Jim White
@jim-at-usareset.bsky.social
Former believer in honest, high integrity judges. Now that I've had to take the State of Michigan to court I know better. Judges are into POWER, right and rule of law are irrelevant to many of them.
Sent today to the U.S. Senate.
(re usareset.net/forum/viewto...) No branch of the Federal Government is currently adhering to the Constitution:
(re usareset.net/forum/viewto...) No branch of the Federal Government is currently adhering to the Constitution:
November 24, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Sent today to the U.S. Senate.
(re usareset.net/forum/viewto...) No branch of the Federal Government is currently adhering to the Constitution:
(re usareset.net/forum/viewto...) No branch of the Federal Government is currently adhering to the Constitution:
Layoff saga continued: The first image shows my SCOTUS 22-387 Rehearing questions which 1. seems to be Amendment IX to me and 2. seems to involve the whole Federal United States State/Federal structure and the Supreme Court's obligation to support it as the Justices' oaths require. But denied again.
May 1, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Layoff saga continued: The first image shows my SCOTUS 22-387 Rehearing questions which 1. seems to be Amendment IX to me and 2. seems to involve the whole Federal United States State/Federal structure and the Supreme Court's obligation to support it as the Justices' oaths require. But denied again.
1/ Layoff saga continued: The first image shows my first question in my petition for certiorari to SCOTUS. The particularly important items are h, i, and j. But all appear equally valid to me. The second image is the SCOTUS case 22-387 docket where the 2022 Nov. 10 & Dec. 01 Michigan NONRESPONSES. +
May 1, 2025 at 3:47 PM
1/ Layoff saga continued: The first image shows my first question in my petition for certiorari to SCOTUS. The particularly important items are h, i, and j. But all appear equally valid to me. The second image is the SCOTUS case 22-387 docket where the 2022 Nov. 10 & Dec. 01 Michigan NONRESPONSES. +
Either you are totally ignorant or you're a scammer out to boost the price of nothing until you think it's time to get out before the collapse. Best of luck.
April 28, 2025 at 1:47 PM
Either you are totally ignorant or you're a scammer out to boost the price of nothing until you think it's time to get out before the collapse. Best of luck.
Layoff saga continued: The first image shows the Michigan Supreme Court's Order regarding the Reconsideration request. Again, "not persuaded." No review whatsoever of the "However..." sentence. The second image shows the relevant MI Constitution change for 1963 vs the 1908 version. "Reason" ignored!
April 27, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Layoff saga continued: The first image shows the Michigan Supreme Court's Order regarding the Reconsideration request. Again, "not persuaded." No review whatsoever of the "However..." sentence. The second image shows the relevant MI Constitution change for 1963 vs the 1908 version. "Reason" ignored!
Layoff saga continued: The first three images below are the entire argument I presented when requesting a Reconsideration by the Michigan Supreme Court. The 4th image is a NOT ALLOWED by the rules UIA Reply and their first addressing of the MCL 421.48(2) "However..." sentence. Appalling on its face!
April 27, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Layoff saga continued: The first three images below are the entire argument I presented when requesting a Reconsideration by the Michigan Supreme Court. The 4th image is a NOT ALLOWED by the rules UIA Reply and their first addressing of the MCL 421.48(2) "However..." sentence. Appalling on its face!
Layoff saga continued: OK, since the Michigan (MI) Court of Appeals denied without any evidence of reading I tried simplified questions in the first below image on the MI Supreme Court. They, disregarding the MI Constitution, said "we are not persuaded" (that is NOT a MI Constitution "reason").
April 24, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Layoff saga continued: OK, since the Michigan (MI) Court of Appeals denied without any evidence of reading I tried simplified questions in the first below image on the MI Supreme Court. They, disregarding the MI Constitution, said "we are not persuaded" (that is NOT a MI Constitution "reason").
Layoff saga continued: First image is part of my request to the Michigan Court of Appeals for Reconsideration of the initial denial. It shows that the Michigan Constitution clearly mandates that both law and facts be reviewed by the court. Below that I show the ignored law. Image 2 shows 2nd denial.
April 17, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Layoff saga continued: First image is part of my request to the Michigan Court of Appeals for Reconsideration of the initial denial. It shows that the Michigan Constitution clearly mandates that both law and facts be reviewed by the court. Below that I show the ignored law. Image 2 shows 2nd denial.
Layoff saga continued: Below image is the full Michigan Appeals Court response. No effort whatsoever to even at least de novo review the relevant law. Useless and an apparent abuse of power. (But you'll notice it was real easy to do!)
April 11, 2025 at 7:40 PM
Layoff saga continued: Below image is the full Michigan Appeals Court response. No effort whatsoever to even at least de novo review the relevant law. Useless and an apparent abuse of power. (But you'll notice it was real easy to do!)
Layoff saga continued: Images show questions appealed. Quoted: MCL 421.48 (particularly "However..." of (2)), relation to MCL 421.27(c), MCL 421.38, MI Const. Art. VI Sec. 28, MCL 421.34(7) (particularly "Unless..."), MCL 408.471, CBA Art. 21, MCR 7.116(G), CBA Art. 10, MCL 24.306, Code R 792.11432
April 11, 2025 at 7:34 PM
Layoff saga continued: Images show questions appealed. Quoted: MCL 421.48 (particularly "However..." of (2)), relation to MCL 421.27(c), MCL 421.38, MI Const. Art. VI Sec. 28, MCL 421.34(7) (particularly "Unless..."), MCL 408.471, CBA Art. 21, MCR 7.116(G), CBA Art. 10, MCL 24.306, Code R 792.11432
Layoff saga continued: This is the entire Court Reconsideration Order/Denial. Note that it is NOT even for the correct case, the correct case number is simply written in. It is for a related Superintending Control case. The Judge fails to recognize that the MCAC/UIAC cannot declare a case "final." +
April 2, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Layoff saga continued: This is the entire Court Reconsideration Order/Denial. Note that it is NOT even for the correct case, the correct case number is simply written in. It is for a related Superintending Control case. The Judge fails to recognize that the MCAC/UIAC cannot declare a case "final." +
Layoff saga continued: Selected text from my Request for Reconsideration. I could have done a better job but at the time I was still operating under the belief that the law actually meant something and that the prior submitted evidence would be read and taken into consideration. Silly me!
April 1, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Layoff saga continued: Selected text from my Request for Reconsideration. I could have done a better job but at the time I was still operating under the belief that the law actually meant something and that the prior submitted evidence would be read and taken into consideration. Silly me!
Layoff saga continued: Images have complete text of Court DENIAL. I've highlighted the main issues. In the second image reopen was considered but the also available rehearing was ignored. The Michigan Constitution's mandate of review of "authorized by law" ignored the bsky.app/profile/jim-... +
March 29, 2025 at 6:01 PM
Layoff saga continued: Images have complete text of Court DENIAL. I've highlighted the main issues. In the second image reopen was considered but the also available rehearing was ignored. The Michigan Constitution's mandate of review of "authorized by law" ignored the bsky.app/profile/jim-... +
Layoff saga continued: Excerpts from my Brief to the 30th Circuit Court. In the 1st image the highlighted part is my plain English understanding of the "However" sentence of MCL 421.48(2). For both "contrary to law" and "evidence" (2nd image) the law, evidence, and text are clearly in my favor.
March 25, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Layoff saga continued: Excerpts from my Brief to the 30th Circuit Court. In the 1st image the highlighted part is my plain English understanding of the "However" sentence of MCL 421.48(2). For both "contrary to law" and "evidence" (2nd image) the law, evidence, and text are clearly in my favor.
Layoff saga continued: The first image shows the MCAC (now reidentified as UIAC) denial of rehearing due to no "good cause" but doesn't mention the under 30 day appeal MCL 421.34(7) also allowed and still ignores .48(2) "However" sentence. Second image shows the over 1-year late Notice of Request.
March 22, 2025 at 7:40 PM
Layoff saga continued: The first image shows the MCAC (now reidentified as UIAC) denial of rehearing due to no "good cause" but doesn't mention the under 30 day appeal MCL 421.34(7) also allowed and still ignores .48(2) "However" sentence. Second image shows the over 1-year late Notice of Request.
Layoff saga continued: Having not heard back (except for fax machine OK confirmations) from the MCAC for 8+ months I sent a status query (first image) but didn't hear back from that either so filed a Superintending Control Complaint in the 30th Circuit Court. Filed twice because Court Clerk wanted +
March 20, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Layoff saga continued: Having not heard back (except for fax machine OK confirmations) from the MCAC for 8+ months I sent a status query (first image) but didn't hear back from that either so filed a Superintending Control Complaint in the 30th Circuit Court. Filed twice because Court Clerk wanted +
Layoff saga continued: The first, second, and top of the third images show my reconsideration request to the MCAC and the bottom of the third image and the fourth image show the additional request for presenting argument. Do you think the MCAC will pay any attention?
March 19, 2025 at 4:07 PM
Layoff saga continued: The first, second, and top of the third images show my reconsideration request to the MCAC and the bottom of the third image and the fourth image show the additional request for presenting argument. Do you think the MCAC will pay any attention?
Layoff saga continued: Look particularly at the last sentence in (7), "Unless..." which clearly leaves both appeal to MCAC and judicial review open as are explicitly codified in the second image R792.11432(1). But if you look back at the denial, MCAC ignores the rule and pushes judicial review only.
March 18, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Layoff saga continued: Look particularly at the last sentence in (7), "Unless..." which clearly leaves both appeal to MCAC and judicial review open as are explicitly codified in the second image R792.11432(1). But if you look back at the denial, MCAC ignores the rule and pushes judicial review only.
Layoff saga continued: The first image is the MCAC first denial. Observe that nowhere in it is the MCL 421.48(2) "However..." sentence re vested vacation noted. The top part of the second image is a union attorney* request for rehearing and below that is the MCAC second denial. No "However" mention.
March 17, 2025 at 3:05 PM
Layoff saga continued: The first image is the MCAC first denial. Observe that nowhere in it is the MCL 421.48(2) "However..." sentence re vested vacation noted. The top part of the second image is a union attorney* request for rehearing and below that is the MCAC second denial. No "However" mention.
Layoff saga continued: Observe the next to last and last paragraph the first image, the ALJ response: rehearing denied but no mention whatsoever of reconsideration of the second sentence of MCL 421.48(2) re vested vacation earnings. The second image shows I timely appealed.
March 14, 2025 at 6:37 PM
Layoff saga continued: Observe the next to last and last paragraph the first image, the ALJ response: rehearing denied but no mention whatsoever of reconsideration of the second sentence of MCL 421.48(2) re vested vacation earnings. The second image shows I timely appealed.
More on the layoff saga. Below are two images showing the text of my response to the ALJ. It's all important but the highlights are on the most important parts. If you see anything wrong with my reasoning or facts, please let me know.
March 12, 2025 at 4:08 PM
More on the layoff saga. Below are two images showing the text of my response to the ALJ. It's all important but the highlights are on the most important parts. If you see anything wrong with my reasoning or facts, please let me know.
Executive Power is limited to what the Founders intended. See illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/i... for lots of clear info. Essentially the Power to execute the Legislature's laws, not undo. Additionally the Powers in Article II, Sec. 2. Tell your congress.gov (scroll down, select state) to ACT.
March 8, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Executive Power is limited to what the Founders intended. See illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/i... for lots of clear info. Essentially the Power to execute the Legislature's laws, not undo. Additionally the Powers in Article II, Sec. 2. Tell your congress.gov (scroll down, select state) to ACT.
Congress has Constitutional POWER to take over the Presidency (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). The President has LIMITED powers by Art. II, Sec. 2. They also have impeachment power. Let YOUR Congresspeople, even Republicans, know to get working on it. Thanks.
March 7, 2025 at 3:17 PM
Congress has Constitutional POWER to take over the Presidency (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). The President has LIMITED powers by Art. II, Sec. 2. They also have impeachment power. Let YOUR Congresspeople, even Republicans, know to get working on it. Thanks.
Hello Patriots, Please use congress.gov, scroll down to where you can select your State or area, select then follow through contacting all of your Congresspeople, even Republicans. Pass the below image on or send them to usareset.net/forum/viewto... to get a PDF. Thanks! And don't hesitate to repost
March 7, 2025 at 12:59 AM
Hello Patriots, Please use congress.gov, scroll down to where you can select your State or area, select then follow through contacting all of your Congresspeople, even Republicans. Pass the below image on or send them to usareset.net/forum/viewto... to get a PDF. Thanks! And don't hesitate to repost
The first image shows the result of another employee in a similar position, prior earned vacation payout, but was eligible and did correctly receive the monthly UIA benefit. The second image boxed area shows the burden of proof was on the employer for a vacation payout. My ALJ got both wrong.
March 6, 2025 at 10:31 PM
The first image shows the result of another employee in a similar position, prior earned vacation payout, but was eligible and did correctly receive the monthly UIA benefit. The second image boxed area shows the burden of proof was on the employer for a vacation payout. My ALJ got both wrong.