ROUNDS OF APPLAUSE


ROUNDS OF APPLAUSE

Silver nail tips nails painted black accentuated her skin.
Her pantsuit was coordinated with her accessories.
Her conversation was of political activism.
She was sharp as a tack and her mind was keen.

She was a trailblazer in her game.
Political office she would acclaim.
The members of her party gave her the highest praise.
Approbated in opinion she spoke.
She would win this campaign was everyone’s hope.

This is my time in space she stated.
As I stand amongst my people in this political forum, our way will form.
I am filled with esteem because you believe in me.
Our struggles will be over.
Strife is economical.
We are the obsolete proof in which we construct a new school of thought.

She was given an applause.
That is when she said…
Please, may I have your attention?

{The Power House became quiet}.

We are old-fashioned people with modern ways.
We must base our advocacy on what is out-of-date.
I have unearth the treachery of immigration.
I have exhume the undisclosed knowledge of slavery.

Once in office, I will construct.
Unveil my administration to what our goals are.
This land is my land.
I am that strength and courage.
We will correct this nation’s antiquity defeating yesterday.

{The Power House stood in ovation}.
__________________________________|
Penned on May 11, 2014!

TO GET IT OFF MY CHEST (TO LIVE)


TO GET IT OFF MY CHEST – TO LIVE!

To get it off my chest, I write about this and that.
To get it off my chest, I write about that and this.
To get it off my chest!

To escape mania
To destroy the voice
To defend my rightful mindedness from evil discourse,
I write about the lunacy of the Courts.

To get it off my chest, I write about what the world did.
They killed my people my people spirit of happiness.
I write about the mania I normally live within.

To get it off my chest, I scribe proverbially and have a psalmist thumb.
I tell the public about the wickedness to come.
To get it off my chest, I am bard to tell exactly the way it is.
To get it off my chest
To live!

All Rise


All Rise

I searched for the ultimate rite.

In this cause, I seek to enumerate my Constitutional rights.

I am a United States of America native-born child with discovery of governmental hatred through her human services files.

Today, I am an adult that has sustain personal and workforce injuries that cannot be shun.

I have litigated well alone.

However, because of this, statute of law has not be done.

I have withstand the lack of adjudication.

The Cases are as follows:

Verlena Sexton-Walker vs. Detroit Board of Education (Workers’ Compensation)

Verlena Sexton-Walker vs. Mesaba Aviation Incorporation (Personal Injury)

Verlena Sexton-Walker vs. Great Expression Dental, P.C. (Personal Injury)

Verlena Sexton-Walker vs. Allstate Insurance Company (Insurance Coverage Litigation)

Verlena Sexton-Walker vs. Liberty Mutual Insurance (Personal Injury)

This is a fight against social injustice!

This is a fight for social justice.

All rise for eradication.

Upsurge overture!

The Draft


The mandate states:

We shall not be destroyed via abuse of discretion.

We shall not be negated our success in applicable law.

We shall rise above bigotry and racism.

We shall overcome all these negativity.

However, the mandate was only drafted.

The Court came in violation of Human Rights.

No error in law when this was the Judges, Justices, and Magistrates outright intentions.

This is the United States of America and social injustice is due eradication.

Listen… Hear

To the Public and Private Sector (Hector Sector)


Stop your lying about anything.

Start telling the truth about what is needed.

If truth is not necessitated and you don’t have to be involve, you make your own choices.

********************************************************************************************************************

The day has come that our political bonding is posit.

We are democracy overturned into a greater tomorrow.

Judicial cruelty is not real to exist.

Our social structure states, in civil law, that equity must be abreast.

If it is not, our political system is only status of power negative.

Stand beside me in this fight.

We must eradicate social injustice right now!

*

I became domestic to my cause.

I Thunderclap and receive no support – none at all.

The political fence that surrounds yells, “You are denied your Bill of Rights.”

I never stutter but I had difficulty in consonant blending.

What you want to bet that this world I am in understands me.

Why I write this political stream?

I lack audio and visual means.

Please note this speech is not ramblings.

This speech is what is happening in the world of justice.

This speech means that to allow social injustice to transgress is to face something greater in the future.

I will not be the only woman life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness negated.

I will be the one that elucidates and expounds to eradicate social injustice right now via judicial review and recovery of damages to remove what has been taken and replace this with something greater.

Thanks for listening and send your support via the political stream, which is audio-visual means.

THE FIGHT AGAINST SOCIAL INJUSTICE (TFASIJ)!


THE FIGHT AGAINST SOCIAL INJUSTICE (TFASIJ)!

A Fight Against Social Injustice IS A Fight For Social Justice!

Assessing the prevalence of women’s access to justice, has brought one case in the judicial system to be overlooked because of the right to self-representation, the right to self-worth, the right to be heard, the right to recover damages due to negligence of another.which all bare the right to a speedy and fair trial, which the judicial system of this great nation wants to obliterated. My name is Verlena Sexton-Walker and I am a victim of female victimization via the foregoing. Therefore, I must proceed with the following and state…

3. I must Stand to be Recognize!

2. I must Stand to be Acknowledge!

4. I must Stand for What Is Right!

1. I must Seek and Receive Eradication Now! (State twice…)

The Ninth Amendment provides us as citizens of the United States of America enumerated rights that has not been directed bestowed by the United States of America Constitution. Examples of these rights are the right to self-worth, the right to self-defense, and the right to be heard in Courts of Law (Federal and State) of this great nation. Whilst, the Seventh Amendment provides, via Civil Court, the right of the citizens of the United States of America a speedy and fair trail of the value of controversy that exceeds twenty dollars. Why state the amount? Because social injustice has happen for this reason and this reason only.

Let us look at Summary Judgment, which legislature done by Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  The case is cited as Verlena Sexton-Walker vs. Great Expression Dental and was filed in Macomb Circuit Court on March 03, 2010 (03/05/2010 ) . This case has not be properly heard in the State of Michigan via the right to a speedy trial through granting of summary disposition in Circuit, Appellate, and Supreme Court of the same. Once submitted to the Federal Supreme Court (Supreme Court of the United States), Verlena Sexton-Walker’s rights enumerated and vested was violated with no given reason. Inasmuch, the author has several cases in civil infraction called social injustice; therefore, this elaboration is to all but not with each historical background. Here is her last two briefs concerning Verlena Sexton-Walker vs. Great Expression Dental, P.C.:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE MATTER OF: Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-10071

Michigan Supreme Court No. 145274

VERLENA SEXTON-WALKER, Michigan Court Of Appeals No.302513

Petitioner-Appellant,

Macomb County Circuit Court No.2010-000976-NO

vs.

GREAT EXPRESSION DENTAL, P.C.,

Respondent-Appellee,

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION:

Verlena Sexton-Walker was an invitee at Great Expression Dental Care, P.C. in Eastpointe, Michigan on August 27, 2009 when she was victim of a slip and fall that as a result in catastrophic musculoskeletal injuries, emotional distress, nerve damage in the arms and hands (bilateral carpel tunnel), the onset of Type II Diabetes Mellitus, and all other injuries stated in my petition for writ certiorari being reiterate, as if restated, verbatim herein.

The trial court granted, inappropriately, Great Expressions Dental Care, P.C. Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant MCR 2.116(C)(10) via abuse of discretion via open and obvious doctrine, which lacks defense and the defendant’s proof in that no process of adjudication has taken (i.e. deposition of all involved [only Verlena Sexton-Walker was deposed]). The non-moving party rebuttals brought forth genuine issues in material facts about the computer chair mat that disallowed summary disposition and therefore, the trial court did not follow statutory procedure in granting summary disposition. This statutory procedure allows no court to accept the movant’s allegations as fact and disregard the non-movant’s rebuttals in issuing summary disposition. PERIOD. It does not –and cannot-matter what the case is about. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193); Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v. Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936), ( If the court exceeded its statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

*Now Comes Verlena Sexton-Walker filing this Application for Leave to Appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States of America and the issues are of significant public and judicial interest via the open and obvious doctrine applicability to the instant case and that fact that ordinary negligence disallows this doctrine applicability; it raises legal principles of major significance to adjudication of law to clear-out bad law; it is an appeal from a clearly erroneous decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals that will cause material injustice; and it conflicts with decisions by the Michigan Supreme Court such as: Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 464 Mich. 512, 537 (2001) (discussing that a defendant landowner may be liable, despite the open and obvious nature of hazard, if the condition has special aspects); Perkoviq v. Delcor Homes-Lake Shore Pointe, Ltd., 466 Mich. 11, 14 (2002) (citing Knight v. Gulf & Western Properties, Inc., 196 Mich. App. 119, 124-125 (1992)) (discussing the duty to warn for non-obvious conditions); Brousseau v Dykin Electric Corp unpublished pre curiam opinion of the COA, decided June 7, 2002 (Dkt. No. 225880), lv denied, 468 Mich 865; 657 NW2d 720 (2003) [In other words, Brousseau appears to stand for the proposition that “effectively unavoidable” may mean that the {Petitioner-Appellant } is capable of avoiding the danger, but it would be considerably burdensome to do so.]; See Id. at *3-*6 (holding that the special aspects exception from Lugo applies to negligent maintenance cases); The defendant’s summary disposition was granted pursuant to M.C.R. 2.116 (C)(10), which provides that summary disposition is appropriate “[e]xcept as to the amount of damages” when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” [In this regards there is a genuine issue of material fact, which has prior discussion and is being reiterated verbatim herein and therefore, a summary disposition is inappropriate because the amount of damages must be in question.] However, Verlena Sexton-Walker subjective knowledge is a factual issue, the “special aspect” of computer chair mat with unusual surface of configuration is a factual issue, and the part of the mat, the standard lip (“special aspect”), that cause Verlena Sexton-Walker’s slip and fall was hidden from casual inspection disallowing the open and obvious doctrine applicability is a factual issue and thus, because of all the factual issues and all the reasons foregoing, Ms. Sexton-Walker cannot be barred from recovering from her injuries. See Bergen v. Baker, 264 Mich. App. 376, 385 (2004) (discussing that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a party had personal knowledge of a condition).

STATE OF MATERIAL FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Verlena Sexton-Walker, Petitioner-Appellant [“P-AT”], bring forth this premises liability matter to Supreme Court of the United States of North America, which was decided on summary disposition motion at the trial court level and then affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals via Appellate Panel decision on April 26, 2012, P-AT Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Vacate judgment was denied on June 01, 2012.

An invitee is owed the highest duty under the premises liability law. And therefore, since it has been will establish by the Michigan Court of Appeals in its Order dated April 26, 2012 via C. Analysis page 3 of this Order that P-AT was “present on Great Expressions’ land as a patient in its dental practice” and thus, she “was on the land related to an activity of tangible benefit to Great Expressions. Therefore, she was an invitee at Great Expressions establishment.” The possessor Great Expressions breached a duty of care because this breached of duty owed by a possessor is dependent upon the status of the P-AT being an invitee at the time of injury. See Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425, 437 (1977); Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591, 596 (2000); Stanley v Town Square Coop, 203 Mich App 143, 147 (1993); Doran v Combs, 135 Mich App 492, 495 (1984); White v Badalamenti, 200 Mich App 434, 436 (1993); Kreski v Modern Wholesale Electric Supply Co, 429 Mich 347 (1987); Berry v J & D Auto Dismantlers, Inc, 195 Mich App 476, 480 (1992).

Great Expressions owe four duties to P-AT as an invitee:

1. Possessors have a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition in which because of the dangerous condition of how the computer chair mat was push in the exam room door and the fact that this mat was “effectively unavoidable,” Great Expressions did not maintain a reasonably safe condition.

2. Possessors must exercise ordinary care to protect an invitee from unreasonable risks known to the possessor, or that should have been known to the possessor with the exercise of ordinary care in which because the dental assistance, who is an employee of Great Expressions, which renders legal liability to Great Expressions, the employer, for the actions of its employee, knew that this mat would cause a slip and fall accident but did not remove the mat from the location nor warn P-AT of this dangerous condition before the P-AT traverse upon the mat to go into the dental exam room, she did not exercise ordinary care to protect P-AT from the unreasonable risks know to her.

3. Possessors must warn invitees of dangers that are known, or that should have been known to the possessor unless the dangers are open and obvious. Possessors must, however, warn of open and obvious dangers if the possessor should expect that an invitee would not discover the danger or would not protect herself against it in which a slip and fall accident occurred and the dental assistant at Great Expressions knew this danger before P-AT traverse upon the computer chair mat to enter the exam room but fail to warn P-AT of the known danger, which this danger was concealed from P-AT view and casual inspection ; and

4. Possessors have a duty to inspect the premises to discover possible dangers of which they are not aware in which this dental assistant at Great Expressions stated she had done this but did not do anything about the dangerous condition of the carpet surface computer chair mat being on a tile surface and this carpet surface computer chair mat being place in the hallway into the exam room with the “special aspect” of the computer chair mat, the standard lip, being concealed in the exam room door disallowing or negating P-AT casual inspection to navigate safely across to enter the exam room and therefore, once P-AT turn to enter the exam room, the portion of the computer chair mat that was hidden from her view and casual inspection, the standard lip (“special aspect”), began to spin and slide causing P-AT a very bad slip and fall. See SJI2d 19.03; Riddle v McLouth Steel Prod Corp, 440 Mich 85 (1992); Kroll v Kratz, 374 Mich 364 (1965).

The safe maintenance of Great Expression premises is the responsibility of the owners and the possessor of the land. The dental assistant is considered under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” and vicarious liability which are defined as the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. Therefore, the Great Expression dental assistant rendered liability to R-AE Great Expression by being a possessor of the land in that she was in possession and control of the premises which P-AT injury occurred. See Merritt v Nickelson, 407 Mich 544, 552 (1980).

In premises liability actions, as this case at hand, a “possessor” of land can be found liable for injuries occurring on the land or for injuries caused by a condition. A “possessor,” for the purpose of premises liability suits, is defined as:

a. A person [the dental assistant] who is in occupation of the land with intent to control it; or

b. A person [the dental assistant] who has been in occupation of land with intent to control it, if no other person has subsequently occupied it with intent to control it; or

c. A person [the dental assistant] who is entitled to immediate occupation of the land, if no other person is in possession under clauses (a) and (b). Merritt, 407 Mich at 552.

Thus, the dental assistance is well established as the “possessor” of the land and therefore, Great Expressions is liable for her negligence to not maintaining a safe environment with leaving an inappropriate or unsafe carpet surface and not tile surface computer chair mat with a “special aspect,” the standard lip, in the door way of the exam room and this standard lip or extension from the mat in the hallway was hidden or concealed form P-AT view, which disallowed casual inspection causing her to be a victim of a very bad slip and fall on August 27, 2009.

The dental assistance established via stated remark that she knew she should have removed the computer chair mat with unusual configuration of beveled (sloped) edge or small anchors or “teeth,” which was designed for carpeted surface and not hard surfaces as at Great Expressions Dental Care, P.C. See Exhibits 3 thru 7. Further, because the dental assistant stated she had constructive knowledge of the danger the mat could cause and therefore, proof of notice is unnecessary where an employee or a premises possessor creates a dangerous condition through an unreasonable act or omission that breaches a duty owed to a visitor on the land. See Hampton v Waste Management of Michigan, Inc, 236 Mich App 598, 604 (1999). See also Williams v Borman’s Foods, 191 Mich App 320, 321 (1991). More so, as a matter of law, because the dental assistance had knowledge of the dangerous condition on the land before P-AT fell, this renders R-AE Great Expressions liable for all P-AT injuries and losses caused from this slip and fall accident while being an invitee at Great Expressions Dental Care, P.C. of Eastpointe, MI. In all, please note that under these circumstances, facts that have been presented to support this premise liability action can also support an ordinary negligence claim, which R-AE is [also] at fault of when its dental assistance stated that she knew this mat would cause a bad slip and fall after the P-AT slip and fall accident occurred but yet, had not remove the computer chair mat from the doorway of the exam room and this ordinary negligence claim would not be barred by the open and obvious defense; however ordinary negligence makes the open and obvious doctrine defense inadmissible. See Laier v Kitchen, 266 Mich App 482 (2005).

The dental assistant anticipated harm to the invitee when she stated she knew the computer chair mat in the doorway of the exam room would cause a slip and fall but did not protect or warn P-AT, the invitee, of the danger. See Riddle v McLouth Steel Prod Corp [at 96], 440 Mich 85 (1992). Since special aspects of this condition did present an unreasonable risk of harm even when portion of the mat [the larger rectangular part that was in the hallway] was open and obvious, the open and obvious doctrine cannot apply because the premises possessor has a duty to undertake reasonable precautions [Such as removing the mat from the exam doorway before P-AT enter the exam room.] to protect P-AT from the risk in which granting R-AE Motion for Summary Disposition is inappropriate and therefore, must be overruled and reversed by Supreme Court of the United States of America. See Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc [at 517], 464 Mich 512 (2001).

ARGUMENT

View of mat in the exam room was obstructed and hidden from P-AT casual inspection. Because to enter the exam room you had only one access, through the exam room door, which was were the computer chair mat standard lip (“special aspect”) with unusual surface or configuration of beveled (sloped) edge or small anchors or “teeth” that are designed for carpeted surface and not hard surfaces was located, it was “effectively unavoidable.” See Mead v Barrett Paving Materials, Inc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided August 30, 2005 (Docket No. 261197); Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512 (2001).

The condition of the subjected computer chair mat that had a “special aspect,” which is the standard lip or extension, had an unusual surface or configuration of beveled (sloped) edge or small anchors or “teeth” was designed for carpeted surface and not hard surfaces as at Great Expressions and was completely hidden and obscured from P-AT casual inspection and therefore, was not discoverable upon casual inspection.

The critical inquiry is whether there is something unusual about the alleged hazard or condition of the land that gives rise to a reasonable risk of harm in which this would be in this instant case the mat unusual surface or configuration foregoing verbatim, which is being reiterated herein, and because of this unusual surface or configuration, it slid and spin causing P-AT to be a victim of a very bad slip and fall on August 27, 2009 at Great Expressions Dental Center, P.C. located in Eastpointe, Michigan. See Kennedy v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 274 Mich App 710 (2007), at 720.

The Lugo supra examples of “special aspects” of an open and obvious condition that would make it unreasonably dangerous are:

a. A commercial building with only one exit for the general public, where the floor is covered with standing water — the condition is open and obvious, but a customer wishing to exit the store must leave the store through the standing water. Supra at 518.

b. A parking lot with an unguarded thirty-foot deep pit in the middle — the condition is open and obvious, but would present such a substantial risk of death or severe injury that the condition is unreasonably dangerous. Supra at 518.

Thus:

c. Because to enter the exam room P-AT had only one access, through the exam room door, which was the location of computer chair mat the hidden or concealed “special aspect” the standard lip with unusual surface or configuration of beveled (sloped) edge or small anchors or “teeth” that are designed for carpeted surface and not hard surfaces, making this dangerous condition “effectively unavoidable.” See Mead v Barrett Paving Materials, Inc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided August 30, 2005 (Docket No. 261197); Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512 (2001).

d. The critical inquiry is whether there is something unusual about the alleged hazard or condition of the land that gives rise to a reasonable risk of harm in which this would be in this instant case the mat unusual surface or configuration foregoing, which is in reiteration verbatim herein, and because of this unusual surface or configuration, it slid and spin causing P-AT to be a victim of a very bad slip and fall accident on August 27, 2009 at Great Expressions Dental Care, P.C. located in Eastpointe, Michigan. See Kennedy v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 274 Mich App 710 (2007), at 720.

e. The condition of the subjected computer chair mat that had a “special aspect,” which is the standard lip or extension from the larger rectangular portion of the computer chair mat, had an unusual surface or configuration of beveled (sloped) edge or small anchors or “teeth,” was designed for carpeted surface and not hard surfaces as at Great Expressions and was completely hidden and obscured from P-AT casual inspection and therefore, was not discoverable upon casual inspection.

P-AT Lugo argument finds that P-AT familiarity with and particular knowledge of the subjected computer chair mat must be considered as a subjective factor because P-AT used a subjective degree of care to prevent her fall but could not because there was too much friction caused by the unusual surface or configuration of the subjected mat “special aspect,” the standard lip, which extended from the larger rectangular portion of the mat in the hallway. This subjected computer chair mat designed was intended for carpet floors and not tile floors as at Great Expressions. Furthermore, by there being noting to grab onto to prevent the fall, P-AT was a victim of a very bad slip and fall caused by the subjected computer chair mat and by the negligence of the premises possessor, the employer of R-AE Great Expressions whom is govern by the “respondeat superior” doctrine and vicarious liability and is liable for all P-AT injuries and losses due to these injuries cause by the slip and fall accident on August 27, 2009 at Great Expressions Dental Center, P.C. located in Eastpointe, MI.

Further argument finds that R-AE is liable to P-AT for all injuries and losses sustained due to P-AT slip and fall accident caused by their employee negligence of leaving an unsafe computer chair mat in the exam room door and rendering liability must be done by Supreme Court of the United States of America because R-AE employee, the dental assistance, had actual knowledge of this dangerous condition, which was established by the dental assistance and this has prior discussion that is being reiterated verbatim herein. Therefore, the P-AT is asking the Supreme Court of the United States of America for a direct verdict as a matter of law because this renders R-AE liable to P-AT, the invitee, due to the established fact that the R-AE employee knew of this dangerous condition on the land. Berryman v K-Mart, 193 Mich App 88, 92 (1992); 62 Am Jur 2d, Premises Liability, – 37. Thus, this established fact states that the dangerous condition on the land had existed for a sufficient amount of time and was grossly neglected by Great Expressions employee(s), which was told to P-AT by the dental assistance that P-AT followed to the exam room after her slip and fall accident occurred, which defines gross negligence and reckless disregard of a dangerous condition on land and therefore, disallows R-AE open and obvious doctrine defense through ordinary negligence. Berryman, 193 Mich App at 92.

No speculation will be present in this case of whether the dangerous condition was present for a sufficient amount of time to impose constructive notice because the dental assistance established the fact that the computer chair mat was known by her to be dangerous yet, she did not removed it from the exam room door before P-AT, the invitee, traverse on the mat to enter the exam room to proceed with her dental care and this “special aspect” of the mat, the standard lip was hidden or concealed form P-AT casual inspection. See Stevenson v B. I. G. Enterprises, Inc., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 4, 2008 (Docket No. 280778).

In general terms, negligence is “the failure to use ordinary care” through either an act or omission. The dental assistant acted negligent when she knew this computer chair mat was a dangerous condition on land but yet, recklessly disregarded the dangerous condition and stated this fact to the P-AT after she was a victim of a very bad slip and fall at Great Expression Dental Center, P.C. with business location being Eastpointe, Michigan. Supreme Court of the United States of America knows negligence occurred when the dental assistance, an employee of R-AE, did not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances. The foregoing fact brings forth “preponderance of the evidence” that the dental assistance failed in exercising the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would use to prevent a slip and fall when she did not remove this unsafe computer chair mat from the exam room door making this mat “effectively unavoidable.” Furthermore, proximate cause existed where P-AT was injured as the result of the dental assistant negligent conduct in which P-AT injuries were a natural and probable result of the dental assistant negligent conduct rendering R-AE liable for all P-AT injuries and losses due to this bad slip and fall accident. Inasmuch, P-AT has proven the following factors by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which are:

1. The dental assistant, employee of R-AE whom is governed by the “respondeat superior” doctrine and vicarious liability, owed a duty to P-AT;

2. The dental assistant, employee of R-AE whom is governed by the “respondeat superior” doctrine and vicarious liability, violated that duty;

3. As a result of the dental assistant, employee of R-AE whom is governed by the “respondeat superior” doctrine and vicarious liability, violation of that duty, the P-AT suffered injuries; and

4. The injuries were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the dental assistant, employee of R-AE whom is governed by the “respondeat superior” doctrine and vicarious liability, action or inaction.

The dental assistance gross negligence was due to failure to remove the unsafe computer chair mat from its location inside the exam room door in which this act was so reckless that it demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted. Further, it is not good public policy to allow R-AE to escape liability for reckless indifference to the safety of others, especially in these contexts where the R-AE premises possessor(s) is/are responsible for creating this unsafe condition of a computer chair mat that is designed for carpet surfaces or floors and not tile surfaces or floors as at Great Expressions Dental Care, P.C. being placed in an exam room door hidden from P-AT view and casual inspection and “effectively unavoidable” causing P-AT to be victim of a bad slip and fall on August 27, 2009. This reckless act renders R-AE liable via vicarious liability.

Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States of America knows vicarious liability has occurred because the dental assistant, employee of R-AE whom is also governed by the “respondeat superior” doctrine as well as vicarious liability, is responsible for the negligence in which the employer (master) is responsible for the negligent acts of their employee (servant) because it occurred within the context of the employment relationship.

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

Conclusively, this premise liability action must not be disregarded. P-AT has constructively/positively and impeccably provided the Supreme Court of the United States of America with every detail and event that happen on August 27, 2009. This is that she was a victim of slip and fall accident via negligence of R-AE employee, the dental assistance of Great Expressions Dental, P.C. in Eastpointe, Michigan. And therefore, R-AE is render liable via the governess of “respondeat superior” doctrine and vicarious liability.

WHEREFORE, relief requested of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is as follows:

a. Overruling, reversing, and remanding the Order filed by the Michigan Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012.

b. Overruling, reversing, and remanding the Order filed by the Michigan Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012.

c. Overruling, reversing, and remanding the Order filed by the Michigan Court of Appeals on June 01, 2012.

d. Overruling, reversing, and remanding the Order filed by the Michigan Supreme Court on December 5, 2012.

e. Overruling, reversing, and remanding the denial of Petitioner-Appellant Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Michigan Supreme Court on April 01, 2013.

f. Granting Petitioner-Appellant a prima facie case.

g. Granting Petitioner-Appellant a direct verdict because she has present the Michigan Supreme Court with a prima facie case by producing enough evidence on all elements of the claim of liability to the support the claim of liability and to shift the burden of evidence production to the Respondent-Appellee. See Herlitz, Georg Nils. 1994. “The Meaning of the Term “Prima Facie.'” Louisiana Law Review 55.

h. If and when the Respondent-Appellee does not response via Respondent-Appellee’s Brief to Petitioner-Appellant’s Application for Leave to Appeal with Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief within in time allocated by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Supreme Court of the United States of America will grant Petitioner-Appellant compensatory, non-economic, and punitive damages via Court Order.

i. For Supreme Court of the United States of America to make a decision on STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED [See Pages 09 thru 14] for thorough application of the law.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Ms, Verlena Sexton-Walker

Pro-se Plaintiff-Appellant

verlenasextonwalker@,yahoo.com

9118 Beaconsfield Street

Detroit, Michigan 48224

(313) 332-0906

(313) 354-9490

II.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE MATTER OF: Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-10071

Michigan Supreme Court No. 145274

VERLENA SEXTON-WALKER, Michigan Court Of Appeals No.302513

Petitioner-Appellant,

Macomb County Circuit Court No.2010-000976-NO

vs.

GREAT EXPRESSION DENTAL, P.C.,

Respondent-Appellee,

PETITION FOR REHEARING

The Supreme Court of the United denied Plaintiff-Appellant’s Petition for Writ Certiorari on October 07, 2013 (See Petition for Rehearing rec’ and stamped October 30, 2013) and she is now filing her Petition for Rehearing to comply Rule 44 of the Court as follows:

1. This petition for rehearing is intended to clarify arguments advanced in original petition for certiorari. Hickman v. Taylor, 327 U.S. 808, 328 U.S. 876, 329 U.S. 495; Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust Co. v. Hill, 280 U.S. 604, 550, 281.1

2. This Petition for Rehearing is file pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules of the Court via the 9th and 10th amendments: “In situations arising from circumstances distinct from those, which resulted in the Constitution originally.” See Modern Constitutional Law, Chester J. Antieau, p. 676.

3. This Petition for Rehearing is file pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules of the Court, which states a Petition for Rehearing must be based on substantial grounds not previously presented and these grounds are the following:

a. This Honorable Courts knows that this instant case propounds “unique features permitting the Court to affirm its historic mandate, “Equal Justice Under Law”, “as well as its given constitutional prerogative as envisioned by the framer when confronted with an executive impotent to make peace by sanctioning once again the inalienable rights of the people, justly and democratically exercised by your petitioner.” Davis vs. District Director Immigration and Naturalization Services, 81-427 U.S., Dec. 1981 [Oct. Term 1981].

b. United States Constitution is not self-contained in its provision for acts of individual sovereignty via the 9th and 10th amendments in situations arising from circumstances distinct from those which resulted in the

Constitution originally. MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Chester J. Antieau, p. 676.

c. The United States Constitution is governess for all the people natural born and neutralize therein; therefore, the 14th and 5th Amendment Right of due process of law and the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in certain civil cases must be enshrined.

d. Petitioner’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to name those inalienable rights preserved in the Declaration of Independence, are unsecured.

e. This petition has all the elements of a federal habeas petition in that a clear statement of the nature of the federal constitutional error with references to the specific constitutional provisions are herein.

f. Citations to pertinent U.S. Supreme Court authority, explanation of why the Court of Appeal’s opinion is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States . . .” (28 U.S.C. – 2254(d)(1)), and an explanation how the error was prejudicial under the controlling standard has been given; therefore, identifying abuse of discretion or power.

g. Finally, Government Code Section 68081 requires the Court of Appeal to request supplemental briefing if they plan to decide a case based on an issue not briefed by the parties, and provides that “rehearing shall be ordered” “upon timely petition if supplemental briefing has not been requested.”

h. Nonetheless, although a timely petition was filed in Michigan Court of Appeal, supplemental briefing was not requested and the Court did not order a rehearing within this knowledge; therefore, not deciding to reopen this instant case.

i. [“Before the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, or the appellate department of a Superior Court renders a decision in a proceeding other than a summary denial of a petition for an extraordinary writ, based upon an issue, which was not proposed or briefed by any party to the proceeding; the court shall afford the parties an opportunity to present their views on the matter through supplemental briefing. If the court fails to afford that opportunity, a rehearing shall be ordered upon timely petition of any party.” (Govt. Code – 68081.)]

j. These issues are not “fairly included” within the issues presented. (People v. Alice (2007) 41 Cal.4th 668, 677-679.).

k. The appealability is that:

1. The final sentence of Rule 56(c) states that summary judgment may be rendered on the issue of liability even though a genuine issue exists as to the amount of damages lacks integrity of the Court in granting in this instant case and denies Petitioner 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in “certain” civil cases such as premise liability.

2. There is not a question between fact and law in this instant case. Whether a trial is necessary is a matter of Federal law. See Farmland Indus, v. Grain Bd. of Iraq, 904 F.2d 732, 736 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (and cases cited there). 42.456 U.S. 273, 288 (1982). Thus, it is a question of law.

3. An undisputed fact that Petitioner was an “invitee a Great Expressions establishments” (See Michigan Court of Appeals Order dated April 26, 2012, C. Analysis p. 3) is material to the application of a pure rule of law; therefore, the application is a matter of law for the court, requiring a trial by jury. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett.

4. For example, whether a defendant used due care in the operation of a vehicles or was driving in the course of employment or whether that person’s acts were the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries are all questions of ultimate fact that are predominantly factual rather than legal and therefore, clearly for the jury. See, e.g., Goosman V. Pyle, 206 F. Supp. 120, 124-28 (D. Md. 1962; See, e.g., Wilson V. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R.R., 841 F.2d 1347, 1354-57 [8th Cir. 1988).

WHEREFORE, the grounds of this Petition for Rehearing are limited to intervening circumstances, other substantial grounds not previously presented, and in systemic spirit of “Equal Justice Under Law.” Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant this Petition for Rehearing.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Ms, Verlena Sexton-Walker

Pro-se Plaintiff-Appellant

verlenasextonwalker@,yahoo.com

9118 Beaconsfield Street

Detroit, Michigan 48224

(313) 332-0906

(313) 354-9490

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH:

Petitioner hereby certifies that the foregoing Petition for Rehearing, was

submitted in good faith and not for purpose of delay.

/s/MS. VERLENA SEXTON-WALKER

Petitioner-Pro Se

9118 Beaconsfield St.

Detroit, MI 48224

November 2, 2013

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

One (1st) First Street, N.E.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20543

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

On November 2, 2013, Petitioner-Appellant served this Petition for Rehearing with Certificate of Service via email or United States Postal Service to all persons involved in this instance case to last email or mailing address on file with the Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk.

/s/MS. VERLENA SEXTON-WALKER

Petitioner Pro-Se

Pleas visit https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/7648-social-injustice-sij?locale=en and give your support to the fight against social injustice (TFASIJ).

The Politics of Living


I was not in the mood, therefore, my laughter did not exist.

If I laugh, I laughed because the statement engaged my senses.

I saw what was stated, which was humorous.

However, I was not in the mood for enjoyment.

Try to preceive everyone against right.

Try to conceive what is this to a rightful mind.

You have your own stressors that will form.

You are your protector.

You expect nothing from anyone.

Your expectations are high for only you.

You are young and must achieve to grow.

Your talent must be defined.

Maybe you are a painter, a poet, or something more acclaimed.

Nonetheless, social injustice is in the bloodstreams.

You know now who you will become.

A fight against social injustice is a fight for social justice.

A philosopher

A politician….