2012

In the shadow of Americas first Presidency of color revel's the ugly head of racism, colorism and classism. Why are so many so called Black intellectuals and media allowing the Obama administration to getaway with corruption and cronyism in its name? Harvard Law School Crony’s of the President and First Lady riddle this corrupt administration. Is this administration just a copy of the Grant presidencies? Where’s the accountable of the first President of color? Now we’re asked to re-elect a failed Presidency. Unemployment is out of control especially among people of color. Excuses made daily for the presidents lack of moral courage. We’re living a lie that Racism and colorism have vanished because of the election of a person of color who knows very little and/or has no experience of racial indifferences towards Blacks in America.  The government is failing to insure the Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for Blacks.  President of color and Attorney General of color are both ignoring gross discriminations based on Race covered by the Executive branch. Why other than the devil we know verses the devil we don’t know should anyone re-elect the failed presidency of the Obama’s?

Barack Obama and the Betrayal of Black America

By Chidike Okeem

When Barack Obama was elected as the president of the United States, black liberals dreamily believed that the numerous maladies in the black community would cease to exist.  They believed that his election was indicative of a vigorous wind of political and social change that was blowing across the country.  Barack Obama himself vowed that his election would demarcate the conclusion of grisly "politics as usual" from the commencement of political and democratic freshness.  However, as this administration continues on, it is abundantly clear that Obama has not only failed to deliver in a general sense, but he has also completely betrayed his most loyal constituency -- the black community. 

After passing a gargantuan stimulus plan that was supposed to fix the economy, the unemployment rate continued to rise -- until it only recently began falling.  Although we are currently at an 8.7 percent unemployment rate, the rate in the black community is at an unpardonably enormous 16.1 percent -- the highest of any ethnic group in the country.  It is also important to note that black unemployment was lower under Bush than it has been at any point during Obama's administration.  In point of fact, black unemployment was even lower under Bush than it was under Clinton.

More egregious than the high rate of black unemployment is the fact that Obama has been completely disconnected with the black community.  He has failed to articulate any policy that would deal with the crisis that is evident in urban America.  Rather, Obama is much more focused on articulating and enacting policies about issues that are close to his heart, such as allowing gays to serve openly in the military, as well as becoming a potent mouthpiece for the immoral Arab scam to steal Israeli land and annihilate the Jewish people. 

Any intellectually honest person in America must look at Obama's demonstrable disregard for black issues and come to the unavoidable conclusion that black America is the very least of Obama's concerns.  So obvious is this fact that even some of Barack Obama's most ardent supporters in the black intelligentsia have begun voicing strident denunciations of the president.  The latest assault on Obama from his left-wing compatriot Cornel West is evidence of this phenomenon.

Although West's critique of Obama was partly personal and laden with his characteristically asinine divisive racial rhetoric, there was some substance to his criticism to which left-wing Obama cheerleaders in the black community remain willfully blind.  West accused Obama of being "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats." 

While West foolishly assumes that support for black issues and being in favor of business are mutually exclusive, the unstated and basic premise in West's critique is that Obama does not care enough about, and expresses no interest in, black people and black issues.  As absurd as the rest of his intellectually messy ramblings are, West is right about that fundamental point.

Obama's sycophants are used to writing off all criticism of the president coming from whites as racist, and they are equally used to describing all criticism from black conservatives as being the puerile rants of Uncle Toms obsequiously looking for approval from "the white man"; however, although Cornel West is one of the black left's most revered academics, they would much rather write him off as entirely crazy than to admit that any criticism he has of Barack Obama contains even a scintilla of merit. 

Big Government is the Problem, Not the Solution

By arguing that Obama has betrayed the black community, I am not arguing that Obama needs to spend his time carving out black-specific governmental policies.  Manifestly, the black-specific liberal policies that have been attempted in the past have done nothing more than stimulate a metastasizing of the very social cancers that they were designed to treat.  My argument is, however, that Obama has failed to enact the economic policies that would provide the necessary environment for blacks to fend for themselves independent of government -- despite the fact that he presented himself during his campaign as someone who was inimitably skilled and uniquely well-positioned to do so. 

Without attempting to cater to blacks specifically, President Reagan managed to create economic prosperity throughout the entire country which, in point of fact, benefited blacks more than it did whites.  The facts cannot be disputed: Reaganomics had a salubrious effect on the black community, whereas Obamanomics is having an unequivocally deleterious effect on black economics and the black community at large.

Obama Is Not The President of African Americans? 

One of the talking points formulated by Obama's apologists in the media is the notion that Obama is not the president of black America.  They argue he is the president of the United States of America.  This pathetically feeble argument exists for the sole purpose of deflecting legitimate criticism of Obama's failure to meet the needs of the black community.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is the president of African Americans, just as he is the president of white Americans.  It takes a shocking display of intellectual dishonesty to suddenly release Obama of any responsibility for black America, especially when previous presidents have always been held responsible for their treatment of the black community. 

In 1998, the Nobel-Prize-winning writer Toni Morrison gave Bill Clinton the honorary moniker of "America's first black president" because, according to her, he "display[ed] almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."

Leaving aside the recognizably insulting view of what constitutes blackness in Morrison's perverse mind, had white, southern Clinton possessed all these qualities while presiding over 16.1 percent unemployment, I am positive that this endearing nickname would never have been created -- much less believed by black liberals for many years until the emergence of Obama.

By contrast, the left, with unutterable alacrity, vociferously argued that George W. Bush's less-than-stellar handling of Hurricane Katrina was indicative of his incurable allergy toward black skin.  Even largely apolitical rapper Kanye West took the time out to accuse Bush of not caring about blacks.  The fact that Bush packed his administration with exceptionally well-qualified minorities was completely disregarded when the black left gave Bush his failing report card.  One can only imagine the panic-stricken cries of racism that would have been heard for years if Bush had overseen 16.1 percent black unemployment. 

It is nothing more than liberal hypocrisy to see the crisis evident in the black community under Obama's watch and simply respond with the contemptible shibboleth stating, "Obama is not the president of black America; he's the president of the United States of America" -- especially when every other president in recent history has been critically judged on their treatment of the black community.

Can Republicans Argue Back? 

If the Republican Party cannot effectively communicate to blacks the obvious fact that Obama has been working diligently on all the trivial left-wing issues close to his heart, yet has completely neglected to address the glaring emergency occurring in his "own" community, then the Republicans are destined to -- and deserve to -- lose the black vote in 2012.

The black community is looking for political change.  Yes, Obama is black, but he has proven that his liberalism takes preeminence over his blackness.  Liberalism cannot save black America.  If Republicans cannot capitalize on this crisis in leadership that Obama has provided and offer a concrete alternative message to the black community as to why conservatism is the answer, it's safe to say Republicans will never capture the black vote. 

The opportunity to make powerful racial public policy arguments is now.  Republicans pass up this pristine opportunity at their own political peril.

Mr. Okeem is a freelance writer and can be contacted at mrokeem@gmail.com.  His blog on politics and culture can be read at voiceofchid.com.

We have come to a point where no matter who's running our government its a corrupt gangster government. The people we elect believe they have the right to protect the corrupt institutions of corrupt power. Very few corrupt appointee's have been disciplined to deter others. Corruption is the rule not the exception. We have only economic clout to voice our issues and concerns. We have 42 useless Black Representatives (435) in the House on capital hill. Those 42 represent whites over the Blacks who elected them. The question is why do we accept the aforementioned. We have no Black Senators (100) and only had 6 Black Senators in history to include President Obama. What is the state of Black America today and in the future? 13.4% Black unemployment while White unemployment is 6.8% ! Second Class Citizenship for most of US.

Please distribute this video exposing the "UGLY TRUTH" about the EEOC.
Thank you Ricardo for you contribution to this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfIEUEt_Qdo&feature=youtu.be

THE ONLY EXECUTIVE ORDER FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA ON CIVIL RIGHTS!

 

Obama Makes False Claim About Supreme Court Decision; Fact-Checkers Parrot It

by Hans Bader on October 17, 2012 · 2 comments

in Economy, Employment, Features, Labor, Legal

Post image for Obama Makes False Claim About Supreme Court Decision; Fact-Checkers Parrot It

Reading a Supreme Court decision is so hard! If you are a fact-checker, it’s much easier just to let President Obama, a critic of a Supreme Court decision, caricature the decision and then parrot the baseless caricature as if it were fact.

The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., said employees who want to bring a pay discrimination lawsuit under Title VII (the federal antidiscrimination law with the shortest deadline) generally have to file a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days. But it specifically left open the possibility they could sue later on – even if they failed to file a timely EEOC complaint — if they did not discover the discrimination until later. The case involved Lilly Ledbetter, who waited more than five years after learning of a pay disparity between her and her male co-workers to file an EEOC complaint.

The White House falsely claimed “The Court ruled that employees subject to pay discrimination like Lilly Ledbetter must file a claim within 180 days of the employer’s original decision to pay them less . . . even if the employee did not discover the discriminatory reduction in pay until much later (check out Justice Alito’s arguments in the Court’s opinion).” In yesterday’s debate, Obama falsely claimed the Supreme Court said Ledbetter could not sue even if she had no way of discovering the discriminatory pay disparity. He said “the Supreme Court said that she couldn’t bring suit because she should have found about it earlier, whereas she had no ....”

These claims are utterly false. The Supreme Court specifically left open the possibility employees who learn of the discrimination later can sue under the “discovery rule” exception to the 180-day deadline. In footnote 10 of its opinion, the Court wrote, “We have previously declined to address whether Title VII suits are amenable to a discovery rule. . . .Because Ledbetter does not argue that such a rule would change the outcome in her case, we have no occasion to address this issue.”

Thus, since Ledbetter didn’t even claim in her lawsuit she hadn’t discovered the pay discrimination in time to sue, relaxing the deadline for her would have done her no good. In addition, if she truly had lacked knowledge of the pay disparity as a result of being deceived by her employer, she could have had the deadline extended under the Supreme Court’s doctrines of equitable tolling and estoppel, which are longstanding exceptions to the deadline that are a bit narrower than the discovery rule. But she didn’t allege either of these exceptions applied in her case.

In reality, Ledbetter knew of the pay disparity she later claimed was discriminatory for over five years before filing a legal complaint over it, as she admitted in her deposition in her lawsuit. But later, Ledbetter falsely claimed to the contrary in a speech to the Democratic National Convention.

It’s not true, as she claimed to the Convention, that she didn’t learn of it until “two decades” after she began working at the company. She had worked for the company since 1979. She learned of the pay disparity by 1992, as excerpts from her deposition, filed in the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Appendix, make clear. In response to the question: “So you knew in 1992 that you were being paid less than your peers?” she answered simply, “Yes, sir.” (See Joint Appendix at pg. 233; page 123 of Ledbetter’s deposition.) But she did not file a legal complaint over it until July 1998, shortly before her retirement in November 1998. See Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. 618, 621 (2007).

Politifact parroted Obama’s false claim in an Oct. 16 commentary entitled “Obama: Mitt Romney refused to say whether he supports Lilly Ledbett....” It wrote:

 In 2007, the Supreme Court had ruled in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. that the 180-day statute of limitations started from the day an employer made the decision to discriminate — making it impossible for employees who learned of such discrimination later to get relief, such as back pay.

This is just wrong, and all PolitiFact had to do to debunk this claim was read the Supreme Court’s decision (which its commentary claims was one of the “sources” for its “fact check”), or various law review articles about it. Or just read my prior emails to them, which I sent to a legion of fact-checkers in September 2012, anticipating Obama would make this false claim, having made similar false claims in the past. This morning, I sent more emails — to each Politifact staffer listed as contributors to the Oct. 16 commentary. In response, I received an email from the principal author this morning, stating:

“Thanks for your email. I’ll look into it and talk about it with my editors. What I wrote was consistent with how we’ve described the case in the past.”

As of now, the error I identified has not been fixed. I suspect it won’t be, until it is too late to correct it in the print version of any newspaper that cites Politifact. So the error will live on in every news database as if it were fact.

Ledbetter did indeed lose her pay discrimination lawsuit because she filed her complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) much too late, long after the legal deadline. The Supreme Court said in most cases employees should file an EEOC complaint within 180 days of their first discriminatory paycheck, if they want to sue under the federal anti-discrimination law with the shortest deadline, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

But again, the Supreme Court didn’t say the deadline should be applied rigidly. Instead, it specifically left open the possibility employees could sue later simply because they didn’t know of the discrimination at the time — a situation it said did not apply to Ledbetter’s case (she testified in her deposition that she knew of the pay disparity in 1992, but filed her complaint with the EEOC in 1998, around the time she retired). The Court pointedly noted that the plaintiff could have pressed her claim instead under the Equal Pay Act, which has a longer deadline for suing.

(Moreover, as lawyer Paul Mirengoff observed, the Supreme Court has long allowed hoodwinked employees to rely on equitable tolling, waiver, and estoppel to sue beyond the deadline, when employer deception keeps them from suing within 180 days, as it made clear in its Zipes decision).

As Stuart Taylor pointed out in the National Journal:

Ledbetter admitted in her sworn deposition that “different people that I worked for along the way had always told me that my pay was extremely low” compared to her peers. She testified specifically that a superior had told her in 1992 that her pay was lower than that of other area managers, and that she had learned the amount of the difference by 1994 or 1995. She added that she had told her supervisor in 1995 that “I needed to earn an increase in pay” because “I wanted to get in line with where my peers were, because… at that time I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand [dollars] at least more per month than I was.”

After she lost her case, Ledbetter falsely claimed to Congress and the media that she had not learned of the discrimination until the end of her career — a claim parroted by gullible politicians and the press. (Tellingly, Ledbetter’s claim is found nowhere in the dissenting opinion in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, even though if it had been true, the dissenting justices surely would have cited it, since it would have given them a much stronger reason to rule in her favor).

But in Ledbetter’s deposition, under oath, she admitted she knew by 1992 – years earlier — that she was paid less than her male peers, as former EEOC lawyer David Copus noted long ago in a law review article no one has ever rebutted. (See Copus, Pay Discrimination Claims After Ledbetter, 75 Defense Counsel Journal 300, 305 (2008)).

Similarly, Washington lawyer Paul Mirengoff pointed out that:

Ledbetter testified that she knew by 1992 that her pay was out of line with her peers. In 1995, she spoke to her supervisor about the problem, telling him that “I knew definitely that they were all making a thousand at least more per month than I was and that I would like to get in line.” Yet Ledbetter waited until 1998 to file her EEOC complaint.

Moreover, although the Supreme Court did dismiss Ledbetter’s lawsuit under Title VII, the discrimination law with the shortest deadline, it pointed out the plaintiff could have prosecuted her discrimination claim instead under the Equal Pay Act, which has a longer deadline for suing. As it noted, “Petitioner, having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII.” She might have won her case had she simply appealed based on the Equal Pay Act, which has a longer deadline (three years in most cases) and perhaps more generous rules for when the clock starts ticking on the statutory deadline for suing. Indeed, Supreme Court Justices suggested just that. See Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. at 640 (responding to Ledbetter’s observation that “lower courts routinely hear [EPA] claims challenging pay disparities that first arose outside the limitations period” by noting that “the EPA and Title VII are not the same”; “If Ledbetter had pursued her EPA claim, she would not face the Title VII obstacles that she now confronts”); Ledbetter, 550 U.S. at 658 n.8 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“Under the EPA,” “a claim charging denial of equal pay accrues anew with each paycheck,” citing legal treatise).

(Under some other discrimination statutes, the deadline for suing restarts with each paycheck, allowing employees to sue even though they needlessly delayed in bringing their discrimination claim after learning about it. Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in the Ledbetter case argued that such an indulgent rule should be applied to Title VII intentional discrimination cases, like the one Ledbetter brought, as well. Under another provision of Title VII — the disparate-impact provision — the deadline starts running all over again with each paycheck, as the Supreme Court indicated in Lewis v. Chicago (2010), which held that under the disparate-impact provision — unlike the intentional-discrimination provision at issue in the Ledbetter case — the deadline does not run from the date a decision or policy is adopted, but rather restarts all over again each time the policy is applied, giving the plaintiff much more time to sue.).

Disclosure: I used to bring discrimination lawsuits for a living. I once worked on a pay discrimination lawsuit against a university.

WHY HAS THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION CUT-OUT SET-A-SIDES FOR HBCU'S?

This is one of the reason's for PH'd Jahi Issa arrest at DSU a HBCU. Vice Presidents Biden's son Bo Biden attorney general state of Delaware involved in 1st Amendment violation and illegal arrest of Professor Issa.

Arthuretta Holmes-Martin v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Racial Discrimination, race, age, disability

THE ABOVE PHONY TRIAL SET-UP BY ATTORNEY GENERAL"ERIC HOLDER" TO COVER-UP STEALING FROM BLACK COLLEGE'S!

the plaintiff, an African-American woman, began working as the Deputy Director of the OSDBU, an office within the Department of Health and Human Services. Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Renewed Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Opp'n") at 3. Her first line supervisor was Debbie Ridgely, a white female, the Director of the OSDBU. Id.

In 2004, Ridgely hired Clarence Randall, a white male, to serve as her "Special Advisor," a position created, the plaintiff claims, to supersede the plaintiff's position. Id. at 3. The plaintiff alleges that over the following months, Ridgely transferred many of the plaintiff's responsibilities to Randall, such that Randall effectively assumed the role of Ridgely's deputy.

Real Black People in Chicago speaking out!  http://youtu.be/6tXS2GRkqSc
 
How much and/or how many properties does Michelle Robinson-Obama's family own in the south side of chicago? This is the reason during the beginning of their presidency they tryed to get the Olympics for Chicago. Black corruption of the Obama's from Michelle Robinson-Obama as Special Assistant to corrupt Mayor Richard Daley. Look at all Michelle Robinson-Obama's former Job's and how they relate to Richard Daley and her ex-intern husband also. What Hood did the President come from in Chicago? High Park! 

RSS

Latest Activity

Events

© 2017   Created by Janice.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Speaking Truth to POWER and OURSELVES