Having jurisdiction over something is a legal way of saying that you have the
authority to make the decisions or take the actions concerning that something.

You can't go to traffic court to have a dispute over a contract settled, because
the judge in traffic court does not have jurisdiction over contract disputes.

The U of M is run by the U of M Senate. The U of M Senate has the option of acting
through Senate Committees. In the case of admissions appeals the U of M Senate
made the decision to act through a Senate Committee. The U of M Senate selected
5 of its senators, 4 of whom were full professors, to act for it in making decisions
on admission appeals. That Committee of 5 Senators had their lawyer present during
the hearing they held on Henya's Appeal. Those 5 Senators, acting with the advise of
their lawyer, for and on behalf of the U of M Senate, wrote the decision in Henya's case.

The U of M Senate, through its Senate Committee on Admission Appeals
directly stated that:

- it did not have jurisdiction to determine if the Multi Mini Interview ("MMI")
   used by the Faculty of Medicine was an appropriate mechanism for judging
   the quality of candidates for admission to medicine; and

- it did not have jurisdiction to determine the merits of Henya as
   a candidate for admission to medicine.

The U of M Senate Committee on Admission Appeals also said that:

- the Faculty of Medicine's Admissions Information Bulletin was not clear on
   the weighting to be assigned to the different admissions criteria; and

- they did not rule on whether the weighting used by the Faculty of
   Medicine was in fact the weighting set out in that bulletin.

(A few months after the Senate Committee Hearing was over the Faculty of
Medicine, in its letter of December 7, 2010, admitted that it did not follow its
own scoring formula which it had published in its Faculty of Medicine's Admissions
Information Bulletin
. The Faculty of Medicine wrote that in contradistincion
to how I calculated the score, which was to use the scoring formula The Faculty
of Medicine published in their Admissions Information Bulletin, they used
what they cryptically called a process of standardized scoring of the component
parts. The Faculty of Medicine continues to refuse to show me how they claim
to have calculated Henya's admissions score, because they know that what they
did was illegal as it was in breach of their own scoring formula published in
their own admissions bulletin. People who calculate something honestly
are happy to show you their calcualtions because they are proud of having
acted honestly.)

.

The U of M Senate Committee admitted that requests for documents
and information were made regarding the issues it ruled were
beyond its jurisdiction and therefore those documents and that
information was not provided and not considered.

.

When the U of M Senate, acting through its Senate Committee which
it appointed, says to Henya, it does not have jurisdiction over all
of those issues, it is directly saying to Henya, you will have to
go to court to have those issues decided, or live with never having
them decided.

In my (ie. Shawn David Olfman's) letter to Dr. Martin I calculated Henya's
composite score using the scoring formula published in the Faculty of
Medicine's own Application Information Bulletin, which is that the adjusted
MCAT and AGPA are 40% and 15% respectively, as stated in paragraph D
of Dr. Martin's letter.

In paragraph E of his letter, Dr. Martin clearly states that they used a
process (cryptically given a fancy name desiged to sound good, but which
tells you nothing about what was done or how it was calculated) "of
standardized scoring" (the specifics of which the Faculty of Medicine
refuses to reveal), in contradistinction to how I calculated
Henya's score, which was by using the Faculty of Medicine's own
PUBLISHED scoring formula.

"contradistinction" means that the Faculty of Medicine did NOT use the
scoring formula which I used (ie. they did not use their own published
scoring formula), but instead used a secret formula which they refuse
to reveal, but whch has a fancy name designed to imply positive things,
but which in reality tells you nothing about what it is or how it is
used.

That is a clear admission by the Faculty of Medicine that their refusal
to offer admission to Henya was ILLEGALLY based on their NOT following
their own published scoring formula; and instead using a secret score
which cannot be known or verified, or checked in any way for accuracy,
error, honesty or discrimination.

Even though the university's message to Henya was that she would have to
sue them if she wanted the issues (over which they did not have jurisdiction)
resolved; when Henya did sue them, they refused to go to trial.

What happened next ?

The same universities that are breaching the Constitution,
began lobbying the governments in the States and Canada
to prevent the Congressional Investigative Hearing and the
Parliamentary Inquiry being called for by this website.

A Congressional Investigative Hearing in the United States
is simply an official fact finding inquiry; why would American
universities, receiving (in total) billions of tax dollars
EVERY YEAR, not want the Congress and the Senate to
know whether their admissions practices are violating the
American Constitution ?

A Canadian Parliamentary Inquiry is also simply an official
fact finding inquiry; why would Canadian universities,
receiving (in total) close to a billion tax dollars EVERY
YEAR, not want Parliament to know whether their admissions
practices are violating the Canadian Constitution ?

Click here to return to the Constitution-Breaches.Com story on Henya main page.