Reporting Crimes To Clark County Sheriff’s Office

——————————————————————————–

Subject: FW: Some Background Materials Sgt Trimble Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:31:57 -0800 From: JCraven@clark.edu To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com

——————————————————————————–

From: Craven, Jim Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:39 AM To: ‘dave.trimble@clark.wa.gov’ Subject: Some Background Materials

Dear Sgt. Trimble:

I was referred to your office and given your direct phone number by Sgt. Rob Rousseau (?) of the WSP who told me that it is protocol that my complaint  go to the Clark County Sheriff’s Office first.

First of all, let me say that I am fully aware that to attempt to misuse State resources, to attempt to launch a frivolous and malicious criminal complaint for personal reasons, or to lie to a law enforcement officer in the course of an investigation or to launch an investigation is not only morally wrong, but is also a gross misdemeanor under some RCWs and  involves felonies under other RCWs.

I will attempt to call you again today, but in the interim, please accept the following materials as background for my allegations of several gross misdemeanors as well as felonies having been committed and currently being committed at Clark College at which I am a tenured professor of Economics and Chairman of the Business Division.

I have brought some of these matters to the attention of Supervisory Special Agent Kevin Saito of the Seattle FBI and authorized them to monitor my computer as I have been the ongoing target of large amounts of pornography sent to my computer and my computer being shut down. I, and our computer Tech specialist Dave Sims both believe, that the person behind it is a math professor whom I turned in some years ago for collecting and disseminating child pornography and who was found to be in possession of some 1700 files which included child pornography. (see attached).

I bring up issues from the past only because some of the same players, modus operandi, patterns and potentially illegal machinations involved in the past are still involved in the present in what I sincerely believe to be patterns and even possible coordinated common plans of criminal conduct. Over the years, I have made 11 presentations to various Clark Board’s of Trustees (I have them on tape) with no response to my allegations; I have recently made my allegations, through channels, with supporting documentation, only to find no response to serious allegations; yet I remain a tenured professor and chairman of the business division. The allegations by Ms. Kim, which if true would show violations of 18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Part 241 or Criminal Conspiracy Against Rights have gone unanswered; some of those against whom allegations were made are involved in potential gross misdemeanors and felonies in the present. Recently an important letter of allegations, proved to be false when challenged, went missing from an official investigation using State money with conflicting stories, in print, between Katrina Golder, Director of HR and Bob Knight as to who had or had not seen the letter, who had or had not asked for the letter and why that important letter is now missing.

In my letter to Special Agent Kevin Saito, is a list of people who can verify as facts what I have represented to you and/or may have pieces of a totality that I sincerely believe to involve a cabal of individuals who care nothing about violating RCWs, WACs, and even Federal Statutes.

I hereby swear under penalty of perjury, all statements made by me I believe to be true, are true to the best of my knowledge and no statements are made with reckless disregard for or willful blindness to any available counter-evidence or counter-reasoning for my beliefs and statements.

Thank you for your consideration of this and you may share any and all of it with anyone you feel necessary to pass on the merits of this complaint.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven

—–Original Message—–

From: Nomads3k9s@aol.com [mailto:Nomads3k9s@aol.com <mailto:Nomads3k9s@aol.com> ]

Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:38 AM

To: Craven, Jim

Subject: An insider’s view of the civil and employee rights violations at Clark College

Hi Jim,

Please add my voice to the e-Forum at Clark regarding the indoctrination process of Craven bashing.  I think my unique insights can explain in part why so many of your colleagues, administration and staff suspend their critical thinking skills when you’re involved.  The fact that most of your critics don’t know the history behind the administration’s fertilization efforts is indicative of how deeply rooted the indoctrination process is. Thanks in advance.

Date:  February 12, 2003

To: Clark College Staff, Faculty, Staff, ASCC, Administration, Board, Foundation, Foundation Board, and THE INDEPENDENT

From:  Emma Kim

RE:  An insider’s perspective of your employee and civil rights as practiced by some administrators at Clark

Many of you will remember me.  I worked in Personnel for Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder as their Office Assistant III from January 1997 to March 12, 1999.  Several of you have asked me why I left the college.  I’m prepared now to provide my answer.

For any employee who has felt like civil or employee rights were violated, you were probably right if Clark’s Personnel department was involved.  If anyone has had their mental state questioned after speaking up or out about an issue at the college, your experience is not an isolated one.  In fact, there are number of you who’ve had your mental states questioned.  Based on my interviews, the common thread is not depression but practicing your freedom of speech to expose a problem at the college.

While I was employed in Personnel, I was privy to questionable hiring practices and privy to the deliberate violations of civil rights.  For anyone who has not know what “human resources” functions as, consider what we as a society do to our natural resources and then you’ll have a pretty accurate context to determine your value relative to the power structure. As an HR Administrator, as I laid off 150 members of the workforce, I advised the employees that as a rule of thumb, smile at the HR people, get on their good side, but don’t trust most of them.  That was based on my experience with the HR Managers in two Fortune 500 companies I worked for but mostly based on my experiences at Clark.  The role of HR personnel is not to protect your rights but to protect the state or company from litigation if rights are violated.  It is virtually impossible for any Personnel manager to know all the state and federal employment laws and their nuances, so employee rights are violated all the time.  Let me give you specific examples from my two years at Clark.  What I’m about to disclose may surprise you and create shifts in your thinking:

While I was an employee in Personnel, I was asked by Donna Kelly to engage in a task that involved the violation of Jim Craven’s civil and employee rights.  The specific task was to send all his emails to the AG’s office. (Mind you, not Dennis Watson’s or anyone else’s emails, just Jim Craven’s stuff.  For those of you who might be wondering what’s wrong with that, it is illegal to keep separate files on employees.  It is also illegal to keep a separate file on anyone practicing their freedom of speech as a dissenter or activist.)

It is important for the reader to know what my filters were at the time when Donna tried to get me involved in violating his rights.  I was highly critical, vocal in my criticism and fearful of Jim.  I said and held many of the negative sentiments that I continue to hear on campus and continue to read and sense in print.  After all, I trusted my new supervisors and coworkers when I was given the run down that Jim was litigous, slanderous, manipulative, a trouble maker, unreasonable, potentially violent and mean. I also asked about Dennis Watson since his emails were being distributed on the master list at the same time as Jim’s.  Unlike with Jim, I was given an objective run down on Dennis, that he was caught with child pornography using state resources.  There was no subjective demonization like, “Dennis is a creepy slimebag who will eyeball your underaged children with a gleem in his eye.”

Equally important for the reader to know in order to understand that Craven bashing is an indoctrination process that all new employees go through as part of an informal orientation, is how I felt about working in Personnel for Donna and Katrina.   I thought I’d found two of the best bosses ever in

my work history.  Given those filters, I could see exactly what my department was talking about in Jim’s emails.

Despite my own prejudices which were extreme by my own admission, I clearly understood that Jim’s rights were being violated by the very officer assigned to protect the college from discrimination and harassment.  I refused and asked Donna why we were doing something we weren’t suppose to do to which she promptly replied with back peddling, “Oh, that’s okay.  You don’t have to do it.”  And that was the end of it, so I thought.

Shortly after my refusal to violate Jim’s rights, a central part of my duties that I performed for Donna was eliminated.  While I had been privy to sensitive and private documents, all the tasks that included touching or seeing such documents such as copying, faxing, etc. were eliminated. Concerned that Donna had eliminated my job duties as a result of my refusal to violate Jim’s rights, I brought up the elimination of those duties to Katrina who reassured me that changes occurred “all the time.” I was confused and tried to make sense of what was going on. I felt conflicted about Donna.  Was I working for an unethical person?  How could I be?  Donna was married to an African-American civil rights activist.  No, maybe I was just making a mountain out of a molehill.  Maybe, Katrina was right.   Why would Donna violate Jim’s rights?  No, way, she wouldn’t do that.  She’s the AA/EO officer.  Thesewere some of the thoughts that ran through my mind as I tried to make sense of conflicting cues.   Through the process of denial, I eventually rationalized that Donna’s intention was benevolent in trying to protect the college from Jim, so I let the issue go.  After all, it was about Jim, the campus dreg.

But, the red flag kept bleeding.  So, questions about Jim arose and I found myself asking why Jim was so angry, why he was so hell bent on thumping certain administrators.  What was this guy all about?  As I listened and watched, I began to realize that there was more going on than what I’d originally been told.  One of the things that seemed strange to me was that I hadn’t heard a single positive remark about Jim since I’d gotten hired. Even if an employee is not well liked, I have enough HR and supervisory experience to know that with critics, there are also supporters.  So where were all of Jim’s supporters?  I had not met a single supporter, not even amongst the tenured faculty.  I had heard that Jim was well liked by students.  But that confused the issue for me even more.  Why did the students like Jim, but why did Clark’s employees detest him.  The only thing I could do was watch and listen and read his emails thoughtfully.

In retrospect, it’s ironic that Donna’s action was what turned on my critical thinking circuitry and made me insatiably curious about what Jim Craven was all about. I was still vocally critical of Jim but given human nature, I feared my supervisors would think I was beginning to support him, so to alleviate any fear that I had subversive intentions, which I didn’t at the time, I told Donna and Katrina that I wanted to talk to Jim and get to know him.  In my naivete, I believed that these two very educated officers would appreciate the fact that I was up front with them and that I was taking initiative to gather information for myself rather than continuing to go on hearsay.  After all, I worked in higher ed where research and knowledge were suppose to be encouraged.  Direct research is always better than with secondary or tertiary sources.

Neither discouraged me but each warned me to be careful.  Donna reiterated that Jim could be very manipulative and that if given the opportunity, he would twist my statements and use them against me or the department.  Given the Craven myths, I was still fearful that Jim would blow me me off as Donna’s and Katrina’s “whore” just because I worked for them.  But, I also had enough information by then to offer Craven the benefit of doubt.  So, the OAIII from personnel knocked on his office door one day and introduced herself.  “Hi Professor Craven?  My name is Emma Kim and I work for Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder….”

Since that introduction, Jim and I have become close friends.  In fact, I frequently describe him as one of my best friends.  I know his extended family and he knows my husband, mother and 13 year old niece, Berlin.  He helps out where he can with a 13 year old “at-risk” youth who I mentor who is diagnosed with multiple disorders including ODD, bipolar affect disorder, and ADHD.  I regret that I bought into the indoctrination because for two years, the opportunities for developing our friendship were wasted.  For two years, the opportunity to expand my mind from the great books Jim’s turned me onto were wasted.  For two years, the opportunity to expand my political knowledge from our numerous political discussions were wasted.  But most importantly and significantly, Jim was denied the benefit of a supporter that could have made a difference in his life for two years.  Clark’s administration is directly responsible.  The waste cannot be measured because our friendship is priceless.  I respect Jim so much and I can’t emphasize how troubled I am that so many of you continue to criticize him when most of you have never taken the time as I did to research and extrapolate the history of Jim’s troubles at Clark.  I read numerous documents and interviewed dozens of people.  Piece by piece, I put the jigsaw puzzle together and what the picture revealed was a systematic process the administration used to control dissenters.  I’m writing to expose that pattern.  It is one the ACLU, US Dept of Education, Civil Rights Division, WA Human Rights Commission and WA DOP is interested in.  In fact, WA DOP stated to me unofficially that they were aware of a possible problem at Clark but that they didn’t have the resources to do anything unless the problem reached a certain level.  I was encouraged by WA DOP to write a letter to GAAPCOM!!!!

For the reader, given the time and space factor, I am editing out a significant chunk of why I chose to leave the college.  The following events took place after my refusal to violate Jim Craven’s civil rights.  The significant facts are these:

1)    I experienced harassment for two months beginning from the moment I walked into Personnel after my return from family leave by a coworker who violated my rights under state and federal family leave acts.  That coworker eventually confessed to harassing me saying that she was angry with me for all the work I’d left her to do while I was gone despite the fact that a former hr administrator named Martha had been hired as my temporary replacement.  But when pressed to explain what work I’d left for her, she was unable to list a single task that had made her angry enough to harass me for two months upon my return and which made her angry enough to have no consideration for the tremendous stress and burden I was under while I was caring for family members, one of whom had Alzheimer’s.

2)  Despite being one of only two staff members with a college degree, immediately upon my return, despite excellent documented reviews, job history and ethics, my job duties as an OAIIII were eliminated.  Upon my return from leave, I performed only OAI duties which were strictly answering phones and helping people at the college. This elimination of job duties was not a directive from my supervisors.  They didn’t know my training supervisor had eliminated the duties.  That fact surfaced when I was given the following  task:

3)  When I returned from family leave, I was given a task with a three month deadline to compile the affirmative action data for all permanent positions for the past five years, which represented dozens of positions. The elimination of my job duties actually turned out to be a godsend but as far as my supervisors were concerned, I was still expected (via verbalization) to carry on my normal job duties which included multiple walk ins and phone interruptions while trying to retrieve or extrapolate data from half a dozen sources, some of which were located in the back office, in other departments, in Olympia, and/or in various mediums, electronic and hard copy.  (Picture yourself having to get up and find files in another office or another department, bringing the files back to the desk to analyze while people are walking in and phones are ringing, then having to return the files once the information was found.  Picture yourself having to do that multiple times several times a day as a part time employee.)

On top of the logistics of data gathering, not a single person in my department knew how to do the analysis from step 1 to the end.  So, basically, I also had the task of figuring out how to compile aa data the way Olympia expected it.   I’d never been given a deadline date, nor had emphasis ever been placed on compiling the data until I returned from leave. Prior to taking family leave, I’d never been directed, let alone pressured to start the task.  Given my work ethic, had the instruction been given, I would have begun the analysis upon being assigned the task.

Given the deadline and since no one knew how to compile the data anyway, Martha could have started the task while I was on leave.  That would have provided an additional two months to make sure the baseline report was done correctly.  If my coworker was truthful and she had “so much work” to do while I was on leave, the inference is that Martha had very little to do. Keep in mind, that I was being harassed every day while I was desperately trying to get the reports done in between phone calls and walk ins.

2)  Sue Williams, your new AA officer,  informed Katrina Golder, not once but twice that I was being harassed.

3)  Despite Sue’s disclosure to Katrina, neither Katrina nor Donna stopped the abuse.  I had to deal with my own hostile situation.

4)  When I asked  Donna why she didn’t stop the harassment, she replied that she didn’t know about it.

5) When I asked Katrina why she didn’t stop the harassment, she replied that she didn’t know about it.  Please refer to #2.

When Katrina lied to me, I realized that if my supervisors, the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Officer and the Director of Personnel would not provide me with a hostile free work environment under their supervision, I had no chance in the world to advance at Clark.  The fact that I had to inform them of the harassment that was taking place under their very noses and the fact that I had to ask for a hostile free work environment says enough about their cultural ignorance, lack of skill and failure to fulfill their duties as state officers to provide safety for one of their few ethnic minorities on campus.

But that’s only the beginning..

In January, 2000, I made an appointment with President Tana Hasart. If anyone remembers her email dated May 24, 2000, she talked about the “mean spiritedness that  resides here at Clark…”  Her very last statement in that email was, “If anyone would like to discuss these issues with me I welcome your observations.  Please share them in person…I promise to make time.

I’d been privy to civil rights violations and irregular hiring practices. Well, back in January, I had lots of information and concerns about the mean-spiritedness at Clark.  So in the hour I met with her, I delineated everything I knew about the civil rights and ethics violations and questionable hiring practices including the hiring and promotions of her friends, Liz Torrence, Lorraine Sandstrom and Lisa Buenaventura (who is given special mention in Tana’s dissertation published in 1992 if memory serves me correctly)  and the improperness of the Director of Personnel position that Katrina Golder filled.  Of the administrators who engaged in the violations, I named Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder.  Of the administrators who abused their administrative positions in the presence of classified employees, I named Lisa Buenaventura for her critical remarks and apathetic attitude about multiculturalism at a state organized brain storming session in Federal Way and Janelle Farley for engaging in Craven bashing at an informal network of Clark women that was held in the rec room at the complex where Jenny Freeman lived, that included several classified staff.  If any reader is privately saying that Janelle was just practicing her freedom of speech, I’d suggest that you research the WAC that defines a state employees role during “off hours.”

Again, for sake of time and space, I’ll eliminate significant history and context.  To make a long story short and to make my point, Tana Hasart thanked me for my courage to blow the whistle on these people and I departed with Tana’s understanding that I would take advantage of the rapport I’d built with the Clark community and gather more documentation to present to her at a later time.

Then a curious thing happened.  On March 2, 2000, at 8:00 am, I received a letter from Security.  The letter was sealed in a white envelope with 9:00 listed on the front.  Security was suppose to pull me from my first period class to deliver the letter which was from the VP of Student Services.  But one of my contacts had called me the night before and given me advanced warning that I was about to get thumped so I took the initiative and went directly to Barbieri’s office to talk to him.  I introduced myself to Cindy Olsen who said that Security had a letter for me from Barbieri.  That’s how I got it an hour in advance of the scheduled delivery time.  That letter said:

“March 1, 2000

Dear Emma Kim,

This letter is to inform you that a meeting with you and the Vice President of Student Services has been scheduled for 11:00 am Thursday, March 2, 2000 in the Vice President’s office in Gaiser Hall.  The meeting will address some conduct issues, on your part, that have raised concern about your well being.  Your attendance at the meeting is mandatory.

Should you desire to have another person present with you at the meeting you may contact that person from the Vice President’s office before the meeting begins.

Sincerely,

James Barbieri, Ph.D

Vice President of Student Services

I was completely shaken.  Recognizing this tactic from the practices I observed in personnel and also recognizing that if I followed Barbieri’s instructions, I’d never be able to find anyone who had the time in that moment to take an hour to serve as my witness given the inherent controversy and climate of fear at Clark.  So, I showed my first period professor the letter and asked if he would serve as my witness.  Being shocked by the tone of the letter, he agreed to cancel his class and attend the meeting with me which was scheduled to immediately follow my next class which was at 10:00. I also called Sue Williams and asked if she would serve as my witness because she was the one who could confirm that she’d informed Katrina about the harassment and provide context as to the environment I worked in.  She said she would but she didn’t show up saying in a typed note that said that she didn’t feel she could be of any help inferring that she knew what the meeting was about.

When I arrived at the meeting, aside from the faculty member who served as my witness, there was another person present and I asked him to identify himself.  He said his name was Dr. Mike Christianson and that he was Clark’s resident psychologist.  I asked why I was called to this meeting and why Dr. Christianson was present and Barbieri explained that he’d met with other administrators who were concerned about activities I was engaged in at the college (like the letter indicated) who were concerned that my activities were possibly a danger to myself or to others which was why Christianson was there.  I asked who my accusers were and Barbieri said, Tana Hasart, Yvette Jackson, Katrina Golder and Lisa Buenaventura. Please bear in mind that all the information that Barbieri and Christianson received was second, third, and fourth hand information, the sources being the very administrators I’d blown the whistle on including Tana since I addressed the hiring and promotions of her friends during my meeting with her.  Yvette, however, was involved in a different capacity.

Before I proceed, the reader should also know some facts.  Barbieri’s ph.d dissertation was a study on PTSD experiences of college rape victims.  His academic background is in guidance and counseling as is Tana’s.  His bibliography lists several studies on the effects of trauma.  Given his background, please note the tone of his letter to me.  When I walked into Barbieri’s office, there was a chair placed in the middle of his office that was obviously for me.   To get a better graphic and “feel” of this arrangement, picture a 120 pound 5’6″ Korean woman, traditionally raised to revere scholars, doctors, etc., jobless with no real economic power, a college flunky several times over who took 11 years to get her BA degree sitting in the middle of the VP of SS’s office in a chair with my back towards the door.  Seated directly in front of me are two white males, Barbieri and Christianson both with their legs spread wide open.  (I crossed my legs.)  Barbieri must be about 6’3″ or 6’4″, over 220 (?) and Christianson must be about 6′, over 250 (?) with ph.d’s and economic power. My witness was seated to my right and was barely in my peripheral vision.

During the meeting, Barbieri acknowledged that the only thing I was “guilty” of was practicing my academic freedom to assemble which was part of the investigative work that I was going to present later to Tana.  Christianson concluded that there was no problem.  And I was sent on my not-so-merry way.

But that’s not the end.

I respectfully requested an explanation as to what Tana, Yvette, Katrina and Lisa said that caused Barbieri to think I was a danger to myself and possibly to others.  The WAC’s, P&P’s listed in the back of the college catalogue clearly outlines what to do if an employee believes that someone is a possible danger to self or others.  The rule wasn’t followed.  If Tana, Yvette, Lisa or Katrina felt that I was a danger to myself or to others at the time I spoke to them, Security should have been called to escort me off campus.  But remember, I hadn’t talked to these administrators for two months.   Whenever I crossed paths with them, if close enough, I received waves or eye contact and a “hello.”  I never got the impression from any of these administrators when I saw them that they thought I was a danger to myself or to others.  Why would I be a danger to myself or others?  Has anyone on campus ever felt that I was a danger?

Following my meeting with Barbieri and the resident clinical psychologist, I asked a permanent security officer if my name had ever been brought up. Given the spontaneous reaction and response, I believed that officer who said that my name had never been mentioned in Security.  The telling response was when I was asked why.  The college catalogue also states the discrimination policy for those with actual or perceived disabilities.  I was perceived to have a mental illness and I was forced to meet with the resident clinical psychologist.  That was a blatant violation of my civil rights.

I respectfully asked multiple times for an explanation of the administrative action against me.

I was met with silence.

Weeks later, I started hearing from classified staff that couple of the same administrators were slandering me and instructing staff not to talk to me because I was mentally unstable.

I started feeling angry.

I kept asking politely for accountability.  I was met with continued silence. I asked not so politely for accountability.  Then Mary Deal lied to me about Mike Christianson saying I couldn’t meet with him because he was out of town, but when I tried to make an appointment to see him after his return, Mary Deal finally fessed up and said that I was not allowed to meet with him, period.  Mary Deal got sucked into the cesspool that Tana, Yvette, Katrina, Lisa and Barbieri created proving the point that bad money pushes out good money when she discriminated against me in her misguided attempt to protect Mike Christianson.

After months of silence after repeatedly requesting the administration’s accountability, I finally got ticked off and I sent emails to all the parties blasting them for their hypocrisy, lack of backbone and integrity.

For embarrassing these administrators and Sue Williams and exposing the Judases within,  Barbieri violated my rights again and sent me another letter, dated May 25, 2000, the day after Tana’s email about mean spiritedness, the day of Carl Mack’s presentation on remembering history so as not to repeat the same mistakes in race relations.  That letter read:

Dear Ms. Kim:

This is to notify you that an initial disciplinary proceeding  has been scheduled for you on Wednesday, May 31, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.  The hearing will be with Jim Barbieri, Vice President of Student Services, in his office, and will address the following violations of the Code of Student Conduct:

1. Disorderly, abusive and bothersome conduct.  Disorderly or abusive behavior which interferes with the rights of others or which obstructs or disrupts teaching, research, or administrative functions.

The range of penalties for such violations may range from disciplinary warning to disciplinary suspension.

Please not that your absence does not prevent the imposition of sanctions.

…Sincerely,

Cindy Olson

Secretary Senior

Vice President of Student Services Office.

In Barbieri’s own words, “After reading and evaluating the numerous electronic mail messages you have sent to Sue Williams, Yvette Jackson, and myself, it became apparent that you are violating the Clark College Code of Student Conduct….Specifically, you are engaging in abusive and bothersome conduct which interferes with the rights of others or which obstructs or disrupts administrative function.  Your language in these e-mails is being interpreted as abusive and bothersome and it has negatively impacted both staff and administrators on this campus.  Frequently, your words are insulting, annoying, and have caused people to be anxious and concerned….”

Barbieri placed me on disciplinary warning which is still in my student file.  Of course, he placed the warning without due process.  I’d responded to his initial letter saying I would not make the scheduled meeting because I would be out of town.  I didn’t explain; it was none of his business.

Without giving me an opportunity to reschedule and without asking for a reason why I missed the hearing, Barbieri passed judgment quickly and gave me a formal warning without due process.  Now, I’ll explain why I couldn’t make the meeting.  My grandmother had taken a fall and was in a nursing home.  She’d taken a turn for the worse and the doctors advised the family members to see her because they thought she might die at any time.  My entire extended family was meeting in Bellingham; that’s where I was going. It was already planned and relatives from California were already in Bellingham.  That’s why I was not going to my disciplinary hearing.  I felt seeing my grandmother was more important.  I don’t know why I was never given an opportunity to reschedule.  I guess that’s the reason that a WAC exists that states that an authority who has direct involvement in a situation should not be the authority imparting sanctions in the same situation.  It’s a conflict of interest.

The reader may be tempted to believe that what happened to me was an isolated incident but it was and is not.  Unfortunately, in my research, the pattern was the same for virtually every person who said they spoke up about some issue at the college.  The most egregious action was the use of  mental illness as slander which the administration passes on to key staff members who repeat the process to their coworkers who pass the slander to others till it takes on a life of it’s own like in Jim Craven’s case.  The administration knows that once the slander is embedded, it will eventually get passed on to new employees as they learn the culture at Clark.  At that point, the dissenter is no longer seen as a concerned employee of the college, but as a pariah and evil-doer.  If you don’t believe the administration is capable of using these tactics, remember that five top level administrators met to talk about me and they continue to maintain a conspiracy of silent.  I have yet to learn what slander was passed along about me during that meeting.  Tana did reveal one component when I caught her off guard after the Carl Mack presentation.  She said that one of the administrators said that I’d said that I was packing a gun around in a purse. This is simply absurd.  I never said or remotely suggested anything about a gun or a gun in a purse.  Yet that came directly from the President. I don’t even own a purse.

In defense of my friend Jim Craven, I respectfully ask every critic to take off your prejudicial filters and not form an opinion about Jim unless you’ve done your homework.  Everything that happened to me happened after I defended Jim.   I will let the reader conclude whether the elimination of job duties, Katrina’s lie, being forced to meet with the resident clinical psychologist, receiving a disciplinary warning, and being met with continued silence was related to my refusal to violate Jim’s civil rights.

If anyone has a response or would like more information or if you want to add your story to my research, please feel free to contact me a nomads3k9s@aol.com  Activism works!  Four out of the five administrators who targeted me are no longer employed by the college.

And finally, a special note to Dr. Beyer:

Dr. Beyer, I regret that you denied me an appointment time to discuss these issues with you in private.  I informed you that my allegations were of a serious nature.  I’ve tried for 2 1/2 years to get accountability as to why I was forced to meet with Mike Christianson.  Tana created the problem you’re now facing with me but I don’t have the time or the patience any more to deal privately with this matter.  I’m sure you asked who I was.  Those closest to you probably provided the answer.  And depending on who that person or persons are/were, you may have heard the slander.  If you would like to meet with me, I will do so but only with other long time civil rights activists.  Two years ago,  I did an analysis of all the colleges in the SBTCC system and Clark was the only institution that lost diversity in every single category post I-200.  The losses occurred at a time when the ethnic diversity was rapidly gaining in this county.  Since I did that analysis, more losses have occurred at the college.  DOP is sending the documents for the current year and I will note any changes.

To THE INDEPENDENT:  I encourage the college paper to do an investigative report of my allegations.  I challenge you to find any misrepresentations or mistruths in my allegations.  Because of the affiliation with the college, I will not provide you with sources.   I will pass along my sources to a bonafide investigative reporter.

Hi Special Agent Saito,

I just cleared over 300 of the same spam and it just keeps coming. How is it possible not to shut it off? And if server filters are being bypassed, how is it reaching me? This has been going on since early yesterday. Does the header I sent give any clue?

I only know one person with the motive, animus, means, computer skills, personal history and mental pathology to pull this kind of stuff.

Thanks for taking time for this.

Jim

——————————————————————————–

From: Saito, Kevin T. [mailto:Kevin.Saito@ic.fbi.gov] Sent: Wed 12/19/2007 1:39 PM To: Craven, Jim Subject: Re: Large scale computer attack

Jim,

Who is your IT person?

—– Original Message —– From: Craven, Jim <JCraven@clark.edu> To: Saito, Kevin T. Sent: Wed Dec 19 15:38:02 2007 Subject: Large scale computer attack

Dear Special Agent Saito:

Since yesterday, literally hundreds of spam emails have come in shutting down my computer. All are from the same address:

Our own tech support seems unable to stop it and attempts to add to blocked senders list and/or withdraw my email from the senders list have failed. Tech support says this is definitely not a virus.

Any help is appreciated and I am very sure it is from the individual I turned in for collecting and disseminating child pornography. I am also still getting pornography on a regular basis in my inbox scored just below the level of 4.5 to stop it.

Thank you,

Jim Craven

Clark College

Dear Special Agent Saito:

I’m sorry to bother you but when I got home I had over 300 of the identical same spam and this morning 225 are sitting there. I have put up blocks in my own computer as advised by computing services and still they come in.

A better person for you to call who has technical expertise beyond Pat Taylor, and. who knows, and has previously documented, the whole history of these waves of attacks in the past is Dave Sims who is at 360-992-2132 or dsims@clark.edu

Thank you and I apologize for bothering you with this but I do not know where else to go and as far as I can see, there are federal crimes involved here.

Jim Craven

Dear Special Agent Saito:

This was sent to me by an Adjunct named Kate Scrivner.

As an Agency of the State of Washington, all job positions at Clark College belong to The People of the State of Washington and that means every person applying for a position, if meeting minimum qualifications, has an absolute right to free, fair and open competition without fear or favor. Any sub rosa machinations not to consider a person because they come from a certain group (age, gender, veteran’s status, sexual orientation, religion or even if they are presently Adjuncts at Clark) regardless of their qualifications, is discrimination and a civil rights issue, a potential Tort, but is also Criminal Conspiracy under Title 18 of the USC if planned ahead of time by two or more persons and if they take even one affirmative step in furtherance of that common plan. And further, under Conspiracy law, each member of a common plan is culpable for/with the actions of the others even if they were not fully aware of all that the other s were doing.

Again, thanks for listening to me and for your courtesy and patience.

Jim Craven

From: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 8:31 AM To: Craven, Jim Subject: RE: WHY?

Thank you, Jim – for hauling this question out in the open – and the issue of known statements of discrimination and faulty hiring practices. All I ever wanted was a fair shot to show what I’ve got as an — teacher. I was at the head of the pack each time I have applied for a tenure-track position – but, hey, I was over 40 when I got out of grad school in 1993, so I have been “old” a long time. My experience after being on AHE Faculty Senate since ?1999? (I have forgotten the exact year) is that the majority of the tenured faculty do not give a damn about anybody but themselves. They do not understand how the rising tide of adjuncts and temporaries reflects badly on the tenured faculty and they tend to see any gain by adjuncts and temps as a subtraction from them. And, oh – what have we done for them LATELY???

I’m resigning from Senate in part because the Senate President has heard College President Bob Knight make these prejudicial remarks and has done nothing about it. I feel as if I still have to belong to the union because they bargain on my behalf and because it is THE vehicle I have for my employee rights such as they are. However, I am under no illusions about WEA – it’s the worst “union” in the world.

All the Best,

PS – Thanks for the other information. I am sorry you have to go through it, but I am hopeful for your results.

Dear Special Agent Saito:

Thank you for listening to me today. To sum up, I believe that if you pass along all the background and other materials I sent, and perhaps contacting Jennifer Wheeler WPEA Union President at Clark College, Dr. Douglas Morrison, Ms Linda Long, Washington State Deputy Auditor, Retired Detective Hobbes and Retired Sgt. Haw of the Washington State Patrol, 8 Sealed Settlements in Civil Cases involving over $175,000 in the last 3 years (Sealed and paid not to litigate and thus potential obstruction of justice; each of which costs $20,000 to be heard and WPEA has won six in a row) you will find that the following individuals past and present employed the same tactics, modus operandi, against numerous individuals not only me involving: unlawful dismissals; intentional infliction of emotional distress; misuse and misappropriations of State resources; cronyism and nepotism in hiring for State positions; circumventing of normal State protocols and procedures in hiring; misuse of State resources and use of sealed settlements to obstruct justice; perjury; subornation of perjury; harassment, targeting and disparate surveillance in the workplace; demonization and marginalization of targeted employees in the workplace; hirings of individuals not meeting minimum qualifications for a position; suspension of free, fair and open competition in hiring as mandated by hiring protocols; threats and intimidations of employees for purposes of retribution and cover-ups. If it is true that all of these offenses have gone on for some time, aided and abetted by past and present Clark Boards either incompetent and/or involved, then it is ongoing conspiracy and illegal activities against the rights of many targeted employees, not just me, and a sub-group, apparently acting in concert, according to a common plan according to those like Emma Kim who have crossed over, and thus as a criminal organization within the overall organization of Clark College. (which is why I referred to RICO)

This is why I suggested that in addition to violations of my own civil rights, if the very same violations of the civil rights of others, are done in the same ways, by the same persons, over and over, and covered up by the same persons, over and over (sealed settlements in legal actions using state resources for settlements and for legal assistance prior to the settlements) in the same ways, then we get into an ongoing criminal conspiracy against rights and to misuse/misappropriate State resources, to obstruct justice, etc and that leads into RICO.

Past with possible current connections sub rosa:

Earl P. Johnson former Clark College President, Former Clackamas Community College President recently fired with allegations (unproved) of use of State computer for pornography at Clackamas

Richard Fulton former Dean of Instruction, fired from Clark College presently VP of Instruction, Whatcom Community College

Tana Hasart Former President Clark College (fired, presently President Pierce College)

Jannelle Farley (former secretary Johnson, Hasart, Beyer)

Donna Kelly Former AA/EO Officer

Phil Sheehan, Computer Support, Clark College

Wayne Branch former Clark President fired; made open statement no one under 40 years will be hired (Age discrimination)

Present:

Katrina Golder, VP Human Resources

Sue Williams Clark Human Resources

Leann Johnson Current AA/EO Officer

Sylvia Thornburg Former Dean English now Dean Institutional Research

Dennis Watson, Prof Mathematics

Rassoul Dastmozd VP of Instruction, Clark College

Robert Knight, President Clark College (statement no “insider” candidates for Clark will be hired)

Witnesses (with pieces of the totality)

Emma Kim

Jennifer Wheeler Clark WPEA President

Dr. Gerard Smith

Ted Kotsakis present Dean, Clark College

Marcia Roi Clark AHE President

Barbara Simpson, VP AHE Clark College

Gregg Wishkoski WEA

Ms Linda Long, Washington State Deputy Auditor

Detective Hobbes retired WSP

Detective Sgt Haw, retired WSP

Dave Sims, Computer IT Specialist Clark College

Greg Herrington The Columbian “Editorials on use of Sealed Settlements in Clark Legal Cases)

Thank you,

Jim Craven

Dear Special Agent Saito:

This is just from last night and I am sure more will come today. I have checked with many full-time faculty, and not one has received anything approximating the volume and most certainly not the types (vile subjects) of email I have been receiving. There is not only the issue of a State employee misusing his./her own state property as Watson was already caught doing, but there is the issue of causing someone else’s state property to become jammed up, inoperative and a recipient for the misuse of others.

Last time Watson escaped only because the previous president Earl P. “Joe” Johnson, himself recently fired as President of Clackamas Community College, whose own computer was investigated for accessing pornography (none found on the computer investigated but it would be interesting to know on what basis they investigated him for such type of possible misuse in the first place), shielded him (see previously sent materials). He even put Watson on an ICUC (Instructional Computer User’s Committee) where Watson “volunteered” to “research” how accessible pornography was “for students” and that was later used with the Washington State Ethics Commission to claim he had been “assigned” to research pornography availability and had “forgot” to delete some of what was found in his computer. At the time, extemporaneously, I told Sgt Haw and Detective Hobbes of the Washington State Patrol that a cover story was being set up. Later Detective Hobbes told me “You called it and I just couldn’t believe it” or something to that effect. Here I must also note that I previously reported to the Washington State Patrol, and asked that all my statements be sworn under penalty of perjury, as I previously reported to the resident Special Agent in Vancouver, that when I first came to Clark College, a colleague named Doug Morrison, no longer at Clark, Morrison, Doug dmorrison@cmccd.edu told me that Johnson had allegedly molested the son of our Division secretary at the time, Betty Finilla, who I know for a fact did hate him, who subsequently left the College as did Dr. Morrison (he was giving me a heads up on Johnson’s character). Then, years later, very recently, as Johnson was being removed from Clackamas Community College, someone on some basis made the charge that Johnson was using some computer to access pornography (none found on computer searched). The various nexuses over time are interesting.

I apologize for the length of this missive but as a trained scientist, like you, I deal in cause-and-effect, potential interrelationships, evidence and possible leads to evidence.

As a parenthetical note, and only as a matter of curiosity, I just wondered if you knew that the phone number you called was my office number and if you had a reason to expect I would be in my office after 6 pm. Just idle curiosity, not any concern, as that is sometimes how my mind works.  I am willing to swear any and all of my statements under penalty of perjury although I do know that filing false reports or lying to police and federal authorities is a felony. Finally, and this is not for boasting but only to give some idea/information about my own background and seriousness beyond what you might already be aware of from publicly and otherwise available information on my work, publications, views, interests and travels, I am a biographical subject, currently and for many years, in the following Marquis Who’s Whos”; in:  The World; America; The West; Science and Engineering; Finance and Industry; and American Education”.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me at any time and any information that you need to be of assistance I will provide if I can.

James M. Craven

Professor of Economics and Chairman, Business Division

Clark College

—-Original Message—– From: dww [mailto:dwwrmk@teleport.com] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 1997 12:06 AM To: jcraven@clark.edu Subject: Re: Lies and Liars II

hmmmm very interesting:

Parts I and II

To the Campus Community,

In response to another provocative e-mail sent by dww saying that “the truth is hard to refute isn’t it?”, some lies and liars need to be exposed for what they are. Climates of fear, intimidation, cover- up, cronyism, discrimination can only compromise the integrity, credibility and effectiveness of CLark College as an Institution.

Mr Watson wrote:

Why is it that Clark faculty had such a good relationship with its adminstration before your wife wasn’t hired? You know Jim, had I know she had applied, I would have tried to get her an interview, out of professional courtesy, even though, when the AG showed me her app., she didn’t have the main thrust we needed.

Response to your response:

0) I notice you didn’t respond to my first question.

Response: 1) In mediation, Dr. Johnson said in front of witnesses, that my wife was well qualified to teach any of the Biology courses available;  response to 1) You only read what you want to read! Sort of tunnel vision. I will restate my truth: I never saw your wifes app. until the AG showed it to me. I would have tried to get her an interview had I known she applied and had I know she was your wife. Not being a biologist, it appeared to ME that she WASN’T qualified. All I had to go on was her file and the fact that I was told we were looking for someone in eviromental biology.

2) In his sworn deposition, Dr. Daniel Luchtel, professor of zoology and environmental health at the University of Washington (who did not know my wife and reviewed the files for no charge wrote: “As stated previously, Mr. Kibota’s score was lowered considerably because he had yet to obtain his doctoral degree. I also understand that Clark College listed as a requirement that applicants have at least a master’s degree with additional coursework preferred. Given this requirement, I do not believe that Mr. Kibota should have even been considered for the position. It has been my experience and practice in the academic field to not consider a candidate for a position requiring a degree until they have actually obtained the degree; Mr. Kibota only stated that he expected to receive his doctorate in July 1994. This simply does not meet the requirement. Mr. Kibota’s lack of degree also raises another serious issue. The transcripts provided by Mr. Kibota only show that he was registered in classes at the University of Oregon until Spring quarter of 1993. His transcript was produced on September 2, 1993. Since his application was submitted in March of 1994, he should have submitted a transcript showing that he was enrolled for the Summer, Autumn and Winter Quarters of 1993-94. In reviewing his transcripts, it appears that Mr. Kibota was not even a registered student during these time periods. The enrollment question is important because a student cannot obtain a degree if they are not registered. Thus, it appears that he was either unlikely or unable to obtain his doctoral degree in July 1994. [his PhD was finally obtained just before being granted tenure in 1997]

Response to 2: We are able to judge whether the person has the equivalence of a master’s degree and aren’t bound by the strict rules of the university. I beleive he applied for and received a master’s degree before he got his PhD, but in your rush to judgement you didn’t even check that out. It appears you are not a researcher but a missive generator.

3) I have a copy of a check for $165,000 on my wall; Clark College settled five days before going to trial and as they were using  State money, were in a much better position to go to trial. Why  didn’t they want to go to trial after their motion for summary  dismissal of the case was rejected? The knew what was waiting for  them at trial (clear and compelling evidence of perjury,  destruction of public records, material alterations of public  records, contrived job descriptions and discriminatory hiring  practices and subornation and/or willful blindness to all of the  above.

surely you jest. I have always assumed it was the cheaper of two evils.

4) Federal Judge Robert Bryan, who had reviewed every piece of evidence and representations of all sides prior to dismissing Clark College’s petition for summary dismissal of the case wrote: “She [Dr. Thomas] has offered sufficient evidence to show her application was not fairly evaluated, that she was qualified for the position and that she was entitled to participate in the next step.” If whe was not fairly evaluated, it wasn’t on purpose. The rating system is hard to deal with even in one’s own subject. But we must have some way to discern between candidates, and not having any obvious enviromental coursework worked against her. Even though the discription stated, as a secondary or tertiary need, I don’t remember which, we were NOT looking for another anatomist. We have  plenty. We may be trying too hard to be a nursing school, when we are a community college.

5) Prof Kibota was only given one out of three possible points for “environmental awareness” and “environmental awareness” points constituted only 3 out of 36 possible screening points thus refuting the later constructed contrived job description and assertion of looking for an “environmental biologist.” 6) Prof. Kibota’s  teaching assignments (e.g. Bioethics, attempted linked classes  not in the primary areas for which it was claimed he had special  qualifications;

7) Prof Kibota was ranked 8 out of 11 telephone  interviewees; he was placed in an unusual sixth finalist position  over Dr. Barbara Rose who had a completed PhD and Masters degree  and had received 37 points to Prof Kibota’s 34 points on the  telephone interview and was ranked number seven of the 11  interviewees; this was done on May 5 1994 after my e-mail to Dr.  Johnson expressing concern over the hiring processes;

Out of all the scoring sheets, which particular one are you looking at. It is impossible to state he received 1 out of 3 points because some scoring sheets rated him higer. Also in the interview, some rated him above Dr. Rose. So you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth!

8) It was claimed that of the 11 telephone interviewees, only Prof Kibota’s interview was not taped (We obtained portions of the tape that  two individuals swore under penalty of perjury did not exist  and later I obtained the whole tape) and that only Prof Kibota’s  final presentation was not taped of the six finalists–no need  to cover-up what is clean, only what is dirty.

Can’t speak to that as I don’t know. I do know that I had a tape or two, which I found in my mess and returned. They may have not realized the tape(s )existed and answered to the best of their ability. Of course the Great Professor doesn’t research this, he only blathers on with his owned paranoid ravings.

9) Prof Kibota claimed in his sworn deposition and letter of application that as he had been a “T.A.” in a vertebrate dissection course (dissecting a  pig and a shark”) he was “fully qualified” to teach Human Anatomy  and would be glad to “teach Anatomy and Physiology AGAIN” [emphasis added]; Prof Kibota has not been assigned to teach a full Anatomy  and Physiology course despite a demonstrated need and

his assertions  of being fully qualified to teach it {he has no record of having  taken any formal coursework in HUMAN Anatomy and Physiology); 10)  Dr James Kohler, full professor of Zoology at the University of  Washington wrote:  ” I have also reviewed Mr. Kibota’s credentials regarding his expertise in environmental biology. While Mr. Kibota does appear to have some ecological background, I certainly would not characterize him as an environmental biologist. He is, by his own admission, a ‘microbial genetecist.’

Well, folks at clark debated this also. The majority believed that ecological course work, for what they wanted him to teach, qualified as enviroment. Can’t have one without the other?

I could go on and on. The Federal Judge who reviewed all the evidence and could have rejected the settlement, saw that the so- called “environmental biology” focus was a pretext constructed post facto to cover-up discrimination and faulty hiring practices.

Discrimination?????? How did we discriminate? She wasn’t in the pool long enough for us to discriminate!

It is so sad to see these lies and cover-ups being perpetuated. This does show me and other something about why Prof Watson was returned to duty at Clark despite having stipulated to “ethics violations”, “misuse of State resources” and “unprofessional conduct”: he is still doing “lap dog” duty for those who participated in a clearly discriminatory hiring process and who continue the cover-ups and lies even today–in my opinion and in the opinion of so many others.

It is so sad to see THESE lies when you know Dr. G. Smith was your lap-dog when he spent days in my office asking my mac questions, I would have my back to him, he would “examine” my disks. His last ‘visit’ was just before the Auditors came. He claimed he was just stopping by to visit, but we know that by that  time you two had hatched a marvelous plot to get the one whom you thought was chair of the committee. Did he plant evidence? I know he goes skinny-dipping in the summer, did he take those pictures? Or did you have them from some of your DEA activities?

More to follow.

Jim Craven

Mr . Watson wrote:

Nothing quite as cozy as losing $100,000 in money and wages, I am glad I wasn’t repremanded!!! I have stipulated to nothing more than you have done. I KNOW it is illegal for a state employer to try to get support for any legislative action, even if it does benefit the college! That is a DIRECT ethics violation. Whereas I didn’t knowly use school resources for my own benefit. Most people on campus agree. It is the vocal few that are keeping Clark in the spotlight and hence I decided to end the unnecessary publicity that is hurting the college and get on with life.

Response: On November 13, 1996 The Columbian reported:

“Last November, A Washington State Patrol detective examined 200 disks containing 11,592 files, according to court records. Of those, the detective discovered 1,771 files containing sexually explicit materials. In addition, a second detective discovered ‘several thousand adult pornographic pictures’ in other Watson computer files, according to a WSP investigative report. Among the images, reported detective Glen Hobbes were depictions of heterosexual and homosexual acts, as well as sex acts between people and animals. Also seized were several undated e-mail messages between Watson’s college e-mail address and others. Said one, ‘Hi sexy, I was busy on the phone with a new ‘friend’ in Canada. Can’t call her very often, though to[sic] expensive!… By the way, have any sexy photos? He He…If so, send them to Dennis Watson (Or take some new poloroids…he he).”

I fail to see your point. That looks to me like an example of ‘using state computers for personal gain.’ Had it occurred to me that I was gaining something, I wouldn’t have done it. Speaking of 1,771 explicit files, did you know you can download that many in one day at 26400 baud? Did you further know that can be automatically downloaded and decoded from ascii to binary with a program called Newswatcher? Did you know that while process is going on, you nothing until you take personal time, say after 5pm or on weekends, to use another program to view them?

Further response: 1) Either “The Columbian” is misquoting Det. Hobbes or, Det Hobbes is lying or, Prof. Watson is lying;

It is interesting that the columbian is so forthright and honest here, but in a recent ‘missive’ (Please, they aren’t missives, they are e-mail) you claimed they were biased. Which is it?

2) If “The Columbian” misquoted Det Hobbes, they run the danger of losing further access to a source on furture stories (as I noted in a previous missive, the fundamental capitalist-based imperatives of the media demand attention to maintaining good relations with present and potential future sources);

No they don’t. The columbian has local law enforcement around its little finger. This case would NOT have gone as far as it did except that the columbian was involved. Just ask the local prosecutor’s office.

l3) If Det Hobbes were misquoted, I know him and Sgt Haw of the WSP (both very intelligent, professional, hard- working and honorable police officers) and Det Hobbes would have demanded a retraction or correction on his statements–he did not; 4) If Det. Hobbes had lied, he would have risked and would be risking exposure and possible litigation for slander or libel as well as loss of his job through statements that could potentially be proved as lies–Det Hobbes is far too intelligent to leave himself exposed in such a way; 5) That leaves what possibliity? 6) According to these press accounts, Prof. Watson was not only engaging in the collection of commercial porn, he was engaging in predatory behavior viz a viz private individuals and soliciting private (polaroid) pictures (the exact charge in the original complaint that led to the investigation).

So, if a friend of yours, a female friend I presume, were to send you asking for polaroids, that would be predatory behaviour???? There you go, doing what you do best, jumping to conclusions.

Further: the “Notice of [Ethics] Board Action dated March 20, 1997 on page 2 (point 3) states: “I acknowledge that I acted in appropriately when I used the College computers to download pornography from the Internet sites and to transmit personal electronic messages of a sexual nature. Although the Instructor Computer Unser’s Committee (ICUC) did ask me at one time to determine how to access pornographic websites in order to determine how to limit student’s access to those sites, I exceeded that authority when I downloaded, collected, and stored pornography in my computer in my office. In short, the downloading, collecting, and maintaining of pornography in my faculty office was not related to my official duties, and I should not have done it.”

Which is it? Is Prof Watson lying in this statement about being guilty of the abovementioned offenses (when in fact he has done nothing that “I” haven’t done and is in reality “innocent”) or is he lying about not being guilty of “unprofessional conduct”, “ethics violations” and “misuse of State resources”?

How many times must you be told, child. I am innocent of the indecent child porn. charges. I can only assume how they got there, since “I” had never seen these pictures until my lawyer showed them to me. But you seem to know all about them. Coincidence?

Further: Why the reference to the ICUC when most of the porn collected was from a time period well before the ICUC was set up even and when the demonstration for which he “volunteered” (was he setting up a cover as the ethics complaint against him had already been filed well before the ICUC was even set up or this exercise occurred?) was on a one time basis. Phil Sheehan wrote: “…I asked for a volunteer from the committee with experience using the www to conduct the demonstration. Dennis Watson agreed to conduct the demonstration… With the exception of the aforementioned demonstration, Prof. Watson was not asked or directed to continue the exploring and cataloging sexually explicit sites on the Internet by me or, to my knowledge, any other Clark College administrator. Dr. Johnson neither attended or sanctioned the demonstration.”

Response: So why the reference to the ICUC in his statement to the Ethics Board when the ICUC one-time demonstration clearly had nothing to do with the offenses for which  Watson was charged? Who gave Dr. Larry Easter the impression that Watson was working at the behest of the ICUC to “research pornography”? Does this irrelevant reference to the ICUC one-time demonstration (with no reference to the fact that he “volunteered”) not suggest that he “volunteered” for this assignment to give himself a potential cover for charges that had already been filed and about which the Administration had knowledge? (I alerted the WSP at the time that a potential cover was possibly being constructed and that short of a outright conviction, he would be returned to Clark because of his tight relationship with the Administration–one WSP Detective later said to me “You called it (that he would return) and I just didn’t want to believe it.”)

I wanted that statement in there because, unlike you, I want to tell the WHOLE truth.

The fact is, that several individuals have been dismissed from employment (denial of tenure or outright dismissal) for far less than Prof Watson has admitted to having done and with a lot less due process than Watson has been given.

And you, af course, show no facts or evidence to back this statement.

The fact that he continues to tell outright and provable lies about his own case and that of my wife shows why he has been returned to Clark, it shows the need for comprehensive and fairly applied standards of due process at Clark  (available to those who are not compliant sycophants of the powers- that-be) and the imperative to end all cover-ups and built proper foundations at Clark,.

Bravo, Jim, another set of paranoid ravings. I am PROUD of you!

More to follow.

Gee, I bet the campus can hardly wait!

Jim Craven

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

Attachments:

April 23, 2008

To Whom It May Concern:

Please accept this letter as an Official Complaint against Ms. Julie Lemmond.

In the course of a recent investigation by Ms. Helle Rode, recorded on tape, Ms. Rode read from a letter from Julie Lemmond and characterized that Ms. Lemmond had alleged that I had, at a meeting at which she was in attendance, in September of 2007, “spewed out 5 minutes of non-stop profanity”. The specificity of time embodied in Ms. Lemmond’s allegation, with no apparent specificity as to what specific alleged profane words were uttered by me, suggest that this was a bald-faced and intentional lie and not merely a difference in “perception” as to what does or does not constitute “profanity” or profane utterances. Further, not only was Ms. Lemmond’s letter not given to me prior to the hearing, as is required under the Clark-AHE Contract, attempts by AHE to get a copy of this letter, referred to and utilized by Ms. Rode in her investigation, and thus material to her investigation,  have been met with repeated refusals to turn that letter over.

As far as I am aware, Ms Lemmond’s allegations of “five minutes of non-stop profanity” by me have been decisively refuted by Gene Johnson, Steve Walsh, Dean Kotsakis and David Duback who were also in attendance at this meeting. Indeed a charge of Unfair Labor Practices, vis-à-vis refusal to turn over this letter has been filed by AHE.

In consideration of this complaint, I refer the examining authorities to the following possible violations by Ms. Lemmond and/or anyone who can be found to have instigated, collaborated with and/or protected her in her conduct and filing of what I believe any reasonable and prudent person would see as patently and provably false allegations in her letter to Ms. Helle Rode—false allegations that were material to Ms. Rode’s investigation:

RCW 42.20.040
False report.

Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[1909 c 249 § 98; RRS § 2350.]

RCW 10.14.020
Definitions.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) “Unlawful harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner, or, when the course of conduct would cause a reasonable parent to fear for the well-being of their child.

(2) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. “Course of conduct” includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication on. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”

[2001 c 260 § 2; 1999 c 27 § 4; 1995 c 127 § 1; 1987 c 280 § 2.]

Notes:

     Intent — Effective date — 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
RCW 9A.72.010
Definitions.

The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Materially false statement” means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding; whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law;

(2) “Oath” includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if:

(a) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;

(b) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of! such recitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto; or

(c) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in RCW 9A.72.085.

(3) An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths;

(4) “Official proceeding” means a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, admin! istrati ve, or other government agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or depositions;

(5) “Juror” means any person who is a member of any jury, including a grand jury, impaneled by any court of this state or by any public servant authorized by law to impanel a jury; the term juror also includes any person who has been drawn or summoned to attend as a prospective juror;

(6) “Testimony” includes oral or written statements, documents, or any other material that may be offered by a witness in an official proceeding.

[2001 c 171 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 30; 1981 c 187 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.010.]

Notes:

     Purpose — 2001 c 171: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, legislation relating to the crime of perjury, as amended in sections 30 and 31, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 171 § 1.]Effective date — 2001 c 171: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 7, 2001].” [2001 c 171 § 4.]

Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

RCW 9A.80.010
Official misconduct.

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

[1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.80.010.]

Notes:

     Effective date — Severability — 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.Failure of duty by public officers: RCW 42.20.100.

42.20.030  <<  42.20.040 >>   42.20.050

RCW 42.20.100
Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.

Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their willful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.

[1909 c 249 § 16; RRS § 2268. Prior: Code 1881 § 889; 1854 p 90 § 82.]

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

RCW 9A.36.083
Malicious harassment — Civil action.

In addition to the criminal penalty provided in RCW 9A.36.080 for committing a crime of malicious harassment, the victim may bring a civil cause of action for malicious harassment against the harasser. A person may be liable to the victim of malicious harassment for actual damages, punitive damages of up to ten thousand dollars, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the action.

RCW 9.81.120
Constitutional rights — Censorship or infringement.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize, require or establish any military or civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or freedom of speech or assembly within the meaning and the manner as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or of the state of Washington and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect.

[1951 c 254 § 19.]

Please accept this as a formal and Official Complaint to be acknowledged and acted upon in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven

Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi

Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division

Attachment 2

RCW 10.14.020
Definitions.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) “Unlawful harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner, or, when the course of conduct would cause a reasonable parent to fear for the well-being of their child.

(2) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. “Course of conduct” includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic comm! unicati on. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”

[2001 c 260 § 2; 1999 c 27 § 4; 1995 c 127 § 1; 1987 c 280 § 2.]

RCW 49.44.010
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! employ ment, 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 one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

[1899 c 23 § 1; RRS § 7599.]

RCW 9.62.010
Malicious prosecution.

Every person who shall, maliciously and without probable cause therefor, cause or attempt to cause another to be arrested or proceeded against for any crime of which he or she is innocent:

(1) If such crime be a felony, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years; and

(2) If such crime be a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[2003 c 53 § 40; 1992 c 7 § 15; 1909 c 249 § 117; Code 1881 § 899; 1873 p 203 § 98; 1854 p 92 § 89; RRS § 2369.]

Notes:

     Intent — Effective date — 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
RCW 9A.72.010
Definitions.

The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Materially false statement” means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding; whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law;

(2) “Oath” includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if:

(a) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;

(b) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of! such r ecitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto; or

(c) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in RCW 9A.72.085.

(3) An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths;

(4) “Official proceeding” means a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, admin! istrati ve, or other government agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or depositions;

(5) “Juror” means any person who is a member of any jury, including a grand jury, impaneled by any court of this state or by any public servant authorized by law to impanel a jury; the term juror also includes any person who has been drawn or summoned to attend as a prospective juror;

(6) “Testimony” includes oral or written statements, documents, or any other material that may be offered by a witness in an official proceeding.

[2001 c 171 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 30; 1981 c 187 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.010.]

Notes:

     Purpose — 2001 c 171: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, legislation relating to the crime of perjury, as amended in sections 30 and 31, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 171 § 1.]Effective date — 2001 c 171: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 7, 2001].” [2001 c 171 § 4.]

Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

RCW 9A.80.010
Official misconduct.

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

[1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.80.010.]

Notes:

     Effective date — Severability — 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.Failure of duty by public officers: RCW 42.20.100.

42.20.030  <<  42.20.040 >>   42.20.050

RCW 42.20.040
False report.

Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[1909 c 249 § 98; RRS § 2350.]

RCW 42.40.030
Right to disclose improper governmental actions — Interference prohibited.

(1) An employee shall not directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the employee’s official authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, influencing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, command, or influence any individual for the purpose of interfering with the right of the individual to: (a) Disclose to the auditor (or representative thereof) information concerning improper governmental action; or (b) identify rules warranting review or provide information to the rules review committee.

(2) Nothing in this section authorizes an individual to disclose information otherwise prohibited by law.

[1995 c 403 § 510; 1989 c 284 § 2; 1982 c 208 § 3.]

RCW 42.40.050
Retaliatory action against whistleblower — Remedies.

(1) Any person who is a whistleblower, as defined in RCW 42.40.020, and who has been subjected to workplace reprisal or retaliatory action is presumed to have established a cause of action for the remedies provided under chapter 49.60 RCW. For the purpose of this section “reprisal or retaliatory action” means but is not limited to any of the following:

(a) Denial of adequate staff to perform duties;

(b) Frequent staff changes;

(c) Frequent and undesirable office changes;

(d) Refusal to assign meaningful work;

(e) Unwarranted and unsubstantiated letters of reprimand or unsatisfactory performance evaluations;

(f) Demotion;

&n! bsp; (g ) Reduction in pay;

(h) Denial of promotion;

(i) Suspension;

(j) Dismissal;

(k) Denial of employment;

(l) A supervisor or superior encouraging coworkers to behave in a hostile manner toward the whistleblower; and

(m) A change in the physical location of the employee’s workplace or a change in the basic nature of the employee’s job, if either are in opposition to the employee’s expressed wish.

(2) The agency presumed to have taken retaliatory action under subsection (1) of this section may rebut that presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency action or actions were justified by reasons unrelated to the employee’s status as a whistleblower.

(3) Nothing in this section prohibits an agency from ma! king an y decision exercising its authority to terminate, suspend, or discipline an employee who engages in workplace reprisal or retaliatory action against a whistleblower. However, the agency also shall implement any order under chapter 49.60 RCW (other than an order of suspension if the agency has terminated the retaliator).

[1999 c 283 § 1; 1992 c 118 § 3; 1989 c 284 § 4; 1982 c 208 § 5.]

42.40.035  <<  42.40.040 >>   42.40.050

WAC 132N-300-010

No Washington State Register filings since 2003

Grievance procedure.

(1) Any person who believes she or he has been discriminated against or harassed by Clark College or its employee(s) or agent(s) on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, sexual orientation, marital status, the presence of any physical, sensory or mental disability, or status as a disabled or Vietnam-era veteran, may lodge a formal grievance. The college president delegates investigation of grievances on the basis of disability or disabled or Vietnam-era veteran status to the ADA Compliance Officer (ADACO). The college president delegates investigation of all other discrimination/harassment grievances to the college’s affirmative action officer (AAO).

(a) Complaints should be filed within one hundred eighty days from the most recent incident. Where extraordinary circumstances are shown, the one hundred eighty-day limit may be waived by the ADACO or AAO.

(b) If ! the ind ividualized education program (IEP) of a student provides for enrollment at Clark College or contracted special education or related services to be provided by the college, the school district which developed the IEP shall remain responsible for insuring that the requirements of chapter 392-172 WAC and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. secs. 1400 et seq., including review and revisions to the IEP, are met.

(2)(a) Step 1: Informal meeting. In an attempt to informally resolve the concern, the complainant may request a meeting with the individual believed to have committed the discriminatory act (the respondent) or with the appropriate supervisor or president’s designee. The time period in which attempts to informally resolve the concern are made shall not exceed thirty working days from the time the complaint is lodged.

!  & nbsp; (b) Step 2: Formal grievance procedure. The complainant may initiate a formal grievance.

(i) A formal grievance must be filed in writing and must set forth the specific grievance(s) raised by the complainant, including the dates, times, places, and circumstances surrounding his or her complaint. A form for this purpose is available from the ADACO or AAO; however, any written document is acceptable. Formal complaints may not be filed by e-mail.

(ii) Upon receipt of the grievance, the ADACO or AAO will conduct an investigation which includes, but is not limited to, interview(s) with the complainant, the respondent, and any additional persons necessary to determine the merit(s) of the complaint. The investigation should be completed within thirty working days.

(iii) Upon completion of the investigation, the ADACO or AAO will present a written report, including findings a! nd conc lusions to the complainant and the respondent. The report may include a recommendation by the ADACO or AAO for appropriate disciplinary or corrective action, or the report may be sent to the designated dean or administrator to determine appropriate disciplinary or corrective action.

(iv) If the complaint is found to be false and malicious, the ADACO or AAO will notify the designated dean or administrator for possible disciplinary action against the complainant.

(c) Step 3: Presidential appeal. If the complaint is not resolved at Step 2 the complainant may appeal to the college president.

(i) The appeal must be made in writing within twenty-one days after the report is issued.

(ii) Within twenty days after receiving the appeal, the college president or the president’s designee will conduct the presidential review and report the results in writ! ing to both the complainant and the respondent. The college president may affirm or modify the report, remand the case for further investigation, or dismiss the appeal.

(iii) The written results of the presidential review will be considered final. No further intra-institutional appeal exists.

(3) If desired, inquiries or appeals beyond the institutional level may be directed to:

(a) Equal employment opportunity commission.

(b) Washington state human rights commission.

(c) Regional director, office of civil rights, department of education.

[Statutory Authority: RCW 28B.50.140. 98-19-066, § 132N-300-010, filed 9/18/98, effective 10/19/98.]

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done un! der “co lor of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Back To Top


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;

3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person o! r class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.

RCW 9A.36.050
Reckless endangerment.

(1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.

(2) Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.

[1997 c 338 § 45; 1989 c 271 § 110; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.36.050.]

Notes:

     Finding — Evaluation — Report — 1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.

Severability — Effective dates — 1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.

Finding — Intent — 1989 c 271 §§ 102, 109, and 110: “The legislature finds that increased trafficking in illegal drugs has increased the likelihood of “drive-by shootings.” It is the intent of the legislature in sections 102, 109, and 110 of this act to categorize such reckless and criminal activity into a separate crime and to provide for an appropriate punishment.” [1989 c 271 § 108.]

Application — 1989 c 271 §§ 101-111: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.

Severability — 1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.

Criminal history and driving record: RCW 46.61.513.

 

RCW 9A.36.070
Coercion.

 

(1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.

(2) “Threat” as used in this section means:

(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

(b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).

(3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.

[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.36.070.]

RCW 9A.36.080
Malicious harassment — Definition and criminal penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:

(a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;

(b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or

(c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a “reasonable person” is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same mental, physical, or sensory handicap as the victim. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.

(2) In any prosecution for malicious harassment, unless evidence exists which explains to the trier of fact’s satisfaction that the person did not intend to threaten the victim or victims, the trier of fact may infer that the person intended to threaten a specific victim or group of victims because of the person’s perception of the victim’s or victims’ race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap if the person commits one of the following acts:

(a) Burns a cross on property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of African American heritage; or

(b) Defaces property of a victim who is or whom the actor perceives to be of Jewish heritage by defacing the property with a swastika.

This subsection only applies to the creation of a reasonable inference for evidentiary purposes. This subsection does not restrict the state’s ability to prosecute a person under subsection (1) of this section when the facts of a particular case do not fall within (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(3) It is not a defense that the accused was mistaken that the victim was a member of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or had a mental, physical, or sensory handicap.

(4) Evidence of expressions or associations of the accused may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the crime charged. Nothing in this chapter shall affect the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.

(5) Every person who commits another crime during the commission of a crime under this section may be punished and prosecuted for the other crime separately.

(6) “Sexual orientation” for the purposes of this section means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

(7) Malicious harassment is a class C felony.

(8) The penalties provided in this section for malicious harassment do not preclude the victims from seeking any other remedies otherwise available under law.

(9) Nothing in this section confers or expands any civil rights or protections to any group or class identified under this section, beyond those rights or protections that exist under the federal or state Constitution or the civil laws of the state of Washington.

[1993 c 127 § 2; 1989 c 95 § 1; 1984 c 268 § 1; 1981 c 267 § 1.]

9A.36.080  <<  9A.36.083 >>   9A.36.090

RCW 9A.36.083
Malicious harassment — Civil action.

In addition to the criminal penalty provided in RCW 9A.36.080 for committing a crime of malicious harassment, the victim may bring a civil cause of action for malicious harassment against the harasser. A person may be liable to the victim of malicious harassment for actual damages, punitive damages of up to ten thousand dollars, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the action.

[1993 c 127 § 3.]

RCW 9A.68.040
Trading in public office.

(1) A person is guilty of trading in public office if:

(a) He offers, confers, or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon a public servant pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such actor will or may be appointed to a public office; or

(b) Being a public servant, he requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit from another person pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such person will or may be appointed to a public office.

(2) Trading in public office is a class C felony.

RCW 9A.68.050

Trading in special influence.

(1) A person is guilty of trading in special influence if:

(a) He offers, confers, or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon another person pursuant to an agreement or understanding that such other person will offer or confer a benefit upon a public servant or procure another to do so with intent thereby to secure or attempt to secure a particular result in a particular matter; or

(b) He requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit pursuant to an agreement or understanding that he will offer or confer a benefit upon a public servant or procure another to do so with intent thereby to secure or attempt to secure a particular result in a particular matter.

(2) Trading in special influence is a class C felony.

RCW 42.20.100
Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.

Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their wilful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.

[1909 c 249 § 16; RRS § 2268. Prior: Code 1881 § 889; 1854 p 90 § 82.]

RCW 9A.72.010
Definitions.

The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Materially false statement” means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding; whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law;

(2) “Oath” includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if:

(a) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;

(b) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto; or

(c) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in RCW 9A.72.085.

(3) An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths;

(4) “Official proceeding” means a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other government agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or depositions;

(5) “Juror” means any person who is a member of any jury, including a grand jury, impaneled by any court of this state or by any public servant authorized by law to impanel a jury; the term juror also includes any person who has been drawn or summoned to attend as a prospective juror;

(6) “Testimony” includes oral or written statements, documents, or any other material that may be offered by a witness in an official proceeding.

[2001 c 171 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 30; 1981 c 187 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.010.]

Notes:

     Purpose — 2001 c 171: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, legislation relating to the crime of perjury, as amended in sections 30 and 31, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 171 § 1.]

Effective date — 2001 c 171: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 7, 2001].” [2001 c 171 § 4.]

Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

RCW 9A.76.175
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]

Notes:

     Purpose — 2001 c 308: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 308 § 1.]

Effective date — 2001 c 308: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001].” [2001 c 308 § 4.]

Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

RCW 9A.76.180
Intimidating a public servant.

(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a public servant if, by use of a threat, he attempts to influence a public servant’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a public servant.

(2) For purposes of this section “public servant” shall not include jurors.

(3) “Threat” as used in this section means

(a) to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or

(b) threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25).

(4) Intimidating a public servant is a class B felony.

[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.76.180.]

Notes:

     *Reviser’s note: RCW 9A.04.110 was amended by 2005 c 458 § 3, changing subsection (25) to subsection (26); and was subsequently amended by 2007 c 79 § 3, changing subsection (26) to subsection (27)
RCW 9A.80.010
Official misconduct.

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

[1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 17; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.80.010.]

Notes:

     Effective date — Severability — 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW 9A.08.020.
RCW 10.14.020
Definitions.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) “Unlawful harassment” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner, or, when the course of conduct would cause a reasonable parent to fear for the well-being of their child.

(2) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. “Course of conduct” includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”

[2001 c 260 § 2; 1999 c 27 § 4; 1995 c 127 § 1; 1987 c 280 § 2.]

Notes:

     Findings — Intent — 2001 c 260: “The legislature finds that unlawful harassment directed at a child by a person under the age of eighteen is not acceptable and can have serious consequences. The legislature further finds that some interactions between minors, such as “schoolyard scuffles,” though not to be condoned, may not rise to the level of unlawful harassment. It is the intent of the legislature that a protection order sought by the parent or guardian of a child as provided for in this chapter be available only when the alleged behavior of the person under the age of eighteen to be restrained rises to the level set forth in chapter 10.14 RCW.” [2001 c 260 § 1.]

Intent — 1999 c 27: See note following RCW 9A.46.020.

RCW 10.14.190
Constitutional rights.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to infringe upon any constitutionally protected rights including, but not limited to, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

[1987 c 280 § 19.]

RCW 9.81.120
Constitutional rights — Censorship or infringement.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize, require or establish any military or civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or freedom of speech or assembly within the meaning and the manner as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or of the state of Washington and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect.

[1951 c 254 § 19.]

MISPRISION OF A FELONY

MISPRISION – In its larger sense, this word is used to signify every considerable misdemeanor, which has not a certain name given to it in the law; and it is said that a misprision is contained in every treason or felony whatever. In its narrower sense it is the concealment of a crime.

Misprision of treason, is the concealment of treason, by being merely passive for if any assistance be given, to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there is no accessories in treason. It is the duty of every good citizen, knowing of a treason or felony having been committed; to inform a magistrate. Silently to observe the commission of a felony, without using any endeavors to apprehend the offender, is a misprision.

Misprisions which are merely positive, are denominated contempts or high misdemeanors; as, for example, dissuading a witness from giving evidence.

MISPRISION OF FELONY – Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the U.S., conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the U.S. 18 USC

Misprision of felony, is the like concealment of felony, without giving any degree of maintenance to the felon for if any aid be given him, the party becomes an accessory after the fact.

no votes

About jimcraven10

About jimcraven10 1. Citizenship: Blackfoot, U.S. and Canadian; 2. Position: tenured Professor of Economics and Geography; Dept. Head, Economics; 3. Teaching, Consulting and Research experience: approx 40 + years all levels high school to post-doctoral U.S. Canada, Europe, China, India, Puerto Rico and parts of E. Asia; 4. Work past and present: U.S. Army 1963-66; Member: Veterans for Peace; former VVAW; Veterans for 9-11 Truth; Scholars for 9-11 Truth; Pilots for 9-11 Truth; World Association for Political Economy; Editorial Board International Critical Thought; 4.. U.S. Commercial-Instrument Pilot ; FAA Licensed Ground Instructor (Basic, Advanced, Instrument and Simulators); 5. Research Areas and Publications: International law (on genocide, rights of nations, war and war crimes); Imperialism (nature, history, logic, trajectories, mechanisms and effects); Economic Geography (time and space modeling in political economy; globalization--logic and effects; Political Economy and Geography of Imperialism); Indigenous versus non-Indigenous Law; Political Economy of Socialism and Socialist Construction; 6. Member, Editorial Board, "International Critical Thought" published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; International Advisory Board and Columnist 4th Media Group, http://www.4thMedia.org (Beijing); 7. Other Websites publications at http://www.aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com; wwwthesixthestate.blogspot.com;https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com; 8.Biography available in: Marquis Who’s Who: in the World (16th-18th; 20th; 22nd -31st (2014) Editions); Who’s Who in America (51st-61st;63rd-68th(2014) Editions); Who’s Who in the West (24th- 27th Editions);Who’s Who in Science and Engineering (3rd to 6th, 8th, 11th (2011-2012) Editions); Who’s Who in Finance and Industry (29th to 37th Editions); Who’s Who in American Education (6th Edition). ------------------- There are times when you have to obey a call which is the highest of all, i.e. the voice of conscience even though such obedience may cost many a bitter tear, and even more, separation from friends, from family, from the state, to which you may belong, from all that you have held as dear as life itself. For this obedience is the law of our being. ~ Mahatma Gandhi
This entry was posted in Clark College. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Reporting Crimes To Clark County Sheriff’s Office

  1. Billy says:

    I blog frequently and I truly thank you for your content. This great article – Reporting Crimes To Clark County Sheriffs Office | Welcome to … has really peaked my interest. I’m going to book mark your website and keep checking for new information about once per week. I subscribed to your Feed as well.

  2. Pingback: DOCUMENTS FROM CLARK COLLEGE, VANCOUVER, WA: PUBLIC, SWORN UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, ACCOUNTABLE AND UNREBUTTED | Welcome to the Blog of Jim Craven

  3. Pingback: APPEALS COURT RULING BOLSTERS PROFESSOR’S FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS | Welcome to the Blog of Jim Craven

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s