Fraudulent judgment and scam involving CHARLES SIFTON and Jonathan Bernstein in the Gayle case.
The substantive legal issues highlighted in this case are: Defective Consent, Fraud and Fraud on the Court, Absence of Engagement in Commerce and Violation of 14th Amendment Protections, Improper Assessment of Individual Liability of Defendant Dorvilier in violation of New York State Law and the 14th Amendment, Improper Assessment of Criminal Liability of Defendant Dorvilier in violation of Federal and State Law and the 14th Amendment, Incorrect Application of the US DOL Regulatory Exemption that should have protected Defendants from FLSA Liability, Misapplication of the Statute of Limitations which would have decreased Actual and Liquidated Damages, Denial of the Defendant’s Right to a Jury Determination of FLSA Liquidated Damages as mandated by the 6th Amendment, and the outright denial of the Defendants’ Good Faith Affirmative Defense, raised based on a valid decision by a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge, and finally, issues with the discovery process.
Fake ID, Different Name. and Assumed Identity!
Claudia Gayle allegedly maintains three separate identities with various names across five states. Per her identification, she is known as “Claudia Gayle”, “Claudia Mathias”, and “Claudia Williams”. She reportedly assumed or copied the name of WILLIAMS CLAUDIA CECILE, who is related to Cherilyn Williams (ex-RN of Harry’s Homecare) with License Number: 282455.
However, CLAUDIA GAYLE, also referred to as “Ghost,” purportedly received checks from Harry’s Nursing Registry Inc. using false information. A list of these checks can be found here
Regarding the Summons and complaints initiated by Bernstein
The scam involves “Out of Jurisdiction” issues in both State and Federal Courts. Kindly review the “Summons and complaints initiated by Bernstein”, “Defective Cover Sheet (JS44) of the Department of Justice”, “United States District Court 2”, and “United States District Court 1” documents.
However, In Bernstein’s summons and complaints, he seemingly did not address any violation of 29 U.S.C.A. 206, 207, and 255 for the corporate defendants. Additionally, there appears to be no consent given for enforcing section 29 U.S.C.A. 216 (a, b, c, d), questioning his authority to proceed in the federal court. He later retracted his complaints (193) from the federal court, allegedly breaching the rights of Mr. Harry Dorvilier and his company, HNR.
The Scam is “Out of Jurisdiction: Both in State and Federal Court”, please see the summons and complaints Please check “Summons and complaints initiated by Bernstein”, “Defective Cover Sheet (JS44) of the Department of Justice”, and “United States District Court 2”, “United States District Court 1” documents.
Following are relevant documents:
Summons and complaints initiated by Bernstein – Case 1:07-cv-04672-NGG-PK
Defective Cover Sheet (JS44) of the Department of Justice
United States District Court 2
United States District Court 1
Ghost summary judgment was made by Judge Charles P. Sifton and Jonathan A. Bernstein in the Gayle case
-
-
03/09/2009MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The defendants’ motion for reconsideration was DENIED. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED for Gayle and DENIED without prejudice for other plaintiffs. Gayle was awarded $7,390 in unpaid overtime, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages, totaling $14,780. The defendants are jointly and severally liable for these damages. Order given by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 03/09/2009. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
Misrepresentation law 216 b) law: the Judge’s role was for the enforcement of the law by the Department of Labor; it shouldn’t have been merely cited.
Misrepresentation 1: Judge Charles P. Sifton only cited the law 216(b), he never enforce the law to Claudia Gayle vs Harry’s Nurses Registry, Inc., and Harry Dorvilier
Misrepresentation 2: Order: At any given moment, Harry’s Nurses Registry may have up to five hundred nurses on its referral list. Judge job to enforce the law not order to disclose the list of nurses with details identity
In 2007, New York established the Joint Enforcement Task Force on employee misclassification, creating a partnership between the NYSDOL., the New York State Workers’ Compensation Fraud Inspector General, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, The New York Attorney General Office, and the Comptroller of the City of New York. The purpose of the Task Force is to increase information sharing between these agencies and to better coordinate their misclassification investigations and enforcement efforts. But, Nicholas G. Garaufis, Judge Charles P. Sifton, and Jonathan A. Bernstein never followed the law 29 U.S.C 216(b). It’s a big Scam.
Ghost summary judgement by Nicholas G. Garaufis
12/23/2010 MEMORANDUM , United States District Judge & ORDER: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on damages is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall be awarded $7390.00 in unpaid overtime wages and the same amount in liquidated damages, for a total of $7390.00; Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for these damages. The defendants’ motion to strike the Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum of law is DENIED. The plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 12/23/2010. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
Stealing the money, under ghost that is the power of the ghost by judgment Nicholas G. Garaufis and Judge Charles P. Sifton
Why Gayle Claudi took 3 years to take the money (10-23-2010 Ordered and she took money in 01-28-2013 The Check Number (1st) 16647-48 , 11,085.00 , Date 01-28-2013 and Check Number (2nd): 17622 and date Issued 1/27/2014
Harry Dolivier 14th Amendment the check towards him
Checks received by Ghost Claudia Gayle 3 years later
9/18/2012 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on damages is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall be awarded $309,535.88 in unpaid overtime wages and the same amount in liquidated damages, for a total of $619,071.76; Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for these damages. The defendants’ motion to strike the Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum of law is DENIED. The plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 9/14/2012. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
10/22/2013 JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiff Ramdeo Chankar Singh and against Defendants Harry’s Nurses Registry, Inc. and Harry Dorvilier a/k/a Harry Dorvilien, jointly and severally, in the amount of $300.00, and that it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Getty Rocourt and against Defendants Harry’s Nurses Registry, Inc. and Harry Dorvilier a/k/a Harry Dorvilien, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,140.00, and that it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that supplemental judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Jane Burke Hylton and against Defendants Harry’s Nurses Registry, Inc. and HarryDorvilier a/k/a Harry Dorvilien, jointly and severally, in the amount of $6,512.00, and that it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that supplemental judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Yolanda Robinson and against Defendants Harry’s Nurses Registry, Inc. and Harry Dorvilier a/k/a Harry Dorvilien, jointly and severally, in the amount of $118,512.00, and that it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Harry’s Nurses Registry, Inc. and Harry Dorvilier a/k/a Harry Dorvilien, jointly and severally, awarding attorneys’ fees of $127,754.17 and costs of $2,460.29. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 10/16/2013. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
4/14/2015 MEMORANDUM & ORDER re 221 Motion for Attorney Fees. The plaintiffs’ motion for additional attorneys’ fees and costs related to post-judgment proceedings and the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is GRANTED IN PART. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the court AWARDS to Plaintiffs $41,429.17 in post-judgment attorney’s fees and costs. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 4/06/2015. (fwd’d for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
Attorney Fees: As set forth in the annexed Report and Recommendation, I respectfully recommend that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ 304 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and that Plaintiffs be awarded fees in the amount of $18,043.00 and costs in the amount of $55.61.Any written objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days of service of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any order or judgment entered based on this Report and Recommendation. Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008). (LG) (Entered: 02/10/2023)
Ex A to GR Affirmation opposing fee application
Proposed MDL No. 54 and Request For Information and Clarification Regarding Court System Unwritten Rules and Procedure
08/23/2021 MDL No 54 Clarification & Ex A to GR Affirmation opposing fee application. Case MDL No. 3020. Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, Hon. Debra Ann Livingston, Chief Judge Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Hon. Margo K. Bodie, Chief Judge Eastern District of New York. So Ordered by Judge Karen on 08/23/2021. (fwd’d for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 08/23/2021)
Isigi v. Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc. [1:16-cv-2218(FB)(SMG)]
Judge Frederic Block:
Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold:
Chief Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold was appointed to the Eastern District bench in 1993 and served as the Court’s Chief Magistrate Judge from 2007-2016. He was the judge for Isigi v. Harry Dorvilier and Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc.
False indictment
In November 2007, a case was launched under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Surprisingly, multiple parties may have involved in an irregular collaboration with the judiciary to initiate this case. The case was filed against Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc. and its corporate officer, Harry Dorvilier, with the court issuing two distinct indictments in favor of the law firm Levy Davis Maher & Klein LLP. These indictments, numbered 1LD910192 and 1LD910193, were released respectively in November 2007, see the invalid indictments below.
The indictments were issued in Manhattan Federal Court which was supposed to never happen. Only state district court can assign a grand jury who can have the authority to investigate and issue the indictment should there is a violation of FLSA law. This course of action is strikingly anomalous. The procedure for initiating a case under the FLSA has specific requirements which were noticeably bypassed in this scenario. Notably, the FLSA mandates that the US Department of Labor (DOL) first conduct an employer audit to establish any violations against employees. Should any violations be identified, the DOL is then responsible for contacting the affected employee to seek their consent for a case filing.
Despite these clear protocols, they were not followed in this situation, indicating potential fraudulent intentions by the attorney and other involved parties. This deviation from the norm raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the case and the indictments. It’s noteworthy to mention that neither attorneys, agencies, nor the judiciary are authorized to issue indictments, a task traditionally reserved for a grand jury following an extensive investigation.
This situation seems to have infringed upon the due process of law and possibly violated Harry Dorvilier’s rights under the 14th Amendment. A grand jury, rather than a private attorney or any other entity, should have been involved in initiating these proceedings. In light of these irregularities, it’s arguable that this case should not have been allowed to proceed as it did.
