Translate

Thursday, November 14, 2013

**UPDATE link to Official Oral Argument- Sharyn Mention NISSAN Fraud & Lockerbie Bombing Cover Up*** Baker Donelson & Brigid Carpenter - I'm Fighting for My Due Process Rights... YES!!! I Had a Bad Lawyer BUT Nobody in Tennessee Would Take a Case to Help the DOD Whistleblower Who Spoke Out Against NISSAN (a BIG Employer) and Governor Haslam for Doing Business with IRAN. YES!!!! Both NISSAN and Haslam Broke the Law and the Whistleblower Was Jailed 3 Times... Something is Morally Wrong in Tennessee

Click Here to listen to Oral Argument....




Click Here to Read Reply Brief.  The brief link is below:  Sharyn Bovat CLEARLY said she could NOT find a lawyer and she LOST appeal because she did NOT file certain documents - She filed a motion asking for an extension of time to "learn the law" and that was NEVER heard.....NEVER did Sharyn get to confront her accusers.  EVER!!!   So the court allowed for an affidavit of Terry Wood that LIED.


Kim Helper Williamson County DA .... WHY?: NISSAN Whistleblower ...

kimhelperda.blogspot.com/2013/.../nissan-whistleblower-tells-ada-terry.h...

Jan 14, 2013 - NISSAN Whistleblower Tells ADA Terry Wood That He's Wrong.... The Affidavit He Signed Has FALSE Statements, Kim Helper.... Check the ...
You +1'd this


The ADA lied - NISSAN did hire a lawyer to babysit the DA & I will PROVE that Due Process did NOT happen in Tennessee.  Baker Donelson I have 60 days to file a request to the Supreme Court.   I'm scared BUT I'm gonna do it because I want JUSTICE.  I was abused by NISSAN for Whistle-blowing and NISSAN used the courts to bully- the TN governor "let it happen"

The "drama" continues......


RULE 11: APPEAL BY PERMISSION FROM APPELLATE COURT TO SUPREME COURT.

(a) Application for Permission to Appeal; Grounds.  An appeal by permission may be taken from a final decision of the Court of Appeals or Court of Criminal Appeals to the Supreme Court only on application and in the discretion of the Supreme Court. In determining whether to grant permission to appeal, the following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of reasons that will be considered:  (1) the need to secure uniformity of decision, (2) the need to secure settlement of important questions of law, (3) the need to secure settlement of questions of public interest, and (4) the need for the exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory authority.



Click Here to Read Sharyn Bovat's official Brief she CLEARY says issues.... She said in oral argument too she could NOT find a lawyer due to the CRONYISM in Tennessee.




Appellate Court Opinions | Tennessee Administrative Office of the ...

www.tncourts.gov/opinionsview/all

8 hours ago - Sharyn Bovat v. Nissan North America. M2013-00592-COA-R3-CV. This civil action is the progeny of a criminal proceeding in which Plaintiff was indicted by the ...

Sharyn Bovat v. Nissan North America
M2013-00592-COA-R3-CV

This civil action is the progeny of a criminal proceeding in which Plaintiff was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for criminal trespass and stalking following an incident that occurred at the headquarters of Nissan North America. Plaintiff was convicted of criminal trespass; however, the stalking charge was dismissed because a corporation is not defined as a “person” under the stalking statute. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed this action against Nissan North America asserting claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process pertaining to the stalking charge. Nissan filed a motion for summary judgment and a statement of undisputed facts that was supported by the affidavit of the Williamson County Deputy District Attorney General who investigated and prosecuted the criminal proceedings. Plaintiff filed a response opposing Nissan’s motion for summary judgment; however, she failed to file a statement of disputed facts or any affidavit or deposition testimony to dispute the facts relied upon by Nissan as Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.03 requires. After setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 56.04, the trial court summarily dismissed the complaint upon the findings that Nissan presented competent evidence to negate essential elements of Plaintiff’s claims and that Plaintiff failed to create an issue of disputed material fact regarding any of the grounds relied upon by Nissan. We have determined that the record supports the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thus, we affirm the summary dismissal of the complaint.


No comments:

Post a Comment