Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mastodon.social/users/ashleygjovik/statuses/112272661256102696">Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD (ashleygjovik@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 15-Apr-2024 10:46:58 JST</a><a href="https://mastodon.social/@ashleygjovik" title="ashleygjovik@mastodon.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/231699-48-20240113013158.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD</a></section><article><p>Apple's facing a civil RICO charge from me accusing them of tampering with a federal witness / informant / victim. </p><p>I complained Apple kept intimidating &amp; threatening me to try to get me to drop my federal charges against them. </p><p>To prove their innocence, Apple's lawyers just emailed me and directly asked me to drop my federal charges.</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/2941076#notice-5849681">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-04-15T10:46:58+09:00" title="Monday, 15-Apr-2024 10:46:58 JST">about 7 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@ashleygjovik/112272661256102696" rel="external" title="Sent from mastodon.social via ActivityPub">mastodon.social</a></span></span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@ashleygjovik/112272661256102696">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/2502856">Hello Apple's lawyer,Please review 29 C.F.R. Part 18 § 18.33(c)(3)(i). There is no requirement for an employer's lawyer to contact a pro se complainant prior to the employer filing motions, nor is there a requirement for the employer's lawyers to contact a complainant (represented, or pro se) about a motion to dismiss. Policy-wise this makes sense. An employer should not be trying be exert their power over a less-powerful worker to try to coerce a pro se employee to change their litigation posture against the employer in a way that is favorable for the employer. . There is also no meet/confer requirement for motions to dismiss or for summary decision because that meeting is just the employer saying to the employee: please give up.Combining the two exceptions noted in § 18.33, it seems especially unneeded (and undesirable) for an employer's lawyers to contact a pro se complainant to meet/confer about a employer's motion to try to dismiss the employee's claims against the employer.In fact, interactions just like this (here, a Partner representing Apple, contacting me directly, urging me to agree to drop my federal charges against Apple) are why Apple got the RICO in civil court.I'm not dropping my charges. Please don't ask me to drop my charges again unless its pursuant to the terms of an already agreed upon settlement.</a></label><br><a href="https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/112/272/652/044/308/663/original/7cf50c52e8112661.png" rel="external">https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/112/272/652/044/308/663/original/7cf50c52e8112661.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD (ashleygjovik@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 15-Apr-2024 10:46:58 JST Ashley M. Gjøvik, JD
Apple's facing a civil RICO charge from me accusing them of tampering with a federal witness / informant / victim.
I complained Apple kept intimidating & threatening me to try to get me to drop my federal charges against them.
To prove their innocence, Apple's lawyers just emailed me and directly asked me to drop my federal charges.
In conversationabout 7 months ago from mastodon.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. Hello Apple's lawyer, Please review 29 C.F.R. Part 18 § 18.33(c)(3)(i). There is no requirement for an employer's lawyer to contact a pro se complainant prior to the employer filing motions, nor is there a requirement for the employer's lawyers to contact a complainant (represented, or pro se) about a motion to dismiss. Policy-wise this makes sense. An employer should not be trying be exert their power over a less-powerful worker to try to coerce a pro se employee to change their litigation posture against the employer in a way that is favorable for the employer. . There is also no meet/confer requirement for motions to dismiss or for summary decision because that meeting is just the employer saying to the employee: please give up. Combining the two exceptions noted in § 18.33, it seems especially unneeded (and undesirable) for an employer's lawyers to contact a pro se complainant to meet/confer about a employer's motion to try to dismiss the employee's claims against the employer. In fact, interactions just like this (here, a Partner representing Apple, contacting me directly, urging me to agree to drop my federal charges against Apple) are why Apple got the RICO in civil court. I'm not dropping my charges. Please don't ask me to drop my charges again unless its pursuant to the terms of an already agreed upon settlement.
  https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/112/272/652/044/308/663/original/7cf50c52e8112661.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice