How Legal Hearings Work: Part 1
HOW LEGAL HEARINGS WORK AT THE DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS – Part 1
This is part one of a two part series. Part two can be found here: https://www.rabcpafirm.com/videos/how-legal-hearings-work-part-2/
The purpose of this video is to give insight into how Legal Hearings work in the real world in an actual case in Massachusetts District Court. This video is for anybody who is interested in the United States legal system. This includes law professors, law students, judges, lawyers, and pro se litigants.
What is a legal Hearing; a legal hearing is any formal proceeding before court.
This Hearing was before the District Federal Court judge in the District Court of Massachusetts. We are going to go through a certified transcript taken during the court hearings by the court for the case of Bonavito v Harvard.
BACKGROUND ON BONAVITO V HARVARD
Many consider this case the most important case concerning discrimination since, Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, which stopped racial segregation in the public school system. The Bonavito v. Harvard case focused on discrimination based on age and gender.
Bonavito v Harvard; is a case involving a pro se plaintiff that went up against one of the most powerful institutions in Massachusetts if not the country; Harvard University.
LIST OF THE COURT VENUES THE CASE APPEARED IN
New Jersey Superior Court
United States District Court, New Jersey, before two federal judges
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
United States District Court, Massachusetts
Massachusetts, Judicial Conduct Proceedings
Massachusetts, Petition for Review of Judicial Conduct Proceedings
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
ARTICLE ON THE CASE
THE PLAINTIFF, PRO SE BONAVITO
Pro se is Latin for “in one's own behalf.” The right to appear pro se in a civil case in Federal Court is defined by statute 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
Pro se plaintiff was admitted to Harvard in 2016
- Proof of payment, American Express
- Copy of acceptance letter
- Copy of Certified Transcript
Earned two Harvard credentials but was denied his Degree in Finance even though he completed all requirements.
Plaintiff was denied a Degree in Finance based on age, gender and ethnicity.
Damages totaled incurred by the plaintiff $856,352,896.47
Total cost of litigation incurred by the Pro Se plaintiff $13,115,762.52; Yes, freedom is not free
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (2018).that judges have a responsibility to disclose their lack of independence, United States v. Salemme, 164 F. Supp. 2d 49, 51 (D. Mass. 1998).
WHAT OTHER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGES SAID ABOUT THE CASE
Federal District Court Judge Michael A Shipp ruled on Bonavito v Harvard; civil Action 20 – 14657 (MAS) ( DEA)
“The Court has carefully considered the Parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78. l. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s, “Harvard” Motion to Dismiss is denied,”
“The court found that plaintiffs, ”Bonavito” New Jersey venue choice…was filed in good faith.”
“Plaintiff’s complaint “Bonavito” was filed in good faith”
Federal District Court Judge Douglas E. Arpert ruled on Bonavito v Harvard; civil Action 20 – 14657 (MAS) ( DEA)
“The Court has carefully considered the above factors and will grant Plaintiff’s motion. The materials at issue consist of an application for admission to an educational program submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant, documents submitted with the application, and communications regarding Plaintiff’s application as well as his eligibility for certain of Defendant’s programs. Given the nature of the material, the Court finds that Plaintiff has a privacy interest in the information, and application of the relevant factors support sealing.
PURPOSE AND LEGAL STANDARDS FOR THE HEARING
The Supreme Court was quite clear that Pro Se plaintiff’s pleadings should be held to a less stringent standard, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972) The United States Supreme Court holds allegations of a pro se complaint to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Defendants brought their second motion to dismiss under rule 12 (b)(6)
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
III. Pleadings and Motions
Rule 12— Defenses and Objections— When and How Presented— By Pleading or Motion— Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(b) How Presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion:
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
As a practical matter, Rule 12(b)(6) motions are rarely successful, and when they are, their success usually has more to do with the judge than the law.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a district court may properly consider only facts and documents that are part of or incorporated into a complaint. However, there are narrow exceptions for documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties; for official public records; for documents central to a plaintiff's claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint. When a complaint's factual allegations are expressly linked to — and admittedly dependent upon — a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged), that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). When such documents contradict an allegation in the complaint, the document trumps the allegation.
See Part 2 on YouTube: https://youtu.be/wCfvoFU-69QReturn to Video Gallery