Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination part 5 of 5

Kristi Wachter <humanrights@racerrecords.com>
Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination part 5 of 5
18 Sep 2002

E. Defendants Are Not Prejudiced By the Amended Claim

Plaintiff asserts that because the Defendants have continually moved for repeated and costly motions to strike, although granted by the court, the Plaintiff still is prejudiced by the lack of knowledge of the defenses asserted by the Defendants. This whole process was a direct attempt to utilize the federal rules for the benefit of the Defendants, i.e. repeated motions to strike, so that the Plaintiff could not conduct adequate discovery of the Defendants' defenses or counterclaims. To deny Plaintiff the opportunity to adequate discovery of these defenses and counterclaims, as countenanced by the court in granting the repeated motions to strike, and then denying Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint to include a bona fide religious discrimination claim, is clearly not a proper balancing of the interests of the parties. This is a well-heeled attempt to abuse the federal rules in favor of the Defendants. However, equity dictates that Plaintiff have the opportunity to a hearing on the merits of her religious discrimination claim.

In Materazzo v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp, the court held the following, "the plaintiff can not be charged with bad faith in seeking the amendment and that there has been no showing that the delay per se will be unduly prejudicial. Indeed discovery often justifies a subsequent amendment to the complaint. Even though it is predicated upon a different theory, an amendment should be permitted in the absence of the injection of any new issues requiring new and extensive preparation detrimental to the speedy resolution of the case and prejudicial to the defendant." Matarazzo v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 70 F.R.D. 556 (E.D.N.Y.1976)(citing Middle Atlantic Utilities Co. v. S.M.W. Development Corp., 392 F.2d 380, 385-86 (2d Cir.1968).

In the instant case, Plaintiff should be allowed to include her claim of religious discrimination. Discovery in this case justified her subsequent amendment. Inclusion of this claim will not require the injection of new issues and extensive preparation. The revelation of Defendant Little's Scientology discrimination was the "proper filter" for viewing all the facts in this case, which was difficult to piece together, not age or gender discrimination. The Defendants operate a federally funded municipal housing authority, and religious infiltration is the last thing one would think of. All of Defendant Little's actions can and will be meticulously matched with the scriptures, the so called "Technology" of L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. Plaintiff only respectfully requests the opportunity to be heard on the merits.

The Defendants provided only conclusory statements that they will be prejudiced by Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint claiming religious discrimination. The Defendants assert that Plaintiff had sufficient notice in June 2001 to bring her claim, as a result of Defendant Little's testimony during the Unemployment Appeals Hearing. (Exhibit K). However, as previously discussed herein, such testimony did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis pursuant to Rule 11. The Defendants' also assert that had Plaintiff brought the claim earlier in the litigation, it would have been given ample time to conduct discovery on her claim of religious discrimination. The Defendants place the cart before the horse. As previously asserted herein, Plaintiff derived the factual basis through the deposition testimony of deponents Kemp and Crawford. In addition, no reasonable individual using a sane mind would have been able to piece together the insidious and manipulative methods Defendant Little used to orchestrate his illegal discrimination until deposition testimony was taken in this case.

Finally, the Defendants delayed over a year in providing Plaintiff with responsive documents on August 9, 2002, shortly after they filed their motion to dismiss. This is not about Plaintiff's alleged undue delay, bad faith and prejudice to the Defendants, this is about an abuse of the federal rules to gain a litigation advantage. One can only wonder how motivated the Defendants are to keep Plaintiff from bringing her claim of religious discrimination.

Plaintiff pleads to the Court that the Defendants do not want the religious discrimination claim to see the light of day before this court, because such an obvious claim is so meritorious that the Defendants would become liable. More important, if they became liable for Scientology discrimination, then the United States Government through the Office of Housing and Urban Development would seek to remove Defendant Little's Scientology group from the Housing Authority.

E. Plaintiff Shall Withdraw The Age and Gender Claims If the Instant

Motion for Reconsideration is Granted-Scientology Lies At The Heart of the Discrimination in This Case

In light of the aforementioned arguments and the obviousness of the Defendants religious discriminatory practices, Plaintiff shall withdraw her claims of age and gender discrimination if the Court grants the instant Motion for Reconsideration to file her religious discrimination claim. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state "these rules . . . shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Plaintiff's extraordinary action here is in keeping with this basic rule and the extraordinary nature of Defendant Little's discrimination. Removing these claims will reduce costs associated with preparation and questioning in depositions, costs associated with each parties preparation for summary judgment and trial. As a well-respected, well-educated and highly qualified female administrator6, Plaintiff now understands that Scientology was what truly motivated Defendant Little in wrongfully terminating her employment.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her Motion to Reconsider and allow her to Amend her Complaint to include religious discrimination based on the Defendants Scientology management practices.

Respectfully
Submitted,
URSULA MILDE,
PLAINTIFF
By:
Mark P. Carey(CT 17828)
Carey & Associates, P.C.
71 Old Post Road, Suite One
Southport, CT 06490
203-255-4150

Mcareyesq@MPCAssoc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that the foregoing was delivered by first class mail, postage prepaid, this the 9th day of September, 2002 to:

Francis P. Alvarez
Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman
177 Broad Street
P.O. Box 251
Stamford, CT 06904-0251
_______________________
Mark P. Carey

Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me) If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are. - James Baldwin

I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more.

KSW: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alteringtech.htm