Attempts to Report Felony Crimes to the Vancouver Police Department

RE: Please confirm complaint and materials sent
Stevens, Ron [Ron.Stevens@ci.vancouver.wa.us]
Sent: Tue 7/8/2008 9:37 AM
To: James M. Craven

Hello Mr. Craven, I have received your E-Mail and have forwarded it to my supervisor for review. Hopefully someone will be in touch with you regarding your complaints and concerns.

Detective Ron Stevens

________________________________________
From: James M. Craven [mailto:craven7391@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 6:20 PM
To: Stevens, Ron
Cc: craven7391@comcast.net
Subject: Please confirm complaint and materials sent

Dear Sir:

Please confirm receipt of my previous email received with my complaint and supporting evidence.

Thank you,

James M. Craven
Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division

Attached to this letter: AHE 1-3 and Scan 002

Dear Detective Stevens:

My name is James M. Craven and I am a tenured Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Business Division at Clark College. I was referred to Vancouver Police by Detective Sgt. Rousseau of the WSP and the materials I submitted to him were transferred by him to Detective Sgt. Krieg (?) of the Vancouver Police. I apologize for the length of this submission, but, as a trained scientist, like you, I am evidence, reason and law based.

My complaint is as serious as the recent heart attack I likely suffered, according to my physicians, from a long campaign of malicious harassment and intimidation in the workplace involving a series of gross misdemeanors and even class-c felonies along with violations of 18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Part 241 “Conspiracy Against Rights”. This campaign has been ongoing for over 10 years since I was a whistleblower who turned in a faculty member collecting and disseminating child pornography at Clark College. I have been in contact with Seattle FBI Cyber squad’s Special Agent Kevin Saito related to ongoing campaigns to shut down my computer with massive attacks with pornography that I believe is coming from the individual (Dennis Watson) that I turned in some years ago but efforts to trace these attacks have proved fruitless up to this point. I am currently a Whistleblower with the Washington State Auditor’s Office on matters dealing with corruption, trading in public employment, violations of Constitutional rights and other matters going on at Clark College and as such have suffered reprisals as the Clark College Administration is well aware of my open protests and repeated requests for rationales on positions and expenditures in writing to which they have refused to respond.

I am attaching but a small sample of what is going on that shows, prima facie, a culture of corruption and intimidation going on at Clark College that has gone far beyond torts and into crimes in my opinion and that of others who have reviewed the evidence. I am willing to swear all statements under penalty of perjury and am fully aware that any deception or dissembling to a law enforcement officer, or any attempts to file frivolous complaints or misuse law enforcement or the judiciary for personal reasons and agenda is not only morally wrong and a diversion of scarce resources needed for many important uses, but also involves multiple possible felonies.

I would appreciate an opportunity to speak with a Vancouver Police Detective on these and other matters and may be reached at 360-823-9235

Sincerely,

James M. Craven
Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division
Clark College

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 5:05 PM
To: Craven, Jim; Pallamounter, Page
Cc: Cheng, Vicki; peter@fels-law.com; Roi, Marcia; ldavidson@washingtonea.org; gwishkoski@washingtonea.org; Walsh, Stephen
Subject: RE: Leave for May/June
Hi Page,

I remember now why the correction so far on sick leave. I donated a maximum possible 48 hours to be split 50-50 between Vicki Collins and Phil Robertson. Now I see why the corrections.

I’ll get this in right away.

take care,

Jim

________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 4:22 PM
To: Pallamounter, Page
Cc: Cheng, Vicki; peter@fels-law.com; Roi, Marcia; ldavidson@washingtonea.org; gwishkoski@washingtonea.org; Walsh, Stephen
Subject: RE: Leave for May/June
Hi Page,

That looks correct and I will submit it. But my last paycheck showed sick-comp beginning 1042.0 and Balance 1042.0 and sick NCOMP 48.0 beginning and balance 48.0. Please explain these numbers and how they were arrived at without the requisite forms having been handed in.

Also I do not know if I also sign as Division Chair and will be paid during the summer as such, as Dean Kotsakis has refused to give me, in writing, a response to my request in writing as to my Division Chair status and without written specificity as to my status, I risk not being in compliance with his “directives” as I may or may not have understood them when given verbally; and I most certainly would not want to be in violation of his “directives” or to cause any confrontation which is why these forms have not been turned in. Perhaps you could look into that as I, and my wife’s family made destitute by earthquakes in China, could sure use the money and as Steve Walsh has indicated that he does not consider himself Division Chair, and I was elected to the position per the CCAHE Contract, and, as you note from the sick leave form, was released by my physician to return on June 18th, which I did and gave Dean Kotsakis a copy of the physici an release.

My attempt to get clarity in writing as to Dean Kotsakis’ intentions and directives so as to be in compliance with them

________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Mon 6/30/2008 5:48 PM
To: Craven, Jim; Kotsakis, Ted; Golder, Katrina; Dastmozd, Rassoul; Knight, Robert
Cc: peter@fels-law.com; ‘LDavidson@washingtonea.org’; GWishkoski@washingtonea.org; Roi, Marcia
Subject: RE: Time-sensitive request (response)
Dear Dean Kotsakis:

As you have not responded to the request below, I will take your non-response to indicate that my understanding of your directive is correct: that I will not be teaching the three courses Summer Macroeconomics 201, Microeconomics 202, Economics 101) I was listed, willing, and due to extreme exigent circumstances explained to you, financially required to teach, and that if I show up to teach those courses, I will be escorted off the premises of Clark College by Campus Security. Acting on this understanding of your directives, I will thus comply, under protest, with your directives as I understand them, and not show up to Clark College to teach tonight at 6 pm.

This is also to note that I take nothing in my understanding of your directives, which you refused again to put in writing, to mean or infer, that, I, unlike any other teacher, am not free to go to my office during the summer for duties related to preparation for my courses in the Fall without being “escorted” off the premises by Campus Security; this is exactly why “directives” that bear on conditions of work, pay and workplace rights need to be in writing with accompanying rationales and authority when requested–it is called accountability. Further, you have said or indicated nothing with respect to my request in writing on my resuming Division Chair duties during the summer and any rationale or authority you would have for at least not offering or asking me if I choose to return to paid Division Chair duties—as you have been made well aware of my financial exigencies.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division

________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Mon 6/30/2008 12:56 PM
To: Kotsakis, Ted; Golder, Katrina; Dastmozd, Rassoul; Knight, Robert
Cc: peter@fels-law.com; ‘LDavidson@washingtonea.org’; GWishkoski@washingtonea.org; Roi, Marcia
Subject: Time-sensitive request

Dear Dean Kotsakis:

Per our conversation in the Business Division Office at 12:10 pm today, it is my understanding that it is your directive that I not teach Microeconomics 202 M-W, Intro to Economics 101 on Tuesdays and Macroeconomics 201 Tuesday Thursday. Since you have repeatedly refused to provide me a clear directive in writing with accompanying authority in the Clark College-AHE Contract for your directive, as you promised, and as I politely requested again today, then it is my understanding of your directive that I am not to show up to teach any of these courses in exercise of my CCAHE-Clark College Contract seniority and tenure rights, and if I do, I will be “escorted” off campus by Campus Security.

This is to request an immediate confirmation that my understanding of your directive is either correct or incorrect and I request a response to this query by 3 p.m. today in the form of a response to this email. If you do not respond to this request for official confirmation and specification as to if my understanding is correct, I will then assume that this—my—understanding of your directive is correct in which case, I will not show up tonight to assert my contractual seniority and tenure rights as I understand them and will then pursue my legal and other contractual options.

As my original expressed inclination not to teach was conditional upon your providing the written authority for your decision to limit me to teaching six credits, a written authority that you promised, and now have indicated in our conversation today that you will never provide, and as my expressed inclination not to teach was under protest and subject to exigent circumstances not arising, which they have, I now request to assert seniority and tenure rights in the CCAHE Contract to teach any other courses available that I am qualified to teach.

Please answer this request by 3 pm today failing which I will assume that you have directed me not to teach these courses that I am listed on the Clark College Course Schedule to teach.

Sincerely,
James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics; Chairman, business Division
Thank you for your efforts.

________________________________________
From: Pallamounter, Page
Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 2:23 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Cheng, Vicki
Subject: Leave for May/June
Hi Jim,

Could you look at the attached Leave Forms and make any corrections. If you would print them out, sign and send to Ted, I’d appreciate it.

Thanks – and if you’ve already submitted them, please disregard this e-mail.
Page Pallamounter
Human Resources
X2119

From: Cheng, Vicki
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:57 PM
To: Pallamounter, Page
Cc: Kotsakis, Ted
Subject: RE: Jim Craven
Page,
As far as I can tell, no form has been submitted.
Vicki

From: Pallamounter, Page
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:37 PM
To: Cheng, Vicki
Subject: Jim Craven

Hi Vicki,

Has Jim Craven submitted a leave form for the days he was off in May and/or June?

Thanks

Page

________________________________________
From: Walsh, Stephen
Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 11:05 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: RE: Econ 202 for Spring
Jim,

I am not the division chair. As far as I am concerned, you are the division chair.

Steve

Dear Dr. Dastmozd:

This is a request for a response in writing to this query.

As you know, it is not only my belief, but it is elementary due process, that allegations are not established facts, and that all persons have a right, under the U.S. Constitution to confront accusations and accusers with all resources at their command.

It has been alleged that you made a representation to Bob Knight, in the presence of my AHE representation and possible others, that the contact between you and myself, mentioned in the April 20, 2008 letter of Dr. Roi, subsequent to our meeting on June 15, 2007, (at which I specifically requested no contacts with you without AHE representation present and noted in the notes of both AHE representatives present) was initiated by me and not by you and that I was the one who had actually sought you out for further discussion.

Please confirm in writing as to whether or not this allegation is correct in substance. If it is correct, that would mean that you told provable untruths not only to Bob Knight your supervisor, but also during official Washington State Government business which would be a violation of several RCWS about which you have been previously made aware.

In fact, and I made extemporaneous notes immediately after contact with you initially at 1:17 p.m. on June 15, 2008, witnessed by my wife, you came to my office, purporting to be concerned about my health, and immediately proceeded to ask me to drop my complaint against Ms Leann Johnson’s procedures and handling of the student complaint from which I was vindicated asking me to take the vindication and “move on”. I noted to you that I could not and would not drop my complaint for several reasons as I believed then, and believe now, that there were serious due process errors, specific witnesses I asked to be present not present when available including yourself, no tape recordings of witness statements, no ability of me and my AHE representation to cross-examine witnesses or know exactly, taped or in writing, what was said, etc. Some of these issues were detailed in my official complaint of June 12, 2007 which remains unacknowledged and unaddressed.

Because of the presence of my wife and child, whom I asked you to look at carefully , and asked–even pleaded with you to consider–what happens to them if my health (about which you have inquired even of me as well as of others who have so reported it to me) fails due to the stress you and others were putting me under, to which you had no response. Also because of the power and authority disparity between us, and the possibility of getting written up but another time for insubordination or creating a hostile work environment,, I chose not to confront you for violating a request that I had made and that you had acknowledged some one hour previously. When I refused to drop the complaint that I had every right to file and have considered, you became loud and stormed out of my office with me asking you “Rassoul, Rassoul, are you alright?” This caused considerable fear for my wife, who witnessed all of it, and who knew well not only your position and authority, but had some idea of the animus you have expressed against me in many venues with many witnesses including my own AHE representation, who had not yet even met me, when you and Katrina Golder and others allegedly made untruthful or misleading representations about my personnel file among other things; they expressed to me the view that your intent, and that of the others at their meeting was to discourage AHE from representing me and Gregg Wishkoski, as he met me for the first time said, in the presence of Marcia Roi at the AHE Uniserv office, there was real “hatred” expressed against me in the room.

My extemporaneous notes were written up immediately after our contact in my office, and sent to AHE representatives at 5:37 pm on June 15, 2007 and later again on June 29, 2007. Further, as a matter of elementary logic, if this allegation is correct, and I am now simply asking you if it is or is not, why would I possibly seek out someone I have just asked not to come near me without AHE representation? Just as I have asked another question over and over with no answer: Why would I go to the June 15, 2007 meeting without carrying a tape recorder and not tape the meeting, at your specific request (What kind of person with what intentions does not want a tape of a potentially contentious meeting as a tape recording protects all honest parties?) if I had been led to believe, in any way, that some phase of this meeting would involve potential discipline even if that phase were conducted not by you but by Dr.Thornburg?

Further, in another meeting, I have on tape, your admitting that you had contact with my wife and son without my being present when you knew full well, as I had made you aware, that my wife would be a witness to our contact and conversation in my office on June 15, 2007 as well as in possible litigation in the future? The fact that I chose not to confront you at that meeting does not vitiate or give you permission or release you from having contacted my wife and child–causing my wife fear–without my presence. In fact, I have you on tape in another meeting, when informed that my wife was in a position to hear and witness our conversation, and without even knowing what she would say, you challenged that she was in such proximity to witness all what was said and done by you as well as by me.

This is to request your response in writing, in the form of a response to this email, to this query as to whether or not this allegation about your representations to Bob Knight is correct or incorrect. I will assume that the allegation is correct without a specific response to this query in writing by 5 pm tomorrow, Wednesday, July 2, 2008 and will proceed to other venues on that assumption.

Thank you for your timely consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division

————– Forwarded Message: ————–
From: Jim Craven
To: “craven7391@comcast.net”
Subject: on watson
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:57:14 +0000
—–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

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: 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: 1) Either “The Columbian” is misquo tin g Det. Hobbes 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 as lies–Det Hobbes is far too intelligent to leave himself exposed in such a way; 5) That leaves what possibliity? 6) According to the 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: the “Notice of [Ethics] Board Action dated March 20, 1997 on page 2 (point 3) states:

“I acknowledge that I acted in appropriately when I used the College computers to download pornography from the Internet sites and to transmit personal electronic messages of a sexual nature. Although the Instructor Computer Unser’s Committee (ICUC) did ask me at one time to determine how to access pornographic websites in order to determine how to limit student’s access to those sites, I exceeded that authority when I downloaded, collected, and stored pornography in my computer in my office.

In short, the downloading, collecting, and maintaining of pornography in my faculty office was not related to my official duties, and I should not have done it.”

Which is it? Is Prof Watson lying in this statement about being guilty of the abovementioned offenses (when in fact he has done nothing that “I” haven’t done and is in reality “innocent”) or is he lying about not being guilty of “unprofessional conduct”, “ethics violations” and “misuse of State resources”? Further: Why the reference to the ICUC when most of the porn collected was from a time period well before the ICUC was set up even and when the demonstration for which he “volunteered” (was he setting up a cover as the ethics complaint against him had already been filed well before the ICUC was even set up or this exercise occurred?) was on a one time basis. Phile Sheehan wrote:

“…I asked for a volunteer from the committee with experience & nbsp; using the www to conduct the demonstration. Dennis Watson agreed to conduct the demonstration… With the exception of the aforementioned demonstration, Prof. Watson was not asked or directed to continue the exploring and cataloging sexually explicit sites on the Internet by me or, to my knowledge, any other Clark College administrator. Dr. Johnson neither attended or sanctioned the demonstration.”

Response: So why the reference to the ICUC in his statement to the Ethics Board when the ICUC one-time demonstration clearly had nothing
to do with the offenses for which Watson was charged? Who gave Dr. Larry Easter the impression that Watson was working at the behest of
the ICUC to “research pornography”? Does this irrelevant reference to the ICUC one-time demonstration (with no reference to the fact
that he “volunteered”) not suggest that he “volunteered” for this assignment to give himself a potential cover for charges that had already been filed and about which the Administration had knowledge? (I alerted the WSP at the time that a potential cover was possibly being constructed and that short of a outright conviction, he would be returned to Clark because of his tight relationship with the
Administration–one WSP Detective [Detective Hobbes] 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 * &nb sp; ; *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

:
craven7391@comcast.net
[Add to Address Book]
To:
smeadors@clark.edu;kgolder@clark.edu;rdastmozd@clark.edu;tkotsakis@clark.edu;longl@sao.wa.gov
CC:
mroi@clark.edu;peter@fels-law.com;ldavidson@washingtonea.org;gwishkoski@washingtonea.org;swalsh@clark.edu;
BCC:
gjohnson@clark.edu;ahamideh@clark.edu;pserrano@clark.edu;jfite@clark.edu;, craven7391@comcast.net
Subject:
Official Notice
Date:
Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:39:25 PM

Dear Katrina and Sherry,

Per your own request in your respective letter and email, to write you with any questions about your summary decision–subsequently reversed–to demand repayment of an alleged “overpayment” of my Division Chair stipend, I did indeed pose questions in an official capacity to which you have refused to respond.

I have asked you to explain the apparent and material contradictions in your respective accounts of the authority upon which your original decision was made as well as the timing and methods through which you notified me of your decision. Specifically Sherry has represented in her letter that I was originally emailed but has refused to provide a copy of that email; Katrina says in her email below that I was telephoned on November 17, 2008 but no message was left and no follow-up call presumably.

Sherry says in her letter that my pay had not been deducted in time for the June 25, 2008 paycheck and asks me to remit $467.27 “overpayment” by June 30, 2008, while Katrina notes, as was the case that my pay was indeed reduced but hoped that a second check covering the deducted amount would arrive in time for payday–it did.

Since you have refused to answer my questions in writing about the apaprent discrepencies in your respective accounts, and since the below-cited RCWs may have been violated, and since State Resources were used in your official capacities, this is to notify you that this is being referred to the Washington State Auditor’s Office, Washington State Department of Personnel, Washington State Human Rights Commission and appropriate Law Enforcement for their take as to if or if not the following RCWS have been violated as is my duty as a Public Employee of the Government of the State of Washington.

This is also to give notice that due to exigent circumstances and extreme hardships caused by my recent heart attack and mounting medical bills, as well as my extended family in China being made destitute due to the earthquakes in Chengdu, I will be exercising my contractual rights under the CCAHE Contract (to volunteer to teach in the summer and to hold seniority and tenure rights of bumping over part-time faculty) to teach the courses I was originally scheduled and am listed to teach in the Clark College Course Schedule (for which many students specifically signed up for me as the teacher) and will be assuming my duties as elected Division Chairman of the Business Division; please adjust my pay and provide the appropriate contracts as necessary and notify the adjunct instructors of my exercising my CCAHE Contract seniority and tenure rights as is routinely done, even at the last minute, when tenured faculty cannot make their normal loads.

Please also pass this on as a formal complaint against Ted Kotsakis, Rassoul Dastmozd, Katrina Golder and Sherry Meadors of violations of the ADA as I have known and documented disabilities, including a recent heart attack, that have been made worse by these machinations with respect deductions of my pay without authority and with contradictory accounts as to what took place, and through the summary “directive” by Ted Kotsakis, cc’d to Rassoul Dastmozd and Katrina \Golder not to teach the courses I was scheduled to teach during the summer without the authority, in the CCAHE Contract, and in breach of the clear language of the CCAHE Contract that he promised to prove and did not provide.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division

cc:
Washington State Auditor’s Office
Washington State Department of Personnel
Washnington State Human Rights Commission
Washington State Ethics Board
Clark College AHE
Vancouver Police
Peter Fels, Attorney at Law

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.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9A.72.010 <> 9A.72.030
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]
Purpose — 2001 c 308: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 308 § 1.]
Effective date — 2001 c 308: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001].” [2001 c 308 § 4.]
Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.
Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.
A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. “Material statement” means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]
Purpose — 2001 c 308: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 308 § 1.]
Effective date — 2001 c 308: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001].” [2001 c 308 § 4.]
Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

————– Forwarded Message: ————–
From: “Craven, Jim”
To:
Subject: cont Question on compensation for division chair
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:27:29 +0000
________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Tue 6/24/2008 5:16 PM
To: Golder, Katrina; ‘craven7391@comast.net’
Cc: Roi, Marcia; Kotsakis, Ted; Dastmozd, Rassoul; Meadors, Sherri; Wynkoop, Karen; Walsh, Stephen; peter@fels-law.com; ldavidson@washingtonea.org; Craven, Jim
Subject: RE: Question on compensation for division chair
Hi Katrina,

Well now I am even more perplexed. In her letter (see attached) Sherry requested the $467.27 before June 30 as she was not able to take the money from my June 25 check; and now you tell me that the money was indeed taken without clear authority having been established by her–and she is a payroll supervisor. Which was/is it? And why was this money taken without clear authority from you as to what is or is not contractually permissible?

I know that you are well aware that I had a heart attack, that I have had additional medical expenses, that my in-laws in China are dependent upon my wife and me because they are from the epicenter of the earthquakes. And you are also well aware of my challenge to Ted Kotsakis notion (which will continue) that I am only allowed to teach 6 credits this summer if I so chose, while I have taught more than 13 credits many summers, while I was listed in the course schedule to teach these courses and Steve Walsh is teaching 15 credits plus a Division Chair stipend. So why has all of this occurred and what do you think it does to my family?

Why does Ted Kotsakis refuse to give me in writing, as he promised, his rationale and authority for his summary decision (which I have in writing) that I could only teach a maximum of one course (thus also depriving me of both needed money and my basic seniority/tenure rights as reflected in the Clark-AHE Contract along with depriving students of the most qualified teacher for whom many of them specifically signed up)? And how much State monies were used to get us to this point and now get all of this back together? And why do I have to go through this stuff when you know very well what this could do to someone who has had a recent heart attack and who has a 22-month-old son and a daughter and a wife? Do you see my problem with all this?

Further, in response to my inquiry in his AHE/Interim Division Chair capacity, Steve Walsh wrote the following which shows not only was he given some rationale, by a payroll supervisor, which you now say is incorrect, but also it seems a whole lot of cavalier attitudes about being very eager to take my hard-earned and needed money without documented cause, but not being in any hurry to check out if such authority and policy exists:

June 23, 2008: I asked Ted about your over payment. He said that he did not know and that he would check with Vicki Chang when she got back from vacation.

June 23, 2008: I talked to Sherri Meadors in payroll, who wrote you. She based the decision on the fact that base pay continues during sick and medical leave but other pay does not because a faculty member who is on leave is not performing the additional duties. She is going to verify this with Katrina and forward the results to you.

I asked about the appeal process. There is an appeal process. The appeal has to be based on the validity of the request for the refund. There is no provision for hardship.

I will talk to Marcia about this when she gets back from vacation.

It looks like no one delayed the paperwork. It just takes this long to go through the system.

Finally, I sent two letters to Sherry asking for responses to specific questions I have every right to ask and actually in response to her own offer to answer my questions by email or phone as manifested in her attached letter. I am still waiting for answers to those questions, and expect those answers just as I expect Ted Kotsakis to keep his promise to provide his rationale and authority for his apparent disparate treatment of me relative to Steve Walsh and others vis-a-vis allowable summer teaching load and the clear language of the Clark-AHE Contract on seniority rights. As you also know, as you have been cc’d. I elected not to teach under protest as both my health cannot handle a confrontation if I showed up to assert my seniority rights and dared you to call security while I called the media, and also, because I did not want to disrupt the students and the Adjunct teacher and put them in a bad spot; that is the only reason; otherwise I would have pushe d it not to allow my rights to be compromised without challenge. I taught Business Law previously and do know how to read the language of a contract. But any administrator who cannot give a full explanation, and authority for decisions affecting conditions of work and pay in writing, whether for senior faculty like me or not, may well, in my opinion, calling into question his/her fitness to hold an administrative position. That is why I am also making a formal complaint against his actions, and those of anyone who may have been directing him, that have cost me needed money, pain and suffering and deprived the students of the teacher many of them specifically signed up for.

Next I have another question for you. One of the members of Clark Security indicated he was aware of my health situation and that I had had a heart attack. Would you please explain to me who he came to know this when he indicated it to me the very day I came back? The reason I ask, and please notice I give exact reasons for everything I ask, is because before he left, Elman McClain told me that Campus Security was put on special alert when I advised that I would be at a Board meeting to make a presentation. That, of course, without cause, is disparate surveillance in the workplace and as you well know from your position, can be construed, and has been construed in case law to be a form of harassment and demonization in the workplace which is both a tort and a crime. Has anyone asked anyone in Campus Security to watch out for and document when I am on campus? I would appreciate it if you would make an inquiry please because twice when I came on campus (my doctor n ever indicated I could not even go on campus to get personal stuff and/or try to meet my professional responsibilities to students if I took care to avoid toxic pathogens which I did) Ted advised me after both occasions that some anonymous someone had seen me on campus. And since during the summer I may have to stop off from time to time as all faculty do, partly to prepare for next year, I would appreciate not getting any more notes about some anonymous person reporting my being where I have every right to be.

And finally, Katrina, let me give some kudos to you for not trying to stick to a patently untenable position vis-à-vis reduction in my pay and thus causing me and my family even more stress, pain and suffering. Let us hope also, that the pay differential that you say was taken out of my June 25 check and Sherry said in her letter was not, is available tomorrow when it should be available to me as I worked darn hard to earn it and Clark College has benefited considerably from those efforts (see my record for FTEs relative to other faculty for the 15 years I have been here).

Please remember, when questions are framed in temperate language, as I have, and if those questions remain unanswered, then often no answer to the same questions, when posed over and over, can and will be interpreted as an answer of sorts in other venues.

Thanks for the heads up and information. If you have anything else you need to discuss or information you require, you have my College and home email addresses. I do not do any business related to Clark College on the phone.

Thanks again and have a great summer, as you have cc’d this to interested parties, I’m sure you understand I must do the same, as I have initiated inquiries with AHE and elsewhere when I got no answers to my questions and I will await Ted to keep his promise to provide his rationale and authority for his assertions (in writing) on my being allowed to teach only one course if I so chose, and what “overload” and seniority/tenure rights are or are not during the summer; and I will also await Sherry providing answers to my specific questions.

take care,

Jim

________________________________________
From: Golder, Katrina
Sent: Tue 6/24/2008 12:35 PM
To: Craven, Jim; ‘craven7391@comast.net’
Cc: Roi, Marcia; Kotsakis, Ted; Dastmozd, Rassoul; Meadors, Sherri; Wynkoop, Karen; Golder, Katrina
Subject: Question on compensation for division chair
Hi Jim:

I just tried to call you at home but there was no answer so I am sending you this by email. I am following up on your question on the letter from payroll regarding division chair compensation and overpayment. Let me first say that I agree with you that your pay should not be reduced because you were on sick leave. Staff handled this as they would any change in assignment and compensation, and when it was determined that Steve Walsh would take over as division chair, there was an assumption that there should be a corresponding adjustment to your compensation for work as division chair.

Sherri Meadors did try to call you on June 17 to discuss this with you but she did not receive an answer.

There will not be a reduction in your payment so there is no overpayment. Your check for June 25th has been prepared without the division chair compensation, so I am requesting that Payroll prepare a special check for the division chair portion and hopefully that will be ready with your check tomorrow.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Thanks.

Katrina

Dear Sherry,

As you noted in your letter in which you invited me to write or call with any questions, your request was time-sensitive to make your adjustments to fall within the present fiscal period. My response was also time-sensitive as this is no small sum of money in the context of my having unforeseeable medical expenses plus my in-laws are from Chengdu China and had their lives turned upside down with the earthquakes and I send them money.

As a payroll supervisor, and as one who was given this “information” about my status, on the basis of which you made your request, I assume that the information I requested should be at your immediate command and thus no need for any delay in providing answers to the questions I posed or a copy of the email from your send file that you say in your letter you sent to me.

Specifically, what specific “information” were you given that caused you to make the calculations you made and request I return $467.27 in “overpayment”? By whom? In writing or orally? When and where (date, time, place) were you given this “information”? What authority was given and/or do you employ to make these calculations and assessments? What examples or precedents are you aware of that parallel the calculations and requests you have made? Why was this adjustment not made in previous paychecks while on sick leave? Why was this adjustment not made in time for the June 25th paycheck? Why did you not leave a message on my phone? These are all very natural questions and I mean no disrespect but need answers before returning the money you requested; I have to survive all summer on my balloon-check and this last check.

As a Division Chairman, which is not extra but part of my regular duties for which I receive 49% release time, there is no such thing as “extra-work” once I have been authorized to teach a given teaching load, in addition to my Division Chair responsibilities, and Clark College receives benefits in the form of revenues and the courses not being cancelled, then whatever my pay at the time of my taking sick leave is my pay unless you can provide Contractual authority and precedent that says and has been determined otherwise; please so provide such if such exists.

Please provide me answers to my questions by responding to this email and please do so with the same urgency embodied in your own time-sensitive request.

thank you,

Jim Craven
________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Sun 6/22/2008 2:38 PM
To: Meadors, Sherri
Cc: Walsh, Stephen; Roi, Marcia; ldavidson@washingtonea.org; gwishkoski@washingtonea.org; peter@fels-law.com
Subject: Request for Specificty on Letter of June 17, 2008
Dear Sherry,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 17, 2008 requesting that I send you a check before June 30, 2008 the sum of $467.27 on the basis of alleged overpayment on my Division Chair Stipend while I was on authorized medical leave.

You say in your letter, that Payroll received “information” last week that your Division Chair (DC) compensation should be adjusted…

First of all I do check my inbox each day, and did not see any email from you; perhaps it got routed to junkmail which I also check. Secondly, please reply to this email (as I no longer accept any letters from Clark College Administrators or Admin during the summer) with exactly what date, time, form and by whom you received this “information”; if in writing, please provide a copy of what was sent to you; if given orally to you, please recount as best as possible what specific “information” was given to you. Please also provide if any contractual authority was given to you or known by you for this adjustment, and also please provide any examples of other Division Chairs on sick leave, using their sick time, whose DC stipends were also so adjusted. Please also explain to me why this adjustment was not announced and made earlier as I have been on sick leave for the past five weeks and have received previous paychecks without this adjustment.

This request, hits me now at a time with considerable medical expenses and at a time at which my health is somewhat fragile and has left me with less income than anticipated. I am responding to your offer in your letter for explanation on this decision and mean no disrespect to you or your efforts. I am off-contract now so I am dealing with these remaining issues from home.

Thanks for your time-sensitive consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven

Dear Dean Kotsakis:

As I noted to you in a private conversation, I had no choice but to respond to your letter of April 29, 2008 to give my response, for the record and possible use in other venues, and you indicated that you understood my motives and imperatives. I thank you for your understanding of my situation and you said you would not take it “personal” as it is not so intended. I noted also that all conversations in which you explicitly asked be kept confidential (and I kept extemporaneous, sealed and dated notes) I have so honored my promises.

If you note the time and date of my response below, you will see this was written on the day of receipt of your letter. Your letter, as you can see, was sent to my union representation (and attorney Peter Fels) for vetting so as not to make any intemperate speech or reckless charges. My union representatives, finally got back to me, no content of what I wrote was ever challenged by them; but they asked me to hold off as you letter was more in the form of a warning rather than potential discipline at the time and they wanted to see what further would develop. Because of my workload, my deteriorating health that resulted in a heart attack, this is really the first opportunity to respond for the record. If you feel any of my statements are not according to your recollection, please respond and correct in writing what you feel is more correct.
________________________________________
From: Craven, Jim [mailto:JCraven@clark.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:32 PM
Cc: Roi, Marcia; Davidson, Lynn [WA]
Subject: Official Response to Letter of April 29, 2008
Dear Dean Kotsakis:

It is with sadness that I have no choice but to respond officially to your letter of April 29, 2008 and the content and summary allegations contained within it.

First, I must express shock and dismay as the delivery of your letter today, is the first indication I have ever received from you, despite many conversations since April 21, 2008, the date of the conversation to which you refer, of your having had any belief or opinion that the content of our conversation on that day, or my demeanor, was in any way, “unprofessional” or “inappropriate.”
This is the second time on your part that this has happened, because previously, when you charged me with lack of respect during a President’s Dialogue, again the first indication I got of your summary opinion and conclusion about by speech at the President’s Dialogue was in your letter itself, 10 days after the alleged incident, and despite many conversations with you on various topics. It is basic due process that I be given timely notice so as to be able to put together evidence in my defense from memories while they are fresh. When you charge someone, you are supposed to provide not your allegations as already-confirmed conclusions, you are supposed to give operational definitions for any alleged offenses, you are supposed to give specific evidence and facts that you feel point to the allegations being warranted, you are supposed to provide me with copies of any statements by witnesses against me, and you are supposed to cite which specific policies, laws, parts of the Clark-AHE Contract that you feel have been violated if the specified allegations are deemed–by an impartial, fair and unbiased process–to be established as conclusions from established facts. And, if you are the one making the charge, and/or have even indicated an opinion as to my guilt as charged, as you did in your letter in that case, then elementary due process demands that you do not get to be the one who passes on whether or not your own charges and opinions are correct. Try this: How about if the same was done to you? I was relieved that you accepted my explanations of what I said and intended, but, as I noted, was troubled that Jennifer Wheeler and Eugene Caroll, who I asked to be called as witnesses as they had taken copious notes as to exactly what I said at that meeting, including Bob’s Knight’s statement to me that he does not read any emails from me but summarily hits delete–that is what real lack of respect in speech looks like–were not called to your investigation (witnessed by Katrina Golder and that I have on tape) as it is elementary due process that I be allowed to bring any and all relevant witnesses to my defense in any matter involving potential loss of life, liberty or property (tenure status). You noted in the hearing that you would call them if you decided to proceed further but gave no indication of sensitivity to the issue that the process itself is invasive and would be further so if extended which is why I had asked, in writing, that they be called in my defense.

In a previous incident, with Ms Mastenbrook, she made an initial letter of concern based on unspecified representations made to her by Ms. Lemmond about me and what I supposedly said at an earlier meeting at which she was not in attendance. Instead of calling us both in to straighten it out (Management 101 or less), or trying to find out what specific representations had been made to her by Ms. Lemmond that caused Ms. Mastenbrook’s concerns as expressed in her Sept 18, 2007 letter, you, stated to me when I asked you why you had not done so, that you did not think it was a “complaint”; yet that very letter was later attached to a subsequent complaint by Ms. Mastenbrook (from which I was vindicated when an outside investigator trained in labor law was brought in and even though that process resulted in a pending Unfair Labor Practice complaint being filed). Again, is this how you would want to be treated were you in the same situation?

And I am still at a loss, without specifics, as to what specific utterances—exact words—or mannerisms—exact behavior or mannerisms—constitute, in your opinion, “unprofessional” or “inappropriate” behavior. In fact, when I shared that I felt that I had an absolute duty, as a public servant, to report what I and others believe to be an illegal act (a material falsehood told in an official proceeding of an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington likely intended to influence decisions in that proceeding—RCW 42.20.100 False Report and RCW 9A.76.175 Making a False or Misleading Statement to a Public Servant) and that if I failed to do so, I myself might be guilty of RCW 9A.80.010 Official Misconduct and RCW 42.20.040 Failure of Duty by a Public Officer, a conversation I reported at the time to Marcia Roi, Lynn Davidson and Gregg Wishkoski of the WEA, you noted to me, at the time, that , as a former Longview Police Officer, you agreed that I did indeed have such a professional as well as legal duty and, that it would or should not be regarded as any kind of act of retaliation against Ms. Lemmond or Ms. Mastenbrook. Indeed, instead of just going ahead covertly with my complaint against Ms. Lemmond, I, according to real professionalism, informed you of my intentions. I asked for your take on my intentions. I presented the basis for my belief that Ms. Lemmond had written and/or told a material and provably false statement in an official proceeding of an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, an allegation with which you apparently agreed as you were at the meeting in question and even told me that you had told Ms Rode that Lemmond’s allegation about “five minutes of non-stop profanity” at that meeting was untrue. I even sent you copies of the relevant RCWs that I believed were violated or potentially violated by Ms. Lemmond as well as the RCWs that I believed I would be in violation of were I not to report it. Indeed in my professional capacity to support you as Division Chair, and so as not to conduct covert activities that might undermine you, I acted in a completely open and professional manner. In fact, and I made extemporaneous notes of all of our conversations, you repeatedly asked when FBI or Washington State Patrol would be coming in to investigate my complaints as you knew I had approached them over my email being shut down and my being spammed with pornography and had also raised other issues with them as well.

Next, at no time did I accuse Ms Mastenbrook of “false” statements—I believed at the time, and still believe, they are reckless, yes, as she did not attempt to talk with me prior to her allegations–as she was acting on the basis of representations made of her by Ms. Lemmond. I did characterize Ms. Mastenbrook’s complaint as unfounded and made with disregard to the effects on me and my family, and that her letter of Sept 18, 2007 made unspecified assertions from Ms Lemmond about my speech at the September meeting that I was not in a position to address as they had not been specified. I did note that her demand that I be disciplined, before even meeting me or hearing what I had to say (I still do not know what she looks like even), was troubling about her own apparent level of respect for due process especially given her claim of an HR background. I did not say I would “see to it” that they would no longer work or be employed at Clark College, as I would have no such power, and, I do nothing covertly and do not engage in Conspiracy Against Rights which is what I would be guilty of it I were to undertake such intrigue. I said only that I find it troubling, and take serious exception, that anyone who would make patently and provably false statements, as Ms. Lemmond appears to have done in official proceedings of an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, could or should remain in the classroom having responsibility over and for students and their education. I stand by that statement and opinion, and when you delivered this letter to me, you indicated that you made sure that my concerns in this regard were noted in the letter by you as indeed they were. Yes I did say that integrity and character, in addition to basic competence in one’s subject area, are requisite for any teacher; again, my professional responsibilities, as in the case of the disputed email by Ms. Mastenbrook, demand that I advise you of any potential unsafe condition, potential threat to student’s rights, or anything else in conflict with the Mission, Vision and Values or any laws governing Clark College.

I am a Blackfoot Indian, who not only was raised as one, but who has served as a Tribal Judge. Please let me quote from one of my judicial findings in a UN-NGO-sponsored Tribunal on Crimes in Indian Residential Schools in Canada on which I sat as a Judge:
Judgmental language and simplistic labels may often lead to preemptory conclusions, summary judgments, simplistic and reductionistic thinking, obfuscation, hiding or failure to introduce significant evidence, failure to pose necessary questions and failure to generally pursue Truth, Justice, Healing, Reconciliation and Prevention of Future Abuse. As Rupert Ross puts it:

“For one thing, English has an extraordinary number of adjectives that are not so much descriptions ‘of’ things, as they are conclusions ‘about’ things…adjectives like ‘horrible’, ‘uplifting’, ‘disgusting’, ‘inspiring’, ‘delightful’, ‘tedious’ and so on. When you really look at them, you discover that they don’t tell us much about things-in-themselves, but only about the judgments speakers have made about them–and want the rest of us to accept.” (Ross, 1996, p. 102)

This applies to your summary use of the terms “unprofessional” and “inappropriate” in your letter. These are conclusions, summary conclusions, that, when lacking any due process or specific examples to support them, are not only prejudicial and inflammatory, especially in the present context of other matters pending, but really represent a lack of basic fairness and due process that you no doubt would want for yourself and your loved ones. If someone summarily stated, say hypothetically, that—and wrote you up in an official letter —your speech constituted slander, or writing libel, would you not want specific references to actual words uttered or written by you, where, when and witnessed by whom, along with accompanying text of law as to what constitutes slander or libel? And would you not want an immediate response, at the time any alleged slander was uttered, or alleged libel written, that the person making such allegations felt that way? If you made a statement to someone, and by the way I never asked that you keep my reservations that I expressed confidential as I know I was indeed acting in a professional way as a Divsion Chairman, but I do ask that what I said be accurately repeated and characterized, would you not want an immediate response from them if they for some reason took exception to it and why they took exception to it?

And would you want the person or persons that charged you or caused you to be charged with say slander or libel to be the very persons passing on whether or not you were guilty of the charges that they had levied? Indeed again, with the passage of time since that alleged incident, with not one word said until today, this denies me basic due process and a basis to get at the truth, in that it denies me the opportunity to interview potential witnesses with fresh memories or in this case to give another view on what I recollected as to the substance of our conversation.

Secondly, in my handling of a student complaint against Ms. Mastenbrook, you indeed praised my professionalism, honor and desire to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest as well as my intent to respect the due process rights of Ms. Mastenbrook—due process rights that I have demanded for myself–in passing the complaint to you for reasons I articulated in my email to you on the matter. Indeed if you discuss how I handled her initial contact with me, the student who initially contacted me, should attest, that I summarily cut her off, refused to hear any allegations against Ms. Mastenbrook not in writing and signed, and merely explained the grievance process to her.

Dear Ms.:

Thank you for your letter and this is to acknowledge receipt of it. I am referring this directly to Dean Kotsakis for his own take on the issues you have raised.

Please feel free to submit any additional information that you feel necessary for us to make a determination on your request for full refund and to fully address the concerns you have raised with so as to ensure due process for all concerned.

Sincerely,
James M. Craven
Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division

The warning against someone not to attempt retaliation, presumes, that that person being warned, might be even capable of doing so, and that, is a charge against the basic integrity and character of that person, as anyone, even attempting retaliation against anyone exercising their basic Constitutional rights, lacks character and integrity.. Have Ms. Mastenbrook, Vicki Cheng or Julie Lemmond or anyone else with grievances pending against them been warned in writing not to retaliate against me? Indeed as I noted to you on several occasions, that at Clark College itself, it has been determined that feigned fear, theatrics and drama designed to give the impression someone is dangerous and a threat (Why would I possibly be reacting this way unless I had some basis to “feel” threatened?), lacking any evidentiary basis for that person to actually have such fear, can be taken as a form of harassment, demonization and marginalization in the workplace and I gave you all the RCWs some time ago which included the RCW on that.

Next, I categorically reject, and swear under penalty of perjury, that I have ever done anything, that would cause any reasonable and prudent person, free of animus, bias or conflicts of interest, to fear any form of violence or reprisal by me; this is especially the case of Vicki Cheng against whom I have never expressed anger and from whom I have tolerated what I interpreted or “felt” to be passive-aggressive behaviors and hostility at times. I tried each time to win her over with reason and kindness and thought I had done so when we had great exchanges when she was recently assigned to witness my interview of On one occasion, after the filing of a charge by Ms Mastenbrook, seeing that she often has extended conversations with Ms. Lemmond, I, in my official capacity, and believing that she was also a professional, asked her, as an office manager, to please make sure that the ca se is not discussed in the office as that could be corrosive and divisive, and please document any attempts to do so. This was the same in the case of the vitriolic student who overheard and interrupted my privileged conversation with another student: I merely asked her, from a distance from the entrance to her office, to please document any comments being made while she was making an appointment. It was Vicki Cheng who openly and loudly challenged me in the office—a challenge from which I immediately retreated so as not to exacerbate the situation. The only hostility that has ever been exchanged between Vicki Cheng and me came only from her and was never responded to at any time by me. This I not only swear under penalty of perjury, I am willing to submit to a polygraph, voice stress analysis or any other scientific means of determining veracity of a statement. Thus, Mrs. Cheng’s apparent statement and complaint of fear of me, and attempt to create a profile of me as unstable, rea ctive, dangerous s or threatening, is not only totally unfounded, but, in the context of her apparent close association with Ms. Lemmond, whose now missing and mysteriously- relayed letter to Ms Rode, containing at least one provable and proved falsehood in my opinion and that of others who have reviewed it, and that is the subject of a AHE complaint of Unfair Labor Practice, may itself be an attempt at the very type of coercion, misuse of public resources and proceedings and preemptory reprisal that I am accused of with not one specific example or provable fact to support such charges. May I remind you of the statement by Emma Kim, passed on to the appropriate Clark authorities, that would be a crime if false as she was a public employee at the time she wrote it, still unanswered to this day by anyone including Ms Golder with whom I have had many interactions:

While I was an employee in Personnel, I was asked by Donna Kelly to engage in a task that involved the violation of Jim Craven’s civil and employee rights. The specific task was to send all his emails to the AG’s office. (Mind you, not Dennis Watson’s or anyone else’s emails, just Jim Craven’s stuff. For those of you who might be wondering what’s wrong with that, it is illegal to keep separate files on employees. It is also illegal to keep a separate file on anyone practicing their freedom of speech as a dissenter or activist.)
It is important for the reader to know what my filters were at the time when Donna tried to get me involved in violating his rights. I was highly critical, vocal in my criticism and fearful of Jim. I said and held many of the negative sentiments that I continue to hear on campus and continue to read and sense in print. After all, I trusted my new supervisors and coworkers when I was given the run down that Jim was litigious, slanderous, manipulative, a trouble maker, unreasonable, potentially violent and mean…

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.

May I also quote from the sworn deposition of former Dean Richard Fulton in another case involving a challenge to my email use:

“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.” ( Sworn Deposition of Dean Richard Fulton p. 10)

The following are provable facts: This letter by Ms. Kim has been published as well as passed on to at least two presidents of Clark College, still unanswered or even acknowledged despite the seriousness of the charges; an illegal file was provably kept on me and that Bob Knight has had in his possession and/or still has it in his position–a file I have never seen but yet has been used against me and that Clark College wants $490 or 10-cents a page to see; I have been and am the subject of repeated pilings-on of various complaints, involving numerous violations of basic due process, and triggering pending grievances and an Unfair Labor Practice complaint by AHE; my distress (what you summarily call unprofessional anger) at the suffering of my poor wife and my child from all th ese machinations and allegations from which I have often been vindicated is what would be expected of any reasonable and prudent person; the threats against my health and thus the welfare of my family, etc have been summarily ignored and callously dismissed; I have always put in writing, signed my name and invited rebuttals to all of my evidence-and-law-cite-supported allegations that never came; my fears and concerns of an organized common plan that would constitute Conspiracy Against Rights under 18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Part 241 and several other Federal Statutes and Washington RCWs that I have cited and sent to you, would not be unfounded or unreasonable by any reasonable and prudent person–indeed you yourself indicated agreement that some are “out to get you” but said you are not one of them; to attempt to demonize, marginalize, ostracize a person, or to create and contrive a negative profile of person through feigned and unwarranted theater and drama , is not only one of the oldest tricks in the book, it is an act of defamation, harassment, bullying and creating a hostile workplace.

Finally you passed on a letter from a former student that contains some allegations by a former student against me and Gene Johnson. It says “The Office of Instruction has asked that I pass this along to you.” And you noted that you got at least three calls to make sure I got this letter. This letter, which does not reveal when this student was my student, in what course and section, or even how, why and by whom it was solicited from or sent by this student, was addressed to the Clark College Foundation on April 8, 2008 and acknowledged as received April 15, 2008 and then faxed by the Office of Instruction on April 29, 2008. When was this student my student? Why did she not file a formal complaint when she was a student? Why is this being passed on now? She mentions my “giving” her an F but does not mention that I use only multiple-choice exams from the test banks for the text; how is it th is student wound up with an F but others do well in my class? How, why, when, by whom and under what authority was this letter passed on by the Clark College foundation to the Office of Instruction and who, and only now, is a copy being presented to me? Since this student has such high regard for Bellevue Community College, is she aware that I taught there for five years with extremely high evaluations? What does this student purport to know, and on what basis, about percentages of student “failure, poor marks and dropouts compared to other classes?” (actually they are provably lower) And since my mother was a convert to Reform Judaism and I was raised around Jews much of my life, what specific statements am I alleged to have uttered that she considered “anti-Semitic”? Again, with the passing of this letter, and this apparent attempt to pile on bogus quantity in lieu of lack of any quality or specificity in allegations, this appears to be more contempt for basic due process by Dr. Dastmozd in passing this on at this time. Indeed he is also not free of conflict of interest as he is the subject of several upcoming grievances that will no doubt be calling into question his veracity on various issues; and, thus, as a matter of honor and basic due process that he would no doubt demand for himself, as I did with Ms. Mastenbrook to avoid even the appearance of conflict-of-interest, he should recuse himself from any fact-finding or assessment of potential discipline in all matters dealing with me. This he has not done repeatedly.

Please regard this as an official response for the record and protest against the nature, charges and other content in your letter. I also ask that this letter accompany your letter in any venue or any proceeding in which your letter may be used. I am saddened that I have no choice but to write this letter and even more saddened that I can no longer meet my professional responsibilities in advising you on various matters without fear that anything I say may now be used against me. Imagine if I were to repeat some of your own comments to me, detailed in extemporaneous notes I made at the time to protect me and my family, about certain matters and people; comments I took to be fully protected by your right of freedom of speech and opinion.

I thank you for your consideration and understanding of my imperative to present my understanding of our conversation and my take on the charges or warnings embodied in your letter.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics; Chair, Business Division on illness leave

Dear Speecial Agent Saito:

Please accept this as a respectful request for an interview with Special Agents of the FBI in Seattle to discuss, and possibly bring a criminal complaint related to, some of the issues referred to in the attached materials plus cyber issues that I have raised with you. It is my belief that I have a good-faith-based basis to believe that Federal as well as Washington State statutes may have been violated and that I may be bound by law, as well as personal interests to bring these issues forward.

I understand fully that to attempt to misuse law enforcement processes for frivolous reasons or personal agenda, or to make any false statements to any law enforcement officer, sworn or unsworn, is not only morally wrong, wasteful and a distraction of your precious and scarce resources from extremely important tasks, but also criminal conduct. I understand further, that when I call into question the credibility and conduct of others, I call into question the same for myself and am willing to swear all statements under penalty of perjury, and to answer, any and all questions of FBI Special Agents, on any matter of concern about me and relating to my conduct and/or credibility–subject of course, to my own Constitutional protections. I am willing to appear and answer questions without an attorney and to be “Mirandized”.

I may be reached at 360 823-9236 or at craven7391@comcast.net

Sincerely,

James M. Craven
Professor of Economics; Chairman of the Business Division (on medical leave)
Clark College
1933 Fort Vancouver Blvd
Vancouver, WA. 98663
8002 NE-HWY-99 PMB-162 Vancouver, WA 98663

————– Forwarded Message: ————–
From: craven7391@comcast.net
To: rknight@clark.edu;mroi@clark.edu;ldavidson@washingtonea.org;gwishkoski@clark.edu
Subject: Challenge–for the Record–to Your Memorandum of May 8, 2008
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:27:55 +0000

Dear Bob:
I received your letter dated May 8, 2008 on June 1, 2008 as it was placed in my in-box at work; it was not, unlike all other correspondence from the Clark College, mailed to me directly. I have no idea of the exact date on which it was placed in my mailbox at Clark College. Despite my precarious health situation, I had to briefly to to make sure my grades were recorded to serve my students and thus went to work on June 1, 2008 and found it.

The delay in responding to you is due to three reasons none of which I had any control over: 1) the manner in which this memorandum, not addressed to me directly but only cc’d to me, was sent to me: placed in my in-box at Clark college instead of being mailed to me with no follow-up by either you or my union as to whether or not I had even received it let alone agreed with it; 2) my health situation and having to leave Clark College in the middle of the term; 3) repeated attempts to vett any response to your memo through my union to which I got no response; 4) attempts by me to consult with legal professionals and do due diligence so as not to make a reckless or uninformed response to your memo as neither I nor my AHE representatives are attorneys.

You say, in your memorandum of May 8, 2008:

Dear Lynn and Marcia:

Thank you for meeting today to discuss the grievance filed by AHE and WEA on behalf of James Craven.

This will confirm our agreement that the College considers the November 16, 2007 letter from Rassoul Dastmozd to Professor Craven as an oral warning and the letter will not be placed in Mr. Craven’s employee file. It is my understanding that AHE/WEA and Mr. Craven are agreeable to this and in turn will drop the grievance.

Sincerely,

Robert K. Knight President

First of all, any binding agreement requires a “meeting of minds” and mutual agreement that all parties understand and mutually agree to what “our agreement” was. No one party can summarily assert his/her understanding of what was agreed to, via a written memo, and have that memo stand as are record of what was actually understood and agreed to, without seeking and gaining acceptance by all parties concerned, that what you summarily assert that you understood to be agreed to, was indeed, what we all understood and agreed to. The fact that you did not address this letter to me, the fact that it was not mailed directly to me, the fact that neither you nor my union sought to ensure that I had indeed received and signed on to, the fact that the union cannot force me to accept their recommendation (they can drop representing me as I can sue them for non-effective representation) all make your memo, and any notion of our having arrived at any binding “mutual ” agreem ent null and void. That is what the word “mutual” means: all parties acknowledge “mutually” (in concert and consultation with each other) a meeting and agreement of minds as to what specifically was being agreed to.

I must also add that in the context of my health issues past and present (about which Rassoul Dastmozd has repeatedly inquired of others), and my recent heart problems for which you did have my mailing address to send your gracious sympathy card–thank you–then why could/would you not take due care and diligence to ensure we were all on board–mutually understand and agree–with your rendition of what you think we understood and agreed to? Why could/would you not address the memorandum also to me as you know, or should know, that no final agreement can be reached without my informed, un-coerced and acknowledged consent? This is all particularly troubling, and possibly very revealing from several angles.

I have checked the tape recording of our meeting over and over. Although Lynn tried over and over to state that we agree that I have been orally warned about and duly note your oral warning and concern about intemperate use and language in email, and you tried over and over to use the word reprimand, or even the term “the reprimand”, at no time was it even explicitly stated, let alone accepted, that the actual content–and thus all its embodied assertions–and actual letter of reprimand of November 16, 2007 would serve as that to which I was stipulating and accepting as an oral warning albeit not to be placed in my personnel file. Indeed I called your secretary twice to have her note that I would only accept the term “warning” and never “reprimand” because the use of the word reprimand indicates that some kind of process involving fact-finding, testimony, formal charges and due process etc has taken place; and to this day, no fact-finding process vis-a-vis Leann ; ;Johnson’s complaint against me of June 14, 2007, nor on my own complaint against her of June 12, 2007, have ever been conducted. And as Marcia Roi’s letter of April 20, 2008 (which you refused to even raise and discuss or even allude to) articulates so well, this was not due to any obstruction on my part but rather due to what I and others have so alleged appear to be disingenousness and even duplicity on the part of both Rassoul Dastmozd and Sylvia Thornburg. No one yet has addressed one of my central question about the June 15, 2007 meeting which is the subject of this oral warning/reprimand: Why would I bring a tape recorder to that meeting–the very one I used at our meeting–and yet not tape the meeting of June 15, 2007 if I had believed, or was led to believe, that any portion of that meeting would involve potential discipline?

And even after my two calls to your secretary, still you did not bother to mail this memo to me directly and to request a timely response to ensure that “your understanding” of what we agreed to is the same as “my understanding”. This makes me wonder if your plan all along was perhaps to have the allegations in Marcia Roi’s letter of April 20, 2008, vis-a-vis the repeated and provable untruths in the November 16, 2007, letter not only not addressed, but even tacitly accepted and legitimated by us. Since that oral warning was then referred to as a basis for a written reprimand to be placed in my personnel file on another and unrelated charge and “finding” by another egregiously-tainted process (see hypothetical below), that also makes me wonder if your intention all along was not to set me up for “progressive discipline” leading ultimately to my termination of employment. When my union representatives and I went outside to conference, I raised exactly this w arning and prophesy or possibility, and they assured me that this oral warning could not be used as a step in a process to set me up for a written reprimand–even on another matter–to be placed in my personnel file; they repeatedly ignored my warnings as I believed all along this was a set-up and said so to them.

I would never accept such an agreement, to accept the actual content of this November 16, 2007 as a basis for an oral warning for all the reasons I explicitly articulated–and have on tape–in the meeting: that could make me a party to accepting and legitimating the provable and material untruths, misrepresentations (in official proceedings) and outright violations of my most basic rights to due process that were specifically alluded to in the letter by Dr. Roi to Dr. Rassoul Dastmozd dated April 20, 2008; provable untruths and misrepresentations that Dr. Dastmozd and Dr. Thornburg (by her silence and acquiescence) tried to repeat and/or legitimate in our meeting at which you were in attendance and that I have on tape. (see attached)

Now you have repeatedly, in public venues, and in my presence, made reference to being a person of faith, a devout Christian, a veteran and a graduate of West Point. So as a “devout Christian”, mandated by your faith to actually practice “The Golden Rule”, as a veteran of the U.S. Army, as am I, who took an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”, as I also did, and as a graduate of West Point, who took an oath not to “lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate anyone who does”, and as a “Public Officer” as defined in the Revised Code of Washington State and President of an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington, please consider the following hypothetical that is exactly on point as to why I would never accept the content of the November 16, 2007 letter as a basis for any oral reprimand and will also challenge the so-called “finding” in the complaint that led to a letter placed in my personn el file that this process was used to legitimate:

Suppose you were charged with say violating one of the RCWs or Federal Statutes attached below. Would you want to have the charge accompanied with copies of the statutes which specifically define what are the offenses for which you are being charged? Would you want quoted the specific actions you allegedly did that have been alleged to constitute the offenses for which you have been charged? Would you want a list of potential witnesses against you, who say they witnessed your actions in the case against you? Would you want to see the witnesses statements in writing prior to any hearing to prepare a defense? Would you want to be present to tape and question any witnesses against you and their statements? How about if you showed up to the hearing to mount your defense, and those charged with determining the facts, making conclusions about if the allegations were warranted, and even assessing any potential punishment, were the very s ame people who charged you, and/or caused you to be charged through proxies, and/or were known close associates with those charging you, and/or were those who had demonstrated (via various witness statements still unchallenged despite repeated requests for rebuttal) provable animus, malice, and even possible Criminal Conspiracy Against Rights against you? Would you be alright with that? I can assure you that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not alright with that. But that is exactly what was done in both the case for which I was written up in the November 16, 2007 letter and in the recent case–under delayed appeal due to my health situation–for which I had a written reprimand placed in my personnel file.

Perhaps, I do not know but I hope not, you do not mind provable untruths being told and those who repeatedly tell them around you; but I most certainly do. So this is to notify you and my AHE representatives that I will never accept such an agreement that summarily drops a grievance and accepts as a warning–whether in my personnel file or not–a letter, partly the subject of the grievance, that is riddled with provable untruths and misrepresentations and that has been thoroughly discredited by Dr. Roi’s letter that still stands unrebutted.

As a tenured Professor and Public Employee, I have the absolute right, not only under the property rights of tenure, but under the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions, not to be disciplined or dismissed without Cause, and to have “Cause” established with due process. That means I have the right to confront and question all accusers and accusations. That means I have a right to assist in my own defense.That means I have a right to a fair, full and impartial hearing and most certainly the right not to be judged, and have discipline assessed, by the very parties that brought, or caused or be brought, their own charges against me. That means I have a right to be given all charges and specific evidence to be used against me well before any hearing in order to prepare my defense. That means I have a right to competent representation. That means that any “evidence” and conclusions about any evidence must come from a competent process and any results of a provably tainted and abusive process simply do not exist as “fruit of a poisoned tree.” That means I have a right to have specific definitions, specific alleged facts, and citations of relevant law and contract provisions for any alleged offenses–equally applied to all at Clark College without fear or favor (equal protection and application of law and contract). That means I have a right to have any charges made and to confront any charges in a timely manner. That means I have a right to have heard any and all material witnesses in my defense heard and examined. that means I have a right not to be subject to hearsay or any unexamined allegations from the past, not even brought up at the time, piled-on in the present as an attempt to plant quantity of pseudo “evidence” in lieu of “quality” of allowable current evidence and allegations.

If I am charged with say some form of defamation, and truth is always an absolute and complete defense against such a charge, then I have a right to have established, through a competent, fair and impartial investigator and process, that I am indeed guilty as charged. The letter of November 16, 2007 is a list of charges not a competent process that such charges have been sustained through due process; I was repeatedly denied such a process and the letter of November 17, 2007 is but further cover-up of a tainted process (poisoned tree) that could only produce poisoned and unusable fruit.

The repeated abuses of my most basic civil, human and Constitutional rights to which I have been subject at Clark College, only partly alluded to and documented in the April 20, 2008 letter of Dr. Roi, have contributed to my present deleterious state of health.

My understanding of our agreement, was that we leave it at a verbal warning without my stipulating that I do agree that I am guilty of what I have been warned against but do acknowledge the warning and concerns about intemperate speech in internet communications. That is what Lynn Davidson asserts over and over as revealed in the tape of the meeting. As yet, no competent and impartial process has established that anything I have said to or about Ms. Leann Johnson in my May 22, 2007 email to her and my June 12, 2007 official complaint (still unacknowledged and unaddressed) and my views on the quality of the investigatory process she conducted–in which I was vindicated–or anything I have said about apparent material omissions in her report, was untrue and/or not protected free speech. That is what is required. A charge is only a charge or an allegation until it is established as a conclusion through competent evidence, an impartial and competent investigato r and an investigation based on due process for all involved; I have been denied that over and over. Just because some administrator makes a charge or allegation, especially via what appears to be, and my own union representatives have so characterized as, essentially a “Kangaroo Court”, does not make it an established fact because of the status or supposed power of the one making the charge; that is what the U.S. Constitution, law and due process are all about.

The Clark-AHE Contract specifically mentions the U.S. Constitution as the ultimate and limiting authority governing and constraining all policies, rights, responsibilities, powers and procedures, of both management and labor, in that Contract. It also mentions the right of Due Process to which I have been repeatedly denied even in your own meeting with me and my union representatives. All I have to do, to sustain the point, is put the question of how you yourself, or any reasonable and prudent person would want to be treated were you in my situation, along with the actual language of the Clark-AHE Contract, plus relevant case law, the essential elements of any contract or binding agreement and even a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that says even non-citizens and non-residents, held overseas and charged with terrorism have Constitutional rights to Due Process.

Further, you want to talk to me about respect in speech? How about the statement–recorded–by Dr. Dastmozd in the March 18, 2007 meeting mentioned in Dr. Roi’s letter of April 20, 2007? Specifically he blurted out in a hostile tone: “Yeah and your wife screwed you out of the money”? Dr. Roi notes in her letter: “This behavior on your part could conceivably be construed as harassment, or at least a demonstration of animus toward the member.” And you think I should ever be subject to any fact finding or discipline-assessment by Dr. Dastmozd after that statement and after his repeated violations of my most basic rights and clearly- manifested hatred and animus alluded to in Dr. Roi’s letter? With the still un-rebutted allegations of Emma Kim, provided to you when you were Katrina Golder’s supervisor as V.P of Administrative Services, and to which you did not and still have not responded or challenged, do you not think I have enough basis to demand her recusal from ever acting in a fact-finding capacity against me? How about your own statements in a President’s Dialogue, witnessed, that when you get an email from me, you just hit the delete key without reading it? Is that “respectful” especially when considering I am a Division Chairman, who may need to communicate directly with you, and, I am forced to immodestly say, someone with a resume and academic preparation and peer-reviewed research far beyond your own?

Dr. Roi mentions in her letter to Dr. Dastmozd: ” As you know, it is unlawful to lure a member into a meeting specifically state that discipline would not be levied and then levy discipline [which is what you so-called “oral warning” still is–a form of discipline and stipulation of my guilt not yet established through a competent process]. Has this occurred, it would have been a violation of Mr. Craven’s rights, which may constitute an Unfair Labor Practice.” Thus if you proceed using the letter of November 16, 2007 (riddled with provable untruths and material misrepresentations) as a proxy for a “verbal warning”, then this will still constitute a form of discipline and thus I will take Dr. Roi at her word and demand AHE file [another] Unfair Labor Practice Complaint in this case.

This is my position and I have it in writing from AHE that they would never agree to a settlement that I was not in agreement with and I most certainly am not in agreement with your characterization as to what was agreed upon from our meeting.

Further, as I indicated to you in the meeting, I take my responsibilities as a Public Employee and the law as I understand it very seriously and I will be referring all of this to the Vancouver Police and FBI for their take, and to due diligence so as not to make reckless formal charges, on all of this. Specifically I believe, and have sought legal advice on the possibility that, the following statutes may have been violated including in the meeting at which you were in attendance.

For these reasons and on the basis of my reading and understanding of the above-cited RCWs, I must, as a matter of conscience, and I believe law, run this proposal for a settlement by the Vancouver Police so as to do due diligence to ensure that I am not being asked to tacitly or willfully aid in various forms of Obstruction of Justice or cover-up of potential violations of the above-cited RCWs.
I must respectfully disagree with Lynn’s comment that “perception is reality” because were it so, it would be impossible to ever charge or convict anyone of say perjury. How do we know that someone actually knows they are saying or writing an untruth? One way is when there is a cover-up; since there is no need to cover-up what is clean only what is dirty. If you look at the materials Lynn Davidson provided, coupled with the letter of April 20, 2008 to Dr. Dastmozd, coupled with the submissions and statements made in this most recent meeting, there are several material and mutually contradictory statements that cannot be reconciled as mere differences in perceptions or opinions. Another way to determine if a given untruth is also an intended lie is when it is repea ted over and over despite being challenged and when evidence that it is indeed an untruth is consistently ignored with the untruth being repeated after attempts to correct it.

It is my honest and sincere belief that if I accept your summarily-asserted rendition, of what you think was agreed to in this proposed settlement of a verbal warning, resulting from several official proceedings that have been highly tainted with provable misrepresentations and untruths, including during this recent process that resulted in this proposed settlement, I may be be a tacit, if not willing, accomplice to cover-up and ratification of what appear to be patently false statements made during this most recent proceeding, in an official email by Dr. Thornburg dated September 13, 2007 (“I was unable to complete at that time any discussion of the possible disciplinary action I referred to in my May 18 memo to you. Now that you are back on contract…”) and other material and apparently false statements by Dr. Dastmozd during official proceedings detailed in the letter of April 20, 2008 by Dr. Roi to Dr . Dastmozd (cc’d to Rassoul Dastmozd, Katrina Golder, Lynn Davidson, Jim Craven a nd AHE Grievance Committee) that details what Dr. Roi characterizes as “…gross violation of the member’s rights as outlined in the Master Agreement…)

If my sincerely-held and good-faith-based belief is correct, were I to accept this proposed settlement, I might well be an accomplice to covering-up violations of the following RCWs:

Sincerely,

James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division

cc:
Clark College Board of Trustees
Dr. Marcia Roi AHE
Lynn Davidson AHE
Gregg Wiskoski AHE
Special Agent Kevin Saito, FBI Seattle
Vancouver Police Sgt. Krieg

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.]
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.
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.]

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;
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.]
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.]

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.]

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.]
Official misconduct by public servant: 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.]
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.

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.]
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;

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

(h) Denial of promotion;

(i) Suspension;

(j) Dismissal;

(k) Denial of employment;

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

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

(2) The agency presumed to have taken retaliatory action under subsection (1) of this section may rebut that presumption by proving by a 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.
cc:
Special Agent Kevin Saito, Seattle F.B.I.
Sergeant Krieg, Vancouver Police
Clark College Board of Trustees
Washington State Human Rights Commission
Washington State Department of Personnel

snip]
Jim,

Let the games begin indeed – and the game is hard-ball. I spoke with a classified staff member who has been at the college for 33 years and although she is shy of being 55 years old (old enough under PERS to retire with a full pension), she has had enough of the politics and told her supervisor she would be taking early retirement in Jan. Within the week a member of the Exec Cabinet was in her office asking her if the “rumor” were true, that she was leaving. She was shocked, not that they knew, but no effort was being made on their part to talk her out of it, but rather egging her on. They said it was a wise decision and its time for her to move on.

She filed a grievance against the college 2 years ago when her sister who was a state employee at another college had exhausted her sick leave and she wanted to donate her sick leave to her sister. Katrina said she could not, yet the RCW’s said that state employees can donate leave to any other Washington state employee under Wash state laws. Katrina said NO. We took it all the way to arbitration and of course won. The arbitration took 2 months which her sister had been deprived of the finances she could have acquired had Katrina not been so obstinate. Katrina later after the settlement started snubbing the employee and made several attempts to have her unit spy on her — which they refused to do. to this day we can not figure out why Katrina was so adamant against having an employee donate her accrued sick time to her sister.

Another employee recently told me they had spoke with Larry Mains about his email to the faculty about privatizing the culinary arts program. Bob Knight contacted this employee and wanted to know why he was talking to Larry. The employee asked Bob how he had even known he spoke with Larry — “a little bird told Bob”. Again someone was asked to spy on either Larry or the employee. So the game is spy vs spy, pitting people against each other within the ranks and files, creating an atmosphere of mistrusting one another.

We, the employees of the college, are part of the problem. Those who are either fearful or want to be on the side of the president are going along with the spying game thinking I guess they have an “edge” with the president. In fact as we both know, when the spy no longer is useful, they will be cast to the dogs and told that if they say anything they will be just as guilty as them.

It is indeed an interesting game of intrigue, but totally insidious and evil. I suppose this summer will be the worse summer of changes when most of the faculty and staff are gone. – Like you, I continue to take notes and watch and see where the next attack will come from.

————– From: Kotsakis, Ted
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 11:28 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Dastmozd, Rassoul; Golder, Katrina
Subject: RE: Response to recent letter

Jim, you are not under contract summer term, however the contract does give you the right to an overload. Therefore you may bump into one of the Econ classes being offered this summer. For the record Shon is listed as the instructor for the evening classes and Tim for the day class. I need to know which one of these three classes if any you are going to teach by the 20th as to not create a huge disruption for the two adjunct assigned these classes.

I hope your tests go well,

Ted

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Kotsakis, Ted; Dastmozd, Rassoul; Golder, Katrina; Knight, Robert
Cc: Roi, Marcia; ldavidson@clark.edu
Subject: Response to recent letter
Ted,

In response to your letter, I will explain that I was in my office briefly to pick up personal items and to make sure that my grades were in order in order to best serve my students. I am unaware of specifically how a brief visit to my office, if I take care that I am not exposed to any toxic pathogens that might exacerbate my health situation, would be in violation of my doctor’s order (I asked him if he had any problem with my picking up personal items and he thought there would be no danger to my health). You have given no sound rationale as to why a brief visit, with no interactions with anyone, with the intention to do my best for my students and to pick up personal items, would cause risk to the College.

This is the second time you have made reference to “someone” observing–and reporting–me at the College. I am shocked by this reference. Disparate forms and levels of surveillance may be construed, and have been construed in case law, as forms of harassment and bullying in the workplace. The cryptic reference to anonymous persons observing and reporting my presence appears to me and others who have reviewed this letter, to be shades of behavior and intrigue, which is not the level of support I would expect from my supervisors during this stressful time in my life.

I will be unable to travel to China this summer. I have had a rather extensive, invasive and expensive series of tests, I have more scheduled on June 9, and then an appointment with my cardiologist on June 12th after which I will know better when and if I am fit to return to work. If it turns out that I am able to return to teaching this summer, and desire to do so as my name is listed, then, as you know, the specifics of the Clark College-AHE Contract will govern what I am allowed and have seniority to teach, relative to what you personally might want me to teach (We had this discussion before vis-a-vis your intent to “direct” full-time faculty to take summer off and rest and/or “direct” what their course loads will be–you have no such authority under the AHE-Clark College contract).

I look forward to your reply and anticipate you will afford me the support I need to resume my duties whenever they may be.
Thank you.
Jim
________________________________________
From: Kotsakis, Ted
Sent: Thu 6/5/2008 9:52 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Dastmozd, Rassoul; Golder, Katrina
Subject: Jim Craven 6-4-08.docx

Jim, I am also sending this by surface mail. It is time sensitive and I ask that you respond to my question about summer by June 11th.

Take care and I hope you are feeling better.
Ted

check the dates on the headers.
Jim

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 Terrada, 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

Dear Campus Community:

The following was sent to Dateline on June 29, 1995 in response to a program on Sanctioned Terrorism at Northwest Airlines (the title of my submission). Although this is extremely painful for me to discuss, there are important lessons about the real costs of climates of fear, intimidation and retribution. I decided to share this as a follow-up to Dr. Lois Price-Spratlen’s discussion about harassment and sexual discrimination in the workplace. It may also explain to some why I take some of the positions that I take. I will attempt, until a new listserv is established–with appropriate protections–to stay off this list except for really burning issues.

——- Forwarded Message Follows ——-
Received: from MAILQUEUE by OOI (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 29 Jun 95 17:06:24 +800 From: “James Michael Craven” Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA To: dateline@xxxxxxx, cravjm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 17:06:16 PST8PDT Subject: Sanctioned terrorism at Northwest Airlines Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.1 (R1a)

Dear Dateline,

I commend you for your thorough report on the tragic terror faced by and death of Susan Tosakawiecz(?) at Northwest Airlines. If it turns out that she was murdered by someone at NWA and that her death can be partially blamed on complacency and inaction by NWA management, then her death will not be the first that can be traced partially back to the postures and inaction of NWA management; you can also add the name of my mother Mary Kathleen Big Bear Weaver Craven who committed suicide on February 23, 1985 as a result of a seven-year campaign of terror directed and conducted by some members of ALPA (Airline Pilot’s Association) against my father, mother and the whole family.

In late 1979, the NWA pilots went out on strike for 112 days. My father, a NWA pilot who retired after 33 years on NWA as a 747 captain, remained out on strike for 102 of the 112 days; he didn’t believe in crossing picket lines. There were however, some pilots who crossed the line. At one union meeting at which over 400 pilots were in attendance, the leadership announced that they would go after not only “scabs”–non-striking pilots–but their families as well. They said that they would go after the “weak links” in the families and would even “produce suicides”. They suggested a “mistress list” where wives of “scabs” would be called by friendly stewardesses and told their husbands were having affairs. They suggested that with enough stress, “scabs” would bust their physicals and check rides and even they might get a suicide or two.

My father, Homer Henry Craven Jr. stood up and protested this saying that pilots have no place conducting terrorism against anyone and especially against women and children. Immediately following that meeting my mother who had just suffered a heart attack began to receive phone calls at 3 O’ Clock in the morning calling her a “scab bitch” and saying “how does it feel to fuck a scab?”—even though my father had not even crossed the picket line and in fact had implored some junior co-pilot’s not to cross the picket line. A new “scab list” was produced with my father’s name on it–top of the list—even though he had not crossed the picket line; his crime, to dare to speak out against corruption and terrorism.

My father spoke with me and told me that he had to commit an act of conscience. He told me that “it is just like Germany 1933, those who remain silent about evil or cut Faustian deals with evil become part of it.” He told me that he had often told me to work within the system to make change and that I had answered him that sometimes some systems are so corrupt and rotten that to step inside or remain inside them, even for good purposes, will result in someone being corrupted long before the good ends are attained. He said, “I guess you were right.”

As an act of protest against ALPA terrorism, my father crossed the picket line. He asked the Company to donate any salary or pension benefits to Disabled American Veterans as he did not want to gain materially in any way from crossing the picket line; it was clear that he was not crossing for economic reasons but rather as a protest and he was therefore regarded as particularly dangerous by ALPA. The company wanted to fly him in to SEATAC around the picket lines from Bellevue airport- – as they had done with other non-striking pilots– but my father refused; he called the union and told them he was crossing their picket line as an act of protest against corruption and terrorism against innocents by ALPA members.

During that strike some of the following acts of terror were conducted by ALPA members (some photographed in the act) and known by management at NWA who did nothing to sanction or fire those members even when they were caught committing terrorist acts: 1) tires on numerous cars of non-striking pilots were repeatedly slashed; one pilot and Naval Reserve Officer photographed in the act was not dismissed by NWA management even though they had ample grounds for his removal and suspension of license as Federal regulations require that an Airline Transport Pilot be “of good moral character”; 2) a “Mistress List” was passed around and wives of non-striking pilots were called by women purporting to be the “mistresses” of non- striking pilots; 3) cars, boats and private aircraft were sabotaged in subtle ways so as to cause accidents and fatalities; in one case, putty was put in the pitot tube of a private aircraft with the result that the 16-year-old daughter of one of the pilots found herself in the air solo with no airspeed indication; 4) current and vital revisions to aeronautical charts were lifted out of mailboxes of non- striking pilots with the results that some crews were flying without current charts; 5) the wife of one of the non-striking pilots was driven off the road at 70 miles-an-hour in Minneapolis; 6) a pipe- bomb was placed under the car of one of the non-striking pilots; this bomb was found and played with by two small children; 7) my parents suffered firebomb attempts, a large tree chopped down to fall on the house of my parents, tires repeatedly slashed and death threats against the whole family (the tires on my car were carefully slashed on the inside wall so that they would blow at high speed).
My father retired on January 30, 1985. My mother thought that the terror campaign would stop. Instead it escalated and continued 8+ years after the 1979 strike was over–hatred builds phony unity. On Feb. 21, 1985 my mother told my sister to “get the silver and valuables out of the house, they are going to burn us out.” “I guess that I am the weak link”–my mother had suffered another heart attack after the continued harassment. On Feb. 23, 1985 my mother committed suicide; she walked into Lake Washington and held her breath under water (the way among some Indians) and the autopsy showed no water in her lungs. Some people she met just prior to her suicide said she walked up to them (they were boarding a seaplane) and told them “my husband is a pilot, he just retired, but they will never leave us alone.”

My father called up the union and told them “well, you got your suicide”. While we were at my mother’s funeral, they came and poured ash into the engine of the father’s car as an act of contempt that only the lowest kind of scum could do–imagine, these creatures are not just loading aircraft, they are flying them. I was forced to leave my jobs in Canada and Puerto Rico and move back to Seattle where I slept with a gun next to me as the campaign of terror continued for another five years. I would have killed any of them found at our house without a moment’s hesitation and so would have my father.

During all this time, my father repeatedly asked for help and sanctions against union members who had been identified with terror activities; NWA management did nothing to help to protect our family or the families of others who were being terrorized. My father was a personal friend of Mr. Donald Nyrop former president of NWA and my father was also a leading aerodynamicist in the United States and his aerodynamic research and innovation benefited NWA; yet even his standing did not get him any help from the management at NWA.
I can well feel the pain of the family of the lady who was brutalized at Northwest Airlines while the management (bent on cutting deals with compliant union leadership) failed to fire or sanction those union members who were obviously protected by union leadership that had done a few favors to get a few favors.

Again, I thank you for your report although it was very painful to watch. There are more and equally or even more dramatic stories beyond what you reported on the machinations at NWA.

Sincerely,
James M. Craven
*—————————*—————————————-*

Jim,

My righteous indignation flares as I read how the college has been treating you, Gene and others. In back-channel conversations with faculty, staff and even Administrative staff, there is an on-going management style emerging; that being -the management is going to do “What is right in their own eyes”, even if it is not right for the college. They may solicit input from stakeholders as an exercise, knowing full well that they will do whatever Plan A is as long as it doesn’t cause a lawsuit. But even lawsuits or potential ones do not seem to thwart decisions being made here.

I found out that Board member Kim Perry is finally stepping down and can no longer be reappointed as he has served the maximum amount of terms allowed. It will be interesting to see who is appointed in his plac e. By now you have heard that the latest candidate for VP of Admin Srvs has withdrawn his candidacy – this is the second qualified applicant to do so. Phil Sheehan, ( who applied for the position, but was not selected by Bob), has been asked to stay on for another year! Of course the staff are asking if Phil has been doing the job, is qualified, has applied and was not selected, then why is he staying on? My immediate supervisor and his immediate supervisor are not too happy with the decision as they were looking forward to reverting back to their less stressful positions. Interim becomes permanent around here it seems. I gather from your emails, that you have chosen not to be Division Chair – but will you be teaching this Fall if your health permits – I certainly hope so. Also are you going to have the chance to go China?

Take care – you are in my thoughts and prayers Jim. Keep me posted.

________________________________________
From: Kotsakis, Ted
Sent: Mon 6/23/2008 10:28 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Cc: Dastmozd, Rassoul; Golder, Katrina
Subject:

Jim, your recent post to the message board seems to be in violation of the policies governing the use of the message board. It seems it would be more appropriate to post on the forum.

I will be reviewing the policies in the next few days for compliance and communicate to you my findings.

Thanks,

Ted

Craven, Jim
Sent: Mon 6/23/2008 6:12 PM
To: Kotsakis, Ted

Cc: Dastmozd, Rassoul; Golder, Katrina; peter@fels-law.com; Roi, Marcia; Walsh, Stephen; ldavidson@washingtonea. org; gwishkoski@

Ted,

Which post would that be. Please attach it with your rationale as to why you would even be reviewing it. Last time we talked, and later wrote, you praised my restraint. Further, why is it you have time to review my post but not time to respond, in writing, with your reasoning and supporting evidence/contract language, for your notions about what seniority rights I may or may not have for summer teaching that you specifically promised to provide me. And do you propose to review and make a summary finding without even providing which email and hearing my own arguments? Why are you sending this now when I am “off-contract” as you managed to summarily assert and engineer against my challenges? Why are you so insensitive and callous to my health situation and the welfare of my family?

Now we have a third time in which you hit me, knowing full-well I am ill and recovering from a heart attack, with supposed concerns you never once expressed to me in any way at the time at which some alleged and unspecified offense has taken place. This appears to be a pattern on your part. And you do not even bother to specify and provide a copy of which one it is with what language specifically violated or possibly violated what specific policies or regulations. Is this how you would want to be treated? Is this not how your wife has been treated about which you expressed such outrage?

Further, I am formally challenging you to recuse yourself from any such determination as you know well you have a clear not just appearance of conflict-of-interest vis-à-vis my absolute right under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to free, fair, competent and impartial hearing and determination on all matters governing my life, liberty or property; the same is guaranteed under the Clark-AHE Contract.

Further, you know very well that I have had a recent heart attack, that I have given you what you asked for, notice that I am not returning to work, I am off-contract and now you hit me with this. The Clark-AHE Contract specifies you are to make available to me any and all materials and legal/contractual support that you are employing in any matter that may involve potential discipline. This note is a breach of that contractual and managerial responsibility in addition to being pure and callous harassment of someone already with fragile health.

Because the mail system itself has been used as an instrument of harassment against me (Friday specials, last time three of the same thing all at once), something I protested and with which you appeared to agree (reported to AHE at the time) I have asked that you communicate with me by email and that I would acknowledge receipt which I am doing.

If you persist in any way acting on this, after I have documented your clear animus and bias and well as your being an subject of challenge and possible litigation to specific decisions you have made, I hereby give you notice with supporting authority in RCWS you were provided by me, you will be in violation of some of the specific RCWS I gave you and that you thanked me for.

It is my sincere belief, and I will run it by law enforcement authorities, that right now, you, and those who appear to be directing you, are using State resources to violate my most basic Constitutional and contractual rights.

Why is it that you have not provided the specific language of any message that gives you a problem? Which message is it even? How do I answer such a note or charge? All of this I believe, will manifest and bear directly on the issue of your fitness to serve in the position in which you are serving.

Again, I hereby challenge for cause your impartiality and lack of conflict-of-interest to proceed as you propose. If you proceed, without response and supporting authority even, I will regard such as evidence of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress along with possible evidence of Criminal Conspiracy Against Rights as defined in 18 USC Article I Chapter 13 Part 241. If you wish to persist, then see me about it in the Fall; I am off-contract and have so given notice as you specifically requested. I ask you to please review those RCW and Federal statutes I sent you carefully. You, as am I, are Public Officers as employees of the Government of the State of Washington and as I am accountable to law, the AHE-Clark Contract and basic morality (treating others as I would want to be treated or at least as I have treated others–no disparate treatment) so are you and everyone who works at Clark or any Agency of the Government of the State of Washington.

Sincerely,

Jim

cc Washington State Department of Personnel
Washington State Ethics Board
Washington State Auditor
Washington Human Rights Commission

________________________________________
From: Kotsakis, Ted
Sent: Tue 6/24/2008 7:00 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: FW: [Messages] RCW (Criminal) for Public Employees (1)

This is the one I am reviewing.

Thanks,

Ted

From: messages-bounces@clark.edu [mailto:messages-bounces@clark.edu] On Behalf Of Craven, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:06 PM
To: messages@clark.edu
Subject: [Messages] RCW (Criminal) for Public Employees (1)

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.
Trading in special influence.

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

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

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

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

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.]

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.]
Definitions.

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

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

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

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

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

(6) “Testimony” includes oral or written statements, documents, or any other material that may be offered by a witness in an official proceeding.
[2001 c 171 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 30; 1981 c 187 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.010.]
9A.72.010 <> 9A.72.030

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.]
*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.

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.

Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant.

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

[2001 c 308 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 32.]
Purpose — 2001 c 308: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, the law prohibiting materially false or misleading statements to public servants, enacted as sections 32 and 33, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [2001 c 308 § 1.]
Effective date — 2001 c 308: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 14, 2001].” [2001 c 308 § 4.]
Effective date — 1995 c 285: See RCW 48.30A.900.

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.]
*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).

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.]
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.

Definitions.

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

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

(2) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. “Course of conduct” includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”
[2001 c 260 § 2; 1999 c 27 § 4; 1995 c 127 § 1; 1987 c 280 § 2.]

Findings — Intent — 2001 c 260: “The legislature finds that unlawful harassment directed at a child by a person under the age of eighteen is not acceptable and can have serious consequences. The legislature further finds that some interactions between minors, such as “schoolyard scuffles,” though not to be condoned, may not rise to the level of unlawful harassment. It is the intent of the legislature that a protection order sought by the parent or guardian of a child as provided for in this chapter be available only when the alleged behavior of the person under the age of eighteen to be restrained rises to the level set forth in chapter 10.14 RCW.” [2001 c 260 § 1.]
Intent — 1999 c 27: See note following RCW 9A.46.020.

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.]

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Tue 6/24/2008 7:30 AM
To: Kotsakis, Ted

Cc: Roi, Marcia; Walsh, Stephen

Subject: RE: [Messages] RCW (Criminal) for Public Employees (1)
Attachments:

Ted,

Then please turn it over to someone without even an appearance of conflict-of-interest or bias as I did in the Masterbrook case. Again, this is the first indication of any concern, and you have given no indication of why you would be reviewing it (suggesting a protracted process), what the process of “review” involves, and what specific language in the policy on use of various message boards and the forum that you sent me would cause you, at this time, to take any time and State resources to have any concerns and undertake such review. Also, I am still waiting for your rationale and Clark-AHE Contract authority, as you promised me, for the position you have taken with respect to your assertion that the decision to teach the teaching load for which I was scheduled this summer is in your hands and not mine.

Finally, this is precisely the information I provided you previously, for which you thanked me, and said it would indeed be useful for you (and thus I assume other State employees) including possibly for use to deal with some harassment or potential harassment in the workplace you indicated your wife has suffered and/or is suffering.

thanks,

Jim

From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Sun 6/22/2008 8:32 AM
To: Kotsakis, Ted; Dastmozd, Rassoul; Golder, Katrina; Knight, Robert

Cc: ldavidson@washingtonea.org; gwishkoski@washingtonea.org; Roi, Marcia; peter@fels-law.com; Walsh, Stephen; Johnson, Gene

Subject: Memo for the Record
Attachments:

To Dean Ted Kotsakis:

This is to notify you that I will not be exercising my notion of my seniority and tenure rights, specified in the Clark-AHE Contract (that you have refused to counter in writing as promised and in response to my own arguments provided to you in writing), to volunteer to teach and to bump Adjunct Instructors substituted to teach the three courses I was listed in the advance schedule set a year ago (per Clark Administration request) and as posted in the published Summer Course schedule of Clark College for this summer. This is also to notify you that you have breached your promise to provide me in writing, the condition of my expressed likely intention not to teach during the summer, the basis for your assertions to me (AHE-Clark Contract specifications and reasoning) that: a) all teaching during summer is “overtime” and thus a 6-credit rule obtains unless specifically waived by the Dean; b) that I may teach one course not to exceed that 6-credit limit; c) that my past record of teaching the precise load–and beyond– that I proposed to teach, and was scheduled to teach, was irrelevant to your notions of what I am or am not allowed to volunteer to teach during the summer if I so choose; d) that my present medical situation and associated expenses, along with my service to Clark College, along with my teaching experience, do not constitute for you any exigent circumstances or any relevant factors for your consideration to leave me with the option of teaching what I was originally scheduled to teach (and what some students expected and inquired about); e) that the teaching load Steve Walsh has been authorized to teach (15 credits plus Interim Division Chair) relative to the maximum 6 credits you propose that you will “allow” me to teach is not disparate treatment in the workplace;

This is also to request, in writing, for your contractual authority to demand repayment, by June 30, 2008, of what has summarily asserted to be an “overpayment” of Division Chair stipend portion of my pay while I was on authorized medical leave. Indeed the very day I was released by my physician to work I did so. In fact, Steve Walsh, acting as Interim Division Chair, turned over to me for action as a Division Chair who had just returned, matters dealing with a complaint by Gene Johnson that he had not dealt with and he refused to also accept my request for him to deal with, as Interim Division Chair and as a newly elected AHE Vice-President, referring me to work with Marcia Roi, my own complaint in these matters that I tried to get him to act on on my behalf. I also have a record of requests for my advice and opinions on various Division Chair responsibilities and carrying on other respons ibilities as I could, while I was at home on medical leave and Steve acting in accordance with my advice on some matters.

Please respond by email as now that I am off-contract, I will return all correspondence from Clark College unopened and will consider such to be further examples of what I and others believe to be forms of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Sincerely,

Jim Craven/Omahkohkiaayo i’poyi
Professor of Economics; Chairman, Business Division

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, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Attempts to Report Felony Crimes to the Vancouver Police Department

  1. 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