Saturday, September 9, 2017

ADVOCATZ: Full Service Advocacy, Support, and Problem-Solving

re-posted from ADVOCATZ' blog:
Advocatz' purpose is to assist any person or group who have been challenged by false reports or evaluations, defamation, libel, and/or who have received charges which are false or life/career-altering. 

We believe that all people have the right to due process of law, as well as the right to expose corruption and fraud. We help you do that.
Betsy Combier

 We also assist attorneys in vacating judgments of "substantiated" false claims by investigating the investigators and defending the legal and contractual rights of all who are brought to grievances, mediation, arbitration, and/or want to go to settlement at any administrative hearing. We have extensive experience in winning cases in Education Law 3020-a arbitration. 

We are not attorneys and do not practice law. We investigate, research, seek facts wherever they may be in recorded information, emails, and any other social media sources, and assist the victim in creating a comprehensive and detailed report on exactly how the problem arose ....and can be resolved. 

 We believe that the work needed to be done on each case is too much for a single attorney or a single representative who may not have or give the time needed to obtain all the details of what happened and that is why we give our clients unlimited time for discussion and research. All information is discussed and reviewed to give backup support and to manage all the case details for the attorney or client, if the client is pro se. In arbitration, mediation and negotiation where there is no attorney, and the appellant is pro se, we give the same assistance and support. Our opinions are not legal advice.

 We help people who feel they have been harmed understand what the process is, and how an individual victimized by false claims can defend him or herself. Arbitration proceedings such as 3020-a hearings, do not take place in a Court of Law and there is no judge or jury.

We work as paralegals with Attorneys who subpoena witnesses, submit Motions To Dismiss charges, and argue for compliance with 3020-a Law on the determination of probable cause, the Just Cause Standard, Section 2590-h, and Section 3020-a. In addition, we research case law for Article 75 and 78 appeals, Part 83 Appeals, First Department Appeals, and civil actions in State and Federal Court.

Paralegal Betsy Combier has 14 years of experience observing, documenting, and studying the 3020-a process as well as the underlying laws which supposedly apply to the discipline process for employees. She is a paralegal, advocate for individual and collective rights, and an investigative reporter. She is a graduate of NYU, Johns Hopkins, and Northwestern University, and has been a reporter/journalist/advocate for more than 35 years. She edits the following websites and blogs:
Parentadvocates.org, NYC Rubber Room Reporter, New York Court Corruption, National Public Voice, NYC Public Voice, and Inside 3020-a Teachers' Trials.

We at Advocatz use terms such as "Just Cause" (or 'good cause') and "bad faith" in our defense of a Respondent brought to Education Law 3020-a arbitration. We want the Hearing Officer to look at the facts, or lack thereof, and the fairness and integrity of the process followed in support of those facts.

From Wikipedia:

"Good cause is a legal term denoting adequate or substantial grounds or reason to take a certain action, or to fail to take an action prescribed by law. What constitutes a good cause is usually determined on a case by case basis and is thus relative.
Often the court or other legal body determines whether a particular fact or facts amount to a good cause. For example, if a party to a case has failed to take legal action before a particular statute of limitations has expired, the court might decide that the said party preserves its rights nonetheless, since that party's serious illness is a good cause, or justification for having additional time to take the legal action."
 ( Henry Campbell Black; Joseph R. Nolan; Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley (1991). "good cause". Black's Law Dictionary. West Pub. Co. p. 476).

Thus, a sustainable, valid defense in any forum results from a thorough, fact-based inquiry into the background of a case using the "good cause" justification.

Similarly, a valid defense should have a fact-based opposition to any bad faith by the defendant(s).

From Wikipedia:
"Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.
The expression "bad faith" is associated with "double heartedness", which is also translated as "double mindedness". A bad faith belief may be formed through self-deception, being double minded, or "of two minds", which is associated with faith, belief, attitude, and loyalty. In the 1913 Webster’s Dictionary, bad faith was equated with being double hearted, "of two hearts", or "a sustained form of deception which consists in entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings, and acting as if influenced by another". The concept is similar to perfidy, or being "without faith", in which deception is achieved when one side in a conflict promises to act in good faith (e.g. by raising a flag of surrender) with the intention of breaking that promise once the enemy has exposed himself. After Jean-Paul Sartre's analysis of the concepts of self-deception and bad faith, bad faith has been examined in specialized fields as it pertains to self-deception as two semi-independently acting minds within one mind, with one deceiving the other.
Some examples of bad faith include: a company representative who negotiates with union workers while having no intent of compromising; a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false; an insurer who uses language and reasoning which are deliberately misleading in order to deny a claim."
Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please do not use offensive language