Oh, how tasty are the f-LIES when they first appear, but they hurt the belly when you get too many!


   Wanna see some monster f-LIES given to labor officials? 

               Look below!

   Ah, they swallowed them, too

        - no questions asked!


  How do we know they're f-LIES? 

  Easy, there's proof!



  is this normal for TEXAS or the EEOC - to accept lies without question & without any investigation?

   The excerpt above and page below are from YMCA statements to labor officials. 

   The "USCA5" code in the bottom right corner on the lower pages show this was used in his pro se lawsuit -- the judges had this stuff and ignored it.  Evidence of corruption since at least 4 judges had proof the YMCA lied to labor officials (as well as in affidavit testimony to the court), yet they cast Mr. Noack out without a jury (violating the Law and the U.S. 7th Amendment).

     The top excerpt talks about "adverse employment action" -- Noack merely filed a labor complaint: as a common U.S. worker, how would he ever think of legal details when filing a labor complaint?  Labor officials are supposed to investigate, right?  (Prior pages on this site show they didn't question witnesses.) 

     In another snaky move, the YMCA additionally told the labor agent that Mr. Noack had forfeited his right to any help from labor officials "as a matter of Law", since he (supposedly) had never tried to discuss his problems with YMCA officials, first.  As you can see, that's also a LIE.  The YMCA admitted meeting with him in their own "Internal Investigation" (LOL), months earlier.  (- and there wouldn't have been any internal investigation so soon if he hadn't mentioned his complaint to them, right?)  Plus, there was a discrimination complaint well before that! (Notice further documents.)

       So, the YMCA used lies and false pretense to get labor officials off their backs, and the labor board simply took their word on it, no questions asked. (See webpage on EEOC.)


   Ah, something the YMCA and judges didn't want a jury or anyone else to see?

     Months before ever being contacted by the labor board, the YMCA sent a memo (below) about an "Internal Investigation" and meeting with Mr. Noack over problems he had with them.  That's 5 months prior to them telling outlandish lies (above) to labor officials.

     Why tell labor officials there were never problems in Noack's entire YMCA career?  WHY LIE? - WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?   Since they lied in that, to a labor investigator, and lied in court affidavit testimony (see prior page), what crazy, false pretenses do you think were made in their so-called "investigation" (below)?  I'd say it's likely FULL of LIES, too!    - Maybe it's an attempt to cover up illegalities and misdeeds.

     Then, there's the fact they knew they'd met with Noack for a conduct write-up against him, to which he complained it was no misbehavior on his part but rather due to being so bold as to actually wanting PAY for his overtime work and that there were years of unpaid overtime by coercion, apparently.  LOL -- his complaint of coerced unpaid overtime and retaliation must have slipped their collective minds?

      BTW, when you get to the part (below) about "work assignments", the YMCA tried to casually pass off a temporary pay-cut against Mr. Noack as being a common act done with "part time employees"; but, Mr. Noack was no part time employee -- he was full time!  (http://supremelyunjust.weebly.com/proof-of-pay-problems.html).  The top left data-area on each page of the wage forms shows Mr. Noack was a full time employee; so, again, the YMCA twisted facts and denied the truth.   Notice how BIG the pay-cut was, too! (WOW!)

     So, is that about 3 or 4 lies by now?  Let's try one more, about "recruiting" (below).   Court records show Mr. Noack tried repeatedly (and apparently unsuccessfully) to get "Help Wanted" newspaper ads to staff his afterschool sites that were miles from his YMCA center. 

     Sources reveal the YMCA commonly took out such paper ads to help others doing similar work and the YMCA center where Noack worked used a lighted billboard by the Hwy, nearby, to also draw in applicants.  That helped him little, as he needed people to work at sites over 20+ miles away, for part time jobs paying under $8 per hour (in 2007), it seems.  So, denying the same help in paper ads alone would be a big problem; yet, no mention of that was made in the YMCA's SELF-"investigation". -- Constant deception, lies and cover-up, it seems.


     As evidenced by the willingness of the YMCA to lie to the labor investigator, then submit perjurous testimony to the court and withhold evidence, all YMCA statements and behaviors in the YMCA's internal investigation must therefore be taken "with a grain of salt", as it was apparently manipulated to hide and obscure the truth.

     It is my understanding that Mr. Noack didn't realize how bad it was for the timesheets to (allegedly) be "rigged", at first.  It seems there (allegedly) was some shuffling of hours between weeks to prevent payment of overtime wages to employees.  The YMCA excuse of "comp time" being used, however, seems inaccurate, as comp time was apparently not done.  "Comp time" includes compensation for overtime at a rate of  1 1/2  hours of time off work per hour of overtime worked.   However, it seems the amount of time off was only given in a 1-to-1 ratio, which is not equivalent to overtime compensation at all. 

     Also, even IF "comp time" had been done and worked overtime hours pushed along from week to week, doing so  for non-salaried, wage-earning workers might actually be illegal in itself.  There are strict laws about such things. 


      YMCA HR also met with Mr. Noack in 2000! (below.)

    Sources indicate the meeting in 2000  came about at Mr. Noack's request.  That's at least 2 meetings with HR reps (and likely supervisory officials) about problems the YMCA was so eager to conceal from labor officials they were willing to LIE to cover up! 

   Again, proof of YMCA deception and lies


    Is it HYPNOTISM that f-LIES it all by?!

Note:  in the document below, please understand that Mr. Noack never entered the bathroom while the girl was in it.  The drawing and documentation below shows he simply escorted the child to & from the restroom, which was in public view.  He entered it alone, first, to ensure it's cleanliness, left, and then allowed the girl to use it with the door closed for privacy, as per his supervisor's instruction.

     There is an unverified report by a previous YMCA staff member that parents had actually picketed the YMCA to get Mr. Noack back into the work he had been doing (way back then), as he did such good work with their kids.  It is interesting to note, also, that Mr Noack was not fired, nor was he given any disciplinary report whatsoever. 

      Plus, he went on to higher positions, as well, so he evidently had not done anything wrong. 

 The unnotarized testimony of Ms. Osborn claimed Mr. Noack worked with infants to 2 years old, back then.  How, if they had gone in groups for bathroom breaks & used the bathroom alone, individually?   Think.  --  When do children from infants to age 2 line up in groups & go in all alone to "potty" all by themselves? 

Noack's evidence & testimony, however, reveals he actually did work mostly with older kids.

So, was Ms. Osborn yet another lying employee?  Seems like it, but her testimony also was unnotarized, so it could have been anyone saying such things, unless an expert can verify her signature.  If it was not her testifying, that would also be fraud & still wrong.

 So, why would they lie on this?  What could the YMCA gain, or was she afraid about her career? 

 Were they trying to smear Noack in the minds of the judges, to make him look like a pervert taking little toddlers somewhere alone? 

Seems like it.   - Or possibly conveniently-poor memory on Ms. Osborn's part.

Maybe anything to prevent a JURY from seeing the evidence?

Seems like it.

After all, if they REALLY thought he'd done wrong, they would have documented it on a conduct form (but did not) ....and would not have sent him to work with other small children elsewhere & promoted him, later.


Outrageous  &  SHAMEFUL,  YMCA!


So, looks like at least 2 YMCA liars.

Oh, but wait, maybe 3, as their HR Director is likely responsible for denying any complaints EVER from Mr. Noack, only months after doing an internal investigation on his complaints!

Then, how about the other YMCA witness, Mrs. Egger?   Shall we go 4-for-4 ?

She told superiors that Mr. Noack took so long typing something to her that, even if counting every single word, it amounted to 7 words per minute, Mr. Noack contested to the court. 

She followed that remark by saying...she didn't know what he was doing.  Huh?

Sounds contradictory.  Did she really watch him 1 1/2 hours to see whether he did nothing else?  Yet she said she didn't know what he was doing.  Well, IF true, she was confessing she hired someone who could only type 7 words per minute.  Amazing. 

Was that slander, defamation, or foolishness? 

 Oh, but her testimony was also unnotarized. (-yet accepted by the court?!)

Why are the judges not jailed?  It is illegal to intentionally mislead a court, as well, which seems quite evident, too.  Have the liars & perjurers been questioned by the FBI?   If not, why?  Is this what we allow? -- Does America destroy every man of integrity?

Mr. Noack never once got to cross-examine these people, yet showed they all seemed to have lied against him to some extent. 

Conversely, did the YMCA ever show Mr. Noack lied?  --  No.

Did they ever so much as address his claims of being physically assaulted, threatened with assaults, sent male-bashing emails, or his boss ranting that she hated men? 

NO, I don't think so -- not once! 

When a party makes claims like that which go unanswered, is it evidence of accuracy?   If then such claims are true, how did the case get dismissed without a jury?  Also, since the testimony of Noack conflicted with theirs in certain important areas, that indicates one reason why summary judgment is illegal in this case.  Can a judge take over the rights of jurors & decide alone who is lying or telling the truth?  No.  That is what juries are for, and Noack cast great doubt on the YMCA's testimony by showing they'd lied -- proved it, repeatedly.

Therefore, the judges, knowing all that, apparently acted as...criminals! 

I would also have to consider the YMCA the same,

.....but will any govt official have the gonads to do their duty?

Sure, everyone can relax & eat cake: it didn't happen to them....yet.



Make a free website with Yola