> How is that not the end of proof needed to a court? Because this guy is, in all probability, mentally ill. There's no evidence I can find of Chrysler actuall

> How is that not the end of proof needed to a court? Because this guy is, in all probability, mentally ill. There's no evidence I can find of Chrysler actually speaking to prospective employers or lying about whatever employment history he has. Here's (what he calls) the Oakland circuit court case judgement, an appeal of his original case: http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2003/120403/21275.pdf http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2003/120403/212... To wit: he claimed that Chrysler lied about his employment history to a perspective employer, but the only perspective employer presented as evidence testified that she hadn't even contacted Chrysler about him. Lacking literally any evidence of wrongdoing on Chrysler's part, the case was dismissed, and this appeals court upholds that dismissal. He lists other "case numbers", most of which I can't turn up (no pacer access here), but I suspect it's just a litany of affirmations of the original judgement, or refusals to hear the case, or that they're simply filings of various sorts that never went anywhere. This simply looks like a persecution he is suffering in his mind.