DOCUMENTS FROM CLARK COLLEGE, VANCOUVER, WA: PUBLIC, SWORN UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, ACCOUNTABLE AND UNREBUTTED

PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN EVOLVING BLOG IN RESPONSE TO NEW INFORMATION PLEASE CHCK LATEST ENTRIES FOR CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS THAT WILL OCCUR WITH NEW INFORMATION

Federal Crime Reporting Statute
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/title_18_usc_4.html

The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, 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 United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge’s mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.

Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.
________________________________________

Misprision of a Felony

Misprision of a felony is the offense of failure to inform government authorities of a felony that a person knows about. A person commits the crime of misprision of a felony if that person:
• Knows of a federal crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person’s attention, or failed to prevent.
• Fails to report it to a federal judge or other federal official (who is not themsselves involved in the crime).
________________________________________
Another Federal Statute for Forcing A
Federal Officer To Perform a Mandatory Duty
Another federal statute exists for reporting high-level corruption in government:

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

These two statutes are among the most powerful tools in the hands of the people, even a single person, to report corrupt and criminal activities by federal officials−including federal judges−and to circumvent the blocks by those in key positions in the three branches of government. That statute was also repeatedly blocked by federal judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/title_18_usc_4.html
————————————————————————————

This is what real critical thinking is all about: Real Eyes trained to spot and “Realize” Real Lies

This is an evolving, “holistic”, non-linear, and organic blog that aims to invite evidence from and help those up against various forces and forms of alleged corruption at Clark College. All documents are public records, authors identified for legal accountability in case of any forms of perjury, libel, slander or defamation in general, and/or have been introduced into and subject to rebuttal legal proceedings under penalty of perjury. Anyone with documents that are legally obtained and can stand thorough vetting for accuracy of essential content and meaning (sometimes documents have been cleaned up with spell check for readability) may send them to this blog for consideration.

On 18 USC Article I Chapter 13, Parts 241 and 242 Conspiracy Against Rights

Documents Submitted to Thurston County Superior Court

Reporting Crimes to Clark County Sheriff’s Office

More background on Clark College

Reporting Felony Crimes to Clark County Prosecutors

An Open Letter to All my Students

Aboriginal Justice
Please see other related documents on other parts of this blog at

The following documents are public record, sworn and/or legally accountable under perjury and other felonies related to public employees in the conduct of official business, accountable under law as am I and should be, and they stand unrebutted. Further, in over 90 of the documents I was neither the author nor had any form or level of input into the scope, depth, angles and evidence contained in them. In many cases they are written by those totally unfavorable to me yet they speak for themselves with no need of comment from me for any reasonable and prudent person with a semblance of a conscience, ability to read and understand a particular law and its sprit and intent, an IQ over room temperature and who is free of animus, malice and pre-judgment.

FOR EXAMPLE: DOCUMENTS ON ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CLARK COLLEGE PRESIDENT ROBERT KNIGHT OF PERJURY, CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND RELATED FELONIES OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ACTING IN OFFICIAL CAPACITIES BY AND IN THE SWORN TESIMONIES DR, MARCIA ROI AND MS LYNN DAVIDSON

Roi and Davidson v knight test396

LISA LEWISON
UniServ Representative
WEA-Riverside UniServ Council
5516 NE 107th Avenue, Suite 200
VANCOUVER, WA 98662
(360) 256-0880 Email: llewison@washingtonea.org
IN THE HEARING BEFORE
ARBITRATOR KATHERYN T. WHALEN
______________________________________________________________________________
JAMES CRAVEN )
) GRIEVANT’S CLOSING
Vs. ) ARGUMENT ) )
CLARK COLLEGE )
Lisa Lewison hereby submits her Closing Arguments on behalf of James Craven:

I. INTRODUCTION
On Thursday, November 3, 2010 and Friday, November 4, 2010, an arbitration took place on the Clark College Campus in Vancouver, Washington, involving Clark College (hereinafter “the College”) and the Clark College Association of Higher Education (hereinafter “the Association”).

[SNIP]

On October 15, 2007, Mr. Craven attended an “Open President’s Dialogue.” Mr. Craven asked a question of President Bob Knight, who angrily shouted him down, effectively silencing the audience for the remainder of the forum. Jennifer Wheeler, former President of the Classified WPEA union attended the forum, and testified she took verbatim notes, which she provided to Mr. Craven and his union.

On Friday, November 9, 2007 AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi and UniServ Director Lynn Davidson met with President Knight and Vice President of Instruction, Rassoul Dastmozd, for a labor management meeting in his office. While in this meeting AHE President Roi, told President Knight there was a “morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “there is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing.

and:

“WEA-Riverside Director Lynn Davidson and AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi testified to a labor management meeting they attended with President Bob Knight and Vice President Rassoul Dastmozd on Friday, November 9, 2007. AHE President Roi testified she told President Knight there was a “…morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing. Ms. Davidson testified she was “shocked” President Bob Knight would say something like this to union representatives, and based on her expertise was troubled because his statements showed the union “should expect animosity by the President and the College in future dealings” related to Mr. Craven.”

[NOTE ADDENDUM This testimony, by Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, sworn under penalty of perjury, directly and irreconcilably contradicted the sworn testimony of President Knight during the previous hearing before ALJ Knutson: that he never made such a statement; that, when asked twice, in two different meetings, about if he had made such a statement, he not only denied having made the statement, he also claimed that he had only refused to answer and affirm or deny the statement (meetings were taped), in two separate meetings, because he was there to ask not answer questions.]

OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT KNIGHT IN THE COURT OF ALJ KNUTSON

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image

As background, I am the first, and as far as I am concerned the only real economist and educator full-time, tenured at Clark College since 1933, where I have been a tenured professor for 17 of my twenty years. My teaching at university level began in 1972 and has been mostly continuous along with other positions also held at the same time.

Here is the profile developed by Clark College that is put out on the internet and I can prove was used to draw-in students to Clark College. This is all background, again not my words, to the documents that will follow. I must note that I have worked in six different languages at various times but never then, nor now, claimed fluency but only different levels of working use and knowledge. I have also been invited to lecture as a Visiting and Consulting Professor in Economics, Political Economy, Geography and Ethnology in various places including at Tsinghua University and at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences where I remain connected as a Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal “International Critical Thought” published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. I am also a columnist and member of the International Advisory Board of the 4th Media in Beijing

Bridging Cultural Ties and Understanding:
International Education Within and from China

On Tuesday, Feb. 8, Clark College economics professor James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii will share insights from his teaching experiences in China as part of Clark’s 2010-2011 Faculty Speaker Series

VANCOUVER, Wash. – Some see China on the rise as a strategic threat to the interests of the U.S. and its allies. Others see emerging China as a source of opportunities for new markets and new relationships in the global economy. On both sides of the discussion, most observers acknowledge the importance of international education in promoting changes in China’s political economy.

On Tuesday, Feb. 8, Clark College economics professor James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii will share insights from his teaching experiences in China as part of Clark’s 2010-2011 Faculty Speaker Series.

The event, which is free and open to the public, is titled “Bridging Cultural Ties and Understanding: International Education Within and from China.” It will be held from 4-5:30 p.m. in rooms 258 B&C in the Penguin Union Building on Clark’s main campus.

Clark College is located at 1933 Fort Vancouver Way, Vancouver. Driving directions and parking maps are available at http://www.clark.edu/maps.
Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii has been a consulting and visiting professor of economics at Tsinghua University in Beijing and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He said, “My knowledge of new approaches, needs and constraints in international education programs in China is based, not only on my own teaching experiences there, but also on discussions with Chinese officials who are charged with recruiting, structuring and monitoring new programs in international education. Those efforts are impacted by China’s shifting policies and imperatives on education and foreign policy.”

Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii will also discuss shifting attitudes within China toward the West and “what international program content China is prepared to allow into China, what it will not allow, and why.”

About James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Professor James M. Craven, a dual U.S. and Canadian citizen, is a veteran of the U.S. Army and a member of the Blackfoot Nation. His Blackfoot name is Omahkohkiaaiipooyii. For more than 30 years, he has taught economics, geography and ethnology from undergraduate to post-doctoral levels. A professor of economics at Clark College, Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii has been a consulting and visiting professor of economics at Tsinghua University in Beijing and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, where he serves on the editorial board of the journal “International Critical Thought.”

As recently as 2012, he has presented papers and has taught a graduate course at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He has also presented papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Additionally, he has been a guest lecturer at Yunnan University in the province of Yunnan and at a conference at the Minzu University of China. Founded in 1911, Tsinghua University, China’s second oldest and largest university, is considered by many to be the premier sciences university in the country.

Its graduates include many members of China’s current leadership.

Meeting with members of the Government of China as well as leading Chinese educators, Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii has participated in discussions related to international education, national minorities in China, and U.S.-China relations.

Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii has taught in the United States, Europe, India, Puerto Rico, Canada and parts of Asia. In addition to English, he has lived and worked in six languages and is currently learning Mandarin Chinese. He has been featured in various Marquis ”Who’s Who” publications including “The World”; “America”; “The West”; “Science and Engineering”; “Finance and Industry”; and “American Education.”

About the Clark College Faculty Speaker Series

The Faculty Speaker Series, established by Clark College with support from the Clark College Foundation, honors individual faculty members and celebrates academic excellence.

The Faculty Speaker Series showcases experiences that have enriched both the life and teaching of a Clark faculty member. Throughout the series, faculty members share their developmental experiences with the college community — and members of the community at large — while addressing some of today’s most intriguing issues.

Past Faculty Speaker Series discussions have focused on rich and diverse topics including the Fulbright international teaching experience and sustainable food choices as well as timely discussions of issues relating to health, science, writing and art.

Further, as a tenured professor at an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, I am therefore a public employee and as such, am mandated by law, that if I have a good-faith basis to believe that crimes have been committed, are being committed, are in the works to be committed, it is not up to me if or if not I am in the mood or it is “in my interest” to report them. I am bound not only by my morality and conscience, but also by law.

When people say to me “I’m not a cop or a snitch, it is not my responsibility to be a cop or try to act like one. I ask a simple question: “What if someone bragged to me about having done some rapes and got away with it, and, subsequent to my choosing not to report it, he went out and raped your sister?” How would you feel about my “personal preferences” and “choices” that also impacted upon your sister and whole family? And the reason why crimes must be reported even by non-public employees (Misprision of a Felony) is that all crimes are not only offenses against persons and property (torts), but they are offenses against all of society.

Because public employees are using public resources and have a public trust, and because of that they are subject to duties and laws that private-sector employees do not have, they also have Constitutional and other rights that public-sector employees do not have. No power, perks, pay, position, promotions or permanence without accountability and no accountability without some power etc to influence that for which one is held accountable.

And if those offenses go unreported, and the “perps” are not caught and made accountable, not only does the chain of abuses and crimes go on as with the uncaught rapist, but also legal precedents are lost that could be used to capture and convict more “perps” before they can continue and create more victims.

EMMA KIM’S LETTER

Emma Kim once considered me an enemy and was fearful of me but did not know me. She worked in Clark College HR as an Office Assistant III. She was one of the few Office Assistants with a 4-year degree, but I did not know her, I never had a cross word with her, and had no idea her job even. I most certainly did not distrust her because she worked in HR and had no reason to.

One day she walked into my office and said “Professor Craven, my name is Emma Kim and I work for Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder”. She then proceeded to apologize to me for having believed some things said about me I had no knowledge of or chance to rebut and that she had been ordered to keep a secret file of all my email traffic to be sent to the AG’s office without a header, just the email. She said that when she asked why no header? she was told “because we are not supposed to be doing this” to which she said she replied that “if they were not legally supposed to be doing something why were they doing it?” She said to me that Donna Kelly the Affirmative Action and EOC director in HR, said “No that’s OK you do not need to do this” or something to that effect.

This letter written in 2003, I had no prior knowledge of, I had no input into its content in any way, I had no idea that Emma would put this out on the Campus Master list, that she would lose her job because she followed the law as all public employees are supposed to do, and this letter was a complete surprise to me when it came out. The secret file to which she alludes I discovered as a result of this letter in a public record’s request. It is 6 binders, 4900 pages, and the College wants 10-cents a page or $490 for a copy of it and they even made a copy of it after it was outed by Emma.

What is in the file? Mostly me email traffic to Governor Gary Locke, former Governor Mike Lowry, Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag, Deputy State Auditor Linda Sheler Long, FBI, Washington State Patrol, Vancouver Police, Clark County Sheriff and Prosecutors, U.S. Attorney’s office, and many other venues and officials. There are so many pages because my submissions were and are always under penalty of perjury and I include, and ask for rebuttal, what I believe to be true or troubling in need of investigation and why. I provide the texts of the laws I think are being violated and what evidence, or what I consider evidence I have to support my beliefs or fears.

And in all these submissions, not once did anyone say “Stop this!” “We do not see what you see, we think you are the one wasting public resources and harassing these poor folks”; or, “we do not see these as issues as you do”; or “do you realize these are serious allegations you are making about prominent people and not only could you be committing torts of defamation and the like, this is potentially criminal conduct”. Not once did anyone write that or suggest that in all those 4900 pages that I have read but will not pay $490 for a copy of something that is illegal even as it has been used against me.

Here is what that file looks like and I refuse to pay $490 for this file used against me, like the Watson letter without my knowledge or chance to rebut it for the record, or know its use, and all requests for is provenance (paper trail of legal authority and purpose for its existence and use) have been met with refusal to answer.

Clark College secret-file11

EMMA KIM’S COURAGEOUS LETTER

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS LETTER AND ITS CONTENT HAVE BEEN SWORN UNDER PENALTY OF OATH AND INTRODUCED AND SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL THAT NEVER CAME IN TWO SEPARATE COURTS. NO ONE FROM CLARK COLLEGE HAS EVEN GON TO PAPER TO REBUT HER ALLEGATIONS

—–Original Message—–
From: 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.)

Clark College secret-file11

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 litigious, 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 slime bag who will eyeball your underage children with a gleam 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. These were 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 naiveté, 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 supposed 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 was 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, and 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 employee’s 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 supposed 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 Beriberi’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. Beriberi’s PhD 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 Beriberi’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 PhD’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 its 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.

EMMA KIM

THE WATSON CASE

In my case, a faculty member still at Clark College (and the official and public record documents in that case will be on this blog) bragged to me (and it turned out another faculty member) of collecting and disseminating child pornography using Clark College “edu” as his medium for both gathering and disseminating pornography.

This was sworn to by me and another faculty member to Washington State Patrol detectives Haw and Hobbes under penalty of perjury.

The criminal charges against him were dropped, but a separate Washington State Ethics Commission found him guilty of using state resources to collect and disseminate pornography in general. According to the account in The Columbian newspaper in Vancouver, WA. 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).”

This we reported in the Washington Ethics Commission Finding:

“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.” http://ethics.wa.gov/ENFORCEMENT/Results_of_Enforcement/9615WatsonStipulationandOrder.pdf

According to an email exchange on the Clark College email Master List and thus public documents, Phil Sheehan, head of the Computer Support and the Instructional Computer User’s Committee:

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.”

According to The Columbian The ‘Child Porn Charges’ were dropped due to errors in the warrant and search of his internet by the Washington Auditor’s Office and Washington State Patrol:

JUDGE DISMISSES CHILD PORN CHARGES, The Columbian (Vancouver, WA November 13, 1996:

BRUCE WESTFALL Copyright (FAIR USE DOCTRINE)

A Clark County judge dismissed seven child pornography charges against a Clark College instructor Tuesday. The judge said the criminal case was doomed by an illegal search.

Superior Court Judge James Ladley said state auditors never should have seized instructor Dennis Watson’s computer and hundreds of floppy disks in their investigation a year ago.

Watson’s computer files allegedly contained thousands of sexually explicit images, one investigator said. There were at least seven images involving youngsters, according to prosecutors. As a result, Watson, 51, was charged in May with seven counts of possession of “depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit acts”…

and from the Seattle Times during the same period:

Schools Examine Policies After Profs Download Porn
Seattle Times Staff Reporter
By H. Fields Grenee Seattle Times Staff Reporter

A geography professor resigns and pleads guilty to Internet child-pornography charges. A California university lecturer accesses a computer in Washington state to get sexual images. A graduate teaching assistant is investigated by U.S. Customs agents for trafficking in child pornography via the Internet, using a school computer.

[snip] Please note that the Whistle-blower referred to is me and another faculty member whose coming forward with a separate time and alleged incident of being offered pornography made my own whistle-blowing more than hearsay or even possible empty bragging or desire but no concrete crime alleged or claimed.

The problem first surfaced as an issue for state colleges and universities last September, in a tip filed under the state’s whistle-blower’s law at Clark College, in Vancouver, Wash. The tip: Dennis Watson, then-chairman of the public college’s mathematics and computer-science division, had used the school’s Internet connection to download and store sexually explicit files involving children on his office computer and state-owned disks.

State auditors investigated, and the Clark County prosecutor has charged Watson with seven counts of possessing child pornography. School officials said they are waiting until after Watson’s trial, scheduled for September, to decide what, if any, disciplinary steps will be taken.

Soon after the Clark College case, a new state regulation addressing the use of the Internet and related technology was created. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 292-110-010 says, “A state officer or employee may not make private use of state computers or other equipment to access computer networks or other databases including, but not limited to, electronic mail and electronic bulletin boards for personal use unrelated to an official business purpose.”

The regulation is basically a management tool, said state Auditor Brian Sonntag, whose office investigated the Clark College case. Schools can interpret the WAC the way they see fit, he said.

Tony Birch, dean of administration services at Clark College, said his school tells users about policies and regulations for Internet use as clearly as possible and leaves it at that. Birch said Clark has no way of reading faculty e-mail or tracking Internet site visits. Clark has no intention of restricting Internet access beyond existing policies.

THE WATSON CASE AND COVER-UP CONTINUES

Many years later, during a public records request that remains obstructed, someone screwed up and I found this document not supposedly subject to a public records request as exempt materials. Not only was I never shown this document and given a chance to rebut the defamation in it [and also by implication against the other whistle-blower Dr Gerard Smith who reported to Washington State Patrol an incident I knew nothing about and thus backed up with independent evidence my own allegations and experience] but it was signed off on by Leslie Homer then the WEA Uniserv Director of my union that was not only supposed to be protected my rights, but also the Law and the Contract. Further this led to obstruction of Washington State Patrol and Washington State Ethics Commissions.

Here is from the emails written on the Campus Master List at the time and later:

—–Original Message—–
From: Dennis Watson [mailto:dwatson@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:11 PM
To: Fulkerson, Toni; Davis, Susan; Campus Master List
Subject: RE: Discussion on Master List Usage

Watson: I am concerned not with Clark’s policy, but with usage of State email that is considered illegal. Could not the school or individuals be breaking Washington State Law by using State owned email for political messages? Unless the laws have been changed, expressing political views on campus has been illegal since before email. I don’t think any local policy can override State law and I believe we are in violation of state law when we use email for ANY message that is not business related. THIS email MAY be against state law!! I was told by a state attorney that sending a message to folks about getting together for lunch was illegal so I am led to believe much of the frivolous messaging going on the Master list, or any other state owned list, is illegal.

Dennis Watson
—————————————————————————-

If success is A, then A equals X plus Y plus Z, where X equals”
work”, Y equals “play”, and Z equals “keep your mouth shut.”
Albert Einstein

Mr . Watson wrote (May 13, 1997)

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 Craven: 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).”

Further response Craven: 1) Either “The Columbian” is misquoting Det. Hobbe or, Det Hobbes is lying or, Prof. Watson is lying; 2) If “The Columbian” misquoted Det Hobbes, they run the danger of losing further access to a source on future 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); 3) 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 a lies–Det Hobbes is far too intelligent to leave himself exposed in such a way; 5) That leaves what possibility? 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).

Further Craven : 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.” http://ethics.wa.gov/ENFORCEMENT/Results_of_Enforcement/96-15WatsonStipulationandOrder.pdf

Which is it? Is Prof Watson lying in this statement about being guilty of the above-mentioned 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”?

Further from Craven: Why the reference to the ICUC [Instructional Computer User’s Committee to which Watson was appointed AFTER discovery of the porn in his computer] 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 Craven: 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 [Detective Glen Hobbes of the Washington State Patrol] later said to me “You called it
–that he would return–and I just didn’t want to believe it.”)

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. The fact that he continues to tell outright and provable lies about his own case and that of my [ex] 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,.

More to follow.
Jim Craven

*——————————————————————*
* James Craven * ” For those who have fought for it, *
* Dept of Economics * freedom has a taste the protected *
* Clark College * will never know.” *
* 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * Otto von Bismark *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * *
* (360) 992-2283 * *
* jcraven@xxxxxxxxx * *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *

FW: Speaking of liars Response‏
From: Craven, Jim (JCraven@clark.edu)
Sent: Mon 5/25/09 4:34 PM
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com

From: “James Michael Craven”
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
To: “CLARK COLLEGE MASTER LIST — DISTRIBUTION LIST”
supervisor@cs.clark.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:04:22 PST8PDT
Subject: Didn’t do it
Priority: normal

It was just brought to my attention that some people are under the impression that I was the one who published the “dialogue” between myself and the person using the pseudonym “A.E. Newman” on the master list. It was that person, not I, who published this “dialogue.

I would never publish a private dialogue on the campus master list.

Jim Craven
—-
Watson: I deleted your large .sig.

If this is indeed true, why did you respond to my private email to the whole campus???? You didn’t even have the courtesy to restrict your email to the faculty list, but sent it to WSU, et al. I realize your agenda is to punish Clark and, in particular, the administration and the hiring committee, with me at the top of your list, for not hiring your ex-wife.

Get over it! Since, like most fanatics, it is impossible to reason with you, I will NEVER respond to you again. I think it is time for you to look to some other college where you will be happy, if that is at all possible.
I feel sorry for you.
dww

This is just my opinion, protected by the first amendment.

Response Craven:

1) The message sent to me was unsolicited and was certainly not a “dialogue;

2) The message was sent to a “suppressed list” not to me alone;

3) Prior to that message, I had clearly indicated that I did not desire ANY private communication from this person;

4) There are fundamental issues and ongoing lies/cover-ups that need to be exposed and are relevant for ALL at Clark College (I personally consider everyone at Clark–Faculty, Staff, Students and Administrators to be equal in terms of having the right to information and access to providing input);

5) This dww has revealed himself to be a pathological liar, unable to take personal responsibility and has even widened the invective to include recent suggestions that Dr. Smith and I conspired to plant child pornography in his computer;

6) dww was not even on the witness list nor deposed in my ex- wife’s case; we considered/consider him to be peripheral in the case; further, the original ethics complaint went to the Auditor’s Officer before there was a case; further, Dr. Smith knew nothing about my complaint to the Auditor until the day he had been summoned by the Washington State Patrol;

7)If there was a conspiracy to frame Prof. Watson (child porn was indeed found in his computer with many photos that were of such
quality that ages were difficult to establish to the degree of certainty required for legal conviction, so seven photos were identified that two independent Pediatricians could testify to being of children), then members of the Washington State Patrol, the
Washington State Auditor’s Office, the Clark County Prosecutor, the Grand Jury that indicted would have all had to have been in on it;

8) The statements in the Columbian as to what was allegedly found in Watson’s computer (homosexual, heterosexual, animal sexual acts plus children engaged in explicit sexual activities–not just at nudist camps–were drawn from court records sworn under penalty of perjury; if these statements are not true, then WSP officers should be charged with perjury and/or “The Columbian” charged with libel;

9) Prof Watson is unfamiliar with even the basic facts of my ex-wife’s case and is challenging facts that even the Clark Administration have already stipulated to in mediation; if he wants to be an effective sycophant for those who returned him to this campus despite the
damage he has caused and despite his having admitted to “Ethics violations”, “unprofessional conduct” and “misuse of State resources”
(which he then denies in another polemic which caused me to asked which of the fundamentally contradictory claims is a lie?), he should
get it straight at least what has been stipulated and what remains contested;

10) It is very easy to “reason” with me; liars and toadies have a problem with me because I will resolutely and uncompromisingly expose
their lies and toadyism as I have done and am doing in the case of Prof Watson;

11) Faustian bargains, once made, go on and on. One lie requires others to cover-up the previous lies, with each Faustian Bargain,
each participant acquires enough dirt on the others to forge new Faustian Bargains (the “I go-down-you-go-down syndrome”); for example, Drs. Johnson, Cushwa and Kibota (who knew nothing about the merits of the charges against Prof Watson other than his representations) were going around office to office collecting money for his legal defense. This is their right, but it also reveals how quid pro quos, crony networks and payback/concern for tenure can transcend principle;

12) Prof Watson’s fundamental inability to accept personal responsibility and the types of fundamental character flaws that led him to collect the sick and twisted types of porn he has even stipulated to have collected, lead him to attack and slander even innocent police officers who were just doing their jobs (police officers who have repeatedly risked their lives to protect others); he writes: ”

…The columbian[sic] 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.”

For those who are really interested in testing the level of Prof Watson’s integrity and honesty, call the Clark County Deputy Prosecutor whose name is Kim Farr and run this statement by him and see what he says about it. Then you will know who is who and what is what.

13) Even collecting commercial porn is one thing (child pornography is simply illegal) but soliciting private polaroids from private individuals (signed with “clark.edu”) is simply predatory and reflects directly on the character and fitness to teach of an individual who does it; The statements in the Columbian as to the content of the e-mails found in Watson’s computer, asserted as lies by Prof. Watson, were from court records, sworn under penalty of perjury by Washington State Patrol Officers–what statements has Prof. Watson
made under penalty of perjury?

Jim Craven

*——————————————————————*
* James Craven * ” For those who have fought for it, *
* Dept of Economics * freedom has a taste the protected *
* Clark College * will never know.” *
* 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * Otto von Bismark *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * *
* (360) 992-2283 * *
* jcraven@clark.edu * *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *

Dear President Johnson and Dean Fulton:

I am forwarding this to you as I have repeatedly requested not to be on Prof. Watson’s “Suppressed List”.

I will not respond further to these provocations directly. Normally, I deal with liars by exposing their lies with irrefutable evidence. This was the basis of my last exchange. Although I reserve the right to discuss the Kibota case in response to provable lies about my ex-wife, her background and how her case was handled, I will pursue other avenues and channels of redress.

Both of you ought to be very concerned about where Watson’s pathological and provable lies and obvious ongoing harassment will lead. For example, by denying the content of sworn depositions of WSP Detectives he has in effect called them liars and perjurers; I don’t think they will be very happy about that and may take their own forms of redress. Further, he has made the statement that he was returned to the campus with no letter of reprimand (yet my personnel file is full of paper) and I’m sure Mr. McClain’s attorney will want to contrast how Watson was treated in contrast to how Mr. McClain’s dismissal has been handled with far less serious charges having been made against Mr. McClain.

Further, it is obvious that Prof. Watson is not in command of even the basic facts related to my ex-wife’s case and of course he threatens to open up and continue an investigation that $165,000 of public money was paid to head off. With every missive, he calls into question not only the decision to allow him to return to Clark, he calls into question the motives and character of those who allowed him to return while others such as Lynn Yoshihara, Mr. McClain, Ann Gardiner and others have suffered denial of tenure and/or dismissal with far less due process and consideration than Prof Watson has received. Further, as he continues to mouth lies about my ex-wife’s case, he points further to the possibility that he is being used as an agent of harassment of me and that his return as possibly a quid pro quo for assuming this role–or vice versa, that his harassment of me is a quid pro quo for being allowed to return after having caused so much damage to this institution.

So I will forward all of this to the appropriate authorities– including the Clark Board of Trustees–who should see clearly the caliber of this individual who was returned to Clark–and the characters of those who lobbied in backrooms for his return.

Eventually we will be getting to the point of a thorough examination– from many conceptual angles and involving many different agencies–of several serious issues and chains of causality of which the Watson case will be only one. It will be like a “Pandora’s box” and who knows where it will lead and how far back in time it will lead.

Again, please communicate to Prof. Watson that I do not wish to have any form of communication from him and that I will regard any form of communication at any level as further evidence of ongoing harassment with him being used as an instrument of such harassment. Having a background in intelligence, I know about “social systems engineering” (calculated provocations, pressures, covert operations etc designed to destabilize and/or cause predictable responses that further destabilize or feed the caricatures/propaganda against the target) and this campaign of harassment is being watched by outside parties who know full well what is going on here. Here we have Watson claiming to be innocent on the one hand after having signed a statement with the Ethics Board admitting to that which he now repudiates. He is not only revealing himself to be a pathological liar and/or in deep denial, he is calling into question not only his own character and fitness to teach or be around young adults and of course, calling into question the characters and fitness to remain in their present positions, those who sought to return him to Clark without even a reprimand (if his claims are to be believed) and who treated him much differently than others, charged with far less than he has admitted to, have been treated.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Copies of this missive will be forwarded to: Washington State Auditor, Washington State
Governor’s Office, Washington State Patrol, FBI, Clark College Board of Trustees.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven
Professor, Economics

FW: Heads Up!/More Harassment (NB)‏
From: Craven, Jim (JCraven@clark.edu)
Sent: Wed 3/03/10 8:50 AM
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:51 AM
To: Williamson, Bob
Cc: Sims, David; ‘Saito, Kevin T.’; Roi, Marcia; ‘ldavidson@washingtonea.org’
Subject: Heads Up!/More Harassment

Dear Bob:

Again I am getting more pornography sent. Please note below from my records when this happened previously. I have a friend at Cornell who is both a professor of Computer Science and Physics who has some very specialized skills that various agencies of the U.S. government have used.. Please note his statement:

the last time i checked stuff for you Jim, as i recall, we found a guy on your campus or nearby that was sending you stuff.

Please note this for the record.

Jim/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi

—–Original Message—–
From: Hans Sprague [mailto:btenormous@servicosindustriais.com.br]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:10 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: Her mouth is hungry for some fresh meat. loose-lipped

http://www.google.com/group/McknightrIdanny?fpkabuqwrvzxowxayzent

expected Square palm departed little ungrateful accompanying Cuvier

——————————————————————————–

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:20 PM
To: ‘kevin.saito@ic.fbi.gov’
Subject: Background

Dave,

[snip]

Jim Craven

—–Original Message—–

From: Craven, Jim [mailto:jcraven@clark.edu]

Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 3:07 PM

To: jcraven@clark.edu

Subject: Sycophants, Toadies, Malaise . . . Oh My!!!

Jim, Pat:

I’ve looked over the headers from the two “porno” emails that Jim received. unlike your claim for previous emails, these came from a source in new south wales, tho oddly enough, a trace route reveals the next to last main hop IS a site in the netherlands.

the subject line certainly LOOKS like the usual porno spam that most people get. for some strange reason, mine always comes early in the morning, so if you can wait till then, i’ll check out the headers to see if a similar scheme is used. the last time i checked stuff for you Jim, as i recall, we found a guy on your campus or nearby that was sending you stuff. this time around looks like a distant source.

But if you are getting a spate of this stuff, Jim, try to save the entire contents of the messages and headers to a file so i can look at the complete headers — Pat can surely instruct you on the best way for your system and email apps.

les

Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
To: “CLARK COLLEGE MASTER LIST — DISTRIBUTION LIST”
Date sent: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:25:42 PST8PDT
Subject: Board Settlement
Priority: normal

Good Morning,

I want to share with the campus community that last night an agreement was reached between Professor Dennis Watson and the Clark College Board of Trustees. I am writing to you in an effort to inform you of this resolution before it is reported by the media.

The media have already contacted me and the settlement will be reported in today’s papers. Professor Watson will return to work after the end of spring quarter.

The terms and conditions of the settlement cannot be summarized here, but the media will file public records requests and they will undoubtedly obtain that information.

It may be helpful for you to know that after exhaustive legal research, the college was limited in the scope of its investigation to the contents of Professor Watson’s computer hard drive and e-mail messages. No illegal material was discovered on the hard drive or in the e-mail messages.

The action by the Board was based on the grounds of misuse of state property, violation of the state ethics law, and unprofessional
conduct by Professor Watson.

Media coverage will be extensive and will make it difficult to focus on the positive aspects of our work. The focus group surveys, recently conducted for the upcoming accreditation self-study, found that our community overwhelmingly understands and supports the high quality instructional effort at Clark. The community supports the services and efforts we provide for our students.

I know that this has been a difficult issue for everyone and I hope that this resolution will bring closure.

Earl P. Johnson
President

Response:

The term “closure” reflects an interesting and illusory concept. When Kim Goldman, sister of Ron Goldman was asked if she felt some “closure” after the second civil trial and verdict related to O.J. Simpson’s role in the murder of her brother, she said: “I don’t know
what that term “closure” means.

For some, the call for “closure” really means a call for an end to nagging and provocative questions that remain unanswered–in lieu of addressing and answering those substantive questions. Some nagging questions that remain unanswered include:

1) Why would Dr. Larry Easter, a very sober, stable and highly respected person, state–and apparently really believe–at a Science Division meeting that Prof. Watson had been commissioned by the Computing Committee, with the knowledge of the President, to investigate pornography and accessibility to it? Why would Prof. Watson or anyone be selected to “investigate pornography”?

2) According to press accounts, the alleged pornographic materials seized from Prof. Watson went up to October 1993. Between 1992 and 1993 the computer hardware necessary for downloading pictures on a relative primitive internet system was available to a very few if not only Prof. Watson. Why would someone on the RIF list in computers but not teaching computer science have access and even exclusive use of such hardware when those teaching computer science had no such hardware in their offices? By whom and on what basis was this state- of-the-art and expensive hardware authorized/allocated? Did the representations of the Clark Administration to the Washington State Auditor that this hardware was consistent with Prof. Watson’s professional responsibilities undercut their case that significant misallocations/misuses of public resources had occurred?

3) Why was the AHE Senate approached to put together a standing dismissal committee and told that it might be used in connection with the case of Prof. Watson when at the same exact time a faculty member was told by the Administration that terminating Prof. Watson would involve a “million dollar lawsuit” if it were attempted? Why was the AHE Senate told (and a letter written) that if termination processes were commenced, it would be on the basis of alleged pornography allegedly seen personally by the President and not on the basis of any evidence gathered/tainted during the investigation? Were my inquiries- -with the AHE Senate and the Washington State Patrol–as to how it was possible that the President could have personally seen any alleged pornography not tainted or part of the investigation the basis for terminating this possible process?

4) It is impossible to un-ring a bell. The Columbian Reported on November 13, 1996: “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 Hobbs 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)’.”

If students or parents of students who have read this and need the course Prof. Watson is teaching but feel they have legitimate reasons for not wanting to take a course from him, what considerations/arrangements can/will be made for such students?

5) If the Washington State Auditor and the Washington State Patrol were unable to have their probable cause for search and subsequent search legally sustained, on what legal basis has the Administration recently proposed to have authority to obtain computer passwords, review files and hard drives and computer histories for faculty and others suspected of using State computers for alleged nefarious purposes? On what basis has the Administration allegedly proposed to ban “political activities and discourse” on campus computers and how are “political” activities and discourse defined? What standard is to be employed for probable cause for Administration examination of computer files and histories? What mechanisms exist for notification that computer messages and histories are being reviewed and when is notification to be given? Could the Watson case paradoxically be used to develop processes and controls–not allowed in the Watson case– that could be used to choke off free speech and legitimate concerns by the Clark Administration?

These are but some of the legitimate questions that flow from this case and real “closure” cannot occur by summarily sweeping away legitimate questions and concerns. At a State institution, no one, not even the Administration or the Board is above accountability and scrutiny. If mechanisms for scrutiny or accountability do not exist and/or are being subverted, there is always the U.S. Constitution, Federal Laws and of course free speech for those who dare to exercise it. In Kerala, India there is a saying in Malayalam: “If the crow takes a bath, can it become a swan?” To this rhetorical question the answer is always “Never”.

Jim Craven

*——————————————————————*
* James Craven * “Reason is a narrow system swollen *
* Dept of Economics * into an ideology. *
* Clark College * *
* 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. *With time and power it has become a *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * dogma, devoid of direction and *
* (360) 992-2283 * *disguised as disinterested inquiry. *
* jcraven@clark.edu * * *
* * Like most religions, reason presents*
* * itself as the solution to the *
* * problems it has created.” *
* * *
* * (John Ralston Saul in “Voltaire’s *
* * Bastards”) *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *

SOME OF MANY LETTERS TO FBI ON PUBLIC CORRUPTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES UNDER THE FOLLOWING

Misprision of a Felony

Misprision of a felony is the offense of failure to inform government authorities of a felony that a person knows about. A person commits the crime of misprision of a felony if that person:

• Knows of a federal crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person’s attention, or failed to prevent.
• Fails to report it to a federal judge or other federal official (who is not thems4elves involved in the crime).

Federal Crime Reporting Statute

The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, 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 United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge’s mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.

Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.
________________________________________

Another Federal Statute for Forcing A
Federal Officer To Perform a Mandatory Duty

Another federal statute exists for reporting high-level corruption in government:

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

These two statutes are among the most powerful tools in the hands of the people, even a single person, to report corrupt and criminal activities by federal officials−including federal judges−and to circumvent the blocks by those in key positions in the three branches of government. That statute was also repeatedly blocked by federal judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

________________________________________

Subject: RE: on ESD Repayment Motion for Time Extension and Waiver of Fees in Case No. 42955-1-II Division II WCA
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:56:24 -0400
From: Inspector.General@usdoj.gov
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com

Dear Mr. Craven,

The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence. The Investigations Division of the Office of the Inspector General has thoroughly reviewed the material and concluded that the issues raised do not warrant an investigation by this office. Accordingly, this office will take no further action regarding your correspondence and considers the matter closed.

Sincerely,
Office of the Inspector General

Dear Sir or Madame,

This is priceless. The I.G. is where you are supposed to go to for transparency and accountability as well as a fair and reviewable dealing with matters and complaints brought to your attention. I do not know who even wrote this by name in case I wanted to file a complaint against the author of this missive.

This is precisely the same complaint I brought to you about the Seattle FBI Office and U.S. Attorney’s Office. What of my correspondence did you get and review? What complaints of what possible felonies under federal jurisdiction and by whom allegedly did I bring to your attention?

Why, what is your legal reasoning on the letters and sworn testimonies of Emma Kim, Lynn Davidson, and Marcia Roi on the issue of 18 USC Article I Chapter 13 parts 241 and 242? What about alleged perjury on the part of Clark College president, while on duty, as a public servant, acting in his official capacity about an alleged statement that embodies Conspiracy Against Rights and Under Color of Law per se?

If you have reviewed anything of my background you must know that I do not want to shall we say bother or have contact with FBI if I could possibly avoid it. But real people are suffering and will continue to suffer as happens when crime goes unaddressed, uninvestigated and the criminals get emboldened and arrogant seeing they act with impunity. I am 66 years old, and remember vividly when those pioneers in same-gender marriage Hoover and Tolson were trashing the U.S. Constitution and destroying the lives of innocents while engaging in extortion, protection of the mob and all sorts of crimes; and here the FBI building is still named after Hoover which is like having a shelter for battered women named after Ted Bundy or a Child Development Center named after Joe Paterno.. The letter from FBI Seattle told me to go to civil litigation and also to local law enforcement–why if no crimes are being committed? I went to Clark County Sheriff, Vancouver Police, FBI, Washington State Auditor and no one, not one person, replied with something like “you are crazy, stop sending this stuff, we do not see what you think you see and here is why… And how exactly do you investigate without even a word to me or interview or any questions? Are you all telepathic is that it? What about the substance of my letter to SAC McLouglin and her letter sent by a subordinate (named and signed) on her behalf?

I am legally on the hook and accountable for going to law enforcement with a criminal complaint against named persons as I should be. But when law enforcement gives a summary response with no accounting as to what was put before you, what exact allegations am I making, against whom specifically, what evidence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of possible crime to be investigated did I advance and what do you reject in my allegations and why(so that I do not bother you with allegations that cannot be sustained and/or that do not warrant further investigation) is non-responsive and a generic wave of the imperial or ethereal hand of bureaucracy, this is very damaging to all of society, because if my allegations are correct, your refusal to give me even a modicum of the basics in any competent response to a request for criminal investigation only emboldens those who do crime more and it leaves me and other whistle blowers and future victims out in the cold to face the reprisals, always under pretext as in the cases of Sibel Edmonds and Colleen Rawley but for two examples of FBI whistle-blowers.

I do not know where to go from here but this will go public because this response of yours is so over the top, arrogant and non-responsive to the issues I brought before you and only asked for someone to look at hard evidence, documents, etc, and to walk me through why you do not see what I see. I provided evidence that I once worked in Puerto Rico in the field, on documenting conspiracies to trade in drugs, prostitutes, bolitos and tax evasion and do know what conspiracy is under law and how it is progressively documented and a case built. And all I get is this response? I asked the two FBI in Vancouver for one more hour as I have so much more including physical evidence, tapes of perjury being committed etc. that were refused.

I am signing this letter which will be made public at a public site along with all of the materials I sent you and FBI over the years; and this is a formal response to your own summary non-responsive response to my request for an investigation. But when the I.G. Office that is supposed to be about equal protection and accountability under law, transparency, accountability, gives me this kind of pathetic response without even a signature or name to hold accountable for the content, then the public needs to know this. And you all know enough about my background and politics to know that I am very serious about corruption, cover-ups and dereliction of duty by police and other agencies. I am a public employee and came to FBI, despite being a victim of COINTELPRO and the intrigue of J Edna Hoover myself, I cared enough about real harm being done to real people (torts by the way often become crimes when committed by public employees on the public time and dime while acting in official capacities).

I will continue to send what I believe to be evidence sufficient for a reasonable and prudent person to infer that there is at least reasonable suspicion to investigate further of crimes, including federal ones, being committed. And I will take this public as well.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Blackfoot Name Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor and Department Head, Economics
Biographical subject in past and present Marquis Who’s Who in: The World; America; The West; Science and Engineering, Finance and Industry; American Education
________________________________________

February 15, 2012

Dear Special Agent in-Charge Laughlin:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter written on your behalf, by Acting Supervisory Senior Resident Special Agent Stetler, dated February 3, 2012. First of all, thank you for responding in writing with your information on the status of my complaint and your conclusions and those of the U.S. Attorney’s Office at this point of time. Whether I agree or not with your conclusions and basis for them, it is important to get feedback, to be able to understand the basis of your own assumptions and conclusions, and to be able to honestly and accurately represent, an objective view of the situation and my complaint status in order to plan for the future.
I must tell you first of all, and documentation has been amply provided to FBI in previous submissions to Supervisory Special Agent Saito, that some of the same “appropriate state agenc[ies], local law enforcement, or internal affairs office” to which your letter refers me, I have been to over and over (Clark County Sheriff, Detective Sgt. Dave Trimble; Washington State Patrol, Det. Sgt. Rob Rousseau; Vancouver Police, Det. Ron Stevens;) since I first became a whistleblower in 1994. In all cases, I have provided what I believe to be full, relevant, probative, and most importantly, un-rebutted (by those named), supporting documentation, law and legal text, and reasoning for all my allegations; none of them by the way, excepting you and Special Agent Saito, gave me the written feedback acknowledging to me submissions that were given and any indication that the content had even been read.

Your letter states the following: “Based on the information you have provided, the United States Attorney’s Office has advised no civil rights have been violated and the facts do not support allegations of public corruption and/or conspiracy.” and …”The matters you have brought to our attention in your complaint do not warrant any further action by the FBI.”

With all due and honest respect for your service and the extensive “threat matrix” that you must deal with under many constraints, I must now add this letter for the record and this will go to other venues.

First of all, please see the attached document “Faculty Lecture Series.” I add this as this is how my own institution, and some of those against whom I have made allegations, have portrayed me (when it suited them) as to my background, training, cultural background, values, standing as a scholar and academic, and some of my training and capabilities. This is relevant and probative to the content and conclusions in your letter and my response to it for the record in several ways. It will show, I believe, that I am trained and recognized internationally as a scientist and published scholar in several disciplines; that my work and teaching has been peer-reviewed in many institutions all over the world; that I am evidence, law, reasoning and value based in my teaching, scholarship, writing and any allegations that I make. My missives are long, and sometimes my syntax is a bit tortured, only because I do not make allegations without supporting evidence and reasoning for my beliefs. Nor as you can see, do I make allegations without giving those against whom my allegations have been made, full opportunity to respond with counter-evidence and reasoning to perhaps disabuse me of, or challenge for the record, any wrong beliefs that I may unintentionally hold due to my own ignorance or misinformation or misunderstanding (this is simple due diligence with respect not being reckless as to facts easily known against my own positions and not to tell untruths I know to be untrue) and that I gave notice and an opportunity to rebut in writing before going to law enforcement. This should also attest that I do know the difference between torts (offenses/damages against particular persons) and crimes (offenses against society) as well as the difference between local, state and federal crimes. I have taught Business Law, published in areas of international law, in addition to teaching and publishing in the areas of scientific method, critical thinking, symbolic logic, statistics and research methods, from high school through post-doctoral levels in different cultures.

Secondly, I trust that your statements are honest from your perspective. But you can only make conclusions from the extent and quality of information I have provided, or indeed been able to present, to this point. I have no way of knowing or responding to your summary conclusions as I have no indication that of what of the information provided to you was all of that which was provided by me; and, further, that it is from that unspecified information, that you and the U.S. Attorney’s Office have concluded there is nothing in terms of, and/or insufficient indicia to indicate cause to investigate issues or possible crimes, and/or any possible offenses under your jurisdiction. But that begs an initial question: How much of what I provided to the Special Agents with whom I met with for one hour at my house (documents, tapes, photo etc.) was provided to the U.S. Attorney’s Office? And another question is of that information given, how much, and what exactly, was considered in forming any conclusions about my complaint?

Thirdly, I met with two FBI Special Agents (I will not use their names) one of whom I had spoken with on the telephone and arranged for a one-hour interview at my house at which my wife and son were present. My wife, who is Chinese but fluent in English, was present during our discussions. They identified themselves verbally but did not present their badges and credentials; I did not ask for them or take them down in writing, but honestly they could have been anyone, but I trusted that they were no threat to my family and I did not assume an adversarial or non-trusting posture with them (“making a connection” as they teach at Quantico?) They also did not leave their business cards with email contact information to add to the information provided or new information being added daily, although I had asked when calling the office in Vancouver and speaking to someone there, how I could send documents in support of the arguments that I make. But in any case, as they were leaving, I noted that I needed another visit to present fully to them the full spectrum of specific allegations and names of those I believe were and are involved in specific named and cited crimes, which of those crimes that are federal, and why I believe my allegations to be true. My documentation also shows the extent and means to which I have gone over the years in diverse venues, to support my own arguments and indeed change them when evidence and reason or law so dictated. I did not, and have not yet presented in writing except to the AG, all of the exact crimes I believe to be going on right now (I thought that I would have at least one more meeting with them to answer any more questions after reading what I had given them), what is the evidence or what I think is evidence to support my beliefs. Thus I am at a loss to understand how you or anyone familiar with basic critical thinking and investigative—or other—tradecraft can conclude, (and it is fair to ask on what basis that as you put it in your letter), that the “facts” (which specific ones? how established as “facts”?) do not support specific allegations (which ones? and specifically against whom?) of public corruption and/or conspiracy” (which forms?, which statutes?, by whom and against whom–not only I am a target?). I called the Vancouver office and also asked that the documents on my website (http://www.jimcraven10.wordpress.com) related to the issues going on at Clark College be looked at and never got a response to that message so your letter leaves me unsure of what materials you have viewed and on what basis (legal authority, purported evidence not really evidence or probative?) your conclusions.

Fourthly, as you well know, one of the basic predicates of law is that it cannot be hidden, vague or unspecific; this is not only to prevent arbitrary and capricious applications of it, but also so that no person can claim inability to understand and comport oneself to it because of not being a trained lawyer. But in addition to that and my own academic background, I noted to the Special Agents with whom I met for one hour, that there is another reason that I do not use or invoke the word conspiracy in any kind of superficial sense. Between 1983 and 1986, I lived in Puerto Rico, and in addition to teaching graduate level economics at Inter-American University, I was a Planning Analyst VI in a “Position of Trust” in the Planning Board of the Office of the Governor of Puerto Rico. In that capacity, I was assigned to design and carry out a project to expose and analyze the underground economy of Puerto Rico from the ground-up (literally in the field, in cantinas and barrios, counting crimes and criminals) to expose and analyze the “Linkages, Leakages, Interdependencies, Dynamics and Impacts of the Underground Economy of Puerto Rico” (drugs, prostitution, “bolitos”, and tax evasion). My friend, Mike Levine, formerly 26 years of the ATF/DEA and currently an expert witness on undercover tactics, has seen and publicly commented some of my work (http://expertwitnessradio.org/site/geronimo/) which includes my work in Puerto Rico and elsewhere, and has seen some of my raw work product. During that time I had access to most of the US Agencies working in Puerto Rico and kept the trusts and confidences given. Those who have reviewed my scholarship and teaching have said that I do know something about what are and are not real “dots” or possible or likely manifestations of crimes and a broader and coherent totality; that I do know something about the essential elements of the crime of conspiracy and about conspiracy law; and I do know something about “connecting dots” on an ongoing basis. Further, I was in the U.S. Army 1963-66 where I took, more than once in my life, the oath to serve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic” and where I worked under conditions that involved analysis many kinds of “dots” and their connections; e.g. analysis of TO&Es and Orders of Battle.

Fifthly, if you are wrong, and respectfully I believe that you are in your foundation-lacking conclusions (I have no idea what you believe to be facts in this case and about what aspects), this has the effect of not only emboldening those who are committing crimes against me and others, but also has the effect of ratifying, legitimating, unwittingly helping to cover-up and escape legal accountability for their past machinations, and, as well in the unwitting aiding of ongoing cover-up of, the emboldening—and thus encouraging more serial—violations of due process that they have even stipulated to. With no shame, they have stipulated to: 1) a secret file of 6 binders, 4900 pages kept on me ordered by AG since 1994; 2) reprimand while on sick leave no Laudermill hearing, no appeals; 3) 7 days off while on sick leave no Laudermill, no appeals, with summary punishment timed and imposed upon return to work to take me out of the classroom, defraud (bait and switch) students who signed up for me as a teacher and taking of scheduled overtime pay; 4) 8 days off, no Laudermill, two levels of grievance with those who charged me, punishment again timed to take me out of the classroom, defraud students who signed up for me as a teacher and taking of scheduled overtime pay with classes assigned to unqualified adjuncts hired out of compliance with hiring and vetting procedures; 5) two quarters off without pay with replacements hired before even the one sort-of Laudermill to determine if or if not I would be teaching; 6) now one year off no pay, loss of medical coverage, all arranged with replacements hired BEFORE even notice of a complaint (still never served) never mind hearing and appeals by the very person who, according to the sworn testimonies of Dr. Roi and Lynn Davidson, said to them that “morale will improve around here when we get rid of professor Craven” and himself committed perjury in his denial under oath of having made that statement to them at the same time and place while acting in his official capacities. This is the ringleader, the president of Clark College, himself hired without open competition and without meeting the minimum established requirements for the position, who is according to the sworn testimony of Dr Marcia Roi and WEA representative Lynn Davidson, a perjurer who openly declared that he was working with others and looking forward for my removal from public employment without due process and with everything he promised in his statement he denied under oath making, happening in lock-step, in coordination with others, subsequent to his declaration of intent that was prior to provable onslaught of serial denials of Constitutional Rights that I have endured as a tenured professor and public employee. Just imagine if I wrote that so and so politician needs to be “gotten rid of” and if I said that to a law enforcement officer or that person’s union representatives and I had the power to set that person up for termination under pretexts. How would that be viewed and dealt with by Secret Service and others? And you and the U.S. Attorney’s office see no indicia or cause to believe that crimes, including those under Federal jurisdiction may well be going on and with ongoing and serious consequences on real people who need and are not getting what this public Agency of the Government of the State of Washington is mandated by law and trust to deliver? If you say that you do not feel you have enough to come to conclusions or a basis yet to justify an investigation (as did SA Saito), that I can understand even if I disagree. But to make your summary conclusions that serve to shut off further inquiry and investigation, and thus give unwittingly aid and comfort to shielding those whose machinations were enough for even you to suggest going to local law enforcement or possible civil action (also suggested by a Superior Court Judge) or my union (also complicit in a lot of corruption as a Corporate and not real union; see attached letter on Watson found in his personnel file by me in a public records request; this, material which is non-discoverable, was planted for me to find and to set me off and/or to cause harm to my health as has been provably done serially. ) is inherently contradictory and especially to suggest that some unspecified “facts” show no violations of civil rights, no public corruption, no criminality, no conspiracy etc; but yet somehow it would be legitimate for me to go to local law enforcement, or to local internal affairs, or to initiate civil action for alleged offenses while I was on public duty doing public duties of a public servant and acting in accordance to my legal responsibilities as a public servant. And what about even the letter of Emma Kim and its content? This letter, was written by a former co-conspirator, in her own words, sworn twice under penalty of perjury, subject to cross-examination twice, and that documents while working in HR she was asked by the AG’s office to maintain a covert file on me, started in 1994, discovered with her letter in 2003, composed of six binders and some 4900 pages, about which I knew nothing and thus was never able to rebut. The mere existence of this file acted as an instrument of blacklisting, marginalization, demonization in the workplace that Emma Kim testified to being a part of herself to her shame. I had no knowledge of the contents of her letter, her intention to write it and had no influence on it before or after it was written, for which she has suffered, and to which no rebuttal has ever been given. I have read all the 6 binders from a public records request (they want $490 or 10-cents per page times 4900 pages for a copy of an illegal file that they have admitted using without my knowledge of the file, its use or being able to respond to what was being used against me even without daring to make formal charges.

And you find no evidence of conspiracy and violations of civil rights along with public corruption?

Next, why is this important and why am I writing this for the record? What if your early and rather summary conclusion is too precipitous and without the foundation that you honestly believe that you have for your conclusions? Just as one lie requires more lies to cover the first lie, and deceit requires more deceit (“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” Sir Walter Scott), so each lie when established with fraud, deceit, serial denial of due process and the like, but taken as a “legal fact”, becomes an instrument of more and cumulatively compounding injustice, because it acts as an instrument of more lies and a basis for leveraging more injustice. So lies beget more lies; cover-up begets more of the same; and when the lies become exposed, the only way out is to try to shoot the messenger when the message is so dangerous to the interests of some when grasped and proved. And not only does the whistleblower suffer, but those deprived of the qualities and capabilities that led the person to take the risks that a legitimate whistleblower (of course there are some not legitimate) takes, like students or the public, who also suffer. They suffer not only because of the incompetence and treachery of those fellow cronies, friends and relations installed (that is why they conspire to fix public jobs and circumvent normal hiring, they must, as normally they are unemployable) but they suffer from denial of those who could have made a difference for them–the ones removed under pretexts. Further, those who do corruption, think they are buying job security (as Tom Paine put it “We must all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately.”) and thus corruption begets only more corruption, as each is able to tacitly extort more class assignments and pay because of what they know and thus what happens if an investigation and they do not hold it together; and the body count of innocents mounts. This is exactly what is and has been going on at Clark College–serial and toxic corruption– causing real harm to real people desperately in need of real teaching and not getting it. Trading in Public Employment is a Class-C felony under the RCW; but Conspiracy to Trade in Public Employment (also under RCW) but is also under 18 USC as a federal crime; the same applies for Conspiracy against Rights and Under Color of Law; Why? Because of the amounts, levels of calculation and premeditation involved in conspiracy and the fact that conspiracy is an ongoing crime covering often long periods of time and even entries and exits, with new players arriving, others leaving but ongoing activities and intentions that amount to conspiracy and related crimes as conspiracy is almost always a compound crime embodying other related crimes.

Next, I am very aware, perhaps more than many Americans, that FBI has a very full plate in terms of the threat matrix you deal with daily, the limited resources you have to deal with, some notion of what you have to deal with, and that you must triage all complaints for cost-benefit and case significance impacts and the core mission of FBI. Further, I am very aware that not only is it morally wrong to attempt to misuse, manipulate, lie to, make false reports to, or enlist for hidden personal agenda, law enforcement or any public resources or entities, but these machinations also involve multiple and serious felonies. Further, you are no doubt well aware, even from a visit to my website, that for various reasons, some of which you must know well, I am the last person who would ever want to go to or use law enforcement for my own agenda or purposes. I mean no disrespect, and I have met honorable and dedicated FBI Agents in my time, I believe that Special Agent Saito is one of them, but am one of the past victims of COINTELPRO. I am 66 years old and remember the 1950s, Joe McCarthy and J, Edgar’s reign of terror and contempt for the U.S. Constitution well (but I do not paint all FBI Agents with a broad brush) and have gone there to try to stop real crimes against real people (did you or the Special Agents speak with Detective Hobbes and Sgt Haw of the WSP about whom they asked me, about on my role and credibility as a whistleblower in the Watson case? If you did not, that alone means you do not have enough information for your conclusions about the merits and basis of my complaint) as knowledge of some of my associates in Indian Country or even abroad that I even went to law enforcement, particularly FBI, for any reason, even if by no choice as a matter of my own morality and law, would and will compromise me in some of the political circles and work that I am involved in (not because I or my associates are involved in any illegal activities, we are not and paradoxically, as a whistle-blower, I have tried to keep and obey the law and meet my responsibilities under law and my own morality as a public servant while seeing some of those charged with law enforcement, the real law breakers, and those charged with protecting the U.S. Constitution and National Security often most dangerous) because they have had their own negative experiences from their perspectives and thus notions of any form of contact with law enforcement for any reasons even with mandates of law on a public servant to report suspected corruption, is considered taboo no matter what the consequences on innocents from not reporting possible crimes as is mandated by law and any kind of basic morality that is required of all human beings.

Further, I am a whistle-blower on serious issues, found to be credible in my allegations, and took exceptional risks to do what I am mandated under law to do. When I came to Clark College in 1992, I was 46 years old, on tenure track and in the position that if I did not make tenure, I was finished for good in academia. A very powerful math professor named Dennis Watson, who is still at Clark College, when discussing how to use the internet we were among the first to get, bragged to me that the internet had “special capabilities” and that he had just got a “beaver shot” (Polaroid photos meaning private predation on Clark.edu website as well as collecting and disseminating commercial pornography) of a 14-year-old girl in Canada who thought he was an adolescent. I followed our protocol and reported it to the Washington State Auditor to Deputy State Auditor Linda Long. But at that point only my word about our conversation was not enough for a warrant as he could have been just bragging or wishing about something and not actually engaged in it–hearsay. When I found out later, independently, that Dr. Gerard Smith, a colleague was separately approached by Watson, in an incident about which I did not know, and allegedly offered Dr. Smith to see pornography in his office, now we had independent corroboration on my allegations just as I have for mine in this case and can give a list of supporting witnesses for my allegations. Well something happened with the warrant and Watson walked on the criminal charges, but was found in a separate Washington State Ethics complaint to have had 1700 files on his Clark College computer, with vile horrible stuff on it. The WSP investigation was directly sabotaged by the president at the time Joe Johnson who initiated and then passed on the conspiracy aimed at my removal from Clark College under various pretexts and administered by various individuals over the years. Detective Hobbes and Sgt. Haw will attest that I warned them that their case was being sabotaged and a cover being set up when a phony ICUC (Instructional Computer User’s Committee) was set up after Watson was arrested and charged and while pending criminal trial, that then allowed him to “volunteer” to research the “availability” of pornography for students; this allowed him to later claim, as I predicted and warned (see attached Watson file) to the Washington State Ethics Commission that he had been “assigned” (a lie) to “research” availability of access to pornography by students and simply forgot to delete it. This is but one example of why past corruption not dealt with simply produces ongoing and compounding corruption (like compound interest) that goes on and on and takes a toll as Watson is still there, behind some of this at present, having “suffered” one quarter off and some $23,000 for having vile pornography in his state computer lost, no monies taken until his appeals, and this is in comparison to my over one year off and more than $150,000 in lost wages, benefits and pension with no due process. No civil rights violations? Fourteenth Amendment? First Amendment?

We know from cases like that of Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, and so many other whistleblowers that no one ever goes after legitimate whistleblowers (without whom your own job would be more difficult and dangerous) in the open, naked, with no pretexts. And we have all sorts of evidence of innocents, with no doubt of their innocence established with the convictions of the real perps, who wound up convicted, in prison, even after repeated failed appeals, because those with the power to frame, to paper bomb, to reward and punish with public resources, to perjure themselves with impunity, and particularly with access to public money to buy off litigants if they get to close to trials where felonies may be uncovered, can easily, and do so routinely, intimidate and suppress any attempts at redress; again in the courts using public money against private funds to continue cover-ups and escapes from any legal accountability thus producing more of the same. Corruption only begets more of the same. Further, as former FBI SAC IC Smith noted in his memoires “Inside”, who worked both CI and Public Corruption cases while in FBI, he argued that 9-11 could and should have been prevented and that there was a relationship between the resources and priority allocations to CT and CI and away from Public Corruption, and some of the failures in the agencies charged with counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence as he claimed that public corruption led to some placements and promotions of unqualified or incompetent types that missed a whole lot of very obvious dots that even had already been connected. The same applies here where forms of corruption in hiring and in handling public resources are leading to forms of fraud against students in desperate need of real education by real educators; serial violations of civil rights of many public employees at Clark College; past forms and cliques of corruption being used to leverage new forms, cliques, machinations and/or complicity of silence and cover-up in them. Each person that has done corruption is in a position and has exercised their options, to leverage more work as adjuncts and/or classified staff in return for past and future services rendered. This is easily proved with an examination of course schedules for the last seven years and it is clear that these who were recruited to file charges (their allegations not sustained mine sustained by outside investigators with one exception) wound up with courses being allowed to go with fewer students than in other classes dropped for low enrollment, given courses to teach in which they had zero credentials to teach, given time off and extra funds as adjuncts (unprecedented) not given even to full-time and tenured faculty. I have an extensive file (see documents given to you especially table of Contents of Documents Submitted to the Superior Court of Judge Christine Pomeroy) that shows where to look and what I already know is there.

Finally, and I apologize for the length of this response to your official letter but as I noted I am evidence, law, reason and morality based and I do not merely state what I believe to be true, but my basis for my beliefs as I can be and have often been wrong on many things but you cannot disabuse me of my wrong notions if I hide behind a mask or whisperings in backrooms not telling you what I believe and why I believe it and then giving you full opportunity for rebuttal. I have always respected the very same due process rights for others that they have serially denied me in this and other cases. But when you review the history of my submissions and even my interactions with FBI on other matters but related to my professional duties as an educator, then there are three basic possibilities driving me over these many years (over 15 years):

a) I am delusional possibly psychotic and am imagining all sorts of conspiracies, drama and intrigue that in fact does not exist and/or is but normal responses to my pathology;

b) I am a cunning psychopath, perhaps “bright” in the cunning sense that psychopaths and sociopaths are typically “intelligent” in a certain predatory and manipulative way, but am attempting to enlist support, even from law enforcement itself, to promote my own criminal intentions and agenda and to escape accountability for my own behavior that caused the appropriate sanctions I have been given;

c) I am what I say I am, I am driven by the motives that I say I am driven by, I have more than enough, and have some special skills to put together and appreciate, sufficient cause to justify the belief that multiple crimes, both federal and state, along with all sorts of torts that also may be crimes in the context of public employment and employees, have been committed and are being currently committed, with serious consequences on real victims and are being covered up partly because of repeated inaction and non-response by law enforcement and other agencies to which serious allegations with serious supporting evidence were brought.

But that begs even more questions. For example, you can see from the attached that I have been a visiting and consulting professor of Economics at Tsinghua University (the MIT of China from which many of the present leadership of China graduated and the major center of defense and other research in China), the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and that I have consulted with officials of the Chinese Government on issues dealing with national minorities here and China and am interviewed in the journal of the Chinese Ministry of Education (see attached) and in the Chinese press recently. I have taught at the graduate and even post-doctoral levels and was offered a professorship after retirement here. My point is that I have been vetted backwards and forewords in China where few foreigners are found teaching at Tsinghua or CASS, and they seem to think I am credible and not delusional or psychopathic as does my psychiatrist Dr. Bruce Johnson whom I have seen for over three years because of the toll all of this has taken on my body and health. I have put my allegations always in writing, making myself legally accountable and invited rebuttals that never came, and have no need to stay at Clark College or indeed in Vancouver which is a bit of an inbred place run by some networks of supposed “pioneer” or “settler” types. But I will never participate in what I know to be corruption nor will I stay silent about it nor will I walk away from fighting it because corruption literally kills as well as maims and injures over long periods of time.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of and formal response to the issues in this letter of response that I am raising. I am sending this via email but as a signed letter and attachment, along with support for my assertions in this letter, in order to more easily allow for you to send it to others concerned with these issues that I have raised. Thank you for reading and considering this letter.

Finally, I would like to leave you with a thought. Why is it that that when SSA Saito noted to me that he had brought to the attention of the U.S. Attorney his notion of the “facts” that I brought to him and said that there was a decision “not to investigate at this time”, that I did not question or take exception to his note and statement? The answer is because of how he comported himself when I spoke with him. Even though he did not take the documents that I had brought with me to support my claims, when I dealt with him on the matter of the spamming and shutting down of my computer with massive spamming of pornography (about which Clark College did nothing even when a specialist friend of mine identified Watson’s computer from which it came) as well as on these present matters, he gave me the impression that he took his oath of service as a law enforcement officer as well as to uphold (meaning in that we ourselves not violate it in our own daily lives and business) serve (which means we insist on its supremacy everywhere over all law and behavior) and protect (which means not only military or law enforcement service but also citizen vigilance and willingness to sacrifice even with one’s own life) the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (an oath that I also took more than once and took to be a lifetime oath as well as the mandate for all public employees) seriously.

I hereby swear, under penalties and pain of perjury, that all my statements are true, and correct to the best of my knowledge, not crafted or contrived with partial or hidden truths for purposes of deception

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor of Economics and Geography, Department Head, Economics
Biographical subject(past and present) “Marquis Who’s Who in: The World; America; The West; Science and Engineering; Finance and Industry; American Education”; King-County-Superior-Court-qualified Expert Witness as an Economist; Visiting and Consulting Professor, Tsinghua University and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

11-08-2010

Dear Special Agent Saito:

Please accept this email as my notice, as a public employee and servant and in accordance with my legal obligations as such, of potential evidence of possible crimes being committed at Clark College under your jurisdiction.

On November 5th, 2010, at an arbitration hearing related to my having been given two quarters off without pay, two representatives of the union, Dr. Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson, testified under oath and under penalty of perjury, that they were explicitly told by the Clark College president Robert Knight that “We do not have a moral problem around here, morale will improve when we get rid of Jim Craven”.

At a previous hearing, again under oath and under penalty of perjury, with Administrative Law Judge Richard Knutson dealing with Clark College’s appeal against Washington State Unemployment Commission and their decision to grant me unemployment benefits, that he made no such statement and that when asked twice by me in previous grievance hearings if he had made that statement, he refused to answer only because he was there to ask not to be asked any questions (I have the tapes of the meeting). Further, I noted to him on tape at one meeting, that such a statement, if made, “Morale will improve when we get rid of Jim Craven” contains, just in the statement itself, the essential elements, minus evidence of one material affirmative step, of both civil and criminal conspiracy: “Morale will improve when [future tense language indicates a future objective on his mind and that he is pursuing] we [indicates more than one person involved and the we can also indicate acting in concert in accordance with a common plan] “get rid of Jim Craven” [pursuit of objectives they know or should know to be illegal.]. I believe that two other Clark College administrators also committed perjury.

I believe that in addition to violations of 18 USC Article I, Chapter 13, Parts 241 and 242 (Conspiracy Against Rights and Under Color of Law), there is also going on, and has gone on for many years, Conspiracy to Trade in Public Employment, Conspiracy to Commit Blacklisting, Subornation of Misconduct of a Public Employee, Subornation of Filing a False Report by a Public Employee, and a long list of other potential crimes previously mentioned in other submissions where conspiracy to commit the crimes is a federal matter even if the possible crimes themselves are under RCWs, WACs or other local statutes and codes. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several cases, that it would be fundamentally contradictory for, on the one hand, the U.S. Constitution to proclaim itself “The Supreme Law of the Land”, and yet on the other hand, not have a reach that extends to, and trumps in the event of conflict, all laws, contracts and policies all spheres, levels and matters of society no matter how local or small. In my case. a State employee of the Government of the State of Washington, at Clark College an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, and a Whistle-blower on some serious issues where my allegations were corroborated and sustained, where the rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution apply definately to me (not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law), my own First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendment rights have been serially violated in what I believe, has been exposed in sworn testimonies un-refuted: a common plan and campaign to recruit and reward proxies to file allegations that are then turned into charges by the very persons who recruited and rewarded the proxies; who then arrogated to become judges and juries of their own charges; then assessed and imposed discipline while what appeals were allowed were yet to be heard; and then arrogated to become the appeals judges for two of three possible levels of appeal.

In progressive discipline, the operative word is “progressive” (sequentially and from lower to higher levels of discipline for the same alleged offenses) which means that each level is predicated on establishing that previous and lower levels of discipline were properly applied and completed with due process rights of all respected and that they are related to the present charges at higher levels of potential discipline. I suffered 7 days off without pay, while on sick leave, with no Laudermill Hearing and no appeals allowed as timelines for access to due process were waived, the union, acting in good faith, was told in writing, only to be summarily dropped when new charges were piled on never able to answer charges as I will critically ill at home. I later suffered 8 days off without pay, again while I was off contract, with no Laudermill Hearing and only Stages I and II of the grievance process (heard by the very persons who had charged me or caused me to be charged and found me guilty and assessed my discipline while the grievances to be heard were pending and again timelines were pending). In both cases, my disciplines of 7 and 8 days off were to commence immediately upon my return to teaching, and then, with this contrived timing of my discipline, with appeals pending, my engineered unavailability to teach the first week of classes, was used to take me out of the classroom and assign me to “special duties” while my classes, for which many students had specifically signed up for me as a teacher, were assigned to adjuncts who had not even been vetted by me as the senior Economist and Head of Economics, and with the additional result that I lost overtime pay for which I was scheduled along with Division Chair stipend taken by a fraudulent election and to which I was entitled even on sick leave. In fact there are three adjuncts presently teaching, one just recently given a one year contract, that I have not vetted and in three cases have not even met them. One of them told my colleague John Fite “I don’t want anything to do with that Indian guy”, about which I filed a formal complaint that was never seriously addressed, and he is teaching without even one degree in economics. The union, by the way, did not take to arbitration, the 8 days off without pay, nor the 7 days off without pay I suspect for cost-benefit reasons (they have many complaints against Clark College to deal with and other fact patterns that resemble my own case) and frankly they were had or got played, in that they acted in good faith and assumed others would as well, and as each new charge was piled-on, with new timelines to be met, the old and waived timelines were dropped with the result that my family suffered serious loss of income without anything resembling the very basic due process that all of them from the Clark College administration got and insisted upon in these formal hearings.

In bringing this matter to you, I swear under penalty of perjury, not only the content of my representations to the best of my recollections, but also that I bring this matter to you free of the malice, animus or any personal agenda of the types that have in my opinion clearly guided those in the Clark College Administration and their minions, intent on my removal. I fully understand and believe also as a matter of personal morality, that it would be a serious offence on my part to make any misrepresentations to, or attempt to use for personal agenda and problems, and public entities such as FBI that I recognize must deal with, and thus rank-order, many threats with limited resources. I am aware that Director Mueller has ordered that FBI prioritize threats and that they are generally rank-ordered with Counter-terrorism number one, then Counter-intelligence, then Cyber Crime then Public Corruption. I would respectfully suggest, as did former FBI Supervisory SAC I.C. Smith in his memmoires, that one can both rank-order priorities for investigation and also look at various kinds of threats and crimes holistically. For example I.C. Smith notes that failures in areas of Counter-terrorism and Counter-intelligence in the past could be significantly traced to failures in hiring, promotions, lack of vetting, cronyism, patronage and even nepotism (his allegations not mine) which come under Public Corruption. I see the same phenomenon, as I see my students, many veterans back from two and three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and with some special needs, being handed totally un-vetted and unqualified “teachers”; and thus I am in the position similar to a manager or cook in a restaurant ordered to serve, and turn a blind eye to, un-inspected and potentially lethal meat being served to the customers.

This is also in the context of my known and serious medical conditions (provably exacerbated if not caused by provocations to which I and my family have been subject that would make Mother Teresa go postal) and the well-known literature on the relationships between extreme stress (especially if induced via a common, coordinated and relentlessly applied campaign for my removal) and all sorts of diseases like cancer, heart failure, diabetes and other potentially fatal diseases; this goes far beyond the Tort of “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission. I make this in good-faith and in the spirit of my obligations under law as a public employee/servant. As I noted before, I am willing to speak with anyone in FBI about my allegations and to add more substance and evidence for them, and I will be willing to be Mirandized and swear all statements under penalty of perjury although I am quite aware that to lie, engage in deliberate misrepresentation, or, to attempt to misuse public resources and agencies for personal agenda or issues involves some serious crimes.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Professor and Dept. Head, Economics

11-10-09

Dear Special Agent Saito:

Here is some more evidence, not from me, of an ongoing pattern of serial corruption including by members of the Washington State AG’s office (18 USC Article I, Chapter 13, Part 242 or Conspiracy Against Rights Under Color of Law) aiding and abetting members of the Clark Administration and Board of Trustees. What we have is a climate of corruption, intimidation, misuses of state funds, perjury and subornation of perjury, retaliations against whistle-blowers, trading in public employment, unlawful dismissals, blacklisting, and it goes on and on. In my opinion, and that of many others including trained lawyers, we have in essence a climate that amounts to ongoing racketeering that goes way back in my case. By the way the AAG referred to is Bonnie Terada, who is the same AAG involved in the secret file created on me around 1994 and maintained until today who was returned to Clark have some absence. The problem is that these people all have something on each other and thus “must hang together or hang separately” as Tom Paine put it about his own fellow “conspirators” in the American Revolution and that includes Terada who has gone far beyond any “duty to vigorous representation of a client”.

We are losing decent people and as this whole mess unfolds real people are suffering life changing-threatening attacks that go unaddressed because of the role of some in government in ongoing cover-ups and using state funds to intimidate, and take reprisals against whistle-blowers. The bottom line is there is no need to cover-up what is clean only dirty. There is not need to “pile-on” and frame a guilty person only an innocent one. There is no need to fear being taped, have witnesses to a conversation or sworn under penalty of perjury if honest, only if dishonest. There is no need to have a good memory and high IQ if honest only if a liar.

You in law enforcement need a citizenry willing to do their part to alert you to potential or actual crimes that would otherwise go undetected and unpunished because you simply cannot be everywhere. But citizens, and especially public servants who are charged by law with reporting crimes if they have a substantive and good-faith-based basis to believe they are being committed (and thus have Constitutional rights that private sector employees do not have because of the extra responsibilities they have and the language of the U.S. Constitution) will not step-up and take the risks of loss of employment and demonization/marginalization in the workplace if they think that their complaints will never be heard or acted upon. And since corruption begets more corruption in the forms of cover-ups and further intimidation, it is like a cancer that must be stopped or it will continue to metastasize.

Could you, as a supervisor, make allegations against a subordinate, then next be the one to determine that your own allegations were credible enough to warrant a formal charge; then next become the person who judges your own allegations and charges to be sustained and thus the person convicted as charged (without a hearing and while that subordinate was on sick leave and in a critical care unit); and then become the person who assesses discipline; and in the event of a grievance which you have made almost impossible by stacking up charges to cause confusion in and them impositions of contractual timelines to prevent review of the whole process and judgments, you become next the person who hears the grievance against you? And suppose there was a paper trail that showed that you had expressed outright conspiratorial code talk and outright intent to cause the unlawful termination of that subordinate and had even been found by an independent State Agency to have violated that person’s basic due process rights twice in the past? The state shall deprive no person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. There are serious and serial violations of many laws and the U.S. Constitution going on here and many innocents are suffering.

thank you for your time,

Jim Craven

Broussard Perjury and Hearing Date Reminder‏

From: Marcus Griffith (marcus.griffith@gmail.com)
Sent: Mon 11/09/09 5:35 PM
To: Marcus Griffith (marcus.griffith@gmail.com)
Reminder:

COURT DATE: A hearing date is set for November 13th, 2009 at 0900 at the Clark County Courthouse for the Open Public Meeting Act.
SUMMARY: Two students (including myself filed a lawsuit against Clark College for violations of the Open Public Meeting Act after attempts for informal resolution failed.

An Interesting Twist to the Matter

WHAT: Today, via my attorney, a complaint was filed with the court regarding Ted Broussard, a vice-president at the college, and the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) serving as the counsel for Clark College.

WHY: Ted Broussard signed a statement under the penalty of perjury that was blatantly false and the AAG appears to have personal knowledge the statement was false, but still presented it to the courts as true.

WHY: Ted Broussard signed a statement under the penalty of perjury that the first student government Executive Council (EC) meeting of the current academic year was not until October 26th, 2009, the same day Broussard signed the declaration. However, the first EC meeting of the academic year was really on September 28th, 2009. In the final approved minutes for the 9/28/2009 meeting, Ted Broussard is indicated as having been at that meeting to give a presentation to the EC. Clearly, Broussard was well aware of the true ASCC EC schedule due his position with the college and the fact that he was physically at the meetings. Additional documents exists to further show that Broussard knew the first EC meeting was on 9/28 and documents exist ( and have been provided to the courts) to show that the AAG had personal knowledge that EC meetings occurred prior to October 26th, thus she knew Broussard’s statement was false but presented it to the courts as true.

PROBLEM: Making false statements under the penalty of perjury is a crime. It is a violation of the rules of conduct for an attorney to aid or assist in a client in making a false statement.

IMPACT: Not sure. I doubt the college will handle being called on Broussard’s false statements well; however, Broussard’s position requires his statements, especially those made under the penalty of perjury, to be highly credible. With the revelation that Broussard is willing to perjure himself for the college’s benefit, every statement Broussard has made is suspect, including statements regarding student conduct matters, dealings with the Union and every other statement he has made. I do have to wonder what the college is hiding that it would be worth Broussard making blatantly false statements under the penalty of perjury. I must question if Broussard is simply attempting to deny the existence of EC meetings to cover up more violations of the Open Government Meeting Act.

OTHER ISSUE: I have been made aware that the college refusing to release many, if not all, minutes related to student government meetings. A quick check on the college intranet under the “College Information / Committee Minutes” reveals a serious absence of student government minutes for ASCC EC and other committees. A person could also go to the student government offices and ask for minutes to a meeting and find out first hand if the college is releasing the minutes as required by law.

-Respectfully,

Marcus Griffith

Hi colleague name deleted,

Thanks so much and it gets better. Even as I am supposed to get a Level II grievance on the 8 days off without pay and another hearing on the two quarters off without pay and loss of medical, guess what? they handed John Fite a resume of a friend of Rassoul’s, and ordered John to vet him to teach Econ next quarter (I guess we know how those hearings will go) and they have taken my name off the Winter schedule for teaching. How is that for intent, a coordinated plan and thus conspiracy? The union says if I get my own lawyer they stop representing me and the lawyers in Seattle say I have to play it out “through the system” until all remedies are exhausted. Catch-22

Ill be on the radio tonight KBOO 90.7 at 6 pm.

take care,

Jim

Greetings Jim,

I read the letter regarding your suspension based on your alleged misconduct; (it was for the improper use of email right and having a poor attitude)? Frankly Jim I am both shocked and saddened by the way the Administration is dealing with this issue. Never in my 30 years employed at Clark College have I witnessed such malice and animus against an individual working here. One would deduce from the letters from the Administration that you were some sort of terrorist trying to overthrow the college rather than an academic exercising his freedom of speech rights.

On another note I am concerned that in the letter it says something about a loss of benefits. In looking at the State PEBB Medical Plans for state employees it states:
________________________________________________
When Coverage Ends-
PEBB coverage ends on the last day of the month you are employed or your dependent loses eligibility under PEBB
rules.

For information on continuation coverage options, contact the PEBB Program at 1-800-200-1004.
If you or a covered dependent is confined in a hospital or other medical facility when your coverage ends,
contact the PEBB Program within 31 days to determine whether you or your dependent qualifies for an
extended benefit.
________________________________________________
My question is when you are on unpaid administration leave, technically are you not still employed? If so then I do not know why you would loose benefits. Does employment mean paid status? Anyway I thought that verbiage in the letter to you was mean spirited especially since it is well known that you have a young child and have health issues and the loss of benefits would be devastating.

I think you should both retain a lawyer and work with your union. You have never had the chance to refute or defend your case and the punishment certainly does not fit the alleged crime.

name deleted

From name deleted Clark College:

—–Original Message—–
From: name deleted
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:14 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: RE: Recent Letter of Discipline

Furthermore, your reference to Palestinians was not directed at Adnan. You did not mention his name, and you can point to similar metaphors in which you use the term “hang-around-the-fort” Indian to illustrate the same principle.

Again you have been found guilty without due process. Where was the hearing in which you presented your evidence, where you could rebut and cross examine, and where were the impartial jury of your peers? A change of venue is definitely in order since there is a very strong local prejudice against you. You have been arguing these points for years.

These fundamentals of due process do not exist at Clark College. I hope your lawyer seeks an injunction against your dismissal, and against the suspension of your family’s benefits. I encourage you to bring a civil lawsuit against the administration at Clark for harassment and intimidation. To claim that they have “tried to work with you to resolve these issues” is disingenuous for they have done the exact opposite; the Clark administration, from my point of view, did not work with an “ill professor” who was on his death bed, but instead pushed through the process while you were ill and on sick-leave. Thanks God you recovered, no thanks to the administration. The process should have been suspended while you recovered, and to push through the process while you were at risk, when an increase in stress could have killed you, shows that the administration at Clark had a “reckless disregard” for your well-being. I believe that these points make a strong case on your behalf.

I wish there were more that I could do. But many faculty can attest, and classified staff as well, that the administration at Clark despises you and wishes you gone, and will use whatever pretense to make that happen.

I wish you success Jim. Keep the faith.

name deleted
________________________________

From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:08 AM

To: Craven, Jim

Subject: Recent Letter of Discipline

How can you keep track of all this shit? I’m confused about which discipline is for what charge; moreover, how can the administration enact this next step when the other steps are still unresolved, under appeal. Aren’t you still contesting the first suspension, and the second suspension?

Given their past actions, you’re going to be suspended unless you can get a judge to file an injunction to stop them, and for that you’d need a lawyer, even if such an action is possible.

Can you start making arrangements for a teaching job in China? I don’t want to be a pessimist, but they won’t let you teach Winter and Spring. Since the Union has been unable to stop them in the past, they are going to keep hammering you.

You don’t have any other discipline coming do you? They’ll fire you next Jim. WTF!!

name deleted

_____________________________________________
From: Johnson, Leann
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:14 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: meeting

Hello Professor Craven,

I would like to schedule an interview with you this week about your written complaint regarding the alleged comment made about you by an adjunct instructor. Dean Kotsakis will also be present.

Thank you,

Leann Johnson

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:25 AM
To: Johnson, Leann
Cc: Kotsakis, Ted; Roi, Marcia; LLewison@washingtonea.org
Subject: RE: meeting

Ms Johnson,

I handed this complaint to you only because it is formally under your jurisdiction and at the advice of AHE. My reasons for Dean Kotsakis not handling this or being involved in any way were given to Dr. Dastmozd with full supporting evidence for my position and cause for my rejection of him in any investigatory capacity on any matter involving me now and in the future. It is my position, and Dean Kotsakis is well aware that he and others have been a subject of a criminal complaint by me to several agencies on the basis of evidence given to them for rebuttal–and to which they have refused to respond—and will be a subject of Civil lawsuit as well such that his having any role in this investigation I regard as a direct provocation that may well reflect on your own level of impartiality in all of this.

But if Dean Kotsakis does attend, I will cross-examine him on tape for the record as I have in the past and let his own answers and non-answers speak for themselves in future venues. I, and others who have reviewed my evidence, believe that I have more than enough evidence, and have provided it all to him repeatedly for his rebuttal that never came, that he is one of the ringleaders in an ongoing campaign of marginalization, demonization, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, abuse of power, serial breaches of the AHE contract, serial lying and disingenuousness, trading in public employment and misuse of public resources, calculated leaking of confidential personnel information causing loss of employment, Conspiracy Against Rights, abridgment of Constitutional rights etc aimed at me as reprisal for the exercise of my basic Constitutional rights and duties as a public servant.

Please schedule your investigation and note this objection for the record.

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi
_____________________________________________
From: Johnson, Leann
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:11 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Kotsakis, Ted; Roi, Marcia; ‘LLewison@washingtonea.org’
Subject: RE: meeting

Professor Craven,

My purview and therefore investigation relate only to the alleged comment made by the adjunct instructor. What is your availability next week?

Thank you,

Leann Johnson

_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:25 AM
To: Johnson, Leann
Cc: Roi, Marcia; LLewison@washingtonea.org
Subject: RE: meeting

Ms Johnson,

In that case why the presence of Dean Kotsakis? I do not mind at all confronting directly those against whom I have made allegations as I have done over and over in writing with no rebuttals, but I have never been allowed to cross-examine, eyeball-to-eyeball, those making allegations against me directly when I was on the other side of one of your “investigations”. As Public Employees, unlike in the private sector, we have Constitutional rights that go with duties they do not have in the private sector, such as the duty not to turn a blind eye to corruption and outright crimes being committed.

I am available any day after 2 pm, and will be taping plus I will have representation with me.

Thank you,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi

_____________________________________________
From: Johnson, Leann
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:28 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Roi, Marcia; ‘LLewison@washingtonea.org’; Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: RE: meeting

Professor Craven,

As previously stated the scope of this investigation relates only to the alleged comment made by the adjunct instructor, therefore, that instructor is the respondent, not Dean Kotsakis. I will email you some proposed times for next week that meet your schedule.

Thank you,

Leann Johnson

_____________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:46 AM
To: Johnson, Leann
Cc: Roi, Marcia; LLewison@washingtonea.org
Subject: RE: meeting

Ms Johnson,

Then that begs the question that I asked you directly and that you apparently refuse to answer: What is the purpose of the presence of Dean Kotsakis at these meetings? If this is your investigation and you are conducting it, then why has he been present at your meetings and why would you propose that he be present at my meeting? This is inconsistent with your previous modus operandi in a previous “investigation” conducted by you. Further, you have summarily narrowed a priori the “scope” and depth of the investigation without hearing from me and hearing my allegations. It is my contention that Dean Kotsakis gave him the green light for that alleged statement without which no adjunct would have dared taken such a posture with the senior tenured economist. Further, according to authorities at PSU, Dean Kotsakis and an adjunct working at both Clark and PSU leaked confidential personnel information (and he was asked repeatedly about the matter and being involved and refused to deny it) costing me employment and my standing at PSU. Further the recent attempt to take my medical benefits (also from my family and with me having a severe medical condition) also shows a pattern of extreme, perhaps even psychopathic, hatred, animus, malice against me by him and those he has apparently given special handling to.

In any case we will play this out as I have been advised to do and this will stand as an ongoing record of but one of many attempts to pose questions and raise objections to which I had every right to answers and authority under law and the AHE contract and to which I got nothing but no response (not even acknowledgement of receipt of my queries) to be played back in other venues where all of those named will get, which I will vigorously support, all the due process to which I and so many others at Clark College have been repeatedly denied.

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaayo I’poyi

From: Johnson, Leann
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:10 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Roi, Marcia; ‘LLewison@washingtonea.org’; Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: RE: meeting

Professor,

Dean Kotsakis is the dean of the area impacted. If you recall the last time you and I met on another matter involving an investigation Sylvia Thornburg was present. Dean Kotsakis has been present in the other interviews that I have conducted regarding this investigation.

Thank you,

Leann Johnson

Ms Johnson:

In the last case, Sylvia Thornburg was not alleged to have been a part of or having influenced the nature and matters of the complaint being investigated. Here we have someone alleged to have made a statement that he wanted nothing to do with “that Indian” (who happens to be the head of the economics department, the only tenured economist and the only person qualified to vet him and his credentials vis-à-vis teaching economics and his command of the subject; Dean Kotsakis made the amazing statement at a meeting that he was qualified to vet someone for technical competence in economics without having had one course in it) based on an unspecified reference to two alleged conversations with me that he characterized as not having gone well. So we have a situation where someone is teaching economics without an economics degree even it is my understanding, whose resume and bona-fides I have not seen and who I have never met and do not even know what he looks like, a person whose quality competence at teaching directly impacts upon my own teaching as he is handing me students at upper levels, and Dean Kotsakis, his and my supervisor, has never bothered to even call us in to straighten out whatever problems may exist for the good of the students and their education; this reflects on and speaks directly to Dean Kotsakis’ own competence and fitness to serve in his present position, his own possible role in using Mr. Bayer as a proxy in a campaign of harassment and intimidation, as well as his own possible interest in attempting to monitor, control and perhaps coerce testimonies presented in his presence. Someone trained in the most elementary procedures of investigations as I am, would see this potential problem and possible factor in obstructing a full rendering of all information necessary to come to legitimate conclusions.

You still fail to even address and speak to the concrete reasons and Causes I have advanced against his presence when undertaking your investigation and again this is being noted for the record and will be sent to other venues.

Jim Craven

RCW 49.44.010

Blacklisting — Penalty.

Every person in this state who shall willfully 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 willfully and maliciously “blacklist” or cause to be “blacklisted” any person or persons, by writing, printing or publishing, or causing the same to be done, the name, or mark, or designation representing the name of any person in any paper, pamphlet, circular or book, together with any statement concerning persons so named, or publish or cause to be published that any person is a member of any secret organization, for the purpose of preventing such person from securing employment, or who shall willfully 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.]

Notes:

Interference with or discharge from employment of member of organized militia: RCW 38.40.040, 38.40.050.

continuation of previous RCWs etc cited

June 8, 2010

Supervisory Special Agent Saito

Seattle FBI Office

Dear Special Agent Saito:

I have just returned from China where I was teaching Economics at Tsinghua University and giving papers at conferences dealing with issues on national minorities in China and elsewhere and the global economic crisis. Per your suggestion when we last met, I did not write you from China.

As I noted to you when I came to your office, that I came and signed in at your office in my official capacity as an employee of the Government of the State of Washington mandated by law that was cited in my correspondence, to report (if and when I had substantial and good-faith-based basis to believe) that possible crimes under your jurisdiction have been committed, were being committed and or were about to be committed. I also noted to you that although I do not distrust or dislike every employee of the FBI, and that I have seen some who were honest and courageous law enforcement officers like Coleen Rowley for example, I am of an age, have had such experiences and have undertaken such study, as to approach FBI, even under the mandate of law, with extreme caution and hesitancy. I remember vividly, and was a “person of interest” and target of COINTELPRO myself, for opposing a war founded on lies and phony pretexts (the kind we hanged people for launching and waging at Nuremberg), when that fascist drag queen and pioneer in same-gender marriage J Edna Hoover (after whom the FBI Building, part of the “Justice” Department, is still named–which is sort of like naming a shelter for battered women after Ted Bundy) and his “soul mate” Clyde Tolson were shitting all over the U.S. Constitution and declaring the Mob they hung out with at race tracks and other venues to be non-existent and while taping the hypocritical motel assignations of Martin Luther King and keeping “Secret and Confidential” files used for extortion of public and private officials. I hoped that the FBI had evolved from those days. And I hoped that the FBI had evolved from recent days when all sorts of glaring “dots” of conspiracy and associations of known terrorists on existing watch lists that led to 9-11 attacks not only went unconnected by FBI and other agencies, but when existing, already-connected, dots were disconnected in post 9-11 cover-ups and attempts to escape accountability that led to courageous whistleblowers like Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds to be sanctioned and harassed for simply doing their duty.

Prior to commencing our conversation, which I did not ask to have taped and I had a tape recorder with me but did not use it or ask for it to be used (I knew that you or someone from FBI would be taping it and that I had no expectation of privacy in an FBI office) I did not ask to have another Special Agent present as a witness (although I knew it was standard tradecraft and procedure to have two agents present in such conversations); I did not take exception when you refused to take and make copies of the bag of almost 500 pages of documents I brought with me; I offered to make myself accountable for all my statements and intentions by being Mirandized prior to meeting with you and swearing all my statements under penalty of perjury. I also noted that I would answer any and all questions you and others may have of my on any subject to assess my credibility and intentions and noted to you that I might invoke Fifth Amendment rights because they are my rights and need give no explanation for invoking them but I did note that I might invoke them to protect a confidence. But it should have been clear from my presence and willingness to put myself into a situation of providing potential evidence for my own accountability that I would not invoke Fifth Amendment or other Constitutional rights to protect or facilitate criminal activity or crimes of others.

I noted to you that previously I had approached Special Agent Brittain in his office in Vancouver, Washington. I noted to you that he had indicated to me that you had told him to look into my allegations and you confirmed to me that you had indeed asked him to do so. I noted to you that he flat-out lied to me when, in his own office, he said he did not have a business card for me (he did not say I do not want to give you one for my own reasons which would have been alright as at least it would have been honest); I still do not know his full name. And I indicated to you that Mr. Brittain took from me, on more than one occasion, and made some copies of documents I brought with me, and took copies of some tapes of meetings I also brought (tapes that the participants knew full well were being made at the time with their agreement) that I believed showed some of the elements of crimes under FBI jurisdiction: 18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Parts 241 and 242 or Conspiracy Against Rights and Conspiracy Under Color of Law plus Conspiracy to commit other crimes and torts under State and Local jurisdictions but which become federal matters under federal jurisdiction when Criminal Conspiracy is involved even to commit what are crimes under State statutes. I also noted that the public is not allowed to lie to or misuse law enforcement for their own agenda and that I would either have my allegations seriously investigated and would be given concrete cause, reasoning and evidence if my allegations were not to be considered worthy of further investigation or I would demand to be charged with willfully lying to and attempt to misuse for my own agenda, law enforcement agencies and their powers. I also noted that although law enforcement officers are allowed to engage in deception in the course of investigating crimes, they are not allowed to lie to or engage in deception with the public in ordinary interactions such as my dealings with Special Agent Brittain. And you also noted to me in response to my request to be Mirandized that you do not Mirandize victims for which I was grateful and made hopeful of a serious investigation of my allegations. I also noted to you that Special Agent Brittain promised me that as he was presently busy, he would get back to me by January of the next year with a follow-up and if my allegations were not to be pursued, I would be given concrete reasons why in terms of perhaps the allegations not being sustained by evidence, and/or behaviors alluded to and documented not crimes or perhaps not being the crimes I thought them to be, or, perhaps, not considered crimes serious or worth of further pursuit even if crimes. And at the time of my visit I still had no response from Special Agent Brittain.

So here we are now, how many months since my visit? Still no response? How are members of the public to risk their jobs and even lives to bring information of possible crimes to FBI and other law enforcement agencies, particularly and hopefully before not after the next 9-11, if this is how their allegations will be treated, how promises made to them are not kept and when treated with the apparent contempt with which I have been treated when they and their allegations/complaints will be similarly handled?

Please see the attached. This is a response by the new (not yet corrupted hopefully) associate Vice-president of Human Resources Darcy Rourk to my account of a meeting to which she was also a witness. Notice that she does not dispute even one of my characterizations of what took place (behaviors, machinations and statements). Notice that she does not once question that the behaviors and machinations and statements that took place were possible crimes or were possibly the crimes that I listed. Notice also that she herself directs me to go to law enforcement but does not see It in her “jurisdiction” to do so herself (an amazing statement for an Associate VP of Human Resources). Notice further that one Agency of the Government of the State of Washington (Clark College) gave me two quarters off without pay and with no due process mandated by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (I am a tenured professor thus subject to protection from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law) and thus a matter under federal jurisdiction while another Agency of the Government of the State of Washington granted me immediate unemployment compensation based on documents (some of which you refused to accept) that showed that I did not cause my own unemployment and was unjustly deprived of work and pay without due process (a matter appealed by Clark College only four days before the final date of eligibility to appeal the UIC decision and only after being notified of the potential implications viz a vis future litigation against them or criminal prosecutions set for a hearing on June 16th).

So what do I do now? Well since the promised answers to my previous inquiries and allegations have not been given, and since no one has yet shown me that my allegations are baseless and/or that my understanding of law and appropriate jurisdictions of law are wrong with concrete reasoning and evidence, since no one has given counter evidence to show that my purported evidence is not evidence of anything criminal which is all I asked for, and since these possible crimes are still being committed and real victims are suffering real harm, I now have no choice but to take this higher (next stop is AG Holder, President Obama) and to go public with all of our correspondence and the serial non-responses that I and others have suffered.

Please note that I am as serious as the heart attack and two surgeries that I suffered during which four copies of the same letter of my impending discipline (with no hearings and while on sick leave) were sent to my official mailing address and two sent to my new home to arrive on Christmas Eve (something only a stone-cold psychopath would do). The crimes that I believe have been committed, are being committed and planned for the future may not rise to the level of 9-11 attacks and the various forms of terrorism routinely investigated by your office, but they are crimes and under federal jurisdiction even when normally under state statutes when the essential elements of criminal conspiracy are involved; and there are real victims suffering real injuries for the present circumstances and their futures.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven

Professor of Economics and Geography,

Department Head, Economics,

Clark College, Agency of the Government of the State of Washington

Biographical subject in past and present Marquis “Who’s Who: in the World; in America; in the West; in Science and Engineering; in Finance and Industry/Business; in American Education

Registered letter of same to follow.

Cc: Attorney General Eric Holder; President Barack Obama

THE FOLLOWING WAS ALSO ATTACHED TO THIS LETTER TO SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT KEVIN SAITO OF THE SEATTLE FBI CYBERSQUAD

FW: Complaint, Memo For Record, Request for HR Action‏

From:

James Craven (omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com)

Sent:

From: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com
To: drourk@clark.edu
Subject: FW: Complaint, Memo For Record, Request for HR Action
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:02:28 -0700

Dear Dr. Rourke,

Thanks for your response. This is just to confirm that you understood the following and that a copy of this letter was sent to the Administrative Law Judge Richard Knutson this morning and only after your opportunity to reply, and along with your reply, to this for-the-record letter and its content:

Thank you for your consideration of and response to this request. Since my Stage II grievance hearing was scheduled after the deadline for submission of materials in support of my being granted unemployment compensation, and since the subjects covered in this Stage II hearing produced evidence with probative value vis-a-vis the issues to be discussed at the hearing to hear Clark College’s appeal against my being granted unemployment compensation, this letter will be forwarded to His Honor Judge Knutson and this is to be taken as Clark College’s copy.

Thank you for your consideration and follow-up.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi

Subject: RE: Complaint, Memo For Record, Request for HR Action
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:33:06 -0700
From: drourk@clark.edu
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com

Thank you for your email, Professor Craven. It appears that you are suggesting that possible criminal offenses took place during the Level 2 Grievance meeting. If that is the case, this is outside of the jurisdiction of my authority. If I am incorrect, please clarify the nature of your complaint.

Sincerely,

Darcy Rourk, Associate VP for Human Resources

Dear Dr. Rourk:

First of all, there is still a formal request for the HR Director to contact Professor Cliff Allen of the MIM Program at PSU to determine the names of the Adjunct Instructor that works both at Clark College and the Business Division of PSU and the Clark Administrator that called him and leaked confidential personnel information (who knows if it was even correct or what other allegations were made) that cost me my position at PSU at which I had been hired, put on staff, given an email account and my name posted as faculty. The call took place from Clark College and the information was leaked out of Clark College and Katrina Golder’s assertions that it took place “off-campus” is totally disingenuous. If I leak out confidential information on a student that I acquired in the course of my work, even from my home email, that is still Clark College business and I can be and should be fired for that. The same applies with respect to taking information on my unemployment status and causing Clark College to file an action that the would not have taken, and had not taken, without the urging of someone, perhaps someone who had rendered some service and thus had something to trade or a marker to call in, to urge the College to file such action. Please look up the statutes on malicious harassment, stalking etc.

Next, you have no doubt heard the concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is why there is a Constitutional requirement that a law not be vague because even as we are non-lawyers, we are expected to know and conform to the law. Now I have given you ample citations of law that public employees, when they have a good-faith-based basis to believe that laws have been violated, not only cannot, but must not turn a blind eye and fail to report their concerns. It does not mean they are correct, only that they had a good-faith-based and tangible basis to believe that laws have been broken.

Next, you were present when Dean Kotsakis, who was at the meeting alluded to by Ms Lemmond in her Sept 2007 email, the one it took a PERC order to obtain with some other materials ordered to be produced still outstanding, refused to refute my allegations that her email was full of provable untruths and false allegations and that as someone at that meeting, he knew well that her email was full of falsehoods and false allegations and that is why he never brought us in for a discussion (as any minimally competent manager would) to work out any differences but rather hid it until a PERC order caused it to be produced; and this email was then used again to promote progressive discipline without my being given even a Laudermill Hearing to answer (no a grievance meeting is not the same as an original Laudermill hearing the denial of which denies me the opportunity to answer and produce a record for future legal venues and actions which is my right). I have asked over and over for those present at the meeting alluded to by Ms Lemmond (Professors Johnson, Dave Duback, Dean Kotsakis, Professor Walsh), as I asked of Helle Rode, be interviewed with their comments on the veracity of Ms. Lemmond’s comments and allegations recorded. I have more than enough to call for an investigation of possible stalking, harassment in the workplace, defamation on both civil and criminal grounds.

Please read the citations. Telling lies during an official government proceeding, using state resources, even without formal oath having been taken, involves several crimes which have been cited for you. Then when you add the still unanswered and acknowledged allegations against President Knight, Dr. Dastmozd, Dean Kotsakis, that involve serious allegations of serial, planned, coordinated and intended denials of due process with the objective of my removal from Clark College as a “morale-building” project (also known as conspiracy both civil and criminal) well then as Associate VP of HR, as a Public Employee of the Government of the State of Washington, and as a witness to what someone in your position should know are possible crimes and violations of the Clark College-AHE Contract, then your duty is clear or should be to someone in your position commanding your rate of pay.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi

From: James Craven [mailto:omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:06 PM
To: Rourk, Darcy; Marcia Roi; Lisa Lewison; lynn davidson; gregg wishkoski; J. Fotter; Eric Hansen; Kevin Saito; Ron Stevens; Dave Trimble; Brian Sonntag; Jim Brittain; Linda Long; Dean Lookinghawk; John Fite; Duback, David; Serrano, Patti; Walsh, Stephen; Gene Johnson; Jennifer Wheeler; Charles Merten; omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com; Info PERC; Julie Cooper; Gerry Smith
Subject: Complaint, Memo For Record, Request for HR Action

March 21, 2010

Dear Dr. Rourk:

I am writing to you not only in your capacity as Associate Vice-president for Human Resources, but in your capacity as a potential witness to possible criminal conduct on the part of Dr. Rassoul Dastmozd during my Stage II grievance hearing on my two-quarters-without-pay disciplinary suspension. Also present at that meeting, in addition to yourself, were Dr. Marcia Roi (AHE), Ms Lisa Lewison (WEA), Dean Ted Kotsakis, President Robert Knight. Mr. Dean Lookinghawk and myself. The meeting was taped by myself and by Clark College.

During this meeting, Dr. Rassoul Dastmozd, Vice-president of Instruction, represented that Dr. Aliabadi received no special treatment after the denial of his tenure. Dr. Dastmozd represented that it was standard policy and a matter of compassion to give someone denied tenure an opportunity to resign so as to avoid an official record of denial of tenure that would compromise their future employment. That representation Dr. Dastmozd knows very well is a false statement made during an official proceeding of an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington. I need only refer to the press accounts and legal actions from Ms. Christina Kopinski, also denied tenure without her own tenure committee being aware of it or why, and a search of personnel records of individuals denied tenure in the past I believe will show that Dr. Aliabadi, who refused to make a complaint against me even when urged to do so, was given treatment that was anything but standard or compassionate. This is in no way disparaging of Dr. Aliabadi who has acted with principle and courage throughout his own ordeal.

Dr. Dastmozd also represented that the offer by former Associate Vice-president of Human Resources Katrina Golder to help Dr. Aliabadi find employment after being denied tenure was again not any kind of “quid pro quo” for his name being invoked and used, in a complaint against me that has been crafted and carried forward in his name; a complaint that he himself has refused to make or endorse. My public apology to him, on an intra-AHE-members-only list, that uses, as allowed by Clark College-AHE Contract, Washington State Government internet resources di minims, was not any admission of guilt of any bad intent against him, but was for being insensitive in that not knowing him, and not having met him, I should not have made reference to his own joking reference to himself, made in several venues to several different people, as “Chemical Ali” (because he teaches chemistry and his first name is Ali) My public apology was not any kind of tacit admission, or certainly not “evidence” of any guilt of any offense. This representation of Dr. Dastmozd, that offers of help finding future employment for those denied tenure was common is again provably false. You were also present when Dr. Dastmozd refused to answer or rebut my question of how he can talk to anyone about or fairly assess what is or is not “respectful” given the mocking of my ex-wife, serial disingenuousness and extreme malice and animus documented by Dr. Marcia Roi in her still unacknowledged and unrebutted letter of April 20, 2008. You were present when President Knight refused to answer or rebut my question of how he could talk to anyone about or fairly assess what is or is not “respectful” when, in a public meeting, the President’s Dialogue no less, he openly stated that when he sees my name on an email he hits delete without even reading it. That statement was particularly interesting in that he once wrote to me to “keep him honest” (to which I replied in writing that someone who has to be “kept honest” is not honest because honest is what one does when no one is looking and when being honest is hard and not easy to do) and how can I keep him “honest” if he does not read my emails? It should be noted that the very question that I had posed to Mr. Knight, that produced this vitriolic and “disrespectful” response by him, had been posed by his friend Gregg Herrington in an editorial in The Columbian, asking if $175,000 plus legal costs paid by Clark College to eight potential litigants against Clark College, not to go to trial after motions for summary dismissal and/or judgment by Clark College had been denied, constituted “hush money” (Herrington’s words) and thus potential obstruction of justice. Since one of the 7 tests of “Just Cause” in assessing discipline is equal treatment for equivalent alleged offenses, it is relevant to bring up this incident at the President’s Dialogue (and there have been others with witnesses during which both President Knight and Dr. Rassoul Dastmozd became loud, abusive, used profanity and engaged in bullying when simply asked questions that they obviously found problematic; e.g. with Dr. Roi witnessed by Jennifer Wheeler and others) and to note that this incident, for which Clark College backed off of discipline, led to the following email to which no acknowledgement or rebuttal has been given by those involved with it. Imagine, Dean Kotsakis arrogates not only to be the accuser, but also witness, judge, jury, assessor of discipline and even appeals judge of his own verdicts all rolled up in one person; and he even states before the hearing he is likely to find something deserving of discipline. Ironically, Dean Kotsakis praised me when I recused myself from hearing a complaint, as Business Division Chair, by a student against Ms. Mastenbrook who had previously filed charges against me that were unsustained by Ms. Helle Rode so as to not have even the appearance of conflict of interest or bias on the part of the person hearing the complaint. I might add parenthetically to President Knight, who said he does not read my emails and just hits delete when he sees my name (and I was a Division Chair at the time he made that statement and needed access to do my job) that I actually more than met the established minimum qualifications for the positions that I hold, a claim he cannot make, and that I went through free, fair and open competition for my job with no inside track greased for me also a claim he cannot make (also, please refer to law on Blacklisting). This is precisely what Dr. Aliabadi and Professor Fite were urged to do by one faculty member at orientation: “I just hit delete and do not read his emails” and this accords with the patterns of Blacklisting that Emma Kim alleged in her still unacknowledged and un-rebutted letter.

MEMO FOUND ON PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST ALSO ATTACHED CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS PER SE

From: Kotsakis, Ted
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:12 AM
To: Golder, Katrina
Cc: Dastmozd, Rassoul
Subject: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum

I have a technical/procedural question. If I am the accuser as it relates to Jim’s behavior in the President’s Forum can I be the one that investigates this incident which could lead to discipline? It seems to me this could be an area that could be questioned. I want this to be as clean as possible on this. If I were investigating someone else’s claim against Jim that seems appropriate.

Your thoughts?

Ted

From: Golder, Katrina
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:19 PM
To: Kotsakis, Ted
Cc: Dastmozd, Rassoul
Subject: RE: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum

I’m not sure it is an investigation per se. It is a supervisor following up with an employee whose behavior you observed to be inappropriate.

katrina

From: Kotsakis, Ted Sent: Wed 11/14/2007 7:53 AM

To: Golder, Katrina

Subject: RE: Jim Craven & the Presidents Forum

I think we have to be squeaky clean here. Jim has already raised the question of how I can be the accuser, judge, and jury. My asking him questions about the meeting will more than likely lead to discipline in some form or another. Let’s not kid ourselves. We all know the behavior he exhibited was unacceptable.

Ted

You were present when Dean Kotsakis refused to answer or rebut my question to him about how could he talk to anyone about “respect” when he wrote two letters, September 10, 2008 and October 7, 2008, on the issue of the basis for my removal from Division Chair with an ad hoc election convened on the basis of clear misrepresentations with time left on my appointment, that contained fundamentally and irreconcilably contradictory statements between the respective letters. The accounts given in those letters of what took place and what was represented by Dean Kotsakis as the reasons and authority for this election were disputed by all present at that meeting: Professors Walsh, Fite, Hamideh, Johnson and Serrano. This action resulted in significant losses of owed pay that had already been established as owed to me even when on sick leave as Division Chair and you have the evidence for that assertion in the materials in your possession.

Further, you were present, and it is recorded on tape, that President Knight was given another chance, for and to challenge the record from the last meeting, to dispute the allegations by Dr. Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson, that President Knight said to them “Morale will improve around here when we get rid of Jim Craven”; again, President Knight refused to rebut the allegations even when I pointed out, in the presence of Dr. Roi, (in the last meeting President Knight was giving body language shaking head to indicate that the statement he was alleged to have made was not true, not true but refused to speak for the taped record when asked previously for a rebuttal) that someone was lying either Dr. Roi and Lynn Davidson or President Knight. You were also present when President Knight refused (for the second time) to rebut my allegation that in that in that one statement, “Morale will improve around here when we get rid of Jim Craven”, we have evidence of conspiracy per se (meaning that the essential elements of conspiracy were present in the statement itself: a) more than one person (“we”); b) future (“when”) outcomes (“get rid of Jim Craven) sought and desired from present and clearly coordinated activities and intentions (e.g. accelerated progressive discipline with gross violations of due process and previous lower stages and latter stages of discipline without hearings, without possibility of grievance and/or with pending grievance procedures pending and/or under challenge); c) coordinated activities and objectives they know or should know to be illegal (cover-ups, lies, arbitrary and capricious personnel actions, serious breaches of basic due process, retribution against whistle blowing and exercising grievance rights, recruiting and rewarding proxies to file complaints, refusal to acknowledge or respond to legitimate questions while on Washington State Government time, all can be used to show awareness of guilt, intent and thus “mens rea”); d) at least one affirmative step taken in the past or present in furtherance of future planned and desired objectives.

You were present when Dean Kotsakis refused to answer or rebut my allegation that the email by Ms Lemmond of September 2007, about a meeting at which Ms Lemmond and he were in attendance, along with Dave Duback and Professors Steve Walsh, Gene Johnson and myself, the very same memo that was never shared with me by Dean Kotsakis and that I only got with a PERC order to turn it over (an order against which Ms. Lemmond is still in violation and you have the evidence for that allegation in her own words), was full of very provable lies and that he had withheld that email from me (now being paraded around and used to sustain past and present allegations) because he was at that meeting, and thus knew very well, that the email by Ms. Lemmond, calling for my removal as Division Chair, was riddled with provable untruths and false allegations. You were present when I noted that upon learning the contents of that memo during another independent investigation in which I was vindicated of the same charges brought again by Ms. Mastenbrook and Ms. Lemmond, I immediately asked the independent investigator, Helle Rode, to interview all persons present at that meeting, including Dean Kotsakis, who was asked about it as were the others, and to determine and document for the record, the veracity of Ms. Lemmond’s claims. You were present when Dean Kotsakis had no rebuttals to or comments about my allegations and presentation of documentable/documented (in many documents in your possession) facts on that issue.

You have evidence before you that Ms Lemmond is in violation of a standing PERC order, to be enforced by Clark College, to turn over all written materials that she advanced in support of her allegations and testimony in the matters investigated by Helle Rode. Her summary claim that these were “talking points” albeit in written form, does not remove these materials from the PERC order. And her own reference to these materials, claiming they are “no longer in my possession”, shows a consciousness of guilt and willful intent (otherwise why mention them?) to defy the PERC order to which Clark College remains in defiance as it mentions that also in the future, Clark College is to engage in no more withholding of any and all materials related to any matter in which the potential for discipline exists; which has been provably done over and over on other matters since the first PERC decision and order. Further, this is no small matter because the charges of Ms Lemmond and Mastenbrook are still being invoked and used to impose discipline (with no Laudermill hearing) and those “talking points” notes are necessary for my defense and to test and establish the credibility and intentions of Ms Lemmond and those giving her special protections and handlings in course assignments and protection from legal redress, in future legal venues, actions and appeals; this then is potential ongoing obstruction of justice by Ms Lemmond and aided and abetted by Clark College administration who refuse to order Ms. Lemmond to comply with the PERC order. I still await your response on this issue previously brought to your attention with the supporting documentation.

You have evidence in your possession that an un-named Adjunct Instructor of Business at both Clark College and PSU’s School, of Business (only Ms. Lemmond fits the profile) and an un-named Clark College administrator, calling from Clark College, called Professor Cliff Allen, Director of the Masters of International Management Program at PSU, where I had been hired and put on staff to teach but had not yet commenced to teach scheduled courses, and leaked classified personnel information (and who knows what else was said or alleged) with the result that I lost my teaching position at PSU. You have evidence before you that this call to PSU took place immediately after a conversation between Ms. Lemmond and Professor John Fite, that according to Professor Fite disturbed Ms. Lemmond that I had been hired at PSU. You have evidence that I filed a formal complaint and request for an investigation with Katrina Golder and was summarily dismissed with “this happened off-campus” even though the call and leaking of classified information came from Clark College. And you have my ongoing request for this matter to be addressed with no acknowledgement or response yet from you on that issue. And since we are speaking of patterns: you have evidence before you that Clark College only filed an appeal against my being granted unemployment compensation, granted since December 19, 2009 when my last day of work was reported to UC as December 11, 2009, on January 28th, 2010, with a deadline for appeal of February 4, 2010, and again this took place immediately after a conversation between Ms. Lemmond and Professor Fite in which he noted that I had been granted immediate Unemployment Compensation, even though I am on disciplinary suspension, and that this might help me to sustain my allegations in future legal venues and actions for legal redress to which I am entitled by law.

You were present when I listed the law enforcement agencies and agencies of the Government of the State of Washington and contacts that I have made and you have evidence of the specific allegations that I have made and the supporting evidence, citations of law and reasoning that I presented for support of my allegations. You have evidence that at all times I sought to make myself fully accountable for my intentions, representations and materials submitted in support of my allegations. I have sworn my statements under penalty of perjury. I have offered to be “Mirandized” and all of my statements sworn under penalty of perjury with an invitation, even demand, that I be prosecuted for any evidence of intent to use government agencies and public resources for my own personal agenda; such as to escape discipline deserved, reprisal, intimidation, etc or any intent to knowingly pass on untruths and misrepresentations in my allegations. You were present in the last meeting when I asked for just one example of any untruth or misrepresentation, in all of the materials I have submitted or in any of my statements, and this is also on tape, and no response by anyone representing the Clark College was forthcoming. I also have in writing that none of the content of my missives is being questioned only their alleged “tone” and alleged “lack of respect” is being challenged. Further, you have additional evidence before you of a secret file, about which I only became aware with the still unacknowledged and still un-rebutted letter of Emma Kim, comprising some six binders of emails and other materials from 1994 onward; and you have evidence that I have still received no legal authority or authority in the Clark College-AHE Contract, despite repeated requests in writing for such, for the existence, maintenance and uses of such a file.

You have evidence before you that I have had discipline of 7 days off without pay, and then 8 days off without pay, imposed without Laudermill hearings, while I was on sick leave with a serious medical condition and/or off-contract, while I was represented by AHE, with any alleged missed timelines for grievances or hearings no fault of my own. The result that I was not only denied Laudermill hearings, due process and being able to challenge allegations and produce a record for further review, but with be denied the hearings I was also denied the three stages of grievance for each personnel action so that someone, an independent, competent, unbiased and trained arbitrator could weigh the evidence and come up with a verdict (fruit) not tainted by a highly poisoned tree of grotesque violations of basic due process that might even make the Nazis gag. Even the Nazis separated: the persons and processes making allegations from those turning them into formal complaints; those turning allegations into formal complaints from those presenting and prosecuting them; those presenting the prosecution and those acting as judges (and the Nazis even allowed a defense where I had none ); those acting as judges and those acting as jurors; those acting as jurors from those acting as assessors of punishment; those acting as judges and jurors from those acting as appeals judges. You also have evidence before you that while I was on sick leave, and when I returned, I wrote over and over to both Clark College administration and AHE asking about suspended timelines for grievances for personnel actions against me that had been imposed while I was on sick leave and/or off-contract; and still, to this very day, I have received no acknowledgement of or responses to those repeated inquiries, and statements of my intent to answer and all allegations and charges once I returned from sick leave. This is especially critical as the Clark College-AHE Contract clearly specifies that in progressive discipline, where the severity of punishment increases with each progressive stage, no high levels of personnel actions may be imposed with lower-levels still pending and not completed. In fact, you were present when I presented the analogy, that went unanswered and un-rebutted, that in states with “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws, no one could be sent to prison for life on a “third offense” without having been duly convicted (with appeals exhausted) of the first two alleged offenses. This is also a matter of the U.S. Constitution, “The Supreme Law of the Land” [“supreme” means nothing trumps it certainly not any contracts and their provisions] that says, in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, that the State shall deprive no person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. You were present when I noted that in the State of Illinois, 13 out of 25 men on death row were released (and all subsequently found innocent) when appeals showed due process violations that, in some cases, were less serious than the ones to which I have been serially and provably subject over a long period of time.

You were present, and have my written and still unacknowledged and un-rebutted inquiries/protests about, my being summarily denied access to my office computer (after initially giving me one hour on my office computer) and thus resident files necessary for my defense on present and past issues, and that I was allowed only access to my email for limited and sporadic times via remote access from a computer in HR. This also obstructed my discovery and defense-preparation rights on matters involving significant takings of property.

You were present, and have documentation in your possession that prior to the Laudermill hearing, the only one I got, on the issue of two-quarters-off-without-pay, that on three separate occasions changes in my established teaching schedule for Winter 2010 were made in writing, with Adjuncts hired to replace me BEFORE the Laudermill hearing to decide the very question of if or if not I would not be teaching Winter and Spring 2010. You also have evidence before you that my teaching loads were restricted and abridged during several quarters maximum 8 credits, (when I have taught 13 credits as have others during summers over many years), in violation of the Clark College-AHE Contract and with disparate treatment vis-a-vis the course loads allowed other full-time and tenured teachers. You have evidence before you that in all cases of progressive discipline, the discipline was imposed prior to Laudermill hearings and grievance rights that were never respected and/or in the last case, prior to the Laudermill hearing that did take place and prior to the commencement or findings of any grievance procedures.

Finally you were present when this meeting, for which we were given a starting time but no previously-stated finish time, and then were summarily cut-off at 3 pm after only one hour allotted for our presentation and over the initial protests of Ms. Lisa Lewison. Our not simply demanding more time was in no way any kind of stipulation that enough time had been allotted for our presentation; it was simply a recognition of the futility of any hope that any further presentation would be fairly, impartially and competently heard. It is my view, and I believe that an impartial review of the tape will show, that Clark College Administration simply wanted to limit the meeting and thus formal record, of potentially damaging evidence of serious and serial animus, malice, denial of due process, cover-ups, lies and outright conspiracy (civil and criminal) employed against me and to cover-up the gross and serial violations of basic due process by Clark Administrators at that meeting and others not at the meeting, to which I have been repeatedly and maliciously subject with serious impacts on my health and on my family along with my due process rights and access to evidence for my defenses against allegations stacked up while I was on sick leave.

As I noted to you in one conversation, we do not work FOR Clark College or Bob Knight or the Trustees; we work AT Clark College and we are all supposed to be public servants as well as public employees and as such we have certain duties of law imposed upon us by our positions as public employees/servants. When we have a good-faith basis to believe that crimes are being committed, that State resources are being misused, misappropriated, then public jobs and resources are being used and traded for private and even illegal agenda, we cannot, as a matter of law and basic duties of a public employee/servant just turn a blind eye; we must report such, along with accompanying supporting evidence, legal citations and reasoning, along with the names of parties that we feel can corroborate our allegations and/or are allegedly involved in said activities, through the proper channels of law enforcement and relevant agencies of the Government of the State of Washington. This is what I have done and will do again with this latest incident. It is because of our inside status, access and potential knowledge of wrongdoing as public employees, that we not only have legal duties that employees in the private sector do not have, and also because of the specific language of the U.S. Constitution in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, that we public employees also have Constitutional rights and protections that private-sector employees do not have. And Constitutional rights are rights not “privileges” or “favors” reserved only for those “in favor” with the powers-that-be. Thus I will be turning over the tape of the Stage II grievance process, along with other supporting materials, to the proper law enforcement agencies and agencies of the Government of the State of Washington. State resources are being used in all of this and it is my sincere belief that they are being used to cover-up actual crimes in addition to railroading me out of Clark College and thus such uses and allocations might constitute additional crimes.

I believe that at a minimum, there is more than probable cause to investigate to determine if the following criminal offenses were committed at this last Stage II grievance and at other meetings (see below).

Thank you for your consideration of and response to this request. Since my Stage II grievance hearing was scheduled after the deadline for submission of materials in support of my being granted unemployment compensation, and since the subjects covered in this Stage II hearing produced evidence with probative value vis-a-vis the issues to be discussed at the hearing to hear Clark College’s appeal against my being granted unemployment compensation, this letter will be forwarded to His Honor Judge Knutson and this is to be taken as Clark College’s copy.

I will send a signature page to complete the formal requirements to make this a formal complaint, request and memo for the record. I hereby swear all statements and representations to be true to the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor and Department Head Economics.
(signature page attached)

LETTER TO VPI TIM COOK FOR REBUTTAL. NONE HAS EVVER BEEN GIVEN OR RETURNED THUS VPI COOK HAS STIPULATED TO THE FOLLOWING

September 27, 2011

Dear Dr. Cook:

Please confirm or rebut my understanding for the record that the following issues were raised:

1. I with representatives Lisa Lewison and Kim Sullivan met with you, Dr. Darcy Rourk and Dean Blake Bowers in Bauer Hall 211 from 1 pm to 2:13 pm on Monday September 26, 2011 also the first day of classes for Fall Quarter 2011; Both Dr. Rourk and myself taped the meeting;

2. Neither prior to the meeting, during the meeting, nor as of today, was I provided, as requested by AHE representation twice, as well as by myself during the meeting, the exact complaint (the narrative of a complainant, written by the complainant, with specificity as to what is being alleged and on what basis (contract and law), and evidence, in the words of and attested, signed and accountable by, the complainant) of Dr. Adnan Hamideh and ALL supporting materials used and to be used in consideration of a possible three quarters off without pay—and that prompted my summarily being put on administrative leave with pay (still causing the loss of scheduled overtime pay to which I was contractually entitled, causing me to be taken out of the classroom and in breach of my tacit contract with those students arranged their schedules, gave up other opportunities who signed up specifically for me as a teacher);

3. You directed me not to show up to teach the classes I was contracted to teach; you obtained and hired my replacements to teach my classes, prior to our one, one-hour meeting to be presented with and hear my responses to any allegations; and you refused my request, to put in writing, your “directive”, for me not to return to teaching, and the authority and basis for such a directive, along with the basis for WHY any directive that you would give, but not put in writing, should be considered legitimate; also, and most importantly, ignore the effects of your “directives” on my own due process rights as well as the rights of the students to qualified and vetted teachers and the teacher for whom they specifically signed up to be taught by (the reason for putting faculty names on proposed schedules);

4. That my name was kept on the Fall 2011 schedule of courses, while students were still enrolling and after the decision to put me on administrative leave and out of teaching for Fall 2011 and after my replacements had been hired and confirmed to teach; that I informed you of this fact that I found on the schedules (unlike last time when the schedule was changed and replacements hired openly BEFORE my one Laudermill hearing) and asked for an explanation for this use of my name and also expressed the opinion that this constituted a form of fraud against the students who signed up caring who would be teaching them and signed up specifically for me as a teacher as well as a prima facie indication of how the upcoming meeting deciding my possible one year off without pay would likely go; I also informed you that I believed this to involve possible fraud against the students (“bait and switch”)and that the AG had been alerted prior to the meeting;

5. That you specifically had allocated one hour to consider my responses and those of my representatives to the proposed one year off with pay and at no time ever considered my return to the classroom in Fall 2011; further, the timing of the hearing was totally under your control and the hearing could have well taken place well before the commencement of courses (unless of course my replacements had already been promised jobs) to respect the interests of the students to have the teachers they signed up for if at all possible; that I noted and protested all of this in the meeting;

6. That I specifically noted to you that there was one and only one person qualified to vet for technical, pedagogical and professional credentials in economics and that is myself and presented the basis for this assertion and why John Fite does not yet have near sufficient experience or academic and other preparation as an educator or economist to qualify as a “check economist”; I also noted to you that the words to which Dr. Hamideh took exception being played back, were simply his own words as witnessed by John Fite and Gerard Smith both of whom were also expressed being troubled by the statement [laughing]“You know it’s ironic that the same areas in which I am now teaching—statistics, accounting and economics—are the very areas that I had the last interest in and barely passed with Cs in my MBA program”. I noted during the meeting that I did not consider this statement consistent with any kind of educator (not contradicted by you or Dr. Rourk or Dean Bowers) and was partly the basis for my questioning even the fitness to teach economics 101, let alone to vet anyone for credentials, professional standing and pedagogy in economics or geography. I also noted in writing and in this meeting, that I was concerned with not only the welfare of the students and right to be taught by qualified and properly vetted teachers, but also was concerned about potential costly litigation against Clark College in the event that students feel they were shortchanged in their teachers and suffered malpractice and initiated lawsuits, and the fact that various teachers were hired in ad hoc and non-standardized processes and not properly vetted by those qualified to do could support such lawsuits and cause real harm to students and the institution. I have also noted in documents in the possession of Clark College that previous persons hired and not vetted by me resulted in courses imploding, and students not only suffering malpractice, but, more importantly, losing all that they could have gained had teachers properly vetted by those qualified to do so been hired or the classes cancelled (just as a restaurant should not serve uninspected meat);

7. That I took serious exception to the manner, and what I took to be disingenuous representations by Professor Hamideh (that I only teach 200 level courses and am not interested in or do not have a vested interest in econ 101 and how and by whom it is taught) that were employed as I was summarily dismissed by from vetting Mr. McCay; I took serious exception to Professors Adnan Hamideh and that John Fite, who had recruited then vetting him without one word or any documentation to me the Department Head of Economics; that I believe this to be real and very tangible forms of “personal and professional attack”, Blacklisting and intrigue by Professors Hamideh and Fite and all those supporting them. I took serious exception for the record, that Mr. McCay was hired not to teach econ 101 (as represented by Professor Hamideh) but economic geography 107 and that I informed you that I am the only person qualified to vet on economic geography and that in my professional opinion, Mr. McCay’s teaching economic geography 107 is a serious violation of the rights of students to qualified and vetted teachers as well as a summary denial, per se, of my basic rights to due process; I presented you with copies of all of my exchanges with Mr. McCay, Mr. Bayer and findings of the independent investigator on the complaint of Ms Atkinson all of which I believe speak directly to the question of the veracity and integrity of their representations of any interactions with me.

8. That I have raised repeatedly in writing and in this hearing Dr. Hamideh, while division chair (who, took, under repeated and unanswered protests and according to AHE itself, the division chair position from me prior to the end of my term, along with the stipend, in a fraudulent election, based on naked and contradictory representations and misrepresentations embodied in the letters of September 10 vs. Oct 7 2009 of Dean Kotsakis, held while I was on sick leave, an ad hoc election that I did not know about or did not get to even get to cast a vote or make comments for the record); this cost me and my family considerable loss of funds from lost division chair stipends while on sick leave to which I was entitled;

9. That I and or my representatives raised the fact Professor Hamideh, who teaches and has taught only econ 101, never once as division chair consulted me about John Fite teaching specialized courses such as economics and law, political economy, international economics, and other courses (all with low class loads of 20) or ask my opinion on what basis was he qualified to assert himself able to teach such courses (I have taught all of them), all of which have a direct bearing on my own teaching loads and responsibilities (I am teaching econ 201 and 202 because of the needs of the students and the institution and if anyone should and is qualified to be teaching specialized courses it is me); Professor Hamideh never consulted me about the number of courses we should offer, when and how balanced, undertook to change the text for econ 101 without my knowledge or being consulted (a text that I considered overpriced and an ideological polemic), and assigned adjuncts recently hired and unvetted, to draft outcomes assessments instruments for various economics courses without one reference to me and BEFORE the hearing on September 26th 2011—to determine the issue if or if not I would be off for one year without pay.

10. That Dr. Hamideh has sent out the following to the business division, but with me excluded (see to whom sent), 3 days prior to the hearing yesterday (I guess he knows how it will go in advance) to determine if or if not I would be teaching:
________________________________________
From: Hamideh, Adnan
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:50 AM (three days before hearing)
To: Business Division
Cc: Bowers, Blake; Walstead, Brenda; Lea, Jennifer; Serrano, Patti; Wilkins-Luton, Jim
Subject: Course Outcomes
Dear Business Division faculty:
Welcome to Fall 2011!

Your valuable feedback is needed as we continue through this academic year. The Clark College Assessment Committee is continuing to work with the Business Division so that our programs and courses are in compliance with the accreditation board (NWCCU).
Each course that you teach needs outcome and assessment review and monitoring. Patti and I have finished all the Business Division program outcomes for each certificate and degree. Those are available at Jennifer’s desk or can be sent to you electronically. Your help is needed to identify clearly your course outcomes and assessment(s). If you are teaching a class also taught by other business faculty, you will be contacted to collaborate with the other teachers in establishing common outcomes. This can be completed online. Although the outcomes need to be the same, assessment methods of these outcomes may differ. Attached is a format for this work that has been accepted and approved by the Assessment Committee and can serve as a model or a template. For accuracy, please review the amended course descriptions in the updated catalog which is available online.

Below, please see the courses that we would like you to review. Some are individual courses, and some will need collaboration with other faculty members.
Adnan

BUS 028, BUS 029, Math 065
Adnan and Steve
BUS 203, BUS 204
Gene/Steve/Julie/David
BUS 201, BUS 202, BUS 203
Gene
BUS 160
Patti and Gene
Mgmt 100/BUS 101
Patti
BUS 115, BUS 116, BUS 260, Mgmt 101
Dee
BUS 110, Mgmt 106, Mgmt 107
Cheryl
BUS 117, BUS 211
Steve Walsh
BUS 130
Lucia
BUS 133, Bus 135, Mgmt 122
Layne
BUS 201
Steve Konrad
BUS 251, Mgmt 110, Mgmt 120, Mgmt 125, Mgmt 133
Clyde
Mgmt 103, Mgmt 112, Mgmt 113
Mark
Mgmt 132
Darcy
Mgmt 128
Kathy
Mgmt 126
Shon/John F./Trish/John B.
Econ 101, 107, 110, 120, 201, 202

Also, throughout the upcoming academic year, save copies of your students’ work as proof of not only meeting course and program outcomes but also as a basis for improving your courses and the programs.

This work is extremely important and needs to be given the highest priority. The Business Division plans to complete the outcomes and the assessments for our courses by OCTOBER 15, 2011. Please contact me or any of the leading faculty members if you need any help. Please send your finished product to Jennifer Lee.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Adnan Hamideh
Business Division Chair

11. That I asserted to you and my AHE representatives that although I am represented by AHE, one of the most sacred and protected Constitutional rights is to have the capacity and be allowed to participate in or even conduct pro se one’s own defense (defendant knows things that representatives may not) and that our submissions include but are not limited to arguments advanced by AHE representatives. This is especially critical in that I noted the concept of “fruit of the poisoned tree” which is central to due process and equal protection/application of the law guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Clark College-AHE Contract, the Washington State Constitution and various RCWs cited to you in various documents submitted in the past. I advanced the argument that I do not stipulate ever, nor can AHE stipulate away my basic due process rights, whatever their own interests, that the predicates for higher levels of discipline (lower levels having been completed with full due process) do not exist since (and alluded to in your own letter): I was given a) a reprimand with no Laudermill, no appeals; b) 7 days off without pay, no Laudermill hearing, no appeals, while on sick leave, represented by AHE, with discipline arbitrarily imposed and timed to take me out of the classroom upon return with the result of a “taking” of scheduled overtime pay, and students who signed up for me as a teacher denied my services; c) 8 days off without pay, no Laudermill hearings, two levels of appeal, no arbitration; d) two quarters off without pay, arrangements made, replacements hired unvetted by me, the course schedule changed all BEFORE the one Laudermill hearing I got (I do not consider this hearing qualified to be considered a Laudermill hearing) to determine if or if not I would be teaching; e) as I noted to you, it has been reported to the proper authorities that Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms Lynn Davidson, acting in their official capacities, in formal proceedings using public resources on public business, gave sworn testimony—that directly contradicted the sworn testimony of President Robert Knight also acting in his official capacities in another official proceeding—that he said directly to Dr. Roi and Ms Davidson “Morale will improve here when we get rid of professor Craven” and that obviously someone committed perjury and perjury is a serious crime because it not only represents obstruction of justice per se, but also represents an attempt to hijack justice and the truth itself. I asked you a hypothetical that if someone had said or written that “America will be better off only when we ‘get rid of’ the president” would that get that person at least a visit from Secret Service wondering what “get rid of” means and how does such an alleged statement play for someone with some serious medical disabilities. I also noted to all of you that I considered this meeting and those present acting as any kind of fact-finders in a conflict of interest in their personal and professional relationships with the president who is mentioned in an existing request for a criminal investigation.

12. That I noted to you that I consider it my moral and legal duty, as a human being, educator and public servant, to write an open letter to those students who sacrificed, rearranged their schedules and even waited for me as their teacher to give my opinions and supporting evidence as to why I am not available to teach Fall 2011.

13. That I noted to you that as I was not given prior to the meeting, as called for in the Clark College-AHE Contract, the written formal complaint by Dr. Hamideh, written and signed by himself (not simply your representations of his complaint), during the meeting or given any idea of its form other than a complaint was made. The reason why people who are accused have a right to confront accusers and their accusations (denied to me serially in all cases at all levels of discipline) is that if the accuser is lying, the accused may be the best source of refutation with information that the investigators do not have and perhaps were denied by self-serving narratives of either the accuser or accused; accusations are not facts until established with full due process. Thus, I noted, there is no valid complaint and no cause to move forward unless something else is involved. I noted also to you that I take serious exception to having the sentence partially arranged first (taking me out of the classroom and “taking” scheduled overtime pay) BEFORE the summary verdict (in your letter you do not use the word alleged once) BEFORE the hearing, BEFORE serving of a formal complaint and ALL material to be used in fact-finding and forming a verdict BEFORE the presentation of any counter-argument BEFORE and determination of final charges and finding what is needed and proportionate to the charges; only in Alice and Wonderland and Nazi Germany do we get the sentence first then the verdict then the trial then what charges and “evidence” takes to support what is intended at trial.

14. That I noted to Dean Bowers, later reinforced by Lisa Lewison, that I followed protocols and went to him, early July 2011, with no union representative and no tape recorder, allowed his assistant to take copious notes, presented him with supporting evidence and documents for my assertions that I believe there were serious threats to the institution, my own programs and teaching, the rights and needs of students and that certain crimes may be occurring. I noted to him that I would be going to Thurston County Superior Court on an appeal matter related to unemployment benefits when I was off two quarters without pay where the issue of possible perjury in the contradictory testimonies under oath of Mr. Knight versus Dr. Roi and Ms Lewison will be explored. I noted that he had not mentioned when I met with him any complaint by Dr. Hamideh and never acknowledged in writing my discussion with him nor did he send me copies of the notes taken and what was understood that I said. I noted to him that I expect such an acknowledgment and copies of the notes taken by Heather King.

15. I noted to Dr. Rouk that I had also sent her my response to Shon Kraley’s plea for help as his hours had been cut (now he has some of mine) in favor of expanding Mr. Bayer and Ms. Atkinson’s hours of teaching and asked, but was not answered, if there was any nexus between that letter of August 29, 2011 and your own letter of September 1, 2011.

16. Why was your letter of September 1, 2011 sent to my home address when Clark College knows and has often used my official mailing address? The only other time mail was sent to my home address was December 23, 2009, while I was undergoing emergency heart surgery at Southwest Medical, 4 of the same letters, announcing my impending discipline, one registered one not, sent to my official mailing address that Clark College had often used and two, one registered, one not, sent to my home address to arrive on Christmas Eve December 24th. This was taken even by Mr. Stephson as serious indicia of some serious malice and animus on the part of whomever ordered the sending of those letters and to my home while I was in serious medical trouble.

These are my fresh recollections with clarifying addenda from previous submissions in the possession of Clark College, supported by review of my tapes of the arguments advanced. Please confirm or rebut any of my recollections in writing and do so within three days of receipt of this official request as you have given about one week for some kind of decision while I do not accept and protest, in this submission, and please note this, your authority and standing to act as someone who has already expressed in your letter of pre-determined discipline of three quarters off without pay, prior to one word of rebuttal from me, unspecified allegations of Dr. Hamideh, with no formal complaint given to me prior to the meeting (when I am represented by AHE, I am supposed to get ALL that AHE gets including any formal complaints as AHE is not the U.S. mail), with only a few sentences taken out of a totality of communications and contexts, and with what are, in your grammar and syntax, conclusions and a verdict already established, and discipline prescribed and arranged, BEFORE the meeting. That means that again, you are acting as judge of your own charges or charges you believe to be warranted but will not specify, and assessor of discipline; and, I presume, appeal authority on stages I and II of any appeals to what appears to be a foregone conclusion before the meeting.

Thank you for your consideration of this extremely time-sensitive matter. If you wish to rebut either my recollections of my submissions and arguments, or my own assertions and arguments themselves please do so in writing and by September 30, 2011.

Sincerely,
James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor and Department Head, Economics

From: Kraley, Shon
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:32 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text

Hi Jim.

It looks like Atkinson has been given full time status for at least Fall term, while I have not. In fact, Bayer has more credits than I do. If there is anything you can do with the new dean, I would very much appreciate it.
Thank you.

Shon
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Kraley, Shon
Cc: Sullivan, Kimberly; Rourk, Darcy
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text

Hi Shon,

Thanks for the note and do you see any problem in that I as head of the department was told nothing about any of this? I am referring this to personnel and the union as I had no idea of any of your situation.

Yes, I not only will try to do something about this but I am doing something about this on the legal front and I do not mean just civil law. This is outrageous and a total contempt and disservice to the students. Mr. Bayer, who once told John Fite “I do not want anything to do with that Indian guy”, who does not have even a bachelor’s degree in economics, I have never met, along with Mr. Newman, Ms Foreman, Mr. Bailey. This is an agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not the Rotary, a country club, a favor factory or recruiting agency for backroom cults and cabals, and it is a crime, called Trading in Public Employment and Conspiracy to trade in Public Employment, to use public resources and jobs as favors or as rewards for services rendered–e.g. filing complaints against a targeted person–for friendships, for relatives, or for networking or any personal advantages.

There is one and only one person qualified to vet new adjuncts and that is me–not John Fite whose MA in Economics is from the early 1970s and who never worked as an economist, never taught economics prior to coming to Clark College, and never published anything in economics or worked with the new changes in economic theory and pedagogy in the over thirty years that there have been changes in economics. John, according to his own words, found the one person who would give him credit for the teaching that goes on in a cockpit in the military and in commercial aviation; but with the understanding that there was a whole lot he had missed in the over thirty years since his Masters degree in Economics and that I would mentor him and that he understood how little he knew and how inexperienced he was as an economist and teacher of economics. Further, if we get litigation by students who feel that they were shortchanged and not handed fully-qualified teachers (Econ 201 and 202 are universal transfer courses that are mandated to have some standardization and comparable content and pedagogy for transferability), imagine how all of this will play in a court of law when it comes out that we have had a bunch of adjuncts hired and allowed to teach, hired outside of established procedures for hiring and documentation of credentials and experience without ever having even met the head of economics and at the time in some cases, the division chair at the time.

Further, at my arbitration hearing, both Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson swore, under penalty of perjury, that Bob Knight said to them “We will have no morale problem here when we get rid of Professor Craven” whereas Bob Knight swore under penalty of perjury at my Employment Security Department appeal hearing, that he never made such a statement to them, and, that when asked about this alleged statement, in two separate hearings, with one of the women present who made the allegation about his statement present, refused to deny it on record only because, he testified, he was there to ask not answer questions. So someone, acting in their official capacity, in official government proceedings, committed perjury. All of that will be explored in Thurston County Superior Court and in other venues with other agencies of the Washington State and Federal Governments. Perjury is very serious business as in Illinois, 13 people on death row, one 45 minutes away from execution, all found later to be absolutely innocent, wound up on death row due to perjury and prosecutorial misconduct. Someone who commits perjury, especially in conjunction with official duties in public employment, is not only attempting to obstruct justice but to steal it.

Imagine, in what country, is it possible for someone to be charged with offenses and then investigated and found guilty by those who made the charges and/or recruited others to make them; then a verdict is given, arrangements are made to hire replacements, the course schedule is changed with my name deleted from my courses for which many students signed up specifically for me as a teacher, all PRIOR to the one Laudermill hearing, [conducted by those who charged me] that I got, to determine if I would or would not be teaching; then the sentence of 108 days off without pay immediately imposed prior to any pending appeal hearings (it was clear how they would go) and PRIOR to arbitration (how could I and my family have been “made whole” if we had won the arbitration?). It is also a crime to make false statements while on the job in public employment.

Further, you are the only adjunct fully and properly vetted by me and even John Fite has never been fully vetted as I have never seen him teach whereas he has seen me teach a whole course and I have seen you teach and have vetted you twice. I was not even allowed on campus to vote in person on his tenure, and I came very close to voting no on his tenure out of professional responsibility (I voted yes because he was in a situation not under his control). Further, Adnan, in the presence of John Fite and Gerry Smith, said to all of us “You know it is ‘ironic’ [not a word I would use] that the areas in which I am teaching–statistics, accounting and economics–are the subjects I had the least interest in and barely passed with Cs in my MBA program”. Had I known that long ago I would have opposed and will oppose his teaching any economics at any level as this is the kind of statement and reflects an attitude that in my opinion no real educator or someone worthy of being called an educator.

As my father used to say: “Who is it that cares nothing about formal credentials? Those who do not have them; but they do care about credentials of providers when THEY are the demanders of services.”

I do not want to cause you any hardships more than you and your family have suffered, but this has to go to personnel, to the union and to the new Dean. Transparency is coming to Clark College I promise you and this will all be made public as well as the students have rights to critical information in their own market-based decisions and with the scarce resources that many have to deal with.
take care,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

I had no knowledge of or any involvement in the writing of this letter by Emma Kim that still stands unrebutted by several Clark College administrations:

—–Original Message—–
From: 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.)

Secret file 6 binders, 4900 pages kept since 1994

Clark College secret-file11

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 litigious, 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 charged with child pornography using state resources. There was no subjective demonization like, “Dennis is a creepy slime bag who will eyeball your underage children with a gleam 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. These were 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 naiveté, 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 supposed 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 was 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!!!!
More to follow:

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

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 42.20.080

Other violations by officers.

Every officer or other person mentioned in RCW 42.20.070, who shall willfully disobey any provision of law regulating his official conduct in cases other than those specified in said section, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

42.20.090 <> 42.20.110

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.]

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 2

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.]

Public officer making false certificate.

Every public officer who, being authorized by law to make or give a certificate or other writing, shall knowingly make and deliver as true such a certificate or writing containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not expressly prescribed by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1909 c 249 § 128; RRS § 2380.]

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.

RCW 42.20.100

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;

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 9A.80.010

RCW 42.40.035

Duty of correctness — Penalties for false information.

An employee must make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the correctness of the information furnished and may be subject to disciplinary actions, including, but not limited to, suspension or termination, for knowingly furnishing false information as determined by the employee’s appointing authority.

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;
& amp; amp; amp; lt; BR> (e) Unwarranted and unsubstantiated letters of reprimand or unsatisfactory performance evaluations;

(f) Demotion;

(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 pr epond eranc e of the evi dence 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 making 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 <> 42.40.050

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 sent enced 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.

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.

Intimidating a witness.

(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a witness if a person, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to:

(a) Influence the testimony of that person;

(b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify;

(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or

(d) Induce that person not to report the information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, not to have the crime or the abuse or neglect of a minor child prosecuted, or not to give truthful or complete information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.

(2) A person also is guilty of intimidating a witness if the person directs a threat to a former witness because of the witness’s role in an official proceeding.

(3) As used in this section:

(a) “Threat” means:

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

(ii) Threat as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25).

(b) “Current or prospective witness” means:

(i) A person endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;

(ii) A person whom the actor believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding; or

(iii) A person whom the actor has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.

(c) “Former witness” means:

(i) A person who testified in an official proceeding;

(ii) A person who was endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;

(iii) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have been called as a witness if a hearing or trial had been held; or

(iv) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have provided information related to a criminal investigation or an investigation into the abuse or neglect of a minor child.

(4) Intimidating a witness is a class B felony.
[1997 c 29 § 1; 1994 c 271 § 204; 1985 c 327 § 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 18; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.110.]

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).
Finding — 1994 c 271: See note following RCW 9A.72.090.
Purpose — Severability — 1994 c 271: See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.

RCW 9A.72.150

Tampering with physical evidence.

(1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he:

(a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its appearance, character, or availability in such pending or prospective official proceeding; or

(b) Knowingly presents or offers any false physical evidence.

(2) “Physical evidence” as used in this section includes any article, object, document, record, or other thing of physical substance.

(3) Tampering with physical evidence is a gross misdemeanor.

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 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 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 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.36.090

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.]

RCW 49.44.010

Blacklisting — Penalty.

Every person in this state who shall willfully 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 willfully and maliciously “blacklist” or cause to be “blacklisted” any person or persons, by writing, printing or publishing, or causing the same to be done, the name, or mark, or designation representing the name of any person in any paper, pamphlet, circular or book, together with any statement concerning persons so named, or publish or cause to be published that any person is a member of any secret organization, for the purpose of preventing such person from securing! employment, or who shall willfully 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.

WAC 132N-300-010

[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.

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.

Clark College CCAHE Contract Violations

B. Association Rights

1. The Association acting through its President or authorized representative has, in addition to other rights expressly set forth or provided by statute, the following rights:

a. The Association will, upon request, be provided with bulletin boards, or sections thereof, for the purpose of posting Association materials at sites mutually agreed upon by the parties. The Association has the right to use the College mail to distribute material related to administration of its responsibilities as the exclusive bargaining representative of the faculty.

g. The Association will promptly be notified by the College of any disciplinary actions regarding any faculty member.

ARTICLE III – PERSONNEL

A. Discipline/Right to Due Process/Representation

2. No faculty member will be disciplined without just cause. The College agrees to follow a policy of progressive discipline that includes oral warning, written reprimand, suspension, and dismissal. The severity of the action may justify the elimination of steps. The burden of proof that cause for discipline exists rests with the College. Any action taken will be appropriate to the behavior that precipitates the action.

3. Any discipline of any faculty member by a supervisor, administrator, or other agent of the College will be made in private and never in the presence of students.

4. Faculty members reserve the right to have a representative of the Association and/or legal counsel present when being disciplined for any reason, or during any meeting which the College or the faculty member reasonably believes may lead to disciplinary action. When a request for such representation is made, no action will be taken with respect to the faculty member until such representative of the Association and/or counsel is present or within five (5) calendar days of notification, whichever is sooner. All information forming the basis for discipline will be made available to the faculty member and the Association. Nothing here will be construed to preclude the Vice President or other appropriate administrative person from attempting to resolve problems with an academic employee in confidence.

5. Any complaint not called to the attention of the faculty member within ten (10) working days of notice to the College, may not be used as the basis for any disciplinary action against the faculty member.

6. Excluding instances of course cancellation or the reassignment of a probationer or tenured faculty member to maintain a full load, no adjunct faculty member will be dismissed during the term of appointment without just cause.

7. Disciplinary actions will be limited to oral warning, written reprimand, suspension, and dismissal. During the issuance of an oral warning the administrator must clearly indicate that an oral warning is being issued and that it is the first step in the discipline procedure. If the process is documented in writing, that documentation will not be placed in the employee’s personnel file unless further steps in the discipline process require proof that an oral warning was appropriately delivered. All other steps in the discipline process will likewise be clearly identified.

a. Written notice of the charges. Service will be either in person or by certified mail to official mailing address. Service will be considered accomplished three days after deposit in United States mail, properly stamped and addressed.

g. Only one official personnel file will be maintained and only material properly placed in that file may be utilized in any disciplinary action against the faculty member.

c. The Division Chair term will be for two academic years. Continuation after two years will be through the selection process.

2. The academic work year of 173 days normally will be served during the Fall, Winter and Spring quarters. However, a faculty member, with the approval of the Vice President, may elect to work a full load during the Summer quarter. Such approval will not be unreasonably withheld. If the Summer quarter is worked by a faculty member, the faculty member may elect to take off the Fall, Winter or Spring quarter of that fiscal year with an appropriate adjustment to reflect contractual days worked.

I. Summer Quarter

1. Work assignments during Summer quarter will be voluntary for faculty on academic year appointments.

2. All positions in the program will be opened to current tenured and probationary faculty members before they are opened to persons outside.

F. Life-Threatening Illnesses

1. The College recognizes that faculty members with life-threatening illnesses, including but not limited to cancer, heart disease, and AIDS, may wish to continue to engage in as many of their normal pursuits as their condition allows, including work. As long as these faculty members are able to meet performance standards of their position, and medical evidence indicates that their conditions are not a threat to themselves or others, supervisors should be sensitive to their conditions and ensure that they are treated consistently with other faculty members. At the same time, the College has an obligation to provide a safe work environment for all faculty members and students. Every precaution should be taken to ensure that a faculty member’s condition does not present a health and/or safety threat to other faculty members or students.

2. When dealing with situations involving faculty members with life-threatening illnesses, managers should remember that a faculty member’s health condition is personal and confidential, and precautions should be taken to protect information regarding the condition.

G. Moonlight Assignments

1. Full-time faculty will be given priority for moonlight assignment. However, normally no faculty member will teach more than six (6) hours of moonlight assignments per quarter. Moonlight assignments over six (6) hours must be approved by the Unit Dean in consultation with the Division Chair.

ARTICLE VIII – GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

A. Grievance

1. Nothing in this Article will be construed to preclude a faculty member from expressing concerns with regard to any item not covered by this Agreement through the normal administrative channels.

2. Faculty members may have grievances resolved without the intervention of the Association as long as the resolution is not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement and a representative of the Association has been given the opportunity to participate in such resolution.

B. Grievance Process

1. A grievance is hereby defined as an alleged violation by the College of the terms of this Agreement. An individual faculty member who has been aggrieved, or group of faculty members who have been individually aggrieved, or the authorized Association representative, will have the right to present grievances. Such grievances will be handled in the following manner:

Step One

The grievant and the Association representative, if requested by the grievant, may orally present the alleged grievance to the appropriate immediate supervisor and Vice President. If the grievance is not adjusted orally, the grievance will be reduced to writing, dated and signed by the faculty member and the Association representative, if any involved, and will state the specific factual basis of the grievance, the provision or provisions of the Agreement involved, and the remedy sought. The immediate supervisor and Vice President will be given the written grievance and will note receipt of the same by countersigning and dating the original grievance and will give a copy of the grievance to the Association representative. The Vice President will answer the grievance in writing within ten (10) working days thereafter and will concurrently send a copy of the grievance and the answer to the authorized Association representative.

Step Two

If no settlement is reached at Step One, the written grievance may be submitted to the President or designated representative, provided it is filed with the President or designated representative not more than ten (10) working days after it is answered in Step One. Representative(s) of the Association will be present at any meeting called to consider the grievance at Step Two. The President or designated representative will send the written answer to the authorized Association representative within ten (10) working days. Such answer will be deemed to be the final position of the College.

Step Three

If no settlement is reached at Step Two, the Association, acting through its President, may, in its sole discretion, within ten (10) working days after the date of the Step Two answer, notify the College that the grievance will be arbitrated, provided that the grievance presents an arbitrable matter as herein defined. The demand for arbitration will be submitted to the American Arbitration Association within twenty (20) working days of the Step Two answer.

53 Article VIII

Clark College/AHE

7/1/06

C. Time Limits

With respect to Section 1 of this Article, the following time limits are established. Any grievance not presented in writing as provided in Step One of Section 1 above within fifteen (15) working days after the grievant knows or reasonably should have known of the occurrence of the event or the condition giving rise to the grievance will be waived for all purposes. For purposes of this Article, working days will be defined as contracted faculty working days pursuant to the Board-approved academic calendar regardless of whether the grievant is actually assigned such days. In addition, if any other steps or actions provided for in Section 1 of this Article are not taken, or appeals therein provided for not taken or filed, or notice not given within the time limits therein specified, then the grievance will be deemed finally closed and settled on the basis of the College’s last answer unless both parties mutually agree to extend time limits.

D. Arbitration

1. Matters subject to arbitration will be referred to the American Arbitration Association under voluntary rules.

2. Only grievances which involve an alleged violation by the College of a specific Section or provision of this Agreement, or any extension thereof, and which are presented to the College in writing during the term of this Agreement, and which are processed in the
manner and within the time limits herein provided, will be subject to arbitration.

54 Article VIII

Clark College/AHE

7/1/06

4. The decision of the arbitrator within the time limits herein prescribed will be final and binding upon the College, the Association and the faculty members affected consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

F. Fees and Expenses

The fees and expenses of the arbitrator will be borne equally by the parties.

G. No Reprisals

No reprisals of any kind will be taken by the Trustees or the College administration against any faculty member because of participation in this grievance procedure.

H. Personnel files

All documents, communications, and records dealing with the processing of a grievance will be filed separately from the personnel files of the participant(s).

55 Article IX

Clark College/AHE

7/1/06

Supremacy Clause Law & Legal Definition

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” Therefore, if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be followed.

The Supremacy Clause states:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

According to U.S. law treaties are those international agreements that receive the advice and consent of the Senate. (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution). A treaty to which United States is a party is given status equal to that of a federal legislation and therefore forms a part of the Supreme law of the land.

This concept of federal supremacy was first developed by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Md., 17 U.S. 316, 406 (U.S. 1819), where the court held that the State of Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of United States, a branch of the National Bank. It was concluded that “the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, “any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

In Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 632 (U.S. 1982) it was held that “a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

Similarly in Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. Cal. 1992) the court held on the issue of injunction and remediation, that “otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court’s remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme. State policy must give way when it operates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees.”

D. Conformity to Law

Any provision of this Agreement which is in conflict with any existing or future federal or state law or regulation of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) will become inoperative to the extent or duration of such conflict. Since it is not the intent of either party to violate such laws, it is agreed in the event of a conflict between any provisions of this Agreement and such federal or state law or regulation of the Washington SBCTC, the remainder of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. The College and the Association agree to meet for the purpose of negotiating substitute provisions within thirty (30) days to replace those provisions in conflict with law or regulation. Clark College/AHE 7/1/06

2. The College subscribes to and practices collegiality and recognizes its benefits to the College. The College also recognizes that faculty input is a vital resource and that faculty legitimately have an interest in many matters affecting the College, especially those touching the area of instruction. In such matters, the College will involve faculty early in the process. In addition, the College encourages faculty initiation of proposals for change and improvement.

The Association acting through its President or authorized representative has, in addition to other rights expressly set forth or provided by statute, the following rights:

a. The Association will, upon request, be provided with bulletin boards, or sections thereof, for the purpose of posting Association materials at sites mutually agreed upon by the parties. The Association has the right to use the College mail to distribute material related to administration of its responsibilities as the exclusive bargaining representative of the faculty.

b. The Association has the right to use College facilities for meetings and College equipment, when the equipment and facilities are not otherwise in use. The Association will pay for the cost of all materials and supplies incident to their use.

c. Association agents are permitted to transact Association business on College property, provided there are no disruptions to the normal operation of the College.

1. The College will not provide personal information concerning faculty members, including names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., to any person outside the College, or to any commercial organization without either specific faculty member approval or Association agreement, unless otherwise required by law or court action.

A. Discipline/Right to Due Process/Representation

LOUDERMILL RIGHTS

(Pre-Disciplinary Hearing)

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985)

With respect to suspension without pay, involuntary demotion, or involuntary termination when just cause is required: Prior to being disciplined, “The …tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him (or her), an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his (or her) side of the story. ”This right is known as the “Loudermill Right” based upon the 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill.

• Unlike Weingarten, the employer has an obligation to inform the employee of his/her Loudermill Rights.

• The employee has a right to speak or not to speak at the Loudermill (or pre-disciplinary) hearing. Also, the employee has a right to Union Representation and the Union Steward may speak on behalf of the employee. In fact, it is advised that the Union Steward speak on behalf of the Union Member. What the employee says can be used against him/her. What the Union Steward says can’t be used against the employee.

• Remember to take notes at the meeting and put them in your file. Ask the Union Member to do the same.

Weingarten Rights

EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO UNION REPRESENTATION

The right of employees to have union representation at investigatory interviews was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1975 case (NLRB vs. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251, 88 LRRM 2689). These rights have become known as the Weingarten rights.

Employees have Weingarten rights only during investigatory interviews. An investigatory interview occurs when a supervisor questions an employee to obtain information which could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his or her conduct.

If an employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or other adverse consequences may result from what he or she says, the employee has the right to request union representation. Management is not required to inform the employee of his/her Weingarten rights; it is the employees responsibility to know and request.

When the employee makes the request for a union representative to be present management has three options:
(I) it can stop questioning until the representative arrives.
(2) it can call off the interview or,
(3) it can tell the employee that it will call off the interview unless the employee voluntarily gives up his/her rights to a union representative (an option the emplovee should always refuse.)

Employers will often assert that the only role of a union representative in an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion. The Supreme Court, however, clearly acknowledges a representative’s right to assist and counsel workers during the interview.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that during an investigatory interview management must inform the union representative of the subject of the interrogation. The representative must also be allowed to speak privately with the employee before the interview. During the questioning, the representative can interrupt to clarify a question or to object to confusing or intimidating tactics.

While the interview is in progress the representative can not tell the employee what to say but he may advise them on how to answer a question. At the end of the interview the union representative can add information to support the employee’s case.

On June 15, 2004, The National Labor Relations Board ruled by a 3-2 vote that employees who work in a nonunionized workplace are not entitled under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to have a coworker accompany them to an interview with their employer, even if the affected employee reasonably believes that the interview might result in discipline.

This decision effectively reversed the July 2000 decision of the Clinton Board that extended Weingarten Rights to nonunion employees.

RESPONSE TO FBI SSA SAITO

8-20-2010

Emma’sltrFeb2003.docx
WatsonFile.docx

Download all

James shared 3 online files with you and they’re saved on SkyDrive. To view these files, just click the links above.
Share your own online docs with Hotmail

From: Kevin.Saito@ic.fbi.gov
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com
CC: Britton.Boyd@ic.fbi.gov
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:22:21 -0400
Subject: Complaint Status

Professor Craven,

In accordance with our previous discussion, the facts of your complaint were provided to the United States Attorney’s Office. At this time, an investigation will not be conducted.

Sincerely,

Kevin T. Saito
Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Seattle Field Office
1110 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-2904
206-262-2030
kevin.saito@ic.fbi.gov

Dear Special Agent Saito:

Thank you for your reply and confirmation in writing of the status of my complaint. I was in China until June 7, 2010 and since returning I have been jammed up with many things. I have tried to be sensitive to the fact that your time is extremely limited and I thank you for the time that you have spent on my case so far. For the record, I am aware more than many citizens because of my research over many years that you have myriad responsibilities and challenges that you face and must deal with very limited resources and I also understand that in the context of things, my allegations and the offenses that I have alleged to have been committed against me and others are relatively minor compared to the serious issues and crimes with which you must deal. Further, let me please state also for the record that in my life I have met and known individuals working past and present for almost all of the three-letter agencies of the U.S. Government dealing with law enforcement and intelligence, including FBI, and some I have met and known were dedicated, honest, courageous and principled individuals that would never engage in some of the illegal and un-Constitutional activities that others, including J. Edgar Hoover, after whom the FBI Building was named and for whom I and my family had only the most extreme contempt, routinely engaged. I am assuming that you are one of the principled, honest and hard-working ones. Also this known by you helps to ensure that I never misrepresent the status on my complaint due to my own ignorance of where it stands and no response to my inquiries.

Since this letter will be going to other venues, including to Attorney General Eric Holder, and since I do not want to bother you as I know you are extremely busy, please indulge me for the record and to inform you of what I plan to do next.

When the FBI had its Vancouver Office at the old location near 8th and Columbia, an FBI Special Agent told me “I just wish you had come to us first”. What was he referring to? He was referring to the fact that when a colleague, a tenured and very powerful and connected Professor of Mathematics, Dennis Watson, still at Clark College, bragged to me that he was receiving and disseminating child pornography, and even soliciting polaroid pictures of naked children (“I just got a nice polaroid of a beaver shot of a 14 year old in Canada sent to me; she thinks I am 17 years old”), using a Clark.edu email address, even though I was not tenured and had everything to lose as he was indeed connected to and protected by the Clark College administration, as a public employee, in accordance with my legal responsibilities and my conscience I reported it to the Washington State Auditor’s Office and the Washington State Patrol. The president of Clark College, an alleged pedophile himself, set in motion processes to obstruct the investigation and trial with the result that the criminal charges were dropped due to procedural errors in the warrant and its serving but was still found guilty of being in possession of some 1700 files full of vile and obscene pornography. The FBI Special Agent, and I forget his name, even showed me a darkened room with a gentleman sitting at a computer and said to me that “We could have set up a sting and got this guy with no way out and I’m sorry that you did not come to us first.” Well that individual is still at Clark College, still engaged in serial and protected harassment of me and I just got more time off and more loss of pay than he got all imposed with my appeals still pending with the very persons who charged me or solicited and rewarded proxies to charge me, acting as those who turn complaints into charges; who act as prosecutors and then present their own charges and what they allow as supporting “evidence” to themselves next acting as judges of their own charges; then acting as jurors they find the pre-determined verdict on their own charges; then they assess discipline; and for the coup de grace, they act as appeals judges of their own charges and verdicts on two of three levels of possible appeal (even if a fraud appeals can create a record perhaps for litigation). As a tenured professor and public employee, I have Constitutional rights (but also legal duties and responsibilities) that private-sector employees do not have as under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution: The State shall deprive no person of life, liberty and property without due process of law. And having the same person or persons, driven by provable extreme malice and animus, making allegations, turning allegations into formal complaints, turning formal complaints into formal charges, presenting the charges to themselves acting as judges, juries and assessors of discipline, then acting as appeals judges of their own charges, not only ain’t “due process” per se, but this could never be done to you in the FBI if you had supervisor’s out to get you after you had blown the whistle repeatedly, in writing, on some serious corruption.

So let me apprise you where I am going next and what I have. According to the still unanswered and un-rebutted letter of Ms Emma Kim who worked in HR at Clark College, she was ordered to maintain an illegal secret file on me (see attached picture and letter of Emma Kim) by the Attorney General’s Office, headed by Christine Gregoire, presently the Governor of the State of Washington, and poised to become the next Solicitor General of the U.S. The Attorney General even maintained a “Craven Specialist”, an AAG named Jim Tuttle, according to the sworn testimony of former and fired Dean Richard Fulton.

Let me quote from a sworn deposition former Dean Richard Fulton (contract not renewed and passed over for Interim President at Clark College, Vancouver, WA.) Richard in the lawsuit of Dr. Aleyamma P. Thomas v Clark College.

“I did, in fact, ask our state attorney who handles Craven affairs–that’s different from our state attorney general who handles everything else from the college–a man named Jim Tuttle who is stationed up in Seattle. I did ask him what kind of protection I could get from the state. His reaction was legally there was nothing the state attorney could do, that I would have to handle those affairs on my own.” (Deposition of Dean Richard Fulton p. 10)

In those six binders, which Clark College wants $490 from me to have a copy of (4900 pages times 10 cents per page), which I have completely reviewed, you will find over and over, with repeated and unanswered pleas for rebuttal, my written protests and supporting evidence, like the 500 pages I tried to give you in Seattle and like the documents and tapes I gave to Special Agent Brittain in Vancouver, that support my good-faith-based belief that serious federal as well as State crimes were being committed and still are being committed including letters to then Governor Gary Locke, now Secretary of Commerce under President Obama:

For The Eyes of Governor Locke
Dear Governor Locke:

Thank you for your response letter to some of the matters that I have raised with you. For those matters that you feel that you can do nothing about and about which you referred me to the office of Brian Sonntag, Washington State Auditor, I will take those matters to his office.

I raised other issues about which you can do something. After blowing the whistle on a faculty member who was using State resources to collect and disseminate child pornography, I have been subjected to harassment by that same individual. He has felt free to continue this harassment because he has been offered protection by some members of the Clark Administration and by the refusal to act by some members of the Clark Board of Trustees–appointed/reappointed by you or your predecessor Governor Lowry.

I have been before the Clark Board of Trustees eight times. In the presence of the AAG Ms Terada, I have given actual physical evidence (redacted tapes, copies of tapes sworn under of penalty not to exist, materially altered public records, sworn deposition and sources in sworn depositions where I alleged that perjury had been committed in a Title VII Federal case). Not once was I given any response to my concerns; not once was I given any rebuttal; not once was I given even an indication that serious evidence had been even considered. This in my opinion, and in the opinion of my WEA representative, gave a tacit “green-light” to–and emboldened–those engaging in continual harassment of me (pornography sent to me, messages that I am being investigated, my credit report sent to me etc).

So Governor, there is something you can do. You can take a look at your own appointees to the position of Trustee. You can ensure that only the most experienced, most honest, most capable and most committed to quality education are placed in the important position of Trustee. You can ensure that the position of Trustee is not used for political patronage, for payback, or for persons seeking higher political levels using Trusteeships as stepping stones.

Please read the following. The human costs of political patronage and dereliction of duty and tacit complicity in harassment through dereliction of duty are simply too great.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven
Professor, Dept. Head Economics

Next we have my provable medical status, having had a heart attack, possibly two, and the fact that not only were the charges against me presented with no hearing while I was on sick leave, but discipline was then imposed with my three levels of appeal denied and with notice of pending discipline given while I was in the hospital recovering from emergency surgery with four copies of the same identical letter sent on December 23, 2009 to arrive on Christmas Eve, two of which were sent to my personal home address which was not my official mailing address well known by the College and my home address only known by the HR Director who had to certify it for my V.A. home loan (this shows extreme and even psychopathic malice and animus as well as possible attempted murder given my known medical condition and the known literature on the relationship between induced or even non-induced stress and such assaults and possible death or serious medical harm. I mention all of this, along with my standing as an economist and teacher, to give you some idea of how all of this will play not only in court, but possibly on ” 60 Minutes” or Dateline (I am also a biographical subject in several issues, including presently, in Marquis “Who’s Who: in the World; in America; in The West; in Science and Engineering; in Finance and Industry; in American Education and taught Doctoral and post-Doctoral students at Tsinghua University in China, the top University of China http://rwxy.tsinghua.edu.cn:8080/xi-suo/jjs/econ/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=1070) We also have the legal finding, apparently not being appealed, for $545,000 plus legal costs, against Clark College, for reprisal against another whistleblower (alleged covert and illegal diversions of Title IX funds from designated to non-designated purposes) where they very same modus operandi of conspiracy against rights and under color of law used against me was used against him (soliciting others to file charges against him, piling on and stacking charges, contrived and false charges, manufactured evidence, misconduct of a public employee, filing false charges by a public employee had to have been involved in the machinations for which Clark College was found guilty http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/jul/15/ex-coach-wins-lawsuit-against-clark-college/)

Then we have patterns in my case that were provably employed against others who were terminated, denied tenure with also the very same persons involved employing the very same methods of harassment, cover-up, reprisal etc. And finally we have some of the dirty little secrets that the FBI, Washington State Patrol, Vancouver Police, Clark County Sheriff’s Department, Washington State Auditor’s Office, Criminal Division of the Washington State Auditor’s Office and several Governors of the State of Washington were warned about, with what I believed to be supporting evidence for my allegations, and with repeated and unanswered pleas for responses and rebuttals from those against whom I had made allegations, and of course I have the whole paper trail which will go public and to the media.

My offer to you to be Mirandized and to swear all my statements under perjury, and to submit to questioning by FBI on any subject bearing on my charges or indeed my overall credibility and intentions stands. If I do invoke my Fifth Amendment and other Constitutional rights it will never be to facilitate or cover-up any crime including by me or to obstruct an investigation; it may only be to protect a confidence that has no bearing on the matters at hand. I understand very well that those who make allegations must be prepared to have themselves, their allegations, intentions and credibility fully examined and I would have it no other way.

Again I thank you for your patience with me and my complaint, I wish you well and safety in your work that is often dangerous dealing with very serious threats and crimes going far beyond anything I and my family have suffered. But please understand I am fighting for my life, my work, my name, for due process, for the U.S. Constitution that I once took an oath to serve, protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, and for the students, many of whom are veterans who put their bodies on the line, as I once did, for their precious veteran’s benefits and education. I have a very long history, embodied in those six binders and a lot more documentation that will surface and go public, of being “guilty” of refusal to turn a blind eye to, participate in, or cover-up, very serious federal and state crimes and forms of corruption that have cost the public literally millions of dollars. That is my only “crime” or, if I am guilty of something else, I will never whine or moan if my guilt is properly and legally established as I am entitled under the U.S. Constitution.

My credentials, published work, and awards that I never once sought in any way, I only mention as a matter of credibility, should attest that I do not make frivolous charges and that I do know how to read the law and comport with it, as all citizens are expected to do even if not being lawyers. Please note and this will also be brought out, that two previous presidents of Clark College, also involved in this ongoing alleged conspiracy against rights and under color of law aided by the AG’s office since 1994, with Ms Katina Golder, the recently retired former head of HR as the binding link between alleged conspirators past and present and thus a continuous conspiracy top the present for purposes of statutes of limitations, were finally fired and the allegations and evidence brought against them, were the exact same allegations and evidence as I had brought to the Clark College Board of Trustees, all-in-all 13 times, with not one rebuttal or even answer to my complaint; and were even made in the presence of those same persons against whom I made allegations and brought evidence and with no responses from them either (I have all of this on tapes, some of which were given to Special Agent Brittain in Vancouver, which will also be made public and even played on the radio station on which I sit as a board member KBOO 90.7 FM Portland). In short I am as serious as the heart attack and two surgeries that I suffered and your own files on me in the FBI should attest to my level of seriousness in my beliefs and activism.

Please stay safe and well and thank you for your service. Please do something about the FBI Building being named after J. Edna Hoover who practiced extortion through secret and confidential files, consorted with and profited from mobsters at race tracks and in even denying the existence of the mafia and who crapped over the basic rights of many citizens, including me, that were simply exercising their Constitutional rights and actually cared a lot more about America than he ever did. As I noted to you, having the FBI headquarters, which is part of the “Justice” Department named after Hoover is like having a shelter for battered women named after Ted Bundy. In his autobiography, former FBI SAC I.C. Smith notes that of the four top priorities of FBI designated by Director Mueller, Counter-terrorism and Counter-intelligence have been elevated due to some past big-time screw-ups, Cyber crime is number three, and public corruption is number four; but he also mentions numerous instances where he alleges some of the same forms of corruption in FBI that I have alleged at Clark College and elsewhere (cronyism, nepotism, trading in public employment, cover-ups, misuse of public resources, politics in what does or does not get investigated and by whom etc) and he claims that these priorities should be seen “holistically” as forms of public corruption, in addition to destroying the lives of real people, also allowed the screw-ups in the areas now at high priority for FBI–particular forms of corruption not only beget more corruption (each person who does corruption with others, or who engages in conspiracy with others, has something on the others and they on him or her such that as conspirator Tom Paine put it: “We must all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately”), but they also set back effective action against other forms of crimes and threats.

Thank you again for your patience and understanding and time from a very heavy workload. I originally came to you in your capacity as Supervisory Special Agent dealing with cyber crime and my own computer being shut down with repeated waves of spamming (over 400 items each time) of pornography once determined to have been sent by Dennis Watson on previous occasions. When I called FBI on these other matters, and when I told them I had contacted you on the cyber crime issue, they said to still work with you as otherwise another file would have to be opened, another Special Agent assigned and also the two complaints were partly related.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor of Economics; Head, Department of Economics

cc.

Attorney General Eric Holder

Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag

Washington State Deputy Auditor Linda Long

Dateline

60 Minutes

ONE OF SEVERAL ADJUNCTS TEACHING ECONOMICS AT CLARK COLLEGE I HAVE NEVER MET AND WHO DOES NOT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH, OR BE VETTED BY, “THAT INDIAN GUY”

This is where I work and endure. This is where I wonder what and who the students are getting. The following document on the individual named, Mr. Bayer, is presently teaching Economics at Clark College with an MBA which means he would be unqualified to apply for a full-time teaching position as a minimum of Masters Degree in Economics and two years of teaching experience in Economics has been the established requirement since I was hired in 1992 as the first professor of Economics with a graduate degree in Economics at Clark College and I was given advanced placement as I had some 16 years of full-time equivalent teaching experience at all levels from high school to post-doctoral lectures overseas.

1) WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

2) WHAT KIND OF UNION (WEA) OR ADMINISTRATION WOULD TOLERATE THIS?

3) WHAT KIND OF “COLLEAGUES” OR “EDUCATORS” OR TYPES WITH “ED LEADERSHIP DEGREES” WOULD HIRE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THEIR HAVING OR THE CANDIDATE HAVING ACADEMIC PREPARATION AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED FOR THE POSITION AND WITHOUT THE ACADEMIC PREPARATION AND EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE TO VET HIM?

4) WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THIS PERSON’S FITNESS TO TEACH ANYTHING WHO WOULD MANIFEST SUCH HATEFUL AND RACIST ATTITUDES TOWARD SOMEONE, A SENIOR TENURED ECONOMIST, AND EXPERIENCED EDUCATOR, HE HAS NEVER MET, WHO HAS NEVER HARMED HIM IN ANY WAY AND WHOSE RESUME BAYER’S OWN RESUME WOULD NOT APPEAR TO MAKE A FOOTNOTE ON?

4) WHAT ADJUNCT “TEACHER” IS ALLOWED TO DETERMINE WHO SHALL VET HIM FOR COMPETENCE IN THE DISCIPLINE AND IN THE PEDAGOGY OF IT AND WHAT ADMINISTRATION OR “COLLEAGUES” WOULD ALLOW IT AND WHY?

5) WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME STUDENTS WHO FEEL SHORTCHANGED BY MR BAYER DECIDE TO COMPLAIN TO THE BOARD DEALING WITH COLLEGE ACCREDITATION, OR FILE A LAWSUIT FOR FRAUD AND BEING HANDED AN UN-VETTED AND UN-CREDENTIALED INSTRUCTOR IN ECONOMICS OR EVEN FILE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT?

6) What kind of individual would seek employment through scabbing and subversion of a contract by getting hired through the back door without being vetted by senior faculty in the discipline they purport to be qualified to teach in? What kind of union would tolerate such breaches of the contract and scabbing undermining the contract and law they are charged with protecting?

EPSON scanner image

CURRENT NEWS

Current grievance filed with no response from WEA as of Nov 29, 2012:

October 22, 2012

Dear Mr Borba:

Please see attached. This will go to PERC and other venues. When AHE fails to do what it is paid to do, it signals weakness that management will capitalize on. When AHE actually colludes to protect Bob Knight from perjury charges, including allowing serial violations of the AHE-Clark College Contract and violations of my Constitutional rights (their words in AHE briefs), then AHE creates, for Clark College administrators who would commit perjury, in an Administrative Law Court, while on official duty, “mutuality of interests” of the kind that Tom Paine spoke of when he noted “We must all hang together, or surely, we shall all hang separately.”

Now once more my seniority and service to Clark College, along with the Clark College-AHE Contract is pushed aside along with my preparation as an economist and educator that not one of them behind this could match, my teaching load is summarily dictated to me without one word from me about my family needs (I have two small children), my health, or why I should relocate or not even be consulted on my teaching load, when and where.

And the statement by Bob Knight, sworn to under penalty of perjury by Lynn Davidson and Marcia Roi, that “Morale will improve here when we get rid of professor Craven” stands un-rebutted even when Ms Terada had every opportunity to try to impeach their testimony and knew full well that their sworn testimony also meant that the sworn testimony of Bob Knight was perjury–and vice versa. Four times, and I have it on tapes that have gone to law enforcement, and will go to PERC as well as on my website, of Bob Knight being asked, in the presence of Marcia Roi one of his accusers, and in the presence of Lisa Lewison, and also Lynn Davidson, if he had made that statement alleged and three of the four times, twice when Marcia Roi was present to be accused of perjury to her face, he refused to answer. Another time also he refused to answer. And the last time he wound up accusing Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson of perjury.

This will not go away and these machinations, that represent pure demonization, ostracization, harassment and even psychopathic levels of malice and animus, that show utter contempt for the rights of the students to fully qualified and vetted teachers in all disciplines, are being enabled by AHE hiding out and refusing to protect not just my rights and those of my family, but of all of those who AHE is charged with representing. Horrible precedents are being allowed. This is what that quote from Sir Walter Scott means: “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Just as each lie begets a bodyguard or protecting lies, so it is with cowardice and corruption that create “mutualities of interests” so that if one goes down he or she threatens to take down the others. The problem with that is the types who do corruption with others, are also the types with no real loyalties and will rat each other out in a heartbeat–and are doing so now.

Please regard this as a formal grievance which will be routed to all AHE members via my website:

a) Summarily assigning me to courses, course loads and times with not one request to or word from me, with total contempt for my seniority, medical condition, preparation as an economist, my family responsibilities and thus right to have some say in selecting the courses that best suit me as I have earned that right with my seniority and service, moving my office and ostracizing me to CTC is punitive, harassment, reprisals for my whistle-blowing and more cover-up of the un-vetted hiring of adjuncts in economics without my participation or vetting; Adnan Hamideh is not qualified to teach or vet anyone in economics and neither is John Fite for the same reason I am not qualified to walk down to Pearson Airport and rent an airplane or go down to Horizon Air and step into the left seat of a Dash-9 (and I have much more paper and experience as a pilot than he has as an economist or teacher of economics). Credentials are a matter of objective standards not the whims or duplicity of administrators and their minions trying to cover-up lies and breaches of hiring protocols and laws in public employment with more of the same and summarily denying my seniority and contractual rights.

b) Adnan Hamideh, according to AHE’s own brief was not only involved in breach of the AHE Contract in taking and refusing to return my division chair position and stipend, is also, by his own words, witnessed by Gerry Smith and John Fite, not qualified to teach even Economics 101 and is most certainly not qualified to tell me or anyone teaching economics what texts to use or to vet for technical competence any adjuncts in economics. He said to me, Gerry Smith and John Fite, that he found it “ironic” that the areas in which he was teaching–accounting, statistics and economics–were the very areas he had no real interest in and barely passed them with C grades. He is not qualified, nor is anyone with an MBA to apply to any Washington State Community College to teach economics.

c) Further, and AHE has the documents, and this is another example of a lie begetting more lies, there is and always has been a department of economics, formerly in the social sciences division before I came, and I am the first real economist, with a graduate degree in economics, since the founding of Clark College. Even the sign outside of Scarpelli Hall shows economics as a separate department that requires a masters degree or higher in economics to teach full-time in and MBAs teaching econ 101 was at my discretion going back at least 16 years. His statements in emails to Kim Sullivan, which I only obtained recently, amount to “Filing a False Report by a Public Employee and Misconduct of a Public Employee, because he and John Fite both solicited my signature on a document that AHE already gave to Clark College administration asking for me to sign-off as economics department head for John Fite to alter his original request for one quarter off without pay in order to qualify for medical coverage he would have lost. I signed it and then rescinded my signature when I found out that he had made an earlier request, without one word to me, even as his taking time off affected me and my teaching load, and that he was altering his request only enough to qualify for continuing medical coverage. The economics department has always had a separate budget number. But most of all, as someone who has taught MBA students at WSU and elsewhere, I resent the notion that the watered down economics that MBAs get would in any way qualify them to teach economics which is a discipline that goes far beyond markets, business, capitalism and the like. This summary credentialing of those without credentials to teach economics, by those themselves also without credentials in economics, threatens not only the accreditation of the institution, but also shows contempt for the rights of the students.

d) My rights to overload and to bump any adjunct are in the AHE Contract and were serially violated in the past with no response by AHE and now more of the same is being allowed. Allowing more of the same only thickens the PERC, Civil and possible Criminal complaints that I am pursuing and will lawfully pursue as is my right and even duty as a public employee when I have a good-faith basis to believe that crimes in addition to torts are being committed and in public employment.

e) I have asked repeatedly how, when and under what authority a defamatory letter against me was placed in the personnel file of Dennis Watson, with the assistance of Leslie Homer then Uniserv Director, and got no responses from Clark College or WEA. (see attached)

I quote from Lisa Lewison and AHE’s own brief for arbitration (in which Bob Knight was not cross-examined and thus shielded from possible exposure of his alleged perjury:

” On October 29, 2009 the College sent Mr. Craven a certified letter announcing there was merit to impose a 108-day suspension (2-terms) without pay based on the series of emails dated from February, March, and April 2009. This conclusion was announced prior to any hearing, and prior to any meeting for Mr. Craven to respond to any allegations. In the letter the College further notified Mr. Craven it was their intent to terminate his medical benefits from January 4, 2010 through June 18, 2010.

Mr. Smith testified he had sent an email to Mr. Craven on November 4, 2009 in which he expressed frustration with the lack of fundamentals of due process at Clark College, and that the College has a reckless disregard for your well-being . He continued “…many faculty can attest, and classified staff as well, that the administration at Clark despises you and wishes you gone, and will use whatever pretense to make that happen.”

On or about November 12, 2009 Mr. Craven learned the College had changed the online course registration and given firm commitments to replacements, had removed him from his assigned classes for Winter and Spring Quarters 2010. On November 16, 2009 at 7:09 AM Mr. Craven sent an email containing the changed schedules to AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi and WEA-Riverside UniServ Director, Lisa Lewison. To date, the College had not yet met with Mr. Craven to afford him an opportunity to respond to their assertion that there was merit to impose a 108-day suspension without pay. The one Laudermill Hearing that Mr. Craven got, the verdict, and action on the verdict was made prior to the very hearing on November 20, 2009 to determine if or if not he would be teaching Winter quarter.

The union represented Mr. Craven in a meeting with the College on Friday, November 20, 2009. On December 1, 2009, Clark College formalized its already concluded 108-day suspension without pay in a letter to Mr. Craven, informing him he would serve the suspension at the start of the Winter Quarter 2010 and conclude with the Spring Quarter 2010.

AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi, interceded on Mr. Craven’s behalf, and informed the College that terminating Mr. Craven’s and his family’s medical benefits was punitive; the union was successful in persuading the College to reinstate Mr. Craven’s and his family’s medical benefits.

Mr. Craven served a 108-day (2-term) suspension without pay, and returned to work teaching summer school in June 2010.

IV. ASSOCIATION ARGUMENTS

The College is a legal partner with the union to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and thus has a legal obligation to uphold the provisions contained therein.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article III. Personnel, A. Discipline/Right to Due Process/Representation, 2) provides that: “No faculty member will be disciplined without just cause.” Mr. Kotsaksis testified he was familiar with the Seven Steps of Just Cause and recalled during the grievance process, Lisa Lewison, WEA-Riverside UniServ Director, had provided a handout of the Seven Steps of Just Cause, and she had verbally walked the College through their obligations of just cause. Dr. Marcia Roi, President of AHE, testified she was trained in the Seven Steps of Just Cause by her UniServ Director, Ms. Lewison, and was present at all steps of the grievance process.

Ms. Roi further testified Mr. Kotsakis, Mr. Dastmozd, Ms. Golder, and Mr. Knight would have been present at various stages of the grievance process, and thus, all were aware of the College’s obligation to the Seven Steps of Just Cause, as articulated by Ms. Lewison, per the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The College did not have just cause to impose a 108-day suspension for Mr. Craven. The College violated many of the Seven Steps of Just Cause. Judge Robert F. Oberstein in Waste Management of Tuscon, Arizona and UFCW, Local 99 FMCS 09112551718A , who reversed managements’ decision to terminate the grievant, advises:

“The question then becomes, have the parties defined just cause, and if so, how? In the absence of a definition within the CBA the arbitrator finds that without formal stipulation the parties have both framed their post hearing arguments and cited within their respective briefs the often quoted seven tests of just cause developed by arbitrator Daugherty (46 LA 359) either directly or indirectly as expounded upon by other arbitrators. Therefore, those same mutually seven tests will be our standard within this discussion to determine if the employer violated the requirements of the CBA.”

The College repeatedly acted with animus towards Mr. Craven. The College regularly ignored the expectations of due process as it relates to discipline of any employee. The College did not conduct a fair investigation. The College did not afford equal treatment toward Mr. Craven and was not even-handed with their expectations of him v. fellow faculty for union and College email usage. The College’s imposition of a penalty was excessive, and not reasonably related to a proven offense or Mr. Craven’s record.

ANIMUS

Mr. Craven attended President Bob Knight’s “Open Public Dialogue” on the campus on October 15, 2007. According to Mr. Craven and Ms. Wheeler’s testimony, because the event was publicized as an “open public dialogue” individuals attended with the assumption it was safe and appropriate to ask questions of President Bob Knight. Mr. Craven testified he asked the President a question about an editorial in the Columbian newspaper, which referred to “hush money” the College paid in recent settlements. Mr Craven asked the president how did he know if public monies had or had not been used as “hush money” to prevent going to trial where possible crimes might be discovered. Mr. Craven reported the President became “visibly angry” with him and his questioning. Ms. Wheeler testified Mr. Knight responded to Mr. Craven, stating “I am worried about your negative attitude and I think you have an anger problem.” Mr. Knight told Mr. Craven “…he was tired of Jim trying to harass people and he was not going to allow him to monopolize this open dialogue and if Jim wanted to communicate, it should be outside of the public forum.” Ms. Wheeler testified “President Knight was agitated and visibly upset” by Mr. Craven’s questions.

Mr. Craven testified he responded to the President, informing him he had sent emails to him on numerous occasions, but he never received a response. Ms. Wheeler testified the President responded “Jim, when I get an email from you I just hit delete.” Mr. Craven testified he responded to the President, reminding him “I am a Division Chair of multiple departments of the

College, and I have the right and duty to speak, ask questions, and receive a response.” Mr. Craven was asked to recall how the President’s comment impacted him, and testified “The Presidents response was a summary censorship of my work and that I have nothing of value to say.”

Ms. Wheeler testified nearly 60-100 individuals attended to the forum, and the Presidents tone, body language, and demeanor was visibly different towards Mr. Craven as compared to others who asked questions at the dialogue. Ms. Wheeler, when asked to describe Mr. Knight’s behavior toward Mr. Craven relayed a story about her son who lives and works in Japan, and an incident in which her son, when being introduced in front of a large audience, forgot to bow to one of the individuals on the panel. Ms. Wheeler explained that her son’s boss approached him privately, after the assembly, and admonished him for the cultural gaff in forgetting to bow to one of the panelists. The boss explained to her son that in forgetting to bow he showed disrespect and embarrassed him, however, he waited to address this with him in private, as he did not want him to lose face. Ms. Wheeler relayed this story, as she believed Mr. Knight did not show equal respect to Mr. Craven, and made him “lose face” in the large audience.

Ms. Wheeler and Mr. Craven testified Mr. Craven’s vocal tone, body language, and demeanor were normal and appropriate throughout the dialogue.

WEA-Riverside Director Lynn Davidson and AHE President, Dr. Marcia Roi testified to a labor management meeting they attended with President Bob Knight and Vice President Rassoul Dastmozd on Friday, November 9, 2007. AHE President Roi testified she told President Knight there was a “…morale problem on the campus.” President Knight responded “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” This was never refuted by management in the hearing. Ms. Davidson testified she was “shocked” President Bob Knight would say something like this to union representatives, and based on her expertise was troubled because his statements showed the union “should expect animosity by the President and the College in future dealings” related to Mr. Craven. This testimony of Dr. Marcia Roi and Ms. Lynn Davidson, at the arbitration hearing subsequent to the ESD appeal hearing with ALJ Knutson, directly contradicts the sworn testimony of President Knight that he never made nor would make the statement “There is not a morale problem; morale will improve when we ‘get rid’ of Professor Craven” [is “when we ‘get rid of’ Professor Craven an example of really hostile, threatening, abusive speech and writing especially in the context of someone with known and serious medical disabilities?]

Ms. Davidson was referred to a letter from Mr. Kotsakis to Mr. Craven, and confirmed she had knowledge of this letter and the attachments, as she was the UniServ Director at the time representing Mr. Craven, and had been cc’d on all correspondence. Ms. Davidson testified Mr. Kotsakis used the words “threatening, harassing, and abusive” over and over again to describe Mr. Craven and his alleged actions. Once again, it is critical to point out that this was never refuted by the College through testimony or evidence at the hearing. Ms. Davidson was questioned whether she was aware of the contents of the attachments, and she testified they were emails between Mr. Craven, Mr. Hamideh, and department members, sent because “Jim felt the Department Chair had been illegally taken from him and posed a financial hardship for him.”

Ms. Davidson was directed to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and asked if she could speak to the intent of the agreement, and testified, “I helped bargain it, so I can speak to the intent.” Ms. Davidson was directed to Article III. Personnel, I. Divison Chairs, and was asked if there was any section of the language which gave the Dean or Management the authority to conduct Division Chair/Department Head Elections. Ms. Davidson testified “No.” Ms. Davidson was asked if she was aware of what the mandatory subjects of bargaining are in Washington State. Ms.Davidson testified “Wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.” Ms. Davidson was asked if anything in the attachments had to do with wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment. Ms. Davidson testified “Yes, wages and hours of employment.” Ms. Davidson was asked why she was included on these emails between Mr. Craven, Mr. Hamideh, department members, and AHE President Dr. Marcia Roi. Ms. Davidson testified “I had instructed him (Mr. Craven) to cc me on anything that was a union issue. This was, and he included me. I got these because he (Mr. Craven) did not get Department Chair and the fiscal impact to him.” Ms. Davidson was asked if College had received a complaint from Mr. Hamideh regarding the February 6, February 8, and April 20, 2009 emails. Ms. Davidson testified they did not. She continued that the College did not receive a complaint that the February 6, 8, and April 20, 2009 emails were “threatening, harassing and abusive.” The only complaint received was from Mr. Hamideh, in reference to an April 20, 2009 email. In re-direct Ms. Davidson was asked if the College had made a request to bargain new language related to Division Chair/Department Head elections while the term of the contract was closed. Ms. Davidson testified this was not the case.

In conclusion these issues will also go to PERC. Washington State Human Rights Commission, Washington State Ethics Commission and Law Enforcement:

I have asked repeatedly how, when and under what authority a defamatory letter against me was placed in the personnel file of Dennis Watson, with the assistance of Leslie Homer then Uniserv Director, and got no responses from Clark College or WEA. (see attached)

This and a lot more says that WEA had better do something this time because this is not going to go away; I have made repeated good-faith efforts to mitigate damages as I am doing again with this grievance, and this level of animus and malice is also against someone with known disabilities in addition to being psychopathic in nature.

I will be going to PERC and to the media with this and so much more that I have and am finding as my public records request grinds on. I am not responding to Dean Bowers directly as that is what they want–for me to go off. But I am not going away, this will be sent to Gerry Smith to send to the AHE Senate, and we will be comparing resumes with all those they have installed into economics that they are trying to isolate and marginalize me from.

I expect a formal response to this grievance as I am forced to pay dues to WEA that I was a member of for over 20 years, well now again we will also deal with Duty of Fair Representation issues as well.

I swear under penalty of perjury all statements to be true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

Professor of Economics

MORE ON ADJUNCT HIRING AT CLARK COLLEGE

From: Hamideh, Adnan
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:49 PM
To: Craven, Jim; ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Fite, John; Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: RE: Meeting

Jim,

We have one Econ 101 section that we need to staff for the Fall. John met with Mac and encouraged him to apply for it, so he sent his resume to all of us. Part of my job as a division chair is to hire adjunct instructors and I will interview Mac and others for this position and will ask John to be part of the process since him and I teach Econ 101.

Since you teach mainly the 200 level, I will ask you to get involved in the hiring process when and if we need someone for those courses. So you don’t need to worry about this one.
Mac,

Thanks for dropping your resume in my office. I am sorry I did not have time to talk to you more since I was in the middle of a project with another professor. I will drop by the tutoring center between 12 and 12:30 on Tuesday to chat a bit.
Thanks
Adnan
________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:33 AM
To: ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Fite, John; Hamideh, Adnan
Subject: RE: Meeting

Dear Mr. McCay,

I am not aware of any opening for part-time instructor of economics, but my method, when I have been allowed to vet adjuncts, is to find out what an applicant really KNOWS as we have had in the past individuals “teaching” through death by power point, no structure, no communications with or reference to the pedagogical and content needs of me, the senior economist and Head of Economics, whose courses require lower-level courses properly taught and content articulated with my own courses. We currently have a potential ticking time bomb as if there are serious and numerous student complaints, and if students decide individually or class-action-wise to sue the college for having allegedly suffered malpractice in the classroom, and if a simple discovery process reveals that an adjunct was not hired or vetted through standardized and documented procedures, we are wide open for damages—and should be. Further, this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not a fraternity or sorority, not a country club, not a community networking organization like Rotary, teachers are also public employees with legal responsibilities and constraints, and students have a right to have their teachers properly vetted, in standardized and documented processes which is what I have always sought to do and how I was myself hired and vetted over many years in many venues. Adjuncts do not to get to choose who vets them or how they are vetted because it is those who do the vetting and are most qualified to do so, who are accountable to the students and law; when I was a pilot I did not get to choose my check pilots or self-anoint/certify myself as an examiner check pilot and then give myself my own check rides acting as my own check pilot, nor did I get to choose the tests, maneuvers and parameters to which I would be subject; and I did not get to “choose” which aircraft I felt like flying rated or not. When I teach in China, all my lectures are filmed and reviewed/vetted by senior faculty at Tsinghua and other institutions, senior faculty are always present, partly out of concern for the welfare of students and partly for national security reasons, and I do not resent it at all; I welcome it because it shows me where I need to sharpen up or where I simply do not know what I thought I knew. We have had at least four individuals teaching here that I have not vetted by me and without my even having been consulted on their hiring; and my being on disciplinary leave was, in my opinion that I will document in other venues, not a cause, but an effect, of the desire and intention to have some people hired without being vetted by me and a desire to allow them to “choose” with whom they felt more comfortable being vetted; but, if there are problems, it will be me, the senior economist, with over thirty years of teaching economics at all levels—high school to post-doctoral—and in a variety of courses both neoclassical and political economy, that they will go after in any allegations of unqualified teachers having been hired and causing tangible damages to students at Clark College.

There is also the issue of time. I gave you some of my time based on the representation by you and John that it was about your wanting to clear up a previous exchange between us and was assured that this was not just some pretext (the definition of a pretext is a contrived reason for something that covers-up a real reason for something—a kind of lie) leading into this note and I take it rather informal application for employment. Because there may be several applicants for adjunct teaching, because this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington which means that we public employees are subject to RCWs, WACs and Federal statutes that private-sector employees are not subject to, because we have had bad hires not vetted by me and imploded classes that causes real damages and losses to students in those classes, because I am haunted at the opportunity costs on the students when unqualified teachers are hired (not only the damages of suffering individuals who should not have been hired but also, what the students lost forever when the proper ones were not hired), I am sensitive that all applications are through the front door, with a letter of application, supporting documentation of training and teaching experience (just as we teach our students to apply for employment) and I am not interested in any ex parte mechanisms or processes that are not in writing, standardized for all applicants and will go to paper on any and all cases of individuals hired without my vetting or even consultation with me.

Finally, this is not only about when you want to meet, it is about my own availability and that of others. But this preemptively suggesting even a topic to lecture on does not cut it. This is done with finalists for full-time positions after they have gone through considerable formal applications and interviews. With all due respect, you name the topic and discipline and I could put together a canned presentation that makes it appear that I know far more than I really do on any subject.

In any case, this is my summer and I am teaching and I have not even seen your resume, transcripts or anything and we have a staged process of hiring even for adjuncts. I am also very busy and it now appears to me now, as I asked you about previously and you denied that your visit was necessitated by my position as senior economist and an intent to apply for work, that your visit and insistence on my time to address any differences (you even told me not to review our past exchanges which is intriguing) appears to me to have been pre-textual and a contrived prelude to this request. In any case, in several upcoming venues, along with accreditation visits to complete a partially failed accreditation visit in the past, Clark College and its hiring/vetting/tenure practices will be subject to very intense scrutiny, transparency and sunlight and I am simply doing what I have always when in my 18 years at Clark College when allowed to do so: met my responsibilities to the students, the institution, the law and my own conscience and to document, as I am with this letter, my own responses to various circumstances at Clark College, possible violations of and/or concerns related to established protocols and laws with respect to hiring and other issues, and my concrete reasons for my positions—always framed in terms of the needs of the students and the laws to which all public employees are subject. I have myself, failed in my own responsibilities, mandated by Law, not to allow personal biases or associations, or being schmoozed or given obvious pretexts and contrivances, interfere with my own responsibilities to make sure that all candidates for adjunct status or tenure in Economics were properly vetted and given standardized treatment without fear or favor; and I plan not only to address and own up to my own failures in the past in public and legal venues, but also never to repeat them if possible.

All applications for adjunct teaching also must first go through HR to be referred to us. We also teach our students to apply with cover letters directing the readers to what the applicant considers the salient evidence for their qualifications and fitness for a given position.

Sincerely,
Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:46 AM
To: Craven, Jim; Fite, John
Cc: Hamideh, Adnan; mac
Subject: Meeting
Dear Economics Faculty,

Summer session is beginning next week. If possible, I would like to meet jointly with Jim Craven and John Fite to resolve any questions of my qualifications and abilities as a possible faculty member. I know Professor Craven prefers a classroom setting and presentation as part of this process. If we can find a time to meet, I am more than happy to give a presentation on the topic of your choice. (If left to me, it will the relationship between long run average cost and short run average cost and market entry/exit.) I am also glad to spend whatever time is necessary to answer all questions and hypotheticals. I will be on campus during summer from 10-1 M-Th.

For your convenience an electronic version of my resume is attached.

Mac McCay’

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 11:36 AM
To: Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: RE: hiring process

Yes, this is part of an ongoing campaign to marginalize and demonize me, to deprecate my standing and professional credentials, to put the personal ahead of the professional and the welfare of students; and Hamideh has taken the Division chair position when he was a part of the Division Chair process in the past (past is context for the present) that, according to AHE, resulted in AHE Contract violations and my loss of owed pay and benefits due to lies told and acted upon as to when my term of service is over.

I never came to the union only passed this on as union interests are involved. This is the same union that got played on timelines suspended while I was on sick leave and allowed me to suffer 7 days off and then 8 days off with no Laudermill Hearing and no appeals with discipline impose upon my return to sick leave timed so as to create employment for unvetted pet adjuncts who are still being given preferences and contrived schedules and course loads to create employment for them (in return for past complaints urged against me by the pet adjuncts)

Heads up, Darcy has called in Ted about my letter to Hamideh (he still has not explained why he would not want me as Head of Economics involved in vetting any adjuncts) about my reference to incompetence and dereliction of duty and they may be cooking up another complaint in which case bring it on as this is my protected opinion and they can bring on their “respect codes” and we can have it out.

At some point, we will look at the content of my missives and of simply the alleged tone.
This is for the union as these unvetted adjuncts hired through non-standardized processes can be used and have been used to undercut the AHE Contract, Tenure and control over hiring and vetting for technical competence.

Take care,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: Sullivan, Kimberly
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:54 AM
To: ‘James Craven’; Craven, Jim
Cc: Hamideh, Adnan

Subject: RE: hiring process

Hi Jim, can you specifically show a point in the contract that has been violated? Otherwise, this is not an AHE matter. I can see that you are frustrated and that you want to best serve your students; given that, unless there is a point in the contract on which we can argue, you will have to go to the state. You are, and have always been, a true champion for the students.

Kimberly

From: James Craven [mailto:omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:07 AM
To: Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: RE: hiring process
Kim,

The response by Hamideh is disingenuous. First of all, not even John Fite was vetted by me as I was prevented from doing so by discipline imposed so that I could not do my job as head of his tenure committee (my wife said I had a duty to vote against his tenure as I had not fully vetted him no matter why but I voted for him hoping that he knew how little he knew and how much he had to catch up on). I am the senior economist, have taught 101 more than both of them put together, I have a vested interest even as a teacher who is teaching lower-level courses that are prep courses for mine, past hires by Hamideh and Fite resulted in bad hires (one of them Newman was hired and dropped twice now for bad performance and leaving classes early chronically), Hamideh himself is not qualified/not vetted to teach economics, but finally, this is Hamideh imposing his personal animus against me and interfering with the most qualified and head of economics to vet for technical competence, he is disrespecting my own preparation as an economist and is continuing this pattern of marginalization and demonization in the workplace that AHE has tolerated being waged against me for years. Also John as clearly cultivated a personal relationship with Mr. MacKay who himself wrote some very vitriolic stuff that he says that now he does not want me to review (why?) as I did not remember him. Further, John and Adnan with no consultation with me scheduled John to teach specialized courses (for which he has also not been vetted) with 10 students or so in them while we have a need and I am teaching to fulfill it, for the basic courses to be taught and this also has created work for his pet adjuncts (possible Trading in Public Employment) at the expense of the needs of the students and the division. Hamideh is doing a disingenuous cover-up to cover his own treachery and serial breach of the AHE Contract and his complicity in aiding and abetting my marginalization and demonization in the workplace, hiring unvetted adjuncts through ad hoc and backdoor procedures, covering-up bad hires with more bad hires etc.

You all do what you want but I am going public, I will find out what the new Dean is about, and taking this to Olympia as I believe it is my duty to do so and I believe that crimes are being committed.

Simple question: Why would anyone not want the best qualified to do the vetting for technical competence unless they are mixing the personal with the professional and care nothing about the welfare of students and the institution? How will all of this play in a court of law? This is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington not a country club, cult or feudal estate.

take care,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

From: KSullivan@clark.edu
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com; AHamideh@clark.edu; jfite@clark.edu
Subject: hiring process
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:42:24 +0000

Jim, in a nutshell I see you issue as this: The hiring of Mac was a violation of Appendix C Sec D2a of the contract. “In collaboration with departments, recommend adjunct faculty for hiring.” The contract does not specify department head, but does state that departments should be consulted by the division chair when making hiring recommendations. Is your point that the department was not consulted? If this is the case, I hope this can be settled as a department/division issue which does not require a Dean’s intervention. Why is the Dean necessary for this? Who are the members of your department? (Adnan, who was in on the interview?) So, let’s gather some information and settle this without the dean if possible. Could we meet on Tuesday?

Kimberly
________________________________________
From: James Craven [omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:29 PM
To: Gerry Smith; Gene Johnson; Jennifer Wheeler; Marcia Roi; Sullivan, Kimberly
Subject: FYI

________________________________________
From: JCraven@clark.edu
To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: Meeting
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:20:59 +0000
Adnan,

This will not cut it and this will go public. I am the senior economist and Head of Economics. Apparently my title as Department Head is recognized and good enough for John to ask me to sign off on his selected work to qualify for medical benefits while on leave without absence but not for vetting and keeping us out of potential litigation. We have already had a sample of the quality of the vetting by you and John with hires like Neumann whom I still have never met and Bailey whom I never met. You, by your own admission find it “ironic” (not a word I would use) that the three areas in which you are teaching–statistics, economics and accounting–are the very three areas in which you were least interested and barely passed in your MBA program (had I heard that statement long ago I would never have trusted you to teach Economics 101) and John still has never been fully vetted by me.

This is reckless, contemptuous of the rights of the students and my own resume as an economist that both your resume and John’s could not add up to even close. I also regard this as a cover-up of the termination of Neumann also hired by you or with your input. This shows further that you have no understanding of the importance of Econ 101 in terms of preparation for higher level courses and as a stand-alone course with its own needs and mission which any real educator would understand.

In addition to this going public, with an open letter to the students, this will also go to the accreditation team and to the union. One more time: This is not some country club, some cult, some networking association, some fraternity or your private little cult; this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington and these jobs belong to the People who expect the most qualified hired and expect the most qualified to do the vetting.

This is in my opinion further evidence of [snip] for the position to which you have arrogated yourself and with this act that is contemptuous of the basic rights of the students, you are placing the rights of students and the name and standing of the institution in danger on several fronts and this needs to go public and to government.

Further John mentioned nothing about urging Mr.Mackay to apply for 101, asked me nothing about reviewing previous exchanges between me and Mr. MacKay that Mr. MacKay was concerned about clearing up but did not want me to review, and further John assured me that Mr. MacKay wanting to see me and clear some things up was not related to my position as Head of Economics or pending employment; a statement which now appears as a lie.

Further, I wrote to John prior to his request for my endorsement for him to work some days while on leave without pay enough to qualify him for medical leave; I hereby withdraw that endorsement. It appears too much like a pretext or contrived reason just sufficient to qualify for medical benefits while on sick leave without pay, and since a pretext is a kind of lie, it may well come close to “Filing a False Report by a Public Officer” which is a crime.

We will settle this in other venues and in public. But I honestly feel that I am in the position of someone ordered to cover-up and turn a blind eye to uninspected meat being served and even cover-up past forms of incompetence and dereliction of duty, even trading in Public Employment–a Class-C felony–which means that by law I must take this to other venues and go public. I am saddened also that never having once seen John Fite teach, while he saw me teach a whole 101 course, Mr. MacKay has been invited twice into his class and you all are having all these chats while the person who built up the economics program over 18 years and has credentials as an educator and economists that you and John could not match put together, has not been consulted and still frozen out of my own duties.
Sincerely,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii

EPSON scanner image

EPSON scanner image
________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 11:33 AM
To: ‘mccay4213@comcast.net’
Cc: Fite, John; Hamideh, Adnan
Subject: RE: Meeting

Dear Mr. McCay,

I am not aware of any opening for part-time instructor of economics, but my method, when I have been allowed to vet adjuncts, is to find out what an applicant really KNOWS as we have had in the past individuals “teaching” through death by power point, no structure, no communications with or reference to the pedagogical and content needs of me, the senior economist and Head of Economics, whose courses require lower-level courses properly taught and content articulated with my own courses. We currently have a potential ticking time bomb as if there are serious and numerous student complaints, and if students decide individually or class-action-wise to sue the college for having allegedly suffered malpractice in the classroom, and if a simple discovery process reveals that an adjunct was not hired or vetted through standardized and documented procedures, we are wide open for damages—and should be. Further, this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not a fraternity or sorority, not a country club, not a community networking organization like Rotary, teachers are also public employees with legal responsibilities and constraints, and students have a right to have their teachers properly vetted, in standardized and documented processes which is what I have always sought to do and how I was myself hired and vetted over many years in many venues. Adjuncts do not to get to choose who vets them or how they are vetted because it is those who do the vetting and are most qualified to do so, who are accountable to the students and law; when I was a pilot I did not get to choose my check pilots or self-anoint/certify myself as an examiner check pilot and then give myself my own check rides acting as my own check pilot, nor did I get to choose the tests, maneuvers and parameters to which I would be subject; and I did not get to “choose” which aircraft I felt like flying rated or not. When I teach in China, all my lectures are filmed and reviewed/vetted by senior faculty at Tsinghua and other institutions, senior faculty are always present, partly out of concern for the welfare of students and partly for national security reasons, and I do not resent it at all; I welcome it because it shows me where I need to sharpen up or where I simply do not know what I thought I knew. We have had at least four individuals teaching here that I have not vetted by me and without my even having been consulted on their hiring; and my being on disciplinary leave was, in my opinion that I will document in other venues, not a cause, but an effect, of the desire and intention to have some people hired without being vetted by me and a desire to allow them to “choose” with whom they felt more comfortable being vetted; but, if there are problems, it will be me, the senior economist, with over thirty years of teaching economics at all levels—high school to post-doctoral—and in a variety of courses both neoclassical and political economy, that they will go after in any allegations of unqualified teachers having been hired and causing tangible damages to students at Clark College.

There is also the issue of time. I gave you some of my time based on the representation by you and John that it was about your wanting to clear up a previous exchange between us and was assured that this was not just some pretext (the definition of a pretext is a contrived reason for something that covers-up a real reason for something—a kind of lie) leading into this note and I take it rather informal application for employment. Because there may be several applicants for adjunct teaching, because this is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington which means that we public employees are subject to RCWs, WACs and Federal statutes that private-sector employees are not subject to, because we have had bad hires not vetted by me and imploded classes that causes real damages and losses to students in those classes, because I am haunted at the opportunity costs on the students when unqualified teachers are hired (not only the damages of suffering individuals who should not have been hired but also, what the students lost forever when the proper ones were not hired), I am sensitive that all applications are through the front door, with a letter of application, supporting documentation of training and teaching experience (just as we teach our students to apply for employment) and I am not interested in any ex parte mechanisms or processes that are not in writing, standardized for all applicants and will go to paper on any and all cases of individuals hired without my vetting or even consultation with me.

Finally, this is not only about when you want to meet, it is about my own availability and that of others. But this preemptively suggesting even a topic to lecture on does not cut it. This is done with finalists for full-time positions after they have gone through considerable formal applications and interviews. With all due respect, you name the topic and discipline and I could put together a canned presentation that makes it appear that I know far more than I really do on any subject.

In any case, this is my summer and I am teaching and I have not even seen your resume, transcripts or anything and we have a staged process of hiring even for adjuncts. I am also very busy and it now appears to me now, as I asked you about previously and you denied that your visit was necessitated by my position as senior economist and an intent to apply for work, that your visit and insistence on my time to address any differences (you even told me not to review our past exchanges which is intriguing) appears to me to have been pre-textual and a contrived prelude to this request. In any case, in several upcoming venues, along with accreditation visits to complete a partially failed accreditation visit in the past, Clark College and its hiring/vetting/tenure practices will be subject to very intense scrutiny, transparency and sunlight and I am simply doing what I have always when in my 18 years at Clark College when allowed to do so: met my responsibilities to the students, the institution, the law and my own conscience and to document, as I am with this letter, my own responses to various circumstances at Clark College, possible violations of and/or concerns related to established protocols and laws with respect to hiring and other issues, and my concrete reasons for my positions—always framed in terms of the needs of the students and the laws to which all public employees are subject. I have myself, failed in my own responsibilities, mandated by Law, not to allow personal biases or associations, or being schmoozed or given obvious pretexts and contrivances, interfere with my own responsibilities to make sure that all candidates for adjunct status or tenure in Economics were properly vetted and given standardized treatment without fear or favor; and I plan not only to address and own up to my own failures in the past in public and legal venues, but also never to repeat them if possible.

All applications for adjunct teaching also must first go through HR to be referred to us. We also teach our students to apply with cover letters directing the readers to what the applicant considers the salient evidence for their qualifications and fitness for a given position.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
From: mccay4213@comcast.net [mailto:mccay4213@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:46 AM
To: Craven, Jim; Fite, John
Cc: Hamideh, Adnan; mac
Subject: Meeting
Dear Economics Faculty,

Summer session is beginning next week. If possible, I would like to meet jointly with Jim Craven and John Fite to resolve any questions of my qualifications and abilities as a possible faculty member. I know Professor Craven prefers a classroom setting and presentation as part of this process. If we can find a time to meet, I am more than happy to give a presentation on the topic of your choice. (If left to me, it will the relationship between long run average cost and short run average cost and market entry/exit.) I am also glad to spend whatever time is necessary to answer all questions and hypotheticals. I will be on campus during summer from 10-1 M-Th.

For your convenience an electronic version of my resume is attached.

From: Kraley, Shon
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:32 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text

Hi Jim.

It looks like Atkinson has been given full time status for at least Fall term, while I have not. In fact, Bayer has more credits than I do. If there is anything you can do with the new dean, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you.

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Kraley, Shon
Cc: Sullivan, Kimberly; Rourk, Darcy
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text

Hi Shon,

Thanks for the note and do you see any problem in that I as head of the department was told nothing about any of this? I am referring this to personnel and the union as I had no idea of any of your situation.

Yes, I not only will try to do something about this but I am doing something about this on the legal front and I do not mean just civil law. This is outrageous and a total contempt and disservice to the students. Mr Bayer, who once told John Fite “I do not want anything to do with that Indian guy”, who does not have even a bachelor’s degree in economics, I have never met along with Mr. Newman, Ms Foreman, Mr. Bailey. This is an agency of the Government of the State of Washington, it is not the Rotary, a country club, a favor factory or recruiting agency for backroom cults and cabals, and it is a crime, called Trading in Public Employment and Conspiracy to trade in Public Employment to use public resources and jobs as favors or as rewards for services rendered–e.g. filing complaints against a targeted person–for friendships, for relatives, or for networking or any personal advantages. There is one and only one person qualified to vet new adjuncts and that is me–not John Fite whose MA in Economics is from the early 1970s and who never worked as an economist, never taught economics prior to coming to Clark College and never published anything in economics or worked with the new changes in economic theory and pedagogy in the over thirty years that there have been changes in economics. John, according to his own words, found the one person who would give him credit for the teaching that goes on in a cockpit in the military and in commercial aviation but with the understanding that there was a whole lot he had missed in the over thirty years since his Masters degree in Economics and that I would mentor him and that he understood how little he knew and how inexperienced he was as an economist and teacher of economics. Further, if we get litigation by students who feel that they were shortchanged and not handed fully-qualified teachers (Econ 201 and 202 are universal transfer courses that are mandated to have some standardization and comparable content and pedagogy for transferability), imagine how all of this will play in a court of law when it comes out that we have had a bunch of adjuncts hired and allowed to teach, hired outside of established procedures for hiring and documentation of credentials and experience without ever having met the head of economics and at the time in some cases, the division chair.

Further, at my arbitration hearing, both Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson swore, under penalty of perjury, that Bob Knight said to them “We will have no morale problem here when we get rid of Professor Craven” whereas Bob Knight swore under penalty of perjury at my Employment Security Department appeal hearing, that he never made such a statement to them and that when asked about this alleged statement, in two separate hearings, refused to deny it on record only because he was there to ask not answer questions. So someone, acting in their official capacity, in official government proceedings, committed perjury. All of that will be explored in Thurston County Superior Court and in other venues with other agencies of the Washington State and Federal Governments. Perjury is very serious business as in Illinois, 13 people on death row, one 45 minutes away from execution, all found later to be absolutely innocent, wound up on death row due to perjury and prosecutorial misconduct. Someone who commits perjury, especially in conjunction with official duties in public employment, is not only attempting to obstruct justice but to steal it.

Imagine, in what country, is it possible for someone to be charged with offenses and then investigated and found guilty by those who made the charges and/or recruited others to make them, then a verdict is given, arrangements are made to hire replacements, the course schedule is changed with my name deleted from my courses for which many students signed up specifically for me as a teacher, all PRIOR to the one Laudermill hearing I got to determine if I would or would not be teaching, then the sentence of 108 days off without pay immediately imposed prior to any pending appeal hearings (it was clear how they would go) and PRIOR to arbitration (how could I and my family have been “made whole” if we had won the arbitration?). It is also a crime to make false statements while on the job in public employment.

Further, you are the only adjunct fully and properly vetted by me and even John Fite has never been fully vetted as I have never seen him teach whereas he has seen me teach a whole course and I have seen you teach and have vetted you twice. I was not even allowed on campus to vote in person on his tenure, and I came very close to voting no on his tenure out of professional responsibility (I voted yes because he was in a situation not under his control). Further, Adnan, in the presence of John Fite and Gerry Smith, said to all of us “You know it is ‘ironic’ [not a word I would use] that the areas in which I am teaching–statistics, accounting and economics–are the subjects I had the least interest in and barely passed with Cs in my MBA program”. Had I known that long ago I would have opposed and will oppose his teaching any economics at any level as this is the kind of statement and reflects an attitude that in my opinion no real educator or someone worthy of being called an educator.

As my father used to say: “Who is it that cares nothing about formal credentials? Those who do not have them; but they do care about credentials of providers when THEY are the demanders of services.”

I do not want to cause you any hardships more than you and your family have suffered, but this has to go to personnel, to the union and to the new Dean. Transparency is coming to Clark College I promise you and this will all be made public as well as the students have rights to critical information in their own market-based decisions and with the scarce resources that many have to deal with.

take care,

Jim/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
________________________________________

________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 4:52 PM
To: Fite, John
Cc: ‘Patricia Atkinson’; Kraley, Shon; Foreman, Cynthia
Subject: RE: Grugman Wells Text
________________________________________
From: Fite, John
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:29 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: ‘Patricia Atkinson’; Kraley, Shon; Foreman, Cynthia
Subject: Grugman Wells Text

Jim I haven’t seen anything on our new text for Econ 201/202. If customizing the text I would like to have the Core chapters for both Micro & Macro plus the optional chapter “ Macroeconomics: Events and Ideas. John

This is what I know for sure. The text has been kept whole except for additions that I made to reflect that in the last 30 years, even with the same neoclassical stuff they have been peddling since my first economics class in 1965, there have been some significant changes in both economics and the pedagogy of it even in the so-called “mainstream”. There also new proposals from AEA and others for new innovations in the teaching of economics (see Teagle Foundation Report by Colander et al) Instructors are free to use or not use the potions they choose (however I must say that am getting tired of students who have had 101 and other sections of 201/202 who still do not know what a slope of a function is or what even a function is and Econ 101 was supposed to be a preparation course in addition to a substitution in lieu of the minimums for 201/202 which are English 101 and Math 095). Any further changes, I want a rationale in writing as students may drop and pick up a course later with a different text if the text has been further modified further. Last year I obtained and reviewed thoroughly seven different potential texts, and I know Colander personally and well, within a more affordable price range and came up with Krugman after considerable vetting of the relevant texts (Krugman is also out of date on the MC = MR stuff, on the incorporation of time and space into neoclassical theory, critiques of neoclassical theory etc). I did the best I could with what I had to work with. Further, we cannot get any further price reductions even with further customization. When I was an adjunct over many years, I understood well that those who had preceded me and indeed who hired me, and who had built up and had responsibility for a program that allowed me to have the job for which I was hired–and yes thoroughly vetted by senior economists as I should have been–I understood further that they understood the turf, the students, the program etc better than I did so I worked with the texts and approaches (content and structures) that were in use and then made my own additions always working with the full-time teachers as they also had a direct interest in what I was doing or proposing to teach had a direct . This seems to me to be in the realm of the basics in being student–rather than self–centered and being fit to call myself any kind of an educator trying to serve the students and their needs.

Craven, Jim

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, CLARK COLLEGE: PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ON SERIOUS ISSUES, CORRUPTION IN "HIGHER" EDUCATION. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to DOCUMENTS FROM CLARK COLLEGE, VANCOUVER, WA: PUBLIC, SWORN UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, ACCOUNTABLE AND UNREBUTTED

  1. palichampion says:

    Mr. Bayer is a liar, and Mr. Fite is a liar covering for him. Any prudent and honest evaluation of all of this could reach no other conclusion.

    • jimcraven10 says:

      Thank you for your comments. I am putting out documents mostly without comment as they clearly speak for themselves to any reasonable and prudent person free of animus and bias with a room temperature IQ.

      It is interesting that Clark College president Bob Knight was accused, in the sworn testimonies of Marcia Roi formerly president of the Clark College AHE part of WEA, and Lynn Davidson, Uniserv Director of WEA of perjury and thus also related felonies of a public employee committing perjury on official time, duty and with public resources and trust. He, like John Fite, Petraeus and others at Clark College are graduates of West Point in the case of Knight and Petraeus and the Air Force Academy in the case of Fite and another faculty member at Clark where they all took an oath not to “lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate those who do”.

      Mr Fite I find interesting told me about this incident with Mr Bayer obliquely at first, yet made no attempt to use his considerable influence with the president and division chair to ask why such a person, who does not even have one economics degree, and who had never even met me, would be allowed or wanted to teach anything at Clark college let alone a subject he had never taught and did not have even the minimum qualifications to be hired to teach. This is pure fraud against the students. It is even worse when it is shown that I was ordered to commence disciplinary leaves of 7 and 8 days while on sick leave with no hearings or appeals, and ordered to commence discipline upon my return from sick leave timed to take me out of the classroom (and deprive the students who signed up for me as a teacher and thought I would be teaching them and with my name posted as the teacher of record) and give a contrived pretext to hand out my courses, and deny my scheduled overtime, to this and the other patently un-qualified un-vetted adjuncts hired through ad-hoc, arbitrary and capricious hiring procedures which endangers the College from accreditation failures and litigation by students who have been defrauded and worse; they were denied and paid the opportunity costs of all the good that they could have gained from having a qualified teacher in addition to suffering the direct and indirect costs of having unqualified and un-vetted ones. To teach any transfer level course at Clark College, and all adjuncts in the past were able to teach all levels of economics, requires a minimum of a Masters Degree in Economics; not an MBA or Med (Econ) as they have no more, and often less, economics than our students get. Mr. Fite does not have a full bachelor’s preparation in economics, and never once taught economics or worked as an economist since his Masters in the early 1970s from Georgetown. I pointed out to him that his coming to teach economics would be like me, a former commercial pilot who has not flown for many years (but a lot more years than he ever taught economics or worked as an economist), and even out of bi-annual, going down to Horizon Air and applying as a pilot (with no check ride) or telling them to load up my Dash-9 and I’ll find Boise. Also, I have more paper and experience as a pilot than John Fite has an economist.

      Please let others know what is happening. I am returning from one year off with no pay and medical coverage for my family and my health is frail. Now I have been ordered at the last minute to move to an office at CTC with no reasons given. The adjuncts they hired through the back door all think, and have reason to think that they will be protected and given some job security in return for their own services rendered against me and my family. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. And Mr Fite has seen me teach a whole course (under it turns out false pretenses that I will write about later) while I have never seen him teach once even as the acknowledge head of the economics department by him. I agreed to his tenure and I was in error to do so without having seen him teach and for other reasons bearing on what I call the “Five Cs” of a real teacher: Competent (in the fundamentals); Currrent; Caring (about students as people and not just numbers, FTEs or source of one’s job security); Committed (to personal growth and that of the students); Courageous (willing to lose one’s job over right and wrong and not willing to lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate anyone who does and not willing to obey illegal orders to break the law)

      As my father used to say: “ First-rate seeks to hire first-rate because part of the substance of first-rate, is in recognizing, valuing and seeking, rather than fearing, or envying or feeling threatened by, first-rate in others. Second-rate seeks and hires third and fourth-rate so that it looks good in comparison; third and fourth-rate goes on to seek fifth and sixth-rate so they look good; and mediocrity metastasizes like a cancer.” (Homer H. Craven Jr. (1925-1991)

      People who do not value credentials are usually the ones who do not have them. They hire below themselves so they look good in relation to and are never threatened by, those with less formal credentials. But how many people want to fly with a pilot who got his job with no check-ride, phony hours in his log book, being the nephew of the Chief Pilot, a scab who got a job by crossing picket lines and breaking contracts and the law? And in Bob Knight and John Fite’s cases their sons were my students and praised me as a teacher or so I was told by John Fite. When students do not get the most qualified in terms of the 5-Cs, not only do they suffer the costs of incompetence and lack of credentials, but they lose all the good that they could have gained with the proper teacher, that they had signed up for had taught them.

      The old saying that “Those who can do, and those who can’t teach, and those who are totally worthless administrate” has a lot of truth to it.

      This is what haunts me, why I am posting all of this, and why I became a teacher many years ago:

      From: michael.
      Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:10 PM
      To: Craven, Jim
      Subject: Macro Economics

      Hi, my name is Michael . I took your micro economics class last spring quarter. I was registered for your macro economics class this fall, but I recently checked my schedule and I’ve been switched to a guy named Kraley. This isn’t okay with me, I was wondering if there was a reason, that you knew about, why I was transferred. It also could have been a glitch in the system, and I could still be registered for your class. It’s unlikely though, and I would really like to take your class, not Kraley’s class. I left you a message on your answering machine, but you may not get it until Monday. I will try to catch you on Monday, and hopefully we can figure this out.

      -Michael

      I responded to Michael (see below) which prompted this response from him:

      Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:14:13 +0000

      From: michael
      To: omahkohkiaayo@hotmail.com
      Subject: Re: Macro Economics

      Oh my Gosh! This is some crazy stuff! Although, I can’t say I’m surprised. You never hold back when it comes to speak the TRUTH! That’s what I loved about your class. I will mention this to as many of the students I know about from your previous classes as I can. Anything I can do to help. As far as Clark lying to me about who my professor for Economics would be, I feel very ripped off, and wish there was something I could do. I wish you the best of luck on your hearing, and I hope that no injustice is found so that you can continue to teach in the incredible way that you do! I thoroughly enjoyed your micro econ class. You truly are a fantastic teacher!
      -Michael

      (P.S. if anything I’ve said in my emails thus far can help you in any way, feel free to use them!)

    • jimcraven10 says:

      Please note that in reply to palichampion, I do not know this person and his or her evaluation is without prior knowledge or influence in any way. But it begs the question what are the students getting and why. Look also at Clark College’s own investigator’s report on the complaint by Atkinson. who has given my classroom I have taught in since the building was constructed and that I had a hand in designing, 4 courses while Adjunct, while being found by their own investigator not to have answered the basic technical questions asked of all candidates for the full-time tenure-track position in Economics that she did not get. Imagine there are at least persons who have taught economics at Clark College I have never met let alone vetted for basic competence. How would anyone want to fly with a pilot who got his or her job that way and with no check-ride or allowed to pick his or her check-pilot? How about going under the knife with a surgeon who got his or her job that way?

      Clark College is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington but right now I and many others believe that it is being used by a few, who hire and reward with public employment their own kind to shift accountability away from themselves, as a two-bit military barracks like Ft Vancouver, as country club, a feudal estate, a secret society cult, and as a racist and proto-fascist cabal. Those who are “team players” and willing to put their fingerprints where the administrators’ fingerprints are kept clean, they are rewarded with public employment never mind their fitness to teach or real credentials. In fact such types work as snitches and toadies to try to buy themselves jobs and job security they could never hope to gain with free, fair and open competition. But should Clark College be run by liars especially when telling and writing lies while on public duty is a felony or even more than one felony.

      But their days are numbered. All over the world despots, fascists, racists, climbers, frauds and poseurs are falling Just look at where Petraeus with all his power was just two months ago and where he is today.

  2. 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