Reply to topic 'Supreme Court of Ohio ' (under Tom_McMasters's post)

You have 30 minutes to complete this form before the CAPTCHA will expire.

You are not logged in. If you log in you can receive point credit, notifications, and edit control, for your submission.

Please be aware that your post will need to be validated by a moderator before it goes live. Sorry for the inconvenience, please be patient.

Required field *
* Required field
* Required field
Play audio version
To prevent bots, we require you to duplicate the text shown in the image, in the text box. If the image doesn't show correctly please check your web browser is not zoomed in/out.

Use of this website implies that you agree to the website rules and privacy policy.

Posts

Post

Posted
Rating:
#157
Avatar
Site director
Tom_McMasters is in the usergroup ‘Administrators’
Show
Back to the top

Post

Posted
Rating:
#57
Avatar
Site director
Tom_McMasters is in the usergroup ‘Administrators’

Supreme Court of Ohio


I appealed my case to the Supreme Court of Ohio asking them to give me a chance to come before them and explain my case to them in person.  To do this I had to compose a document that explains the facts of the case and then gives an explanation on why it is important to the Court and the residents of the State of Ohio.  This document is called a memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  

You can download and read my argument straight from the Supreme Court of Ohio's website by clicking here:  Amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction.

After I wrote the company got to respond.  You can read how they responded by clicking here

Click here if you want to see  all the files on the Supreme Courts website.



It is interesting to see the company's response because, if the members of the court read both documents carefully, they'll see Serco actually makes my case for me better than I make it.  On page six of their document Serco provides this quote "due process and equal protection violations require an element of state action" and later they conclude "the equal protection clause guarantees only that the legislature will treat citizens equally". 
However that last sentence is not correct because it not only means the legislature will treat citizens equally but also the courts will treat citizens equally.  Anyone that reads my document sees that in Lakeland v Columber the Supreme Court wrote a sentence that lower courts have used in a way so that the courts treat employees differently than they treat employers.  In other words, if the Supreme Court allows lower court ruling to stand there will be two unequal categories under the law; Employers who will get their day in court when they sue for breach of contract and employees who will not get the opportunity to enforce the terms of their contract before a jury.

 

Last edit: by Tom_McMasters

Back to the top