Fox TV

Right now, Fox News is trying to paint Barack Obama as foreign,un-American, suspicious, and scary. They're trying to send Americansthe message that our country's first viable Black candidate forPresident is not "one of us."

I've joined on to ColorOfChange.org's campaign to push back on Fox,publicly demanding they stop their race-baiting and fear mongering. Ifthat doesn't work, then we'll go to their advertisers and the FCC. Iwanted to invite you to sign on as well. It takes only a moment:

http://www.colorofchange.org/foxobama/?id=1908-212062

Here's what happened recently:

After Senator Obama won the nomination, he and  his wife gave each othera "pound" in front of the cameras. Fox anchor E.D. Hill called the actof celebration a "terrorist fist jab." Then last week, a Fox Newson-screen graphic referred to Michelle Obama as "Obama's babymama"--slang used to describe the unmarried mother of a man's child. Itwas a clear attempt to associate the Obamas with negative culturalstereotypes about Black people, an insult not only to Michelle Obamabut to women and Black people everywhere.

After each of the incidents mentioned, Fox issued some form of weakapology. But what does it mean when you slap someone in the face,apologize the next day, then slap them again on the third? It means theapology is meaningless.

These aren't one-time incidents--they're part of a pattern thatcontinues no matter how often Fox is forced to apologize. Fox has aclear record of attacking and undermining Black institutions, Blackleaders, and Black people in  general.

If we don't push back now, we will see more of the same from now untilNovember. Please join me in helping to bring an end to Fox's behavior.

http://www.colorofchange.org/foxobama/?id=1908-212062

Thanks.

document.getElementById(“MsgContainer”).innerHTML=’\x3cpre\x3eDear Friends,\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3eRight now, Fox News is trying to paint Barack Obama as foreign,\x3cbr\x3eun-American, suspicious, and scary. They\x26\x2339\x3bre trying to send Americans\x3cbr\x3ethe message that our country\x26\x2339\x3bs first viable Black candidate for\x3cbr\x3ePresident is not \x26\x2334\x3bone of us.\x26\x2334\x3b\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3eI\x26\x2339\x3bve joined on to ColorOfChange.org\x26\x2339\x3bs campaign to push back on Fox,\x3cbr\x3epublicly demanding they stop their race-baiting and fear mongering. If\x3cbr\x3ethat doesn\x26\x2339\x3bt work, then we\x26\x2339\x3bll go to their advertisers and the FCC. I\x3cbr\x3ewanted to invite you to sign on as well. It takes only a moment\x26\x2358\x3b\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3e\x3ca href\x3d\x27http\x26\x2358\x3b\x26\x2347\x3b\x26\x2347\x3bwww.colorofchange.org\x26\x2347\x3bfoxobama\x26\x2347\x3b\x26\x2363\x3bid\x26\x2361\x3b1908-212062\x27 target\x3d\x27_blank\x27\x3ehttp\x26\x2358\x3b\x26\x2347\x3b\x26\x2347\x3bwww.colorofchange.org\x26\x2347\x3bfoxobama\x26\x2347\x3b\x26\x2363\x3bid\x26\x2361\x3b1908-212062\x3c\x2fa\x3e\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3eHere\x26\x2339\x3bs what happened recently\x26\x2358\x3b\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3eAfter Senator Obama won the nomination, he and his wife gave each other\x3cbr\x3ea \x26\x2334\x3bpound\x26\x2334\x3b in front of the cameras. Fox anchor E.D. Hill called the act\x3cbr\x3eof celebration a \x26\x2334\x3bterrorist fist jab.\x26\x2334\x3b Then last week, a Fox News\x3cbr\x3eon-screen graphic referred to Michelle Obama as \x26\x2334\x3bObama\x26\x2339\x3bs baby\x3cbr\x3emama\x26\x2334\x3b–slang used to describe the unmarried mother of a man\x26\x2339\x3bs child. It\x3cbr\x3ewas a clear attempt to associate the Obamas with negative cultural\x3cbr\x3estereotypes about Black people, an insult not only to Michelle Obama\x3cbr\x3ebut to women and Black people everywhere.\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3eAfter each of the incidents mentioned, Fox issued some form of weak\x3cbr\x3eapology. But what does it mean when you slap someone in the face,\x3cbr\x3eapologize the next day, then slap them again on the third\x26\x2363\x3b It means the\x3cbr\x3eapology is meaningless.\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3eThese aren\x26\x2339\x3bt one-time incidents–they\x26\x2339\x3bre part of a pattern that\x3cbr\x3econtinues no matter how often Fox is forced to apologize. Fox has a\x3cbr\x3eclear record of attacking and undermining Black institutions, Black\x3cbr\x3eleaders, and Black people in general.\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3eIf we don\x26\x2339\x3bt push back now, we will see more of the same from now until\x3cbr\x3eNovember. Please join me in helping to bring an end to Fox\x26\x2339\x3bs behavior.\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3e\x3ca href\x3d\x27http\x26\x2358\x3b\x26\x2347\x3b\x26\x2347\x3bwww.colorofchange.org\x26\x2347\x3bfoxobama\x26\x2347\x3b\x26\x2363\x3bid\x26\x2361\x3b1908-212062\x27 target\x3d\x27_blank\x27\x3ehttp\x26\x2358\x3b\x26\x2347\x3b\x26\x2347\x3bwww.colorofchange.org\x26\x2347\x3bfoxobama\x26\x2347\x3b\x26\x2363\x3bid\x26\x2361\x3b1908-212062\x3c\x2fa\x3e\x3cbr\x3e \x3cbr\x3eThanks.\x3cbr\x3e\x3c\x2fpre\x3e’;

---

Barack Obama’s Father’s Day Remarks at Apostolic Church of God

MyFox Chattanooga Barack Obama’s Father’s Day Remarks at Apostolic Church of God

Barack Obama’s Father’s Day Remarks at Apostolic Church of God

MyFox Chattanooga Barack Obama’s Father’s Day Remarks at Apostolic Church of God

What are the social policy implications?

Is there justice in the 7th Circuit of the Northern District?

Illinois Department of Employment Security: The Mentor ABI Group, Center for Comprehensive Services

STATE OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
APPEALS DIVISION
BOARD OF REVIEW
33 SOUTH STATE STREET, 9TH FLOOR
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603

APPEAL OF DECISION

I, Randi, was an employee of The Mentor ABI Group, Center for Comprehensive Services. I was terminated from my employment on or about March 18, 2008. The employee warning notice, dated March 20, 2008, which determined my termination states in part “…Termination…attendance…staff did not work the second shift of her double that she agreed to work.”

Randi filed a timely unemployment insurance claim. According to the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), “…The claimant was discharged from Center for Comprehensive Svcs because of an unauthorized absence of a scheduled work shift. The claimant had received prior warnings concerning her attendance.”

Randi filed a timely appeal. On May 23, 2008, a telephone hearing was conducted. The following individuals participated in this telephone hearing: Randi (employee), Michael Fowler (employer representative), Bradley Guthrie (employer representative), Ms. Himmel (employer representative) and David Ott (Illinois Department of Employment Security Hearing Referee and Administrative Law Judge). On or about May 28, 2008, Mr. David Ott issued a decision affirming the determination of the local office.

On June 15, 2008, Randi files a timely “Right of Further Appeal” on the decision of David W. Ott.

Randi employs and enjoins C.L.I.C.K. Services, NFP, specifically, Fred L Nance Jr. to advocate and write her appeal/opinion in this matter. This advocacy is part of this case and the appropriate paperwork is on file with the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES). I, Randi, also give C.L.I.C.K. Services, NFP, specifically, Fred L Nance Jr. permission to post this appeal/opinion on his website at http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/.

Individuals mentioned in this writing are: Randi is a black female. Mr. David Ott is a white male. Mr. Michael Fowler is a white male. Mr. Bradley Guthrie is a white male. Ms. Himmel is a white female. Rodrick is a black male.

Finding of Fact by IDES

Mr. Ott reports, in part: “The claimant was a life skills therapist from May 16, 2005 to March 18, 2008, her last day of work…The claimant had a history of attendance problems about which the employer warned her…On the final occasion that resulted in her discharge she was scheduled to work a double shift. She first had to drive a resident to a doctor’s appointment in Kentucky. When she returned she had to work at a residential facility 3:00 pm – 10:00 pm. When she did not report for work at the facility her supervisor called her cell phone, reaching her at another employer residential facility. She was cooking dinner for the residents. She said she did not report for work at her scheduled facility because she was tired from having to drive the resident to his doctor’s appointment. The supervisor told her the facility was understaffed so she had to report to the facility right away. When she asked what would happen if she did not report for work he said she would be disciplined. He again told her to report for work. Again she refused. He told her to leave the facility where she was, which she did…Insubordination is the refusal by an employee to comply with a reasonable directive of the employer. The claimant’s actions constituted insubordination. The supervisor’s request that she report for work was reasonable because the residential facility was understaffed. The claimant’s explanation that she was not going to work because she was tired was not a reasonable excuse for failing to follow her supervisor’s directive. She could not have been all that tired because she was helping out at another residential facility by cooking dinner…Another consideration here is that every employee must report to work unless she has permission to be off or if her absence was due to circumstances beyond her control…Therefore, her discharge was for misconduct within the meaning of Section 602A. She is not eligible for unemployment benefits because of the disqualification provision in Section 602A.”

The Testimony

Hearing Officer:

What happened after March 18 was she suspended without pay, what happened? (L. 77-78)

Ms. Kimmel:

When we conduct an investigation, we may pull someone off shift until we complete documentation. (L. 81-82)

Hearing Officer:

Go head Ms. Kimmel, you take them off the schedule during your investigation and then are they, are they, they are not being paid during that time. (L. 89-90)

Ms. Kimmel:

No, if someone is not working they are not paid, unless the investigation is unfounded. (L. 91-92)

Randi was never told she was under investigation before she was terminated. Randi should have been on schedule and being paid.

Ms. Kimmel:

On March 18th Randi was scheduled to work at a Woodlake Residence from the 3:00pm to 10:00pm which is indicated on the Woodlake schedule, Randi had pickup what is known as a Transport that morning to take one of our participants to a doctor’s appointment. Randi was still scheduled to work that evening at Woodlake, and she did not work that second shift. (L. 96-100)

Hearing Officer:

Why didn’t she work, I mean she didn’t show up or she said that she wasn’t going to work? (L. 101-102)

Ms. Kimmel:

Yes, she said that she was too tired to work, Mr. Brad Guthrie, the shift supervisor, contacted her and spoke with her at 7:00pm, on March 18th, and reminded her that she was still on the shift and that they needed her at Woodlake, that there were only two staff members working and that her presence was needed. Randi asked what would happen if she didn’t show up. He stated that it would most likely result in a write up, or some type of disciplinary action. Randi chose to not complete her shift. (L. 103-109)

Mr. Nance:

I just want to note that she said that Randi told her that she was too tired to work and that constitutes sick, and I want that on the record. (L. 112-113)

Ms. Kimmel was not present during the conversation between Mr. Guthrie and Randi. Ms. Kimmel’s testimony here is heresay.

Hearing Officer:

Mr. Nance let me explain something here, you are allowed to ask questions and make objections however, you can not testify because you are not under oath, if you want me to put you under oath, I will be glad to do so. (L. 114-116)

Mr. Nance:

Then put me under oath. (L. 117)

Hearing Officer:

OK, Mr. Nance do you solemnly swear or affirm that any testimony that you may give in this case will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (L. 118-120)

Mr. Nance:

I do affirm I need to be under oath because I intend to site case law for Illinois. (L. 121)

Mr. Ott should have sworn me in when he swore in the other participants in this
matter.

Hearing Officer:

Now has she ever had any previous problems, meaning refusing to work her scheduled shift? (L. 126-127)

Ms. Kimmel:

Yes sir, she had multiple warnings regarding her attendance since September 12, 2005. (L. 128-128)

Randi has not refused to work. Ms. Kimmel did not answer the question.

Mr. Nance:

Mr. Ott, I want to object, they have a policy which states that the employees are allowed three unexcused absences within the year. (L. 130-131)

Hearing Officer:

Ok, that is between Randi and the employer. I am only determining if Randi will receive Unemployment benefits. (L. 132-133)

This is a biased and prejudicial statement by Mr. Ott. I thought the reason for
having this hearing was to assess the material facts, to get to the conclusion. This is a very important point I make about the employer’s unexcused absence policy.

Hearing Officer:

I see I also have something regarding an order here, on August 25, 2006; did she get a warning at this time? (L. 168-169)

Ms. Kimmel:

Yes, a written warning for not showing up for her 4pm-10:00pm shift on August 18, 2006, the Supervisor contacted her and was told by Ms. Nance that she would be there at 6:00pm, and she later called back and stated that she had a headache and would not be in. (L. 170-173)

Hearing Officer:

We will call it a sick call off. And then I have is February 12, 2008, what was that all about? (L. 174-175)

Ms. Kimmel:

Did not follow protocol when calling off. At that time Randi was what was known as a PRN employee. The attendance policy of PRN employee is responsible for finding coverage when they will not be in to work. Randi failed to find anyone to cover for her absence. (L. 176-179)

Hearing Officer:

How about you Mr. Nance, any questions for Ms. Kimmel. (L. 189)

Mr. Nance:

Yes, Ms. Kimmel do you have a policy that states that an employee are allowed three unexcused absences in a year? (L. 190-191)

Ms. Kimmel:

Yes sir (L. 192)

Mr. Nance:

Do you understand that Department of Labor Law states that a person does not have to produce a reason for being sick unless they are off seventy two (72) hours? (L. 193-195)

Ms. Kimmel:

I know what our attendance policy states. (L. 196)

Hearing Officer:

She is not responsibility for the Department of Labor; she is only responsible for the employer’s policy whether it is right or wrong. (L. 197-198)

This is a ludicrous statement from Mr. Ott. Every employer is responsible for following the laws of the Department of Labor. This is where Mr. Ott is biased and prejudiced toward Randi again. This call off is no different than the absence on March 18, 2008 where Randi stated she was sick from the 10-hour transport of the participant to Kentucky, to which Randi was terminated for being sick. Also, the employer’s policy here fly’s in the face of Labor laws. An employee should not have to find a replacement employee when they call off sick.

Hearing Officer:

Mr. Guthrie lets go to you testimony, what happen on March 18, 2008? (L. 200)

Mr. Guthrie:

Randi was scheduled, I called talked to Randi about seven o’clock to determine if she was coming to work her evening shift. She said that she was tired from doing the transport earlier. I told her that we were understaffed and that we needed her to come in. (L. 201-204)

Hearing Officer:

You just told me that she stated that she didn’t know that she was supposed to work that 3:00pm-11:00pm shift. How did you know that she knew that she was supposed to work that shift? (L. 210-212)

Mr. Guthrie:

We put the schedule out a week in advance. (L. 213)

Hearing Officer:

Then it was on the schedule then? (L. 214)

Randi reports later in this testimony that she did not know she was on the schedule to work this day because Randi did not come to work until March 18, 2008.Reportedly, this schedule did not come out until Friday, March 14, 2008. Randi never saw the schedule. Randi informs Mr. Guthrie she is sick here. An employee does not have the responsibility of caring about whether an employer is
understaffed. Is this supposed to make her not sick anymore?

Hearing Officer:

You said that you called her at 7:00pm which was four hours after her shift started, why did you call her? Because she wasn’t at work? (L. 216-217)

Here, Mr. Ott provides the employer’s representative with the answer.

Mr. Guthrie:

She wasn’t back from her transport yet. (L. 218)

Hearing Officer:

Oh, what made you call her? (L. 219)

Mr. Guthrie:

She was suppose to come in, from what I understood she was suppose to be back around 4:00 or 5:00pm. (L. 220-221)

These are unfair labor practices here. Mr. Guthrie admits Randi had not come back from her transport until 7:00 pm. Randi was required and she reported to the facility to pick up the participant for the transport at 7:00 am. Randi returned from her transport at 6:00 pm. Randi left the facility after dropping off the transport at 7:30 pm. It is understandable that Randi was tired, sick and frustrated from this transport. If you check the weather for this day, it was raining heavily, which made the transport more difficult and frustrating.

Hearing Officer:

I see, she still wasn’t back yet and you were concerned. Where did you call her then at seven pm? Where was she? (L. 222-223)

Mr. Guthrie:

She was at our other residence call Bridge House (L. 224)

Hearing Officer:

Was she working? (L. 225)

Mr. Guthrie:

Yes, she said that she was cooking dinner for the participants. (L. 226)

Hearing Officer:

I am a little confused, where she was supposed to work starting at 3:00pm is that where you called her, or are talking about a different residence? (L. 227-228)

Mr. Guthrie:

She was at a different residence. (L. 229)

Hearing Officer:

How did you know to call her there? (L. 230)

Mr. Guthrie:

Because she did a transport for Bridge House earlier, and I called her on her cell phone and she told me that she was there. (L. 231-232)

Hearing Officer:

Ok, you called her cell phone; I know that you said that she was cooking dinner. Was she actually working and on the clock, a being paid? (L. 233-234)

Mr. Guthrie:

Yes (L. 235)

Hearing Officer:

Did you ask her why she was working at the other location when she was supposed to be at your location. (L. 236-237)

Mr. Guthrie:

Yes, that is when she told me that she was cooking dinner. (L. 238)

Hearing Officer:

That explains why she was cooking at one residence, when she was scheduled to work at your residence? (L. 239-240)

Mr. Guthrie:

I don’t know that is why I asked her to come over. (L. 241)

Randi was not getting paid, as Mr. Guthrie states in L. 235. Randi was volunteering her services to assist the employee who was working because this employee stated to Randi she was alone working in this house, which this is the house where Randi got the transport. Also, Randi informs Mr. Ott later in this testimony that she was not being paid as Mr. Guthrie states. As a matter of fact, Randi did her paperwork regarding the transport, signed out (clocked out) and then started cooking for the participants. Why does Mr. Ott believe he gets an answer to find Randi wrong with the statement in L. 239-240? This does not explain why she was cooking in one residence and not working in another.

Hearing Officer:

She did say that she was not aware that she was scheduled to work at your residence, or that she was tired and didn’t want to work. I am trying to find out what the employer knows. She gave you an explanation as to why she was cooking at one resident when she was schedule to work at another resident? (L. 242-245)

Mr. Guthrie:

No, except that she was tired (L. 246)

Hearing Officer:

but if you are working at one residence, you are still tired see what I’m getting at, why my way of thinking if you are tired why would she be cooking at one residence instead of going home? Did she explain that? (L. 247-249)

Mr. Guthrie:

No (L. 250)

Hearing Officer:

Was she working some kind of a shift there, or did she just stop by to cook dinner for the residents as a favor, did she say what was she doing there? (L. 251-252)

Mr. Guthrie:

No, she returned from the transport and began cooking. (L. 253)

Hearing Officer:

Did she say what time she returned from the transport? (L. 254)

Mr. Guthrie:

No (L. 255)

Why is Mr. Ott leading the witness? It appears Mr. Ott leads the witness to get the witness to change his testimony about Randi’s absence. Mr. Ott’s conversation continues to justify Randi’s inability to perform her work because she is sick, which she claimed from the beginning. Mr. Ott asks Mr. Guthrie again was Randi working. This time Mr. Guthrie admits she was not working at the other site. Randi was merely cooking assisting the other employee. This evidence so far is overwhelmingly in Randi’s favor. How could Mr. Ott miss ruling in Randi favor?

In addition, there is very important information in Lines 255 through 358. It was too wordy to insert here in this document. I will be filing a copy of this transcription from shorthand notes taken on May 23, 2008 along with this appeal writing. You will be able to review the testimony from this copy.

Mr. Nance:

Mr. Guthrie, Is it normal for a person to go on a ten hour transport, a drive to another city, and come back and work another eight hour shift? Is that how you work your employees? (L. 359-361)

Mr. Guthrie:

I wouldn’t say that was normal, however, she was scheduled to work a sixteen hour shift. (L. 362-363)

Randi had no knowledge she was scheduled to work a 16-hour shift, especially after a transport from Illinois to Kentucky in hazardous and rainy weather.

Hearing Officer:

You said that you were on a ten hour trip and that you got back between 6:00 or 6:30pm. (L. 365-366)

Randi:

Yes sir, I got back, there was a flood in Carbondale and when I found out that I was scheduled for a double, most of the employees that were scheduled that night had call off. I was at Bridge House and there was a co-worker, April Heath working by herself. I got a call from Brad telling me that everybody had called off and that he needed me at Woodlake. There was already an employee name Shree and him there, I do not know Shree’s last name working. And April stated that she didn’t want to work by herself, we had some trouble clients at the time that would start fights, even though it was a high functioning house. After I got off the phone the first time, I told him that I was tired, I wasn’t aware that I was working a double. He asked me if I had seen the schedule, I said no I had not seen the schedule because I was out of town the week end when the schedule was put out. I told Brad that I would call him back and let him know if I would come over to Woodlake. I didn’t call him back, he called me. Mean while April asked if I would help fix dinner for the kids, Brad called me in the middle of fixing dinner, I told him that I was too tired to come over to Woodlake, he said OK, I asked him what would be the consequences, he said most likely it would be a write up, I said OK, I’m going to call Sherry, which is the Program Director, and I’m going home. I clocked out and went home. Technically I was not clocked in, we have to fill out a sheet when we do transport and write in the time. (L. 367-385)

Hearing Officer:

Right, did you put in for the time you were at Bridgeview or whatever house you were in? (L. 386-387)

Randi:

No sir, I ended my time at 6:30pm which was the time we got back from the transport. (L. 388-389)

Hearing Officer:

OK, did you call the Director like you said you would? (L. 390)

Randi:

Yes sir I did (L. 391)

Hearing Officer:

What did you say to the Director, and what did she say to you? (L. 392)

Randi:

She did not answer I left her a voice mail, and explain the situation to her and told her I was calling her because I did not want it to result in a write up. I was unaware that I was working a double. (L. 393-395)

Mr. Nance:

I want to make a statement about what the law is Mr. Ott. And what governs 602A can I do that please. (L. 433-434)

Hearing Officer:

I know what 602A is all about, I done probably thousands of cases involving that law. (L. 435-436)

Mr. Nance:

I am talking about the Appellate court case, I have a right to say this don’t I? (L. 437)

Hearing Officer:

If you have an Appellate Court case state it. (L. 438)

Mr. Nance:

602A, a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy of the employee unit, governing an individual behavior and the performance of her work, provided that such violation have harmed the employing unit or other employees or has been repeated by the individual despite a warning of explicit instruction from the employing unit, 820ILCS405/602A, West 1998. This deification of misconduct reflect a legislative intent that a person should receive unemployment benefits even though they were discharged for incapacity, carelessness, inadvertence, negligent, or inability to perform the assigned task. It has been held that the act denies unemployment benefits only if (a)The employee had a reasonable work rule, (b) which the employee deliberately, and willfully violated and (c) the violation either harm the employee or other employees or was repeated despite a warning of instruction to cease the conduct. A single flurry of temper between and employee or supervisor may be enough to warrant discharge in an at-will relationship, but not enough to deny unemployment benefits.

The employer’s policies are very confusing, first, they say that you are allowed three unexcused absences in a year, However, Ms. Kimmel only sites one in 05, two in 06 and one in 08. And all with the exception of the one in 9/12/05, I give her that, all the others were sick call off. Yet they want to use that as a vehicle to terminate Randi. I think we are dealing with mixed questions of law also. Mixed question of law are fact question that requires an examination of legal effect of a given set of facts are reviewed for clear error, a standard in between the manifest weight and de novo standards. (L. 439-460)

Hearing Office:

That is more for the Board of Review or the Circuit Court not so much for me. (L. 461)

Mr. Nance:

Deference to the agency expertise is inappropriate here, where the department is charged with determining whether the employee behavior that led to her termination amounted to misconduct. (L. 462-464)

Hearing Officer:

That is covered when an appeal is given to the Circuit Court. (L. 465)

Mr. Nance:

I have a problem. This company has a policy, that I think flies in the face of the laws for the Department of Labor. When they say that when Randi calls in sick, she is supposed to call around to find someone to take her place? (L. 466-468)

Hearing Officer:

That wasn’t a problem at the end. That was not one of the problems which led to her termination. (L. 469-470)

Mr. Nance:

That is what they site sir. Let me tell you about February 12, 2008 warning. (L. 471)

Hearing Officer:

That was not a reason for her discharge, her failure to secure replacement was not a basic for her discharge, as I understood the testimony today. (L. 472-473)

Mr. Nance:

Ms. Kimmel stated that it was a part of it. (L. 474)

Hearing Officer:

That was prior warnings I just went into the background of the warnings. (L. 475)

Mr. Nance:

OK, the last day of work March 18, 2008, Ms. Kimmel admitted that Randi told her as well as Mr. Guthrie that she was too tired to work, that constitute being sick. (L. 476-478)

Hearing Officer:

But she was cooking dinner. (L. 479)

Mr. Nance:

Yes, she was cooking dinner. However, she was assisting a co-worker, that was having a hard time with a participant. Randi stated that she clocked out at 6:30pm, and that she was not on the clock. I suggest that Randi already knew that she was tired and sick after that twelve hour ride in the storm, and that she had notified the appropriate authority, Brad gave her the choice of coming to Woodlake or going home. I am suggesting what the company did by stating the March 18 incident, that they violated the Department of Labor Law by attempting to force Randi to work after reporting in that she was too tired to work a double shift. It takes seventy- two hours before presenting a doctor’s statement. All the employee is required to do is call in, and state that they will not be coming to work they do not have to give a reason. That is the Department’s Law. All employers must follow the rules/laws established by the Department of Labor, they may write their own policy, however, it must line up with the Department of Labor laws. One more issue. This March 20, 2008, that Mr. Fowler, let me go back to February 12, for this same incident, there was two warnings for the same incident. May I suggest that someone attempted to correct something and that Randi was not present and that she never saw the warning because it states that she refused to sign the warning? Someone signed the warning it looks like Mr. Fowler, one he signed on February 14th and one he signed on February 15th for the February 12th incident. Sir, there is something inappropriate about the documents. And what he puts on the second document February 15th, he states that she did not follow protocol when calling off shift that is all he stated, no facts were mentioned. At the bottom of the warning he stated staff will find courage or follow protocol when calling off shift. Earlier you stated that finding coverage was not part of the discharge, however, it must be a factor in the reasoning for the discharge if they are presenting it as evidence. Even though they didn’t talk about it, it is presented as evidence against Randi. Why did Mr. Fowler have to write? I would like to redirect, May I. (L. 480-508)

Hearing Officer:

After you have finished questioning Randi. (L. 509)

Mr. Nance:

I am finish questioning Randi. (L. 510)

Hearing Officer:

Does anyone else wish to question Randi? (L. 511)

All:

No (L. 512)

Don’t you find it strange that the employer’s representatives did not want to
question Randi? I think it is, even though Mr. Ott is doing very well protecting the
employer.

Hearing Officer:

Mr. Nance you wanted to ask Mr. Fowler some follow up question? (L. 513)

Mr. Nance:

Yes, Mr. Fowler on February 12th you wrote two warnings against Randi the first one dated and signed by you February 14th, stated that staff did not follow protocol when calling off shift, staff had a dispute with supervisor the night before and gave no reason for calling off shift. Mr. Fowler are you saying that your employee has to give you a reason for calling off shift? (L. 514-518)

Mr. Fowler:

Yes (L. 519)

Mr. Nance:

Are you also saying, at the bottom of the warning where it states improvement required staff will find coverage and/or follow protocol when calling off shift. Mr. Fowler, are you saying that when they call off sick they have to find someone to cover for them when calling off sick? (L. 520-523)

Mr. Fowler:

Yes (L. 524)

Mr. Nance:

Mr. Fowler on February 12th you signed another warning against Randi, and dated it February 15th, on which you wrote as fact,” did not follow protocol when calling off shift”. And, improvement required,” staff will find coverage”. Why did you find it necessary to write two warnings? (L. 525-528)

Mr. Fowler:

I actually took that out. The first one I took out of the file. (L. 529)

Mr. Nance:

You took that out; actually you did not take it out of the file because it was given to me and the Judge as evidence. OK, if you took the February 12th out then the one for February 15th the one remaining in the file “states did not follow protocol when calling off shift” what are we suppose to think regarding that statement, there are no facts there? Mr. Fowler did you ever present Randi with the warning? When you wrote employee correction action, do you let the employees know that they are being disciplined? Do you let them see the corrective action? (L. 530-537)

Mr. Fowler:

Yes (L. 538)

Mr. Nance:

Did Randi see the write up for February 15, and/or the write up for February 12th? (L. 539-540)

Mr. Fowler:

No (L. 541)

Mr. Nance:

Don’t you think that it is inappropriate for you to write a warning on an employee and not show them what is written on them? (L. 542-543)

Mr. Fowler:

It is the same warning. (L. 544)

Mr. Nance:

It is not, it can’t be the same warning when I have two different dates. (L. 545)

Mr. Fowler:

I just took out a part. (L. 546)

Mr. Nance:

Is that normal procedure of your company to add and/or remove facts from the warning without letting the employee know anything about it? (L. 547-548)

Mr. Fowler:

No (L. 549)

Mr. Nance:

Then why did you do it? (L. 550)

Mr. Fowler:

I am not sure; I didn’t think that it was needed. (L. 551)

Mr. Nance:

Did you do this just to get rid of Randi (L. 552)

Mr. Fowler:

No (L. 553)

Hearing Officer:

The prior warning in February is not critical to this decision, at least not in the detail that you are going into. There was a warning regarding not calling off on a shift is really all that concern me. (L. 554-556)

Mr. Nance:

Mr. Ott this is for you, how can you say that a prior warning is not material fact? (L. 557)

Hearing Officer:

It is relative (L. 558)

Mr. Nance:

Now, a bogus employee warning is always a material fact, because through this testimony, an employer cannot change a document without letting the employee know it. (L. 559-561)

Hearing Officer:

I know of no ruling like that (L. 562)

Mr. Nance:

The Appellate Court will not allow that, even though we are not sitting in the Appellate Court and I’m trying not to go there. This has got to be a bias hearing you can’t tell me that you are going to reject testimony. (L. 563-565)

Hearing Officer:

I can reject testimony that is not relative to my decision. (L. 566)

Mr. Nance:

Aren’t you also required to accept testimony that refutes the charge against the individual. (L. 567-568)

Hearing Officer:

Yes (L. 569)

Mr. Ott tells us here that he has made a decision before he has heard all the
testimony. Mr. Ott states that prior warnings are not material fact but he will use it in his decision making. (L. 554-556) Mr. Ott is applying a double standard for
Randi. Mr. Ott is making the ceiling is too high for Randi. Randi will not be able to
reach it.

Hearing Officer:

I am going back to Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Guthrie Randi stated that she was unaware that she was to work the second shift the 3-11pm shift on March 18th. Did she tell you that if she know about it. (L. 589-591)

Mr. Guthrie:

She said that she didn’t know about it. (L. 592)

Hearing Officer:

How did you know then that she knew about having to work. (L. 593)

Mr. Guthrie:

Well there is a schedule book at Bridge House and she could have look at it then. (L. 594-595)

Hearing Officer:

Was she working at Bridge House when the schedule was posted. (L. 596)

Mr. Guthrie:

She was cooking there she could have looked at it then. (L. 597)

The employer’s representative here is inconsistent with his testimony. From the testimony here, Mr. Guthrie suggests Randi should have known at this instance she was supposed to work a double shift. Before he talked about how she should have known before her transport, to which Randi had not been to work. The employer’s representatives have suggested from the onset that Randi knew she was supposed to work a double when she asked for the transport, which is not true.

Mr. Nance:

Mr. Guthrie, you stated that the schedules come out in advance? (L. 604)

Mr. Guthrie:

They are general put out a week in advance. (L. 605)

Mr. Nance:

When did this schedule come out? (L. 606)

Mr. Guthrie:

I don’t know, I don’t make up the schedule (L. 607)

Mr. Nance:

All you know is that you probably saw Randi’s name on a schedule for that house? (L. 608-609)

Mr. Guthrie:

Yes (L. 610)

Mr. Nance:

Was Randi scheduled to work Monday night, March 18th was a Tuesday that is the day she went on the transport, she also stated that she did not work the weekend because she was out of town, so her first day back was Tuesday. That was the first day she saw the schedule. What would make you think that she would look at the schedule to check if she was scheduled for a double on March 18th? (L. 611-615)

Mr. Guthrie:

It is the employee responsibility to know when they work and what shift they are working for the week. (L. 616-617)

Hearing Officer:

Mr. Guthrie, Somebody told the local Unemployment Office that Ms. Nance had agreed to work the double shift before March 18th. Do you know anything about that? (L. 618-620)

Mr. Guthrie:

No (L. 621)

Hearing Officer:

What about you Mr. Fowler? (L. 622)

Mr. Fowler:

I spoke to Randi about it, that is the reason that her shift was to end at 10:00pm, otherwise the shift would end at ll:00pm. (L. 623-624)

Hearing Officer:

When did you talk to her about the double? (L. 625)

Mr. Fowler:

It was the week prior when she signed up for the transport. (L. 626)

Hearing Officer:

Was that the time when you talked to her about the 3:00pm-10:00pm shift and she agreed to work the shift? (L. 627-628)

Mr. Fowler:

Yes (L. 629)

The employer’s representatives did not answer Mr. Ott’s question. (L. 618-620)

Hearing Officer:

Randi, Mr. Fowler stated that he talked to you about a week before about working the double shift. Did he do that? (L. 638-639)

Randi:

No sir, he called me Friday morning to confirm the transport. Sherry Dordie had call me and ask if I wanted to do the transport, I said yes that was what I was going to do. He said “OK, I take you off the schedule”; oh I see you are scheduled for a double”. I told him that I would do the transport but I would not work a double. (L. 640-643)

Hearing Officer:

OK, that takes care of that. When you say Friday morning you are talking about March 14th? (L. 644-645)

Randi:

Yes sir. (L. 646)

Hearing Officer:

Any other question for Randi? (L. 647)

Mr. Nance:

Randi, how would you know that you were to work a double if you weren’t there? (L. 648-649)

Randi:

I wouldn’t (L. 650)

Mr. Nance:

You didn’t work Monday? (L. 651)

Randi:

No sir (L. 652)

Mr. Nance:

So you didn’t work March 17th to see the schedule? (L. 653)

Randi:

No, after talking to Mike Fowler he didn’t tell me that I was scheduled to work any other time except to work the transport Tuesday morning. (L. 654-655)

Mr. Nance:

When did that question come out? (L. 656)

Randi:

I will assume Friday afternoon since I talked to Mr. Fowler Friday morning. (L. 657)

Hearing Officer:

Is there anything else Mr. Nance, I am about to close this hearing. (L. 661)

Mr. Nance:

It appears that Mr. Fowler makes arbitrary decisions without informing anyone about the changes. He stated that he changed the time on the schedule; however, he never said that he informed Randi of the change. He changed the notice February 12th he just changes it. How could you believe anything he said because in this hearing he stated that he never informed anyone of changes made in the schedule or warning. It is my contention that Mr. Fowler created all the facts in this matter for the sole purpose of terminating Randi. (L. 662-668)

Hearing Officer:

Why would he want to terminate her? (L. 669)

Mr. Nance:

It is in a letter that I wrote you, regarding another employee. (L. 670)

Hearing Officer:

I am closing this hearing. They employer’s witnesses may now go about their business, Thank You. (L. 671-672)

Randi’s Argument

I, Fred L Nance Jr., advocate for Randi and under the guidance of Randi, presents the following narrative in support of Randi’s claim for unemployment benefits.

The primary purpose of the Act is to provide compensation benefits to unemployed individuals to alleviate their economic distress caused by involuntary unemployment, not to benefit those who are unemployed because of their own misdeeds. Miller v. Department of Employment Security, 245 Ill. App. 3d 520, 522 (1993). Receiving unemployment insurance benefits in this state is a conditional right, and the claimant bears the burden of proving his eligibility for those benefits. Miller, 245 Ill. App. 3d at 522. There was no misdeed committed by Randi. This is clearly an erroneous decision by Mr. David Ott, Administrative Law Judge for the Illinois Department of Employment Security.

Mr. David Ott did not consider any mitigating factors on this issue. Nor did he give any credence to the “entire” testimony given by the parties. This decision by Mr. Ott demonstrates bias and prejudice toward Randi and her claim for unemployment benefits. In addition, Randi provided information and testimony bringing the employer’s supervisor Mr. Michael Fowler’s integrity and honesty in to question. Mr. Fowler wrote the employee warning notice that initiated Randi termination, suggesting misconduct on the part of Randi. There was no misconduct by Randi.

IDES’s local office states “The claimant was discharged from Center for Comprehensive Svcs because of an unauthorized absence of a scheduled work shift….” Mr. Ott turns the determination of the local office upside down when his opening statement of the issue is “Was the claimant discharged for misconduct connected with work as defined in Section 602A of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act?” and again when he suggest Randi was terminated because of insubordination. What is Randi defending? Is this a “catch all” tactic of Mr. Ott or IDES? This is a discriminatory practice by IDES or its administrative law judge.

Nevertheless, Section 602A of the Act defines misconduct as: the deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy of the employing unit, governing the individual’s behavior in performance of her work, provided that such violation has harmed the employing unit or other employees or has been repeated by the individual despite a warning or other explicit instruction from the employing unit. 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 1998)

This definition of misconduct reflects a legislative intent that persons should receive unemployment benefits even though they were discharged for incapacity, carelessness, inadvertence, negligence or inability to perform assigned tasks. Washington v. Board of Review, 211 Ill. App. 3d 663, 667, 570 N.E.2d 566 (1991). It has been held that the Act denies an employee benefits only if (1) the employer had a reasonable work rule (2) which the employee deliberately and willfully violated, and (3) the violation either harmed the employer or other employees, or was repeated by the employee despite a warning or instruction to cease the conduct. DeBois v. Department of Employment Security, 274 Ill. App. 3d 660, 664, 653 N.E.2d 1336 (1995), citing Kiefer v. Department of Employment Security, 266 Ill. App. 3d 1057, 1061, 640 N.E.2d 1252 (1994), and Zuaznabar v. Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security, 257 Ill. App. 3d 354, 356, 628 N.E.2d 986 (1993). Therefore, this three-prong test for misconduct is that the employer meets all 3 standards. Mr. Ott does not include this “entire” definition in his “conclusion.” When Mr. Ott states he is not concerned with prior warnings in making his decisions, he throws these cases out the window.

Mr. Ott reports that Randi had a history of attendance problems about which the employer warned her, even though he was not concerned with prior warnings and they would not be used in his decision. The employer’s “Personnel/Attendance policy regarding unexcused absences is an unreasonable work rule. The policy states “…Employees are allowed three unexcused absences in a year. The year will be defined by the first occurrence of an unexcused absence.” Randi stated in her hearing that this policy is ambiguous due to other language following it, which could be construed as being confusing. According to the employer’s records of Randi’s absences submitted, Randi had unexcused absences on the following dates: 9/12/05, 11/16/05, 3/13/06, 8/25/06/ 9/22/06, 12/17/07, 2/12/08 and 3/18/08. Randi has not violated the employer’s unexcused absence policy. In addition, on March 18, 2008 Randi was not aware she had to work 2 shifts, which is the employer’s basis for Randi’s termination.

In addition to the above unreasonable work rule, the employer has another unreasonable work rule embodied within their Personnel/Attendance policy, which Mr. Ott conveniently left out of his “findings of fact.” The unreasonable work rule of the employer is “…staff are responsible for finding a replacement for their shift and informing their supervisor who will be covering their shift in the event of their absence.” The employer attempts to find Randi liable for not finding this replacement on 2/12/08 when it states in her “employee warning notice”, section “Improvement Required, “…Staff will find coverage…when calling off shift.” Mr. Ott sanctions this “unreasonable work rule” when he states in his “findings of fact” “…The claimant had a history of attendance problems….” What attendance problems? Randi has not violated the employer’s unexcused absence policy, even though Mr. Ott states this will not be considered in his decision making.

Randi did not deliberately and willfully violate the employer’s unexcused absence rule. On March 18, 2008 Randi informed Bradley Guthrie, Shift Supervisor of Woodlake residential, that she was tired from doing the 11 ½ hour transport earlier and didn’t want to work at Woodlake. When Randi stated she was tired from her 11 ½ hour transport, it constituted an illness or being sick. To suggest an employee cannot be sick and refuse to work violates the laws of the Department of Labor. To suggest that an employee calling in sick must find a replacement for her absence is not only an unreasonable work rule but it also violates the laws of the Department of Labor.

In addition, on or about March 14, 2008 Randi had informed Mr. Fowler when she confirmed her scheduled transport to Kentucky for March 18, 2008 that she did not know she was “scheduled” to work a double shift that day, and refused scheduling a double shift with Mr. Fowler. At that time, Mr. Fowler stated he would remove Randi from the double shift. Mr. Ott states, in part, that Randi was scheduled to work a double shift, which the 2nd shift was 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Mr. Ott conveniently leaves out of his “findings of fact” that Randi did not return from the transport until 6:30 pm; that Randi stated the transport was 11 ½ hours; that the drive involved being in heavy rain and inclimate weather.

Mr. Ott states in his conclusion “…Insubordination is the refusal by an employee to comply with a reasonable directive of the employer. The claimant’s actions constituted insubordination.” Randi’s actions did not rise to the level of insubordination. Randi merely stated facts when she said she told Mr. Fowler do not put her on the schedule to work a double shift on the day she does the Kentucky transport, which was the day in question here, March 18, 2008. This discussion with Mr. Fowler, at best, could be called constructive argument.

A single flurry of temper between a worker and a supervisor may be enough to warrant discharge in an at-will relationship. But it is not enough to deny unemployment benefits. The courts have held that arguing with a supervisor without using abusive language or threats is not sufficient to establish discharge for misconduct under the Act. Gee v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor, 136 Ill. App. 3d 889, 896, 483 N.E.2d 1025 (1985), citing Sheff v. Board of Review, Illinois Department of Labor, 128 Ill. App. 3d 347, 470 N.E.2d 1044 (1984).

Mr. Ott suggest in his conclusion that the employer’s request that Randi report for work was reasonable because the residential facility was understaffed. If this was a reasonable request for Randi, would it not be a reasonable request to other staff who called off from that facility because of the inclimate weather? In Randi’s testimony she states that most of the staff who called off, called off because of a flood in the Carbondale, Illinois area. This flood also affected Randi, especially during the transport. The employer’s request for Randi to work was not reasonable but discriminatory. Evidently, this request to work was not made to the other employees who called off.

The record (telephone interview conducted by Mr. Ott) will demonstrate the evidence (employee warning notices) sent to Randi, included the schedule for Woodlake residence but not the Bridge house residence. The Woodlake schedule showed 4 staff on shift, yet there were only 2 working. There were only 2 people on the schedule to work at the Bridge house residence, but only 1 employee showed up for the shift. Randi stayed at the Bridge house residence to help out her co-worker April Heath, because she was the only staff on shift and requested Randi’s assistance in cooking dinner for the residents. Randi was not on the employer’s time, she was not clocked in, nor did she record those hours on her transport time sheet for pay, as Mr. Guthrie states in his testimony. Randi was doing the employer a “favor” by assisting her colleague when she was cooking while the colleague attended to a disruptive client.

Therefore, Mr. Ott’s statement “…She could not have been all that tired because she was helping out at another residential facility by cooking dinner…” has no validity to suggest Randi was not tired or sick, but rather, demonstrates Randi’s loyalty to her peers and this employer in times of stress and difficulty. I would like to see Mr. Ott go on a 100 mile/11 ½ -hour transport/trip with a mentally challenged client, and then come back to do an 8-hour shift with similar clients. If he could perform this task, then I guess we could call the employer’s scheduling of Randi for this double shift, on this day, a “reasonable” directive. There is no mention of the employee who went on the transport with Randi. Did this employee have a reasonable directive to work a double shift also? Is the treatment of Randi indifferent or racially motivated?

I believe it would be appropriate to address the 3rd prong of the DeBois test now. Did Randi’s refusal to work harm the employer or other employees, or was it repeated by her despite warnings or instructions to cease this conduct. Randi did not violate this prong of the DeBois test. By Mr. Ott’s stating the employer’s residential facility was understaffed suggests the employer’s residential facility was already compromised. Randi never knew she was supposed to work at Woodlake until Mr. Guthrie called her because she believed she had an agreement with her supervisor Mr. Fowler that he had taken her off the double shift because of the transport, so how could she be aware that she was imposing harm to her employer. Lets not leave out Mr. Ott’s statement that he will not consider “repeated warnings…” in his decision making. Mr. Ott discourages this prong of the test.

In addition, Mr. Ott states in his “conclusion” that “…The claimant’s explanation that she was not going to work because she was tired was not a reasonable excuse for failing to follow her supervisor’s directive. When Randi said she was tired, it is supported by the Washington court when it said the definition of misconduct reflects a legislative intent that persons should receive unemployment benefits even though they were discharged for incapacity, carelessness, inadvertence, negligence or inability to perform assigned tasks. Randi was not terminated because of misconduct or an unauthorized absence. If Randi was terminated for anything justifiable, it may be because of her carelessness, negligence or inability to perform assigned tasks; which the latter may be more appealing in this instant matter.

After the hearing, on or about May 26, 2008 at approximately 8:45 am Fred L Nance Jr. called Mr. Ott leaving a message stating “Rodrick text messaged Randi at 7:25 pm on May 23, 2008 stating, “So why did you pull that card.” Fred requested Mr. Ott give a return call acknowledging receipt of this call. Mr. Ott called Fred on May 26, 2008 acknowledging receipt of this call and its message.

On May 23, 2008, during the telephone hearing, Fred made reference to Mr. Fowler’s indifferent treatment and discrimination against Randi. Fred stated, Randi informed him that Mr. Fowler and Rodrick had a sexual relationship; and that, Rodrick had many more absences than Randi that Mr. Fowler had not reported to their employer as he did against Randi. Fred suggested this indifferent treatment and discrimination was a direct result of the intimate and sexual relationship Mr. Fowler had with Rodrick. Therefore, the call Randi received from Rodrick is construed as harassment and retaliatory for her testimony in this instance. Randi expressed to Fred a fear for her safety.

The house where Randi was cooking the food needed more than one staff person. This house is considered to be a “higher” functioning house by the employer. Nevertheless, the employer has a policy where even though the clients should be able to cook for themselves, there must be a staff person present. This would mean there would have to be at least 2 employees present or working in the house.

In conclusion, Mr. Fowler initiated and promoted this incident leading to Randi’s termination. Mr. Fowler’s integrity, judgment and motives are questionable here. The unexcused absence policies and procedures of the employer are not reasonable. They are subjective. Who was punished or written up when the house where Randi was fixing dinner did not show up? This house was understaffed. This charge against Randi by the employer is discriminatory and has elements of indifferent treatment.

The determination of the Local Office and Mr. Ott’s decision should be set aside. Randi should receive her unemployment benefits. Randi was unemployed from March 18, 2008 to May 12, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

Randi

Real People Realty & Gerald and Geraldine Crosswell: Lien placed on the sale of their property

Update: June 27, 2008

On June 26, 2008 I received a check in the mail for $1000.00 from Ms. Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. This is my earnest money. I still have not received the court ordered $414.00 from Gerald and Geraldine Crosswell. The court issued an order on May 15, 2008 stating I would get $1000.00 earnest money and $414.00 from Gerald and Geraldine Crosswell.

On May 15, 2008, I placed a Lien on Gerald and Geraldine Crosswell’s property in the amount of $414.00 located at 401 E. 167th Street, Harvey Illinois. Placing a Lien on this property cost me $48.50. The Crosswell’s have obtained a different real estate company to sell their home. Real People Property is now the Real Estate brokers.

On May 16, 2008 I faxed Real People Property at 815-364-2781 sending them the court order with the seal and stamp from the Cook County Recorder of Deeds stating that a Lien was on this property. I called 815-852-0693 and talked to Lisa about this Lien. She confirmed receiving the fax. I also faxed these documents to Maria and Juvenal Herrera at 708-960-4079. I called their work number at 708-957-5249 and informed them I was sending them the fax and that there was on Lien on the property they were selling. As of June 27, 2008, I have not received any correspondence from Maria and Juvenal Herrera or from Gerald and Geralding Crosswell. I will call Maria and Juvenal Herrera on June 27, 2008 requesting an update on the sell of this property.

Update: April 17, 2008

On or about April 14, 2008 I received a response to my subpoena to Attorney Mary Jane Chapman, to which I requested a copy of the “Authorization to Release Earnest Money” that was signed by the seller and myself. On this “legal” document, the seller wrote: “I want half of the earnest money to cover my expenses for request repairs as per inspection report, an waiting for you to get loan. Thank you Geraldine Crosswell.”

This is bogus. Coldwell Banker accepted this statement to hold my earnest money. When I signed this document, it did not have the statement by the seller on it. Coldwell Banker accepted an altered “legal” document to hold my earnest money.

On another note: On April 3 2008 I requested from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office a complaint form to file against Deputy Sheriff Hill in Room 209. I received this complaint form from the post office on April 16, 2008. I spoke to Investigator Farley about this request of a complaint form on April 3, 2008. Investigator Farley called me and informed me it was at the post office. I had my wife pick it up.

This complaint is against Deputy Sheriff Hill in room 209 of the Markham Courthouse. Deputy Sheriff Hill discriminated against me with indifferent treatment while I litigated this case. Deputy Sheriff Hill stated to me in open court and in a loud, obnoxious voice, “sit down, can’t you read the sign. No one is permitted to approach the clerk while the Judge is on the bench.” Deputy Sheriff Hill allowed attorneys to approach the clerk while the Judge was on the bench. I am pro se in this case. I am acting as my own attorney. I am held to the same standards as an attorney, while litigating my own case.

Update: April 15, 2008

I did not contact this agency to regulate the seller or to capture my funds for me. I contacted this agency alleging wrongful conduct on the part of Coldwell Banker and Frances Zeleznik. This agency decided to error on the side of the Real Estate company, and use the seller and money to distort their responsibility.

I sent the letter dated March 20, 2008 to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulations on March 20, 2008 requesting they wait until to make a ruling on the charge I brought against Coldwell Banker and Frances Zeleznik. Instead of delaying their findings, I received this letter on or about April 1, 2008:

Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Regulation, Dean Martinez, Secretary; Daniel E. Bluthardt, Director

3/26/2008

Ms Nance Jr.

Re: Frances J. Zeleznik
2008-01150

Dear Mr Nance Jr.:

The Real Estate Division has completed its review into the aforementioned matter. After careful review by the Board, the file has been closed. This agency cannot order the return of funds. Your issue with the seller is a private contractual dispute that is outside of the jurisdiction of this agency. This agency does not regulate sellers.

This office can only impose discipline on a real estate licensee if the matters alleged represent a violation of the Real Estate License Act. Not all aspects of a real estate transaction fall under the jurisdiction of the Real Estate License Act. You may wish to consult your own attorney as you may have other remedies available to you.

Thank you for the inquiry.

Sincerely,

Complaint Intake

Update: April 12, 2008

On April 3, 2008 this case was continued to May 15, 2008 because the Honorable Judge Camille E. Willis was absent. I sent a subpoena to Mary Jane Chapman requesting she send me a copy of the “Authorization to Release Earnest Money” that Ms. Crosswell states she signed telling her that it was reported Ms. Crosswell signed the release and wrote a statement suggesting she wanted $500.00 of Mr. Nance earnest money. I also sent a subpoena to Angela White by certified mail. I received a receipt stating Ms. Angela White’s office received my certified mail and her subpoena. The Sheriff’s department failed to serve Ms. White with a complaint stating they could not get a response with the address on their paperwork. The address on my certified mail is the same address on the Sheriff’s paperwork.

March 20, 2008

Re: Case # 08 M 60867

On March 20, 2008 the Honorable Judge Camille E. Willis continued this case until April 3, 2008. Judge Willis requested I draft this letter and send it to: Ms. Cookie Zeleznik and Attorney Mary Jane Chapman. I requested this letter be sent also to: Attorneys Leonard D. Litwin and John C. Clavio, along with subpoenas to appear in open court regarding this matter. Judge Willis stated she had no problem with my request.

Judge Willis emphatically stated she wanted Ms. Zeleznik and Ms. Chapman back in court because defendant Geraldine Crosswell stated she signed the “Authorization to Release Earnest Money” and told Ms. Zeleznik to give Nance his earnest money. Also, defendant Geraldine Crosswell stated that Attorney Clavio’s administrative assistant told her she told Ms. Zeleznik that Ms. Crosswell said give Mr. Nance his earnest money.

I, Fred L Nance Jr., informed Judge Willis that I asked Attorney Mary Jane Chapman for a copy of the “Authorization to Release Earnest Money” that Ms. Crosswell states she signed telling her that it was reported Ms. Crosswell signed the release and wrote a statement suggesting she wanted $500.00 of Mr. Nance earnest money.

I, Fred L Nance Jr., informed Judge Willis that Attorney Mary Jane Chapman ignored my request for a copy of this document. Ms. Crosswell admitted to Judge Willis in open court she wrote a statement requesting $500.00 but informed Judge Willis that she told Ms. Zeleznik to give Mr. Nance his earnest money back.

Judge Willis stated I should put in this letter that she wants Coldwell Banker to bring the whole file in this case to court on April 3, 2008.

Therefore, it is ordered by this court that Cookie Zeleznik and Mary Jane Chapman appear on April 3, 2008. The order from the court is attached to this letter. Judge Willis told me to send this letter and the order by certified mail to Ms. Cookie Zeleznik and Attorney Mary Jane Chapman. I will also send this letter, the orders from the court and subpoenas to Attorneys Litwin and Clavio.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

cc: Honorable Judge Camille E. Willis

Update: March 6, 2008

The Cook County Sheriff Department made service of the civil complaint on Crosswell and Coldwell Banker on March 5, 2008.

Update: February 28, 2008

I received 2 letters from the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, 1 dated on February 21, 2008 and the other dated February 22, 2008. The letters list Frances Zeleznik as the complainant instead of Coldwell Banker. The letters appear to be “generally” formatted stating in part “This letter acknowledges receipt of the information you submitted…Your correspondence wil be reviewed to determine whether the conduct, as set forth in your complaint, merits an investigation pursuant the Agency’s authority under the Illinois Real Estate License Act of 2000…Please note that the Act allows for discipline or remedial action to be taken against a real estate licensee. The agency cannot act as your advocate and cannot seek any private redress, money damages or otherwise, on your behalf….”

Basically, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation will not pursue any avenues toward a consumer getting their money back from unscrupulous companies and the people they represent.

This is why I pursued litigation on my own. I am familiar with the systems we have in place. What about those consumers who do not know how real estate agents and the companies they work for operate. I will write more about this later.

Update: February 22, 2008

I filed a civil complaint in this matter on February 22, 2008. This complaint can be found on http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/

Update: February 20, 2008

Coldwell Banker is getting ready to “take” some other poor soul’s Earnest Money for the property located 401 East 167th Streeet, Harvey Illinois.

I called Mr. Oster of Coldwell Banker on February 19, 2008. Mr. Oster informed me “their” client has not signed the release for my “Earnest Money.” Mr. Oster stated to me, “…as far as I know, the lawyers are handling things.” I informed Mr. Oster my lawyer, Leonard Litwin, is not participating in any negotiations with the seller’s lawyer, John Clavio about my “Earnest Money.” I informed Mr. Oster I would begin civil litigation on this matter. Mr. Oster stated, “…I guess you got to do what you have to do….”

I informed Mr. Oster that Coldwell Banker still has their sign posted on the Crosswell’s property. I asked Mr. Oster if they were still trying to sell the Crosswell property. Mr. Oster states Coldwell Banker is still trying to sell the property.

Update: February 16, 2008

I have not heard anything from Coldwell Banker’s manager Jim Oster or the seller, Gerald & Geralding Crosswell about the return of my Earnest Money. I called Mr. Oster office on February 16, 2008 at approximately 10:36 AM leaving a message on his voice mail requesting my Earnest Money. I left a message on Mr. Oster voice also stating as Coldwell Banker is the legal agent for the seller and possesses the Earnest Money, that they should sign in place of the seller having knowledge I have a right to my Earnest Money. I will await Mr. Oster’s return call for a response.

February 8, 2008

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Regulation sent me mail informing me I had to complete their “Consumer Services Inquiry Form.” I completed the form and fax it to their Chicago Office; to the attention of Karen Konstant. I faxed 31 documents related to this issue.

Since I have not received my “Earnest Money”, I plan to file a civil complaint against Coldwell Banker, Cookie Zeleznik, Gerald Crosswell, Geraldine Crosswell, Chicago Association of Realtors/Chicago Realty Network, Angela White and John Clavio.

The courts generally wants a litigant to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing claims to the court.

I will continue to update this issue as I receive information. The public must be made aware of how the consumer is treated by Real Estate Companies and their brokers.

February 5, 2008

On February 4, 2008 my lawyer, Attorney Leonard Litwin, received a voice mail from the sellers Attorney, John Clavio, who states: “…he has repeatedly told his client (Gerald & Geraldine Crosswell) and the broker (Coldwell Banker) to release the money…I don’t know what more I can do…I can only recommend…I cannot control these people.” My attorney states there is no grounds to keep my money.

February 4, 2008

Beware! Beware! Consumers Beware! Never put up “Earnest Money” or spend any kind of money unless a mortgage company has received “approval” for your loan!!!!!!!!!!!!

The real culprit in my case is the mortgage company, that is, Chicago Association of Realtors/Chicago Realty Network and Coldwell Banker.

How many people are losing their homes because of foreclosures? These loses are a direct result of mortgage companies getting people into homes they could never have afforded in the first place.

In my case, a mortgage company told me I was “pre-approved.” After telling me I was pre-approved, I was told I have to put up “Earnest Money” to secure the deal. After I put the “Earnest Money”, I was told I need to get an inspection. After the inspection, I had people calling me from the mortgage company asking me for more information to improve my credit for the loan.

Wait a minute!!!! I thought I was approved already. After putting up “Earnest Money” totalling $1000.00 and $300.00 for an inspection report, the mortgage company told me I needed additional documentation, and that, I had to pay off some of my debt before I could be approved for the loan they already told me I had.

I will give you more information about this issue in the upcoming days.

February 2, 2008

Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
Division of Professional Regulation
Complaint Intake Unit
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 9-300
Chicago, Illinois 60601

Coldwell Banker
Mr. Jim Oster, Manager
Southeast Office
2 River Place, Suite K
Lansing, Illinois 60438

Re: Property located at 401 E. 167th Street, Harvey Illinois 60426 and Earnest Money

Mr. Jim Oster:

On February 2, 2008 I called Real Estate Broker Cookie Zeleznik requesting information about my Earnest Money. Ms. Zeleznik informed me she was still waiting for her client Gerald and Geraldine Crosswell to sign the release for my Earnest Money. I called and spoke to Geraldine Crosswell. Ms. Crosswell informed me she signed the document and sent it to her attorney/Ms. Zeleznik, but requested $500.00 of my Earnest Money because I made her fix things in her “house” knowing I could not get a loan to purchase the property. The things Ms. Crosswell fixed were requested items of the Village of Harvey in order for her to sell her property and were similar items listed in the inspection report of Tri-County Securement Company, which cost me $300.00.

On or about November 15, 2007 I, Fred L Nance Jr., entered into a Real Estate Sale Contract as the buyer with Gerald and Geraldine Crosswell as the seller for their property located at 401 E. 167th Street, Harvey Illinois 60426. I put up $1000.00 Earnest Money with this contract. This property was an attempt by me to purchase “income” property.

The Seller’s Real Estate Broker is Cookie Zeleznik. My Real Estate Broker is Donna Atkins. The Real Estate Contract was created by Chicago Association of Realtors/Chicago Realty Network, which Donna Atkins is associated. Cookie Zeleznik works for Coldwell Banker in Lansing Illinois, which holds my Earnest Money.

The sellers Gerald and Geraldine Crosswell’s attorney is John Clavio, located at 10277 West Lincoln Highway, Frankfort, Illinois 60423. His phone number is 815-464-8290. My attorney is Leonard Litwin located at 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1410, Chicago Illinois 60606.

In middle December 2007, I was informed by Ms. Angela White of Chicago Realty Network the credit scores of my wife and I would not allow us to purchase the property. On December 19, 2007 my real estate broker Ms. Donna Atkins faxed me an “Authorization to Release Earnest Money”, which my wife and I signed faxing it back to Ms. Atkins. Ms. Atkins forwarded this document to Ms. Cookie Zeleznik.

On or about January 2, 2008, I called Ms. Zeleznik requesting my Earnest Money. I informed Coldwell Banker representative Cookie Zeleznik I could not purchase the “income” property because of our credit scores, requesting Coldwell Banker release my Earnest Money. Ms. Zeleznik suggested I try one of her mortgage lenders at Coldwell Banker for a second opinion before they released the Earnest Money. I agreed.

On or about January 17, 2008, Ms. Zeleznik engaged me with mortgage advisor Mike Cawley of Coldwell Banker. On or about January 18, 2008 after review, Mr. Cawley informed me the credit scores of my wife and I was not going to allow me to purchase the “income” property. I immediately called Ms. Zeleznik requesting the $1000.00 refund of my Earnest Money.

No one has called since Mr. Cawley of Coldwell Banker informed me on January 18, 2008 the credit scores of my wife and I would not allow purchase of the said property. Therefore, on February 2, 2008 I called Ms. Zeleznik about my Earnest Money. Ms. Zeleznik informed me she had not heard from the seller.

Now therefore, I request my Earnest Money, with interest from Coldwell Banker. I request the Office of Banks and Real Estate/Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation investigate and find Coldwell Banker and its agents liable for my Earnest Money. In addition, I request this entity find Attorney John Clavio at fault for not advising his client of her error. If this entity does not have jurisdiction over this attorney’s non-actions, I will file a complaint with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

cc: Mr. Leonard Litwin, Attorney at law
Mr. John Clavio, Attorney at law
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Cookie Zeleznik, Coldwell Banker Broker
Donna Atkins, Real Estate Broker

All copies of this letter are sent to the parties above by fax, email and U.S. Mail.

Elderly Woman responds to Michelle Obama & Jeremiah Wright. AWESOME

Subject: FW: An elder responds to statements about Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright This is a good read; whether you support Obama or not. Enjoy! Greetings All, This is truly a profound and insightful message from a 78 year old African-American woman! Please read and pass it along. Subject: An elder responds to statements about Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright To my friends and family, I rec’d this letter via one of the Obama grassroots groups and I think it should be circulated to answer some of the silliness that’s going on about Michelle Obama’s statements and Obama’s connection with Jeremiah Wright. Pass it on! (or sit idly and watch it all happen and then complain about the outcome). ======================================================================== To The Editor: As a 78 year old American of African descent, I feel compelled to respond to all this ‘much ado about nothing’ when it comes to the statement that Michelle Obama made about the fact that this is the first time in her adult life that she has been proud to be an American. The country needs to hear this from the Black perspective. Long before I was born, my grandfather Joseph Burleson, owned a considerable amount of land in oil rich Texas. Because during that era, Blacks could not vote, nor could they contest anything in the courts of the United States, my grandfather’s land was STOLEN by his White neighbor. My grandfather, who was literate and better educated than my grandmother, drove to town. Seeing my grandfather leave, the covetous neighbor asked my grandmother to show him the deed to the property. He snatched it. She could not insist that he give it back, nor could she have reported this THEFT to the sheriff because of the fact that Blacks had no rights in the 1800’s. The prevailing law at that time was he who held the deed owned the land. Do you think that is something that I am PROUD OF? Right now I should be living off the oil and gas royalties. In 1934 when my dad drove us to Texas to meet his family, when he stopped to purchase gasoline, his daughters and wife were not allowed to use the washroom. As a man it was easier for his to relieve himself in the bushes, but not for the females. We were, however, reduced to having to go in the bushes, also. Do you think I am PROUD OF THAT? In 1938 when my oldest sister went to enroll in Hyde Park High School, she was told by the counselor that she did not want to take college preparatory courses, she wanted to study domestic science. Do you think I’m PROUD OF THAT? Of course, when Beatrice Lillian Hurley-Burleson went to school the next day, that was the last time anyone thought that the Burleson girls wanted to study domestic science. When in 1943 my parents attempted to buy the 2 flat at 5338 South Kenwood, where we had lived since 1933, in Hyde Park, Chicago, IL we were told that we could not buy it because there was a restrictive covenant that said that the property was never to be sold to ‘Negroes.’ Do you think I am PROUD OF THAT? In 1950 when I graduated from college, I was unable to get a job because I was considered ‘overqualified.’ the code word for they would not hire me because of my race. All of the want ads called for Japanese Americans or Neisis (the word given to Japanese Americans at that time). Do you think that was something that I should have been PROUD OF? I understood that America was trying to make up for the interring of innocent and patriotic Americans who were our enemy by association. My cousin’s barbershop was bombed in Mississippi in the 50’s because he was encouraging Black people to register to vote. His wife who had earned a Masters Degree from Northwestern University lost her position as the principal of the local school because of the voter registration activities. Is that something I should be PROUD OF? Now we get to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of the Obama family. Rev. Wright like so many religious zealots overstates many things, that many of his members do not agree with. To suggest that Senator Obama should leave the church of his choice is not only a double standard, but it is absurd. Would any of the talking heads who are so alarmed by Rev. Wright’s thoughts and speeches suggest that Catholics should abandon their faith or denounce and reject the Pope because so many priests have molested children. These children were exploited and taken advantage of and they had no choice to even know they could resist, reject and denounce. To me the situations are parallel, except for the fact that the priests behavior is a physical violation of the innocence of children who are marred for life; and the priests behavior is a crime. Rev. Wright’s speeches are just words, that one can listen to or not, the members have a choice. Should Govern or Romney denounce and reject the Mormon Church because some of their members practice polygamy? As Senator Obama has previously stated, we have entered the silly season. Barack Obama is an adult, and most importantly, he is an exceptionally intelligent adult. Like most of us adults, fortunately, we do not accept all we hear or see. If we did, the world would be more amoral, debased and perverted than the world of today is. I see all these ’so called’ ponderings an attempt to marginalize the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama. I cannot truly call this racism because some ignorant Blacks have also spoken disparagingly about him. I accept this as the darker side of mankind who because of their own inadequacies, they project their deficiencies on others. Barack Obama is a very rare individual, the likes of whom the world seldom sees. Like most geniuses, they are often misunderstood. They are objects of envy and jealousy. They are suspect because they soar above the average man who does not have the intellectual ability to understand the greatness of special people. They are also targets to be pulled down to the level of the mediocre who cannot stand to see an individual with deep convictions and high standards. We have not seen a phenomena like Barack Obama in many years and many generations. Like Ghanda, like Jesus, like Einstein, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., like Mother Theresa, genetically, intellectually and spiritually, these people offer the world so much, but they are often maligned and misunderstood. Barack Obama is a Christian in the true sense of the word. A true Christian loves his fellow man unconditionally. A true Christian wants the best and tries to bring out the best in his fellow man. A true Christian wants to unite and bring the world together in peace and harmony. This is what Senator Obama stands for; but, unfortunately, he has had to get off point to answer these false charges, innuendos, and just plain lies. We are in the presence of an angel unaware in Senator Barack Obama; and this country needs him, more than he needs us. He is the only person at this time in history who can restore respect for America with the worlds’ people. Because of his family background, the influence of his beloved mother who instilled great values in him, the influence of his absent father who vicariously inspired a son to go to Harvard as the father had done, the influence of a minister who brought him to an understanding of the value and meaning of Christianity, the influence of a brilliant Harvard educated wife who inspires him and keeps him grounded; he is the epitome of a citizen of the world. He is of the world because the world is in him; and this is what America needs to bring us out of the abyss to which we have sunk in the eyes of the world. Like, Michelle Obama, after living in this country all of my 78 years, loving my country and not understanding why my country has not loved me, I now for the first time in my adult life feel PROUD OF MY COUNTRY because I sense a maturing, a recognition of talent and character, and not color, and a field of candidates aspiring to lead this nation coming from very diverse backgrounds of gender, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, age and experiences. This to me is the HOPE that America is coming into her own and will begin to CHANGE and will embrace the philosophy upon which this country was founded, where all men are created equal and are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now I truly believe, YES WE CAN! For further information: Contact: Helen L. Burleson, Doctor of Public Administration (708)747-0919 Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch ‘Cooking with Tyler Florence’ on AOL Food. Enjoy 5 GB of free, password-protected online storage. Get Windows Live SkyDrive.

---

Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

Fred L. Nance Jr., President & CEO

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 & 164) or by 42 CFR Part 2. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

CITGO IS CHANGING

CITGO IS CHANGING

Verified with www.SNOPES: IN ORLANDO LAST WEEK, AT A CITGO STATION REGULAR WAS PRICED AT $2.82 PER GALLON. THERE WERE NO CUSTOMERS. HOWEVER, ACROSS THE STREET WHERE I FUELED IT WAS SELLING FOR $2.85 PER GALLON AND ALL PUMPS THERE HAD CARS WAITING TO FUEL. Have you noticed how the Citgo signs have disappeared in the past 7-8 months? Very clever move by Chavez. But guess what CITGO IS CHANGING ITS NAME TO? This is serious Americans…make sure you read. NEWS FLASH: Chavez is NOW getting a Russian Weapons Factory built by Putin. The RUSSIANS are building an AK-47 Kalashnikov Assault Rifle factory in Venezuela to give armament support to Communist Rebel groups throughout the Americas Chavez NOW has IRANIANS operating his oil refineries in Venezuela for him. It is likely only a matter of time, if not already, before Chavez has Iranian built LONG RANGE missiles, with a variety of warhead types aimed at…. Guess Who? CITGO is NOW in the process of Changing its name to PETRO EXPRESS due to the loss of gasoline sales in the USA due to the recent publicity of ownership by Chavez of Venezuela. Every dollar you spend with CITGO or PETRO EXPRESS gasoline will be used against you, your basic human rights, and your freedoms. He will start wars here in the Americas that will probably be the death of millions. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT because Chavez is starting to feel the loss of revenue from his holdings. HE OWNS CITGO. This is a very important move which everyone should be aware of. ANNOUNCED JUST RECENTLY, CITGO, BEING AWARE THAT SALES ARE DOWN DUE TO U.S. CUSTOMERS NOT WANTING TO BUY FROM ‘CITGO-CHAVEZ,’ HAS STARTED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF SOME OF THEIR STORES TO: ‘PETRO EXPRESS.’ DO NOT BUY FROM ‘PETRO EXPRESS’! ‘PETRO EXPRESS’ IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY ‘CHAVEZ.’ KEEP THIS MEMO GOING SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING. BOYCOTT ‘CITGO’ AND ‘PETRO EXPRESS’ E-mail for the greater good. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft.

---

Search that pays you back! Introducing Live Search cashback. Search Now!

WHY IS IT????

Why Is It??? Marian Wright Edelman Why is it that a Black Man can create a tiny piece called a filament (electric light – Lewis Latimer) that allows people to see in the dark; but can’t be seen fit to lead a country to the true light? Why is it that a Black Man can create an instrument (clock – Benjamin Banneker) that all people use to tell time; but people don’t think it is time for him to run a country? Why is it that a Black Man can design a place for the high authorities to meet in & a place for the President to live in (The Capitol & the White House – Phillip Reid (a slave) & Pierre L’Enfant); but not good enough to lead these meetings or live in himself? Why is it that a Black Man was brilliant enough to do the first open heart surgery (Dr. Daniel Hale Williams) and show the world how to get and preserve plasma (Dr. Charles Drew); but not good enough to put a program in place where everyone can afford this surgery? Why is it that a Black Man was creative enough to design an instrument (traffic light – Garrett Morgan) to bring multiple people (traffic) to a halt; but not seen creative enough to design a plan to bring all this unnecessary and worthless fighting between countries to an end? Why is it that a Black Man could create the soles (shoes – Jan Matzeliger) that people Walk on everyday; but not seen good enough to fill the shoes of a bad president? Why is it that a Black Man was smart enough & brave enough to teach himself (Frederick Douglas & Thomas Fuller – both slaves) and others how to read, write and/or calculate math; but not seen (as) smart enough and bold enough to calculate a platform to be President to a country that sure needs another first by us? So you see my Brothers and Sisters what I am saying is let us not forget our past, which led us to our present and can definitely be the backbone to our future. We were good enough, smart enough, creative enough, and bold enough then, so let us all give Obama the chance to show that we are still these things and more. We all are as strong as our weakest link, so don’t be that weak link that denies our people that chance to show we still can OVERCOME & BE THE FIRST You were born God’s Original, Not someone’s copy. Marian Wright Edelman

---

Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL on your phone.

Clinton suspends her historic presidential bid

Clinton suspends her historic presidential bid – Yahoo! News

Hillary Clinton conceded her bid for President of the United States. Even though she “suspended” her thrust for President, I believe she auditioned for Vice President. Hillary may be be a good Vice President for Obama, but Obama cannot let Bill Clinton back in the White House.

What does Hillary mean when she states her campaign is suspended? I believe Hillary uses the work “suspended” because she intends to “work” the Democratic convention to assure her Vice Presidency. Hillary believes the 18 million voters she claims supported her, our hers to do with what she wants. Hillary appears to be demanding her “right” to be Vice President. It is unprecendented that one “demand” to be Vice President.

Another barrier for us is our determination to let racism flourish in our nation.

The United States has to understand we are “racially” divided as a country and a people. We will have “white” people determined that they will not vote for a “black” person to be President of the United States. We cannot ignore this fact. How do we overcome this barrier? It is easy for me, a black man, to tell you how we overcome this barrier. We just stop oppressing “black” people. We are all the same. We bleed the same. We talk the same. The only thing different is our “color” and thought processes. We do not think the same, but that is okay. Thinking differently brings new ideas and new ways of doing things. We cannot continue to be static on racism. We have to aggressively address the issue and put down those who want to oppress and deny others the right to be left alone. We have to stop the discriminatory practices in the workplace and in our world. If we do not come together soon, our children’s children will continue to oppress each other. We need to break the cycle of racial oppression and discrimination.

With Obama we can conquer the racial divide. His candidacy has brought all colors together. We should embrace the change. If we do not, then we might as well get back on the “racism” horse to nowhere.