Preliminary information
Fraud on the Court - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/fraud-on-the-court.html
________________________________________________________________________________
The following JPegs are of court documents showing Mr. Noack reasoned with a district magistrate over, apparently, a variety of improprieties in his case. "USCA5" codes at page-bottoms show the records were also sent to the U.S. 5th Cir. Court, which also ignored the problems, whether due to "flying" through his case too quickly so as to clear the docket of a backlog of cases or for some other reason. Highlights are added to help find interesting points.
A blatant lack of due process seems likely. In legal matters, WORDS mean something, but apparently that was nothing to the court, as they disregarded what seem to be highly legitimate protests by Noack on legal terms, what that means, a lack of accuracy & completion in the witnessing of affidavit testimonies, multiple evidences of false testimony, what looks like true concern about judicial bias and invalidity of documents used as evidence by the YMCA (yet allowed by the magistrate), and so on. If one swears their testimony is witnessed & notarized but it has no indication of that, that ought to be a problem, but the courts somehow considered it permissible for the YMCA to use all the unnotarized testimony. Still, the fact the affiants declared the testimony was notarized (but none of it was) already honestly shows one untruth (in each of their four employee affidavits). Plus, Noack gives other riveting arguments while saying that, since they each swore they were "deposed", there are rules for that, too (-- ignored). How was it that only he -- a poor man with no legal training - had to play by the rules, while the rules didn't apply to his rich, popular opponent?
One item mentioned was the claim of impropriety in his deposition by the YMCA (when questioned under oath). Mr. Noack reminds the court of his prior complaint of not being allowed "cross-examination" as alluded to in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since he was self-litigating ("pro se"), he maintains he ought to have been allowed to speak relevant testimony to the questions in lieu of being cross-examined by his own lawyer -- a lawyer he did not have due to poverty and the court refusing to appoint one (although he'd asked for one). It seems highly improper for the court to ignore him on that!
Some items also touch on what looks like several issues wherein YMCA testimony was flawed or false as well as the idea that it was unduly favored over Noack's own sworn, notarized testimony, anyway -- something quite improper at a "summary judgment" proceeding. Why improper? - Because Noack was the NON-movant of the motion for summary judgment. Law stipulates all must be viewed in the non-movant's best light and all justifiable inferences regarded in his favor, and, legally, if a jury could find in his favor with the available evidence, summary judgment against him is illegal - it must go to a jury.
As a reminder, Mr. Noack mentions a variety of scenarios. He held numerous part-time positions over the years before going fulltime. While not mentioned in the pages shown here, Noack had also complained about a temporary (few months) large & very unusual knock-down in pay, after his promotion to fulltime employee status. He claimed the latter temporary demotion from afterschool duties & concurrent pay-drop was improper. That seems to be true. These following pages (below) touch on various positions held by him, due to his claim of "ongoing discrimination," and are only part of the overall court documents.
[Federal documents can be obtained by the public via FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).]
NOTE:
In boxed area above, mention of false testimony to TWCCRD (Texas labor board) is referenced.
Elsewhere, plaintiff related how it was false. (See this site, Lies To LABOR Agent page.) The existence of a YMCA internal investigation into his (fall 2007) complaint is apparent proof they lied to TWCCRD a mere 6 months later, in saying they never knew of any problems!
That should have created a "red flag" (caution) in court on Noack's behalf.
NOTE:
See bottom of page above
and top of page below.
The info shown indicates Mr. Noack proved at least a measure of false testimony was used against him.
-- Why did judge/s let that pass without incident?
-- Why then deny his right to a jury trial in an obviously clouded case?
Unlawful >> Summ. judgmt. should not be rendered on uncertain facts. With multiple, blatant proof of false testimonies ignored, there is only room to suspect fraud on the court. - Cases should not end via felony crimes!
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment
that something else is more important than fear."
- Ambrose Redmoon
