September 14, 2011
Dear Mr. McKenna and Mr. Sonntag:
My name is James Michael Craven, Blackfoot Indian name Omahkohkiaaiipooyii. I am a professor of economics and head of the economics department at Clark College (please see attached and background and credentials as an economist and teacher). I was referred to you directly by AAG Ms. Jody Campbell as I have tried, over many years, in my capacity as a public servant/employee of the Government of the State of Washington, to bring to the attention of law enforcement, my reasons and supporting evidence for my belief that there is a climate of serial corruption, misuse of state resources, retribution against whistleblowers of whom I am one, and general repression and denials of basic Constitutional rights which all public employees are guaranteed (see letters to Sgt Dave Trimble Clark County Sheriff, Det. Sgt Rob Brousseau of the WSP, Supervisory Special Agent Kevin Saito Seattle FBI, Mr. Brian Sonntag Auditor and Linda Long Deputy State Auditor, Governor Gary Locke etc)
Specifically, in this case, in a hearing before administrative law judge Richard Knutson, the president of Clark College, Robert Knight, acting in his official capacity as president of Clark College, testified under oath and penalty of perjury, that he never made a statement to my union representatives Dr. Marcia Roi and Lynn Davidson that “Morale will improve when we get rid of Professor Craven.” He further testified that when asked about his statement in two separate appeal hearings on two quarters off without pay long after the discipline at been imposed, that he refused to deny having made the statement (in the presence Dr. Roi one of whom alleged that he had made the statement to her and Ms Davidson, that he only refused to deny it for the record (taped) because he was there to ask not answer any questions. of At a subsequent arbitration hearing, Dr. Roi, a public employee at Clark College acting in her official capacities as a union officer and public employee, and Ms Lynn Davidson, WEA representative, both testified under oath, under penalty of perjury, that Robert Knight did indeed make those statements and they were not only shocked that the president of the College would make such a statement and harbor such intentions, but that he would reveal them to my union representatives. Someone committed perjury and there is additional evidence in the forms of correspondence and tapes of the meetings in question that suggest that it was Mr. Knight that committed the perjury and it was on a matter that was not only material but central to the case at hand.
Perjury is serious business although often it is treated lightly. Perjury represents not only obstruction of justice per se, and if done by a public employee in the course of official business also misconduct of a public employee and filing a false report by a public employee, but it represents an attempt to hijack and pervert justice and when used, as it was and is used in my case where progressive discipline is involved; it represents also a highly “poisoned tree” used to establish false predicates for further and higher levels of progressive discipline and eventual dismissal into the future. In Illinois, out of 167 prisoners on death row, 13 persons absolutely innocent, one of whom was once 45 minutes away from execution, were released and the death penalty suspended in the other cases on death row and in all 13 cases, perjury was involved along with some prosecutorial misconduct; perjury is serious business.
From the attached materials, which I respectfully ask you to read and consider, my attempts to report what I have a good-faith-based basis to believe are acts of serial corruption and criminality at Clark College and not only against me: RCW 9A.80.010 Official Misconduct; RCW 42.20.100 Failure of Duty by Public Officer; RCW 42.20.050 False Report; RCW 42.20.100 Failure of Duty by a Public Officer; RCW 9A.80.010 Official Misconduct; RCW 42.40.030 Right to Disclose Improper Governmental Actions–Interference Prohibited; RCW 42.40.050 and chapter 49.60 Retaliation Against a Whistleblower; RCW 9A.68.050 Trading in Public Office; RCW 10.14.190 Constitutional Rights (Abridgment of); RCW 9A.76.175 Making a False and Misleading Statement to a Public Servant; RCW 49.44.010 Blacklisting; RCW 9A.36.080 Malicious Harassment; RCW 9.81.120 Constitutional Rights–Censorship or Infringement; RCW 9A.80.010 Official Misconduct; RCW 9A.72.010 Definitions of Material Statements etc; 18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Parts 241 and 242 Conspiracy Against Rights and Conspiracy Under Color of Law; infringement of First, and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights; violations of Americans With Disabilities Act;
I would ask that your investigator speak with the following individuals who have first-hand and direct knowledge of these and other issues: Dr. Marcia Roi, Ms Lynn Davidson, Ms Lisa Lewison all of WEA and Dr. Roi at Clark College (on the perjury issue); Dr. Gerard Smith, Professor Gene Johnson, Mr. Jennifer Wheeler, Professor Larry Mains, and others I can give in the future on other issues raised.
While on sick leave, I was given 7 days off without pay, no Laudermill Hearing, no appeals, with my discipline to commence immediately upon return to work and then with my discipline timed to engineer my non-availability the first week of the quarter; used then as a pretext to take me out of the classroom, deny me my scheduled overtime load and deny the students who had signed up for my course their own rights to the most experience teacher available. My classes were assigned to adjunct teachers none of whom had been hired or vetted for technical competence and teaching of economics by me the only person qualified to do so (two of whom had been recruited to file complaints against me not sustained by outside investigators) me unavailable in the first week of classes and again my classes assigned to adjuncts un-vetted and unqualified to teach the courses assigned to them. There were two appeal hearings on the 8 days off but as my union had “dropped the ball” (the words of the new union representative Ms Lisa Lewison) they did not pursue arbitration. Then came two quarters off with no pay and attempt to take medical benefits from my family, with replacements hired and courses rescheduled and new teachers posted BEFORE the one Laudermill hearing I finally got to determine the very question that had already been answered with the hiring and scheduling of replacements: would I be teaching the next quarter with two levels of appeal and much later arbitration (that I lost) pending well after the imposition of discipline. Now I have just been given one year off without pay, taken out of the classroom immediately, with an upcoming Laudermill hearing and then appeals pending. Further, we have had had six adjuncts teaching economics 4 of whom I have never met and none vetted by me and I am the head of the economics department; those hired were recruited outside of the normal and established protocols for hiring and vetting adjuncts and one of them that I have never met was hired and then let go all without my having met or vetted him and there were complaints that were passed on to me when he was previously hired and let go and then rehired.
I have been charged, judged, convicted and had discipline assessed all by the same individuals who charged me or caused me to be charged and who were the subjects of previous whistle blowing by me. Imagine, person A, who can be provably shown to have expressed openly extreme malice and animus against me (in word and deeds) takes up the complaint of someone refusing to complain and even over the objections of that person (Dr. Ali Aliabadi) and/or recruits unvetted adjuncts to file complaints and then rewards then with teaching loads (mine) and that person is also the person who turns allegations into a formal complaint, then becomes the person to hear and pass on the merits of the complaint and to determine what is or is not allowable as evidence, then Person A becomes the judge of the merits of his own allegations, charges and allowed evidence, then person A becomes the jury finding a verdict, then person A becomes the assessor of discipline, and then person A becomes the reviewing authority for any appeals up to arbitration. What is wrong with that picture. And the irony is that Clark College has received all the due process that I have been serially denied.
Please regard this as a formal request for investigation and a formal complaint vis-à-vis the statutes and issue mentioned above. Someone, a public employee, acting in his or her official capacity, committed perjury as the statements of Robert Knight versus those of Dr. Roi and Ms Davidson are categorical and irreconcilable. Please also note that all or most of the materials in support of my allegations are with your AAGs as I am acting pro se against the ESD ruling in favor of Clark College as I was granted unemployment benefits immediately when off for two quarters without pay. My supporting documentation, along with the tapes of the ESD hearing and closing brief of the WEA on my arbitration showing the contradictions in testimonies are with your AAG and Ms Campbell has them and has read them it is my understanding.
Please note also that I have been taken out of the classroom this quarter prior to any investigations or having received a formal complaint by a complainant and this is injurious to and contemptuous of the students who signed up for my teaching and they will be taught by un-vetted adjuncts hired through the back door and outside of normal protocols for hiring and vetting adjuncts. This is causing irreparable harm to my students who signed up to be taught by me and it is denial of due process per se. What we have is the same words and allegations (never made by any complainant) of harassing, hostile, disrespectful speech and writing (all in intra-union communications on intra-union issues and on a union list, allowed by the Clark College-AHE contract authorizing di minimis use of the email for union business as not all teachers have home computers and to which management is supposed to have no access or control or ability to sanction over) first made as allegations, then merely repeated as a complaint, then repeated again as charges, then repeated again as a verdict and finally repeated again as justification of denial of appeal all without any established or working definitions of the key constructs, without evidence introduced other than portions of statements introduced with no formal complaint or totality of context introduced or considered. This is serial denial of due process per se.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter and this matter is urgent and extremely time-sensitive.
James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor of Economics, Department Head, Economics
Subject: RE: your question about how to complain
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:31:19 -0700
Dear Ms Campbell,
Thank you for your response. If you examine the attached letter to the Clark County Sheriff’s office and the referral from WSP, along with the dates, perhaps you will understand my problems in attempting to bring what I believe to be a good-faith and evidence-based complaint on a series of issues that I believe, and other legal professionals who have vetted my arguments and evidence, manifest a climate of serial corruption at Clark College. The bottom line is that Dr. Marcia Roi and WEA representative Lynn Davidson both testified, at my arbitration hearing (long after my discipline was imposed and I returned back to work) under oath and penalty of perjury, a felony, that they were shocked and taken aback when the president of the College, Bob Knight, angrily said to them “There will be no morale problem when we get rid of professor Craven”, while at the ESD appeal hearing he not only had testified that he had never made that statement, but further, when asked about it twice, in two separate hearings, if he had made that statement, in the presence of Dr. Roi one of whom who had made the allegation about his statement, he refused to deny the statement or call Dr. Roi a liar to her face only, he testified, because he was there to ask not answer any questions (that is why the tapes of the hearings are also critical). So someone committed perjury on a material–even central–question before the legal processes; and perjury is serious business because it not only represents obstruction of justice per se, it represents an attempt to hijack justice itself and shape legal findings that are false, fruits of an intentionally-poisoned tree and to be used, as they are being used now, for further denials of due process, cover-ups and piling-on progressive discipline.
No need to cover-up what is clean, only what is dirty. No need to frame and pile-on contrived charges and deny basic due process to a guilty person as their own guilt is supposed to expose, indict and convict them; one needs only to frame and pile-on charges to an innocent person. No need for perjury if one’s case is clean and righteous; only if the case is weak or fraudulent. No need to deny due process and the requisite Laudermill and other mandated hearings and appeals if one’s case is righteous (that is when one needs a record that full due process was given and guilt was properly established) only if nefarious intentions are behind it all.
Since I do not know what Ms. Warren represented to you as to what she said to me or what believes that she said and intended to communicate to me, that was witnessed by a friend, I cannot comment on the accuracy of her comments and suggestions but I did appreciate the time she took to present her views and arguments.
Thank you again, and I’m sure that you understand that I am as serious as the heart attacks that I suffered. I will be taking this to the Attorney General, the media and to various whistleblower watch groups. How is it possible, for someone in America to be charged, judged, convicted and have discipline assessed, with no Laudermill hearing, no appeals, all while represented by a union and on sick leave with disciplines imposed immediately upon my return from sick leave and timed so as to make me unavailable to teach and thus lose even more money while my classes are assigned to un-vetted and unqualified adjuncts thus “taking” away overtime income as well? What if you found out that a separate file, separate from your personnel file, some 4900 pages was kept on you, since 1994, without your knowledge and thus without your ability to challenge any allegations in it until 2005? And that is only the tip of the iceberg of serial corruption and criminality going on at Clark College in my opinion and those of many others. How would you feel about being charged, judged, convicted and having discipline assessed by someone who regarded you as the sole source of morale issues that have been picked up on repeated environmental scans and who was apparently angered enough to tell your union representatives that “morale will improve when WE get rid of you”? And finally, if someone wrote say America will improve when WE get rid of the president…”do you think that they might at least get a visit from Secret Service wondering what “get rid of” means?
Again thanks for your help in your capacity as an officer of the court and AAG. By the way, I was so much out of it due to my medical conditions that I thought that the Judge had received and read my own petition for the Subpoena Duces Tecum and why I was asking for it but found that the Court assistant had given it back to me to present personally to the judge and I thought that she had meant a different document that I could not find. That does not mean that I did not understand your argument or the reasons the judge gave for her ruling but I was overloaded at the time through no fault of your own.
Again, good luck on your new assignments.
Subject: RE: your question about how to complain
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:10:30 -0700
From my talk with Ms. Warren, it appears everything she told you is true. You can also write to the Attorney General, and I suspect the response you will get will be along the same lines as what Ms. Warren said.
Thank you for your good wishes,
Jody Lee Campbell
From: James Craven [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:23 PM
To: Campbell, Jody (ATG)
Subject: RE: your question about how to complain
Hi Ms Campbell,
Thanks so much for your prompt reply. My conversation over one hour with another AAG, Ms. Warren, just after court finished, did not yield this definitive information as she finally referred me back to the Clark County Prosecutor’s office. I will write to the Attorney General.
I wish you good luck in your new assignment.
Subject: your question about how to complain
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:21:30 -0700
With respect to your request for information on how to complain to the Attorney General about criminal acts, you may send a letter to:
Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General
Washington State Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
You may also submit a complaint via our on-line form through the AGO’s website. Here is a link to the contact form.
I hope that this provides you with the information that you needed.
Jody Lee Campbell
Assistant Attorney General
Print sparingly: save trees.