A Thought Experiment and Vantucky-Clark County Corruption
by Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Suppose as a thought experiment the following: Suppose I were outside say a bank or a park, trying out my new cellphone camera features, and I hear an alarm go off outside a bank or hear a woman’s screaming from the park, see and film someone running from the scene and jumping into a waiting car and speeding off in obvious flight.
Do I yet have knowledge that a crime was committed? No not for sure only indicia of a possible crime and possible evidence of a possible perpetrator. But what if I see a newscast that at precisely that place and time shown on my phone camera, a crime of bank robbery or perhaps rape in the park took place. Now do I have knowledge of the commission of a crime? A reasonable and prudent person would say yes, I have enough to take my tape evidence to law enforcement.
Suppose the perpetrator was flashing gang tatoos and colors and I have fear of reprisals from the gang against me and my family if I come forward. Is this tape of potential evidence of potential crime my personal possession to keep and use as I wish, perhaps sell it to some tabloid or news program? Can I decide that the hassle of going to court and being interviewed by police is too much; suppose I have had bad experiences with law enforcement and do not trust or want to go near them; suppose I am political and likely a target their surveillance, and not likely to be welcomed or listened to or my evidence acted upon. Do I get to make the “choice” if or if not to report the commission of a crime to law enforcement? The answer is not only no, but for me to fail to report knowledge and evidence of the commission of a felony crime that I have acquired, no matter how, is itself a federal crime:
18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony
18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
- § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
- § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations
- § 1511. Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
- § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
- § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
- § 1514. Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
- § 1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
- § 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
- § 1518. Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
What is the reason for this law and legal mandate to report felony crimes one has acquired knowledge of the commission of? First of all justice awaits the victims of the past and present, plus there will likely be victims in the future if the perps are not exposed and brought to law enforcement. Secondly, there are likely other crimes and potential perps involved; this may be a predicate felony that triggers other related but separate felonies like conspiracy against rights, conspiracy under color of law, etc. Thirdly, law enforcement cannot be everywhere and has to rely on reporting by citizens, which means, they have a responsibility to be approachable, not to be corrupt or abusive, to be competent and not derelict in duty, and willing to go forward with hard evidence and investigation without fear or favor to anyone.
I worked on the election campaign of Governor Inslee and was asked to send any evidence of corruption in Clark County to his info address. Another time, I was at a private reception, and briefly congratulated and thanked him for his vote while in Congress against the Iraq War and said that there was serious corruption in Clark County and at Clark College, that real people were being hurt and students defrauded and he said to send to him what I have which I have done. The following has also been sent to Washington Attorney General Ferguson, Clark County Sheriff’s office, Clark County Prosecutor, Vancouver Police, Washington Human Rights, Washington Education Association, Washington Court of Appeals and was supposedly reviewed by Clark College Trustees:
In these documents, which I had no hand in originating, no prior knowledge of, no hand in or influence on their content, there is direct physical evidence of perjury by sworn testimonies Bob Knight, president of Clark College in two separate venues and hearings opposed by the sworn testimonies, plus additional evidence in documents and tapes of hearings of two union officers; perjury and obstruction of justice for sure was committed by someone and Governor Inslee, Attorney General Ferguson and others have knowledge of it and thus themselves a duty to report. Certainly they have a duty not to obstruct, aid and abet, suborn after the fact and cover-up the perjury. There is also evidence of Fraud by Wire (my name kept on course schedules to draw in students while I had been taken out of the classroom, unvetted adjuncts hired to replace me all BEFORE a discipline a Star- Chamber-like hearing (when I got one) and appeals to determine if or if not I would be teaching. There is also direct evidence of other crimes such as criminal solicitation of me to unwittingly sign-off on a faculty member’s false submission, aided and abetted by the Dean at the time and division chair, to join-in an apparent conspiracy to file a false and contrived submission for medical benefits (while on unpaid leave after he previously submitted a request for unpaid leave, and when finding out that he would lose medical coverage, contrived a false claim of workdays (including on weekends) and supposed preparation work to be done while on unpaid leave exactly enough to qualify for medical benefits while on that unpaid leave. I rescinded my endorsement as Economics Department Head (where previously they were denying there was a separate economics department of that I was its head) after I learned that that faculty member had made a previous request (unknown to me the department head, with implications on my own teaching and loads and recommendations for replacement) and the second was to clean up the first so as to qualify for medical benefits. This involves several felony crimes. RCW 42.20
Chapter 42.20 RCW
MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Furthermore, these documents plus others, also went to the Clark College Board of Trustees who offered me $100,000 hush money, signed off by the AG, knowing yet voted to fire me with clear evidence of perjury and other felonies on the part of the president who initiated and coordinated complaints through proxies, then assigned the investigators when there were any, then acts as the assessor of discipline and even appeal authority on his own complaints and findings or those of his hired guns:
From: Terada, Bonnie (ATG) [mailto:BonnieT@ATG.WA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 8:58 AM To: Margaret Olney Cc: Darcy Rourk; Tim Cook Subject: Files and proposal
The duplicated official personnel file was mailed overnight yesterday afternoon.
Attached is a Tenure Purchase Agreement and Settlement and Release Agreement for your client’s consideration. The May 2, 2014 date reflects 21 days from this Friday and as you are know is required by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Please let me know by 1:00 PM Friday whether Prof. Craven wishes to have the 21 days to consider the agreement. I think its best to inform Mr. Stonier by that time so he can inform the 6 faculty members and the College can inform all of their substitutes that the hearing may be rescheduled to allow for the 21 day consideration period.
Bonnie Y. Terada
Senior Counsel |Office of the Attorney General
Regional Services Division, Vancouver
1220 Main Street, Suite 510 |Vancouver, WA 98660-2964
1. $100,000 buy-out of your tenure
2. Waiver of all claims against the College (paragraphs 4 and 5)
3. Agreement not to lodge complaints against College (and its officers/employees) with any state agency (paragraph 6) ever for anything
4. Mutual agreement to not disparage the other (paragraph 7)
5. Non-disclosure of even the existence of the agreement
Thank you for putting together a settlement proposal. I have had an opportunity to review your settlement offer with my client. We are particularly concerned about the gag orders contained in the proposal. Simply put, Prof. Craven is unwilling to compromise his legal and ethical obligations to identify and report malfeasance.
Again, thank you for taking the time to make an offer.
My response (took less than 21 seconds not 21 days to consider and reject the $100,000):
Under progressive discipline, each stage, the correctness and specificity of the charges, properly heard with due process for all, with all findings properly reviewed, is a predicate for the next and higher stages of discipline. Further, in this case, with a series of outright kangaroo courts, each stage and how it was handled, is not proof of a pattern of conduct on my part with charges properly proved, but rather evidence of a pattern of conduct and mens rea on the Clark College that amounts not only to a cornucopia of torts, but of crimes as well.
If I were to even entertain this this “settlement offer”, I would, in my opinion as a citizen required to be able to read, understand and comport myself with the law, with the law being required to be specific in terms and meanings and understandable by an average reasonable and prudent person, be guilty of taking money and benefits to aid and abet the covering-up of real crimes causing real harm to real people; I would also be derelict in my duty as a public employee; I would also be complicit in future damages and harm to innocents by aiding in the cover-up and keeping in place individuals I know from their conduct alone, are unfit to be in any kind of position of trust or in education–students are being defrauded and worse.
I would also be betraying students like [deleted] and so many others to walk away from what I know is out-and-out fraud going on in the classroom and that is why they must have me gone because I will get even more evidence of it and take it to accreditation and other venues.
Here is some law that applies in this case and why I cannot be bought off and I actually regard this offer as a further attempt at Obstruction of Justice and Misprision of a Felony and an attempt to use public funds to get me to become an accomplice. Otherwise, I should be charged and convicted of false statements to law enforcement officers and attempting to use law enforcement for my own personal agenda–which I urged them to do if they thought I was either lying, playing games or attempting to use law enforcement and public resources for my own personal agenda.
Please see below why I cannot accept either a settlement or any “findings” that have the legitimacy of the findings of a nazi court against a Jew or a KKK courtroom against an African American… We can walk through my words word by word, comma, by comma, and they are all defensible, on-point, accurate, on union and pedagogical issues, on protected or supposedly protected venues for exchanges on critical issues for union members, and in the case of 7 days off and 8 days off there was not even a hearing or formal complaint.
Here is part of what I am being offered $100,000 of public monies to cover-up and what Governor Inslee, the WEA, Attorney General Ferguson, Clark College Board of Trustees and others have knowledge of and have not reported per their duty under 18 USC 4 and 73:
FROM A SWORN BRIEF SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION BY LISA LEWISON OF THE WEA: JAMES CRAVEN Vs. Clark College Grievant’s Closing Argument Lisa Lewison hereby submits her Closing Arguments on behalf of James Craven: I. INTRODUCTION On Thursday, November 3, 2010 and Friday, November 4, 2010, an arbitration took place on the Clark College Campus in Vancouver, Washington, involving Clark College (hereinafter “the College”) and the Clark College Association of Higher Education (hereinafter “the Association”). II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The Association and the College stipulated to the following issue statement: “Did Clark College have just cause to impose a 108-day (2-term) suspension to Professor Craven? If no, what is the appropriate remedy?” NOTE: Lynn Davidson of the WEA and Dr. Marcia Roi of Clark College AHE both testified, under oath and penalty of perjury, for the second time in a second venue, the following:
“WEA-Riverside Director Lynn Davidson and AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi testified to a labor management meeting they attended with President Bob Knight and Vice President Rassoul Dastmozd on Friday, November 9, 2007. AHE President Roi testified she told President Knight there was a “…morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing. Ms. Davidson testified she was “shocked” President Bob Knight would say something like this to union representatives, and based on her expertise was troubled because his statements showed the union “should expect animosity by the President and the College in future dealings” related to Mr. Craven.
This testimony of Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, at the arbitration hearing subsequent to the ESD appeal hearing with ALJ Knutson, directly contradicts the sworn testimony of President Knight that he never made nor would ever make the statement “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we ‘get rid’ of Professor Craven”
[Note Update: This testimony was again sworn under penalty of perjury for a second time in my recent termination hearing by both Lynn Davidson and Dr. Marcia Roi; This testimony from the transcript of Mr. Knight’s testimony in an ESD appeal hearing below was denied for a second time, in a second venue, under oath and penalty of perjury, by Mr. Knight in another official hearing (termination hearing). Now we do not simply have mutually contradictory sworn testimonies in different venues at different times, but now fundamentally opposing sworn testimonies in the same hearing on the same transcript and nothing was noted or reported to law enforcement (perjury by somebody plus derivate felonies from perjury in public employment while on official duties) by the hearing examiner (a former Kelso judge Mr. Stonier), nor by the AAG Ms Terada, nor by the WEA attorneys per their duties as Officers of the Court, Members of the Bar, a judicial officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Please note also, that for the fourth time, in four separate venues, Emma Kim, formerly of Clark College HR who refused to keep a secret file on me, testified to the following under oath and penalty of perjury:
GRIEVANCE ONE HEARING WITH WEA REPS AND HR DIRECTOR DARCY ROURK
Recorded Audio Dec-22-2012 12-35-03 PM
GRIEVANCE HEARING II WITH KNIGHT, COOK, BOWERS DECEMBER 18, 2012
GRIEVANCE II DEC 28, 2012
VERSUS THIS SWORN TESTIMONY OF CLARK COLLEGE PRESIDENT ROBERT KNIGHT:
LISA LEWISON’S BRIEF CONTINUES:
Mr. Craven testified to and shared in an email with Ms. Lewison a poignant vignette from Alice in Wonderland that captured, disturbingly well, the College’s actions and approach to due process and the investigation of the allegations made of Mr. Craven. Chapter 12. Alice’s Evidence:
In the meantime Alice has grown so much that she upsets the jury box when she gets up. She hastily tries to put them back in their places. She tells the King that she knows nothing about the stolen arts, which he considers very important. The White Rabbit has to correct him again.
Then the King reads from his notebook, stating that all persons more than a mile high must leave the court. Alice refuses to leave because she suspects that he made up this rule, and the King tells the jury to consider their verdict.
Then the White Rabbit brings in a letter, which serves as evidence. The letter contains a verse, written in someone else’s handwriting, which clears up nothing at all. However, the King thinks that it is very important but Alice corrects him and explains the verse proves nothing. Eventually the King asks the jury for the third time to consider a verdict, and now the Queen contradicts him and says that there should be a sentence first and a verdict afterwards.”
Alice is a fictitious character, yet the reader can find both empathy and humor in her predicament. Sadly, for Mr. Craven, there is no humor to be found in the lack of due process he was afforded, causing him to suffer significant financial and professional injury due to the College’s flippant and cavalier managerial actions.”
Lisa Lewison WEA Representative
Further there is clear evidence of students being serially defrauded with the hiring of unvetted and patently unqualified adjuncts by their behavior and conduct alone. What kind of real teacher would dare apply for a position teaching economics and demand not to be vetted by the senior economist or to have anything to do with him or her? Why would people who have never met me want nothing to do with me and what have they been told?
Blacklisting — Penalty.
Every person in this state who shall wilfully and maliciously, send or deliver, or make or cause to be made, for the purpose of being delivered or sent or part with the possession of any paper, letter or writing, with or without name signed thereto, or signed with a fictitious name, or with any letter, mark or other designation, or publish or cause to be published any statement for the purpose of preventing any other person from obtaining employment in this state or elsewhere, and every person who shall wilfully and maliciously “blacklist” or cause to be “blacklisted” any person or persons, by writing, printing or publishing, or causing the same to be done, the name, or mark, or designation representing the name of any person in any paper, pamphlet, circular or book, together with any statement concerning persons so named, or publish or cause to be published that any person is a member of any secret organization, for the purpose of preventing such person from securing employment, or who shall wilfully and maliciously make or issue any statement or paper that will tend to influence or prejudice the mind of any employer against the person of such person seeking employment, or any person who shall do any of the things mentioned in this section for the purpose of causing the discharge of any person employed by any railroad or other company, corporation, individual or individuals, shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ninety days nor more than three hundred sixty-four days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. [2011 c 96 § 42; 1899 c 23 § 1; RRS § 7599.]