Injustice 14 amendments of Harry Dorvilier and Harry’s Nurses Registry by Supreme Court of the USA not hearing the case
The petition outcome is here
Petition file is here where attorneys clearly stated the reason court should grant the petition
To check the appendix file, click here
Harry Dorvilier and Harry’s Nurses Registry Inc’s 14th Amendments were violated by ruling the summary judgment, because the individual Harry Dorvilier and his corporation has the right for a jury trial. No jury trial has been conducted for both individual Harry Dorvilier and corporation Harry’s Nurses Registry. That clearly indicates the violation of 14 amendments right. If we look onto the lawsuit Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, the case has been reversed because there was no violation of 29 U.S.C.A. 206 and 207 determined by the department of labor. The same should be applied for Harry’s Nurses registry as the department of labor never found any violation of 29 U.S.C.A. 206 and 207. Therefore, no judiciary enforcement shall be made to enforce 29 U.S.C.A. 216 (a), (b), (c), (d).
People v. Renaud, 145 A.D.2d 367, 370 (1st Dep’t 1988) (vacating judgment entered because the court had not considered the represented defendant’s pro se motion to dismiss, holding “The court, [] may not simply disregard a motion filed directly by the defendant because there is an attorney on the scene. A motion, whether made by counsel or a pro se defendant, mandates a ruling or else the court must clearly state its reasons for refusing to decide the motion”) https://casetext.com/case/people-v-renaud-5
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 836 (1975) (holding the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to represent himself by submitting pro se arguments violated his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/806/
Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1975) (reversing trial court decision because of the trial judge’s “refusal to entertain a number of motions”, holding “the trial court cannot refuse to tender [a motion] or attempt to exclude it from the record”) https://casetext.com/case/international-bus-machines-corp-v-edelstein
Wolff v. 969 Park Corp., 86 A.D.2d 519, 520 (1st Dep’t 1982) (holding lower court erred when it “ignored [a party’s] motion in chief and instead adjudicated the entire action.”) https://casetext.com/case/wolff-v-969-park-corporation https://casetext.com/case/meadow-at-clarke-hollow-bay-llc-v-white-5
Cassano v. Shoop, 1 F.4th 458, 468 (6th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2051, 2053 (2022) (vacating judgment because the court failed to adjudicate on pro se motions) (citing Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 298 (2013)) https://casetext.com/case/cassano-v-shoop https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/568/289/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/568/289/
People v. Session, 206 A.D.3d 1678, 1682 (4th Dep’t 2022) (“where, as here, the record does not reflect that the court ruled on a part of a motion, the failure to rule on that part cannot be deemed a denial thereof) (citing People v Concepcion, 17 N.Y.3d 192, 197-198 (2011)) (internal quotations omitted) https://www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20220610461 https://casetext.com/case/people-v-concepcion-93
