To the readers:
I could have avoided my termination as professor of economics and got $100,000 on top of it. All I had to do, according to this last minute hush money offer https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/hush-money-and-sealed-settlements-to-cover-up-crimes-are-crimes-not-torts-no-need-to-cover-up-what-is-clean-only-what-is-dirty/ presented on the last day before a termination hearing, was: 1) mutual non-disparagement (give up right of freedom of speech and legal duty); 2) never to file any kind of complaint for any reason ever against any Clark College employee or agent of Clark College (and thus drop/repudiate any present and pending ones) ever;
This would have meant turning my back on evidence of serious crimes against the students, the institutions, myself and my own family, against others driven out of Clark College by some of the same player and modus operandi.
Why the hush money offer at the last minute if their case was clean? What legal authority does anyone have to use public monies to permanently immunize from prosecution or complaint any public employee or agent of a public agency preemptively? No need to cover-up or try to silence with hush money what is clean only what is dirty.
This is only the beginning. I messed up in some hires, I took representations of credentials that turned out not to be as represented, and witnessed apparent crimes by some of them that I reported in good-faith and with full accountability (no back room or anonymous allegations) and will fully expose who, how and the evidence of their unfitness to be in any kind of a classroom. Students are being horribly defrauded and the worst kind of thief, fraud and poseur there is is someone teaching without real credentials and experience and thus stealing some of the future of the students who need competent teaching and meaningful courses to survive in the kind of world that is evolving. Clark College is riddled with frauds and poseurs hired as “team players” by a frightened and despotic administration who like all those without serious credentials in education, have no reason for seek value or even recognize serious credentials in others.
Here is their case and please look at Appendix 4 the Criminal Complaint filed some time ago and presented to the Clark College Board of Trustees to which they had no rebuttal with counter evidence, law or reasoning.
Ruling on Motion in Limine — Exh 14
FW: Clark College Board of Trustees Final Order
This will be sent to law enforcement as real time crimes going on.
To: email@example.com; BonnieT@ATG.WA.GOV
CC: SWilliams@clark.edu; DerekE@ATG.WA.GOV
Subject: Clark College Board of Trustees Final Order
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:08:29 +0000
Please see the attached Final Order from the Clark College Board of Trustees.
Hard copies will be sent to you via USPS today.
Executive Assistant to the President
1933 Fort Vancouver Way
Vancouver, WA 98663
Mr. Mc Nett:
Please see the above sent to me today. I am terminated as of October 22,, 2014.
I am not in a position to advise you regarding the matter below, nor am I able to access the linked files.
Your appeal regarding the denial of continued legal services is now pending at level of the WEA Board of Directors. In accordance with the appeal policy and procedures, the WEA Board should hear the appeal at their next scheduled meeting.
The next meeting of the WEA Board is slated for November 21st and 22nd at the WEA headquarters building in Federal Way. I have been in communication with the WEA President’s assistant regarding the specific time and date and hope to be able to give you that information soon. The information will be sent to you via certified mail and, per your request, by email.
Hearing and Appeals Board Staff Consultant
Washington Education Association
(253) 765-7098 office
From: James Craven [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:09 AM
To: Dean Lookinghawk; Mike McNett [WA]; email@example.com; Kevin Saito; Jay Inslee; Aimee Iverson [WA]; Lisa Lewison [WA]; firstname.lastname@example.org; Bonnie Terada
Subject: RE: Response to Redux: RE: 18 USC 4, 73, 241, 242 Formal Appeals and Requests Still Unaddressed
Dear Mr. Mc Nett:
I just got received this sent to me today (see AG motion against termination or postponement) on legal representation pending. That this was not apparently sent to the union, is indicative of contempt for it and/or coordination and collusion between the union and administration. But the fact is that the serial falsehoods, omissions, in this brief and motion the union is in a position to know and has in past sworn submissions provided the evidence of some of the falsehoods in the brief. Further, some of the representations conflict directly with those made by WEA and AHE under oath thus there are implications here in terms of possible future criminal and civil complaints against the union and named persons acted on behalf of the union. Further, refusal to address my pending appeal (and as far as I know I still have a valid pending appeal with WHR and my complaint was supposed to be sent to EEOC by WHR as well) as well as formal criminal complaints against those who had knowledge of the evidence of perjury by Bob Knight and not only refused to report it per 18 USC 4, but continue, as with this motion, to try to conceal from legal scrutiny and accountability, evidence of serial perjury and obstruction of justice by the very person who appointed the investigators to deliver the cover-ups he sought; the very person who acted as “judge” his (words), assessor of discipline on complaints he initiated; the very person who initiated and/or recruited complainants and rewarded them with unprecedented course loads for which they were not qualified and vetted; the very person who even acted as appeal authority on his own charges, investigations, findings, and assessments of discipline through recruited proxies that the WEA and AHE produced evidence of and asked to be reported on the intra-union list. The very evidence they say was not provided was in fact provided even with attempts to prevent a record for future use with the last minute hush money offer followed by the motion to limit any rebuttal or evidence against allegations repeated over and over as either supposed evidence of themselves and or properly adjudicated “findings” of “facts.” And in no cases were the original and complete documents considered from which partial and shaped quotes were taken as somehow self-evidently indicative of charges and conclusions never made in any formal complaints when there were any formal complaints. The specifics of my criminal complaint, which includes the Board of Trustees for signing off on the hush money offer based on only one-sided representations of the issues and without one word from me, along with their own refusal to act on their acquired knowledge of perjury and obstruction of justice evident on the part of Knight or on the part of Dr. Roi and Ms Davidson, make them unfit, and in direct and material conflicts of interest to continue this corrupted process and act on the issue of my termination.
This will be sent to law enforcement as they are being allowed and enabled with union non-responses to all of this, to stack-up and pile on all the allegations of the past as somehow proved and stipulated to by the union with non-arbitration, the very stuff the hush money off and motion to limit were designed to prevent any rebuttal of–more serial denials of basic due process.
But this process has been corrupted from the beginning and this will not go away not matter what happens. Please read this motion and just look even at the brief written by Lisa Lewison to see some of the outright falsehoods and misrepresentations in this motion. Further, I would ask both Dean Lookinghawk and Jace Borba to review the transcripts of the hearing on termination with particular reference to the testimony of Joseph Vance as they were witnesses to my repeated objections to only two hours allotted for three complaints and cross-complaints and they are witnesses that none of my ADA and cross-complaints were ever addressed by Sievert or by Nash and thus witnesses to possible perjury in the testimonies of Joseph Vance and others as well.
Please get back to me on this as I just received this today and I know they are intent on a Oct 22 deadline for their own agenda.
There is no way this process can be saved or the body of corrupted “findings” accepted to be argued from. This is fruit of a highly, serially and intentionally poisoned tree that can yield no usable legal fruit except as evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice, suborn and cover-up perjury, conspiracy to pervert, corrupt and engineer the course, outcomes and potential future precedents of justice.
The sworn submissions of WEA and AHE portions of which are in my petition in Appendix 4, directly refute, with supporting evidence and transcripts, many representations and assertions of fact in this and other motions submitted on behalf of Clark College and WEA and AHE are well aware of it and have been made well aware of falsehoods exposed by their own sworn submissions and evidence. Failure to report these contradictions in sworn testimonies, as in the most recent case of conflicting sworn testimonies in the same hearing, constitutes at least two major felonies (18 USC 4 and 73) with each act of willful disregard for petitions such as this one to do your duty under law a separate act of contempt for the law and the union’s duty.
I expect WEA and AHE to act on my valid appeal for legal representation immediately. Anyone who questions my medical status without taking the due diligence to check with my physicians who have been given release to discuss my health, is engaging in reckless and depraved disregard for my health condition and showing reckless disregard for facts available but not sought.
James has files to share with you on OneDrive. To view them, click the links below.
To Jim and Mr. McNett:
What is this about? I was standing right there when they brought the tape of the hearing that they said they could not get to play with audio, I said we would try to see if we could do something, I recommended a wide codec package called K-Lite free to download from the internet website, in an attempt to try to recover the audio, and it was the chairwoman who said if they and we could not get a working copy of the tape the meeting had to be redone and would be redone as to get a audio copy for the record. She stated and agreed that audio recording is critical to have a full record. Including my own reporting within the hearing of the many things I have seen personally witnessed; Including terms of cover-ups and more, plus there were several false statements made by the lawyer opposing your petition there that I know to be false directly. They need to be repeated or captured on tape. I cannot restore it and they now ask us to send them a copy of their own tape that they were responsible to making sure was properly made and usable.
As for the charge that you did not fully assist your attorney, I am a direct witness to all your interactions, I have read all your exchanges with her and that is a flat-out untruth and there is not one piece of evidence to support such statements as you failed to support your attorney. I have also, received all correspondence between you and your attorney as not only you CC myself as a CC: recipient , but so did your attorney. You definitely gave an unquestionable warning that if she did not come with you to FBI as I did, and as she was requested by them, to bring the hush money offer and discuss it and the perjury by Bob Knight, you would have no choice, as a matter of your understanding of the law (continuing a legal defense that involves cover-up and subornation of perjury and other felonies and refusal to report felony perjury that has occurred the second time an on her watch?) to terminate her representation. And I was present the first time you met her, and again in her office when you stated emphatically… No settlements, sealed or otherwise, no hush money because there are crimes and others involved not just you.
Perhaps it takes a special kind of fool to ignore or not even question the many things the many things i have witnessed at your many “Hearings” that were later called and referred to just “Meetings” I have also been to Law Enforcement with you to report such crimes of perjury, interfering with witnesses, abuse of power, etc.. And yet not once have I been interviewed or questioned within any kind of investigation or inquiry to determine all possible facts.
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: Response to Redux: RE: 18 USC 4, 73, 241, 242 Formal Appeals and Requests Still Unaddressed
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:47:59 -0700
Thanks for your response and also for your clarification as to the identity of the attorney as from the general counsel for WEA not the AG but the effect was the same as having the AG’s argument represented. If you have a working copy of the tape I asked for it to be sent. There was not agreement to proceed without it; in fact it was the chairperson of this hearing that suggested that without the record which I had insisted on waiting for, there was no basis for me to appeal and I indicated I would be appealing as that hearing had all the spontaneity and impartiality of a bad Gilbert and Sullivan. And I did not get a copy of any written submissions by that person. Why was Ms Iverson not present?
I have asked over and over for proof that this has been sent to NEA because of the issues involved and that WEA is up to its neck in material conflicts of interest just as Bob Knight was in acting as investigator, judge, jury, assessor of punishment and even appeal authority on his own charges or those through proxies.
But you still refuse to mention the word perjury and the fact that it was the sworn testimonies of two union officers, in two different venues, that exposed the statement “There is no morale problem. There will be no morale problem when we get rid of professor Craven.” (not reported to me for over a year while his plan was being carried out and I–and the membership via precedents being set–was serially being denied due process and union representation, all of which has been covered-up and is still being covered-up because WEA and AHE are simply in the position that Bob Knight was overheard bragging about and counting on: you investigate him and his perjury, the better the job the more they expose WEA and AHE lawyers, never mind rank-and-file union reps, not only failing to report felony crimes they have evidence of in their possession, failing to file against disciplines without Laudermills even, but also actively colluding to prevent full examination and final due process in my termination and exposure of perjury by the central ringleader in all charges against me, due to acquired “mutuality of interests”. This is what happens when any form of corruption and dereliction of duty goes on: those who do corruption or are derelict in duty to expose and stop it acquire a mutuality of interests in that each can and will take down the other if taken down. That is the situation in which the WEA and AHE have placed themselves and a whole lot of sunlight and transparency will be coming to WEA and AHE for sure.
In any case, I am still a public employee, my pay is still being assessed for membership dues to help pay your salary, none of you at WEA own WEA, it is an institution that has seen others fired and sued for dereliction of duty and worse in the past, I have a valid appeal pending, there are critical union issues and precedents involved in this case, my case was accepted for legal assistance, no one has given me one statement from Margaret or anyone, no evidence, no specifics of my having failed to assist her (the opposite is this case), and in any case I expect you and WEA to notify the College of my status, that I have been operating without counsel due to no fault of my own in terms of timing of WEA appeal procedures, I have definite medical disabilities, and any move to push this process forward is more serial denials of due process but also more 18 USC 4 and 73 and RCW 42.20.
Further, it is even worse because Dr. Roi and Lynn Davidson, at considerable legal risk to themselves, nonetheless testified a second time, this time with awareness (before they, like Lisa Lewison during the Whalen hearing were unaware that their sworn testimonies directly opposed the sworn testimony of Knight and thus wither their testimonies or Knight’s were perjury and obstruction of justice per se) that their testimonies would oppose the sworn testimony of Knight in the same hearing; they had the courage to do their duty while WEA proposes to shut down and refuse to report these serious felonies and aid and abet the position of the opposing counsel to do it.
You have evidence of perjury by Bob Knight, what is the language of 18 USC 4 or 73 or the other statutes cited that is unclear to you. all at WEA? Finally there are statements made by the WEA legal rep that were false and I need a working copy of that tape that I indicated to your chairperson would be turned over to law enforcement. You demanded the tape, your responsibility was to make sure that I had a working copy of that tape prior to my leaving. Dean was unable to do anything with it, where is your copy? If you do not have one, how and on what basis did you proceed to make a decision on my appeal without even resolving the issue and when you knew I would be appealing? Dean Lookinghawk was a witness to all our conversations as well as all my interactions with Margaret.
You see how it gets worse and worse? So far you all appear to be actively colluding and coordinating for an Oct 22 deadline and I do apologize that my due process and other legal rights are in the way. Bottom line: no need for pretexts and star chambers, prejury, obstruction of justice, cover-ups, procedural sandbagging, hush money offers, motions to limit, and the like if the case is clean; only if it is dirty;
This is why I only operate on paper. You give your version, I give mine, you bring your evidence and witnesses, I bring mine, and we will see whose accounts survive scrutiny by truly independent, dispassionate, disinterested and competent arbiters of facts and law.
Every day you refuse to report to law enforcement the knowledge of felony crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice that you have in your possession, in fact generated from the sworn testimonies of your own union officers is no more an act of omission but an overt act of concealment of the commission of a felony crime and the language of the law is clear which is why all of you who have received the materials I submitted and still persist with this theater and refusing to do your duty under law and to the membership will be named personally in civil action following being named in criminal complaints after being given chance after chance to recognize and obey the law.
Please address these concerns and the questions I have posed not the ones you might have preferred to be asked. This will go to law enforcement per my duties under the statute cited below–ASAP reporting mandated by law.
18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Subject: RE: Redux: RE: 18 USC 4, 73, 241, 242 Formal Appeals and Requests Still Unaddressed
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:48:08 +0000
You were provided a copy of the recording file following the hearing. As we discussed in the lobby that afternoon, we were unfortunately unable to play back the recording from that file. We do not know what malfunction caused the recording file to be unusable and were surprised by that outcome. Our IT staff person was unable to solve the problem and, when we parted company, my understanding was that all parties were satisfied with Mr. Lookinghawk’s offer to make an attempt to repair the file. Subsequent to that discussion, the Hearing and Appeals Board made a decision, sent you notification, and you have appealed that decision to the WEA Board. Your appeal is now pending at that level of the process.
We have provided you with a copy of the only recording file that we have from the hearing. If Mr. Lookinghawk or others produce a useable file, we will welcome that outcome and ask that you send us a functional copy.
From: James Craven [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:59 AM
To: Mike McNett [WA]; Dean Lookinghawk; email@example.com; Kevin Saito; Jay Inslee; Jace Borba [WA]; Lisa Lewison [WA]; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Redux: RE: 18 USC 4, 73, 241, 242 Formal Appeals and Requests Still Unaddressed
To WEA et al:
I still have not been provided a copy of the tape of the hearing that led to the hearing decision against which I have filed a formal appeal as I have with respect to the whistle-blower decision by WHR as well as formal notice of referral of my complaint to EEOC per duty of Washington Human Rights when federal issues and crimes are also alleged and supporting evidence and law given.
This denies me a record, made at the insistence of WEA from which to appeal as well as a record I believe, of further evidence of coordinated and collusive conduct between Clark College, the AG’s office, possibly WHR and WEA who are supposed to be independent and impartial in the processing and review of my complaints and those against me. I have requested a viable copy of the tape, to repeat the process even, but now it appears to me that the tape was made unusable purposely absent evidence to the contrary due to the apparent intrigue and serial refusals to even acknowledge let alone answer my legitimate questions.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Please provide a written statement as to what happened with the tape of the hearing on my WEA representation and why WEA refuses to take legal action stop a dismissal process riddled with corruption and felony crimes by the key players according to WEA’s own sworn submissions in the past, when it knows well I have valid appeals on WEA as well as WHR decisions pending as well as formal criminal complaints,that are longstanding and being unaddressed so far not of my doing or fault.
Again, this will be sent to law enforcement.
James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: 18 USC 4, 73, 241, 242 Formal Appeals and Requests Still Unaddressed
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:08:32 -0700
Dear Mr. McNett:
It is Professor not Dr. Craven. I just got this letter today (I have a public post box and registered letters should be sent to be signed for by me personally and/or also sent email as they are time-sensitive and I have known and documented medical disabilities that this union appears to be willfully blind to if not at the level of depraved indifference to the known effects of induced toxic stress (such as that which accompanies serial denials of basic due process aided and abetted by the union supposed to represent you and not allow precedents clearly intended to be used against others) on human health and longevity.
This is to constitute a formal appeal against this decision and to document for the record the particulars of this process and decision making:
1) At the suggestion of WEA, and witnessed, I was to be provided a correct and full copy of the tape of the hearing, requested at the insistence of WEA, and without it and a record to use for appeal and to take to law enforcement that I indicated I would send a copy to, and failing that, the hearing was to be redone so that a full-record could be obtained for appeal and law enforcement uses. This was not done, my repeated inquires on the status of the hearing with the tape not having been provided serially ignored, this decision was made again without a record to allow me to use to appeal from and for other venues including PERC.
2) I have never been provided, and none was given at the hearing, of any written allegations and supporting specifics, evidence and citations of policy and law, by Margaret Olney or anyone, of my having failed to assist her and comply with her directives even once. Just like Clark College, with their demonstrated contempt for the law and elementary due process, WEA appears to think that merely restating an allegation is somehow intrinsic evidence of some sort for the allegation. Over and over complainants have been allowed to make allegations with no transparency, evidence, accountability or even record of who they were and what the said. This union is furthering this contempt for due process and serial denial of duty of fair representation.
3) It was the sworn testimonies of two WEA and AHE union officers, in two different venues, and in one case in the same venue, that exposed the repeated perjury, obstruction of justice, declared intent to “get rid” of me by Robert Knight, and every person with knowledge of that perjury and related felonies (WEA and AHE members had such knowledge a full year before passed on to me), all contained within the materials submitted to the hearing and to be used on appeal, contained not simply my allegations, but supporting evidence (tapes and documents I had no hand in originating, no prior knowledge of, no influence on the content or timing), texts of laws, with invitations to rebuttal in writing and yet none of that has been reported to law enforcement per your duties under law cited to WEA and AHE over and over.
4) Your letter does not mention the opposing general counsel from the AG’s office allowed not only to be present, but to present provably false statements (another reason why the missing tape is very troubling and all of you will be asked about it in future extended depositions in other venues) in opposition to funding that the hush money offer alone shows would reveal more crimes and cover-ups in any fair and impartial hearing not run by those with “mutuality of interests” that I predicted and have come to pass as predicted and when predicted: a serious examination of the whole process, each of the stages of progressive discipline, shows not only calculated, coordinated, serial denials of due process, obstructions of ADA complaints, and more, but also elements of WEA and AHE in active coordination and collusion with those against whom they are supposed to be representing not only me, but the whole membership as my case is about a lot more than me. The more serious any investigation, the more WEA and AHE are exposed for past serial acts of failure of duty of fair representation, misprision of a felony, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury through cover-up and concealment, conspiracy against rights and under color of law and more. The exact “mutuality of interests” that Mr. Knight was overhead bragging about and that was reported to Mr. Boyer long ago.
5) I have asked and ask again, what is the legal authority and reasoning behind the union, any union, allowing opposing counsel in a current case of dismissal to have any standing or reason to be allowed to make such submissions. What is his full name and title as well as the names of any persons, in any capacity, whether present in the hearing room or not (one person was outside the room but one of the hearing members went out of the room to speak with him periodically).
6) Where in writing was I ever given specifics of any alleged failure to assist counsel? What about Margaret Olney’s own praise of my commitment to education and the like in her last message? What about the fact that on the Sunday night before going to the hearing (not knowing that a motion to limit was waiting to be “ruled” on orally) I was in her officer putting together the files of documents for the case? This merely making an allegation then when asked for supporting evidence and law to support it merely repeating the allegation as if repeating it now gives evidence for itself, the Clark College modus operandi, along with summarily declaring time limits and narrow scopes of allowable evidence and appeal, these are all tactics of those who fear any real examination of their allegations and non-specifics and non-evidence to support them.
7) I asked over and over if this has gone to NEA.. Unions are not the property of labor aristocrats who often run them. Just like community colleges, their resources and jobs belong to the People, so it is that unions belong to the membership. When locals go rogue or are captured by cloistered and self-serving/protecting elites, they compromise the standing, reputation, resources, and even survival of the wider unions of which they are a part. This case for sure will go to NEA, but the delays, which only embolden Clark College to more cover-up, intransigence and future crimes, are causing real harm to myself, my family, my health and to the standing and effectiveness of the union to deal with the just cases of others.
8) These delays in responding to my appeal, setting up the process of appeal and hearing, the non-provision of a usable copy of the tape of the hearing, the lack of any due process or specificity of charges or what of my responses and evidence to them were even considered, all serve to not only serially deny me due process, and cover-up WEA/AHE past dereliction of duty to fair representation, but emboldens them to continue a corrupt and corrupted process from which and within which only more corruption, more perjury, more subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and cover-ups can follow.
This will go to law enforcement as this decision is but more cover-up and I believe an example of coordination between WHR, WEA, AHE, Clark College and the AG’s office and I believe more discovery and intrigue like this will only sadly compromise the union that I have tried over and over to keep out of this as an institution.
Please accept this as a formal appeal against this decision and notice of my intent to file formal criminal complaints against all those present in this decision who will be also named personally in civil complaints. and the signed pdf will follow.
I have a long paper trail of legitimate questions posed, laws and evidence cited, all in writing with no responses from WEA, AHE and others. This will now for sure all go to PERC and other agencies; since elements in this union appear to have such contempt for the law and refuse to go to it when it is being serially broken, now it is time for the law (Icivil and criminal) to be brought to this union as well as to the Clark College administration and the AG’s office. No need for perjury and subornation cover-ups, refusal to go to paper, leaving fingerprints and thus accountability off of decisions, serial denials of due process if the case against me is clean; only if it is dirty.
James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii
Professor of Economics
I noted in your message below that you have now requested that any documents sent to you by mail also be provided via email. In response to this request, I am attaching an electronic copy of my letter to you dated Sept. 30, 2014. This letter was sent by certified mail on that date to the address that you provided to us, and you confirmed that address at the close of the hearing when it was announced that the decision of the Hearing and Appeals Board would be transmitted by mail within six days per the established procedures of the Board. We received a USPS return receipt indicating delivery of the letter on Oct. 2, 2014.
Staff Consultant, Hearing and Appeals Board
Washington Education Association
(253) 753-7192 cell
(253) 765-7098 office
From: James Craven [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 10:24 AM
To: Aimee Iverson [WA]; Mike McNett [WA]; Jay Inslee; firstname.lastname@example.org; Dean Lookinghawk; Kevin Saito; email@example.com; Jace Borba [WA]; Lisa Lewison [WA]
Subject: Formal Appeals and Requests Still Unaddressed
To WEA, Washington Human Rights, Washington Attorney General’s Office and Clark College Board of Trustees:
The following formal requests, with supporting evidence and law, along with requests for rebuttal in writing remain unanswered and even unacknowledged. (see attached previous submissions). Further, I attended the hearing on my appeal for new counsel to be funded by WEA, I allowed taping per WEA request and yet no usable tape was provided of the hearing. I indicated that I needed that tape and that I would be turning it over to law enforcement as I believe it contained evidence of crimes as well as coordination and collusion between WEA and the Attorney General’s Office as well as with Washington Human Rights to deny my clear status as a whistle-blower in order to avoid timelines as well as hard physical evidence of felony crimes having been committed and thus the duty to report them under 18 USC 4 and 73.
I stand unrepresented, with serious medical disabilities, and with a thoroughly corrupt and corrupted process being continued with clear evidence of serious and serial felonies by the central ringleader of all complaints against me as well as the “judge”, assessor of discipline and even “appeal” authority on two of three possible levels of appeal (when I ever even got a Laudermill hearing to appeal).
The hush money offer, with public monies and resources expended already, especially in the context of my having made repeated and sworn submissions to law enforcement (about crimes not torts or even gross misdemeanors per 18 USC 4 and 73), all of which preceded the the pilings-on of charges and kangaroo courts that followed, represented a criminal solicitation to obstruct justice and repudiate or compromise my previous submissions to law enforcement, to sign away my free speech and other Constitutional rights, as well as duties under law in perpetuity not to disparage or file any kind of legal action or complaint against any employee or agent of Clark College ever for anything even with cause. This is not only more than one affirmative material step in furtherance of objectives and conduct that amount to obstruction of justice per se, but this represents more than that: this represents conspiracy not only to obstruct justice, but to pervert the course and cause of justice by attempting to create a record of contrived and engineered falsehoods and decisions that act as precedent and findings to be used against other whistle-blowers as well as to inoculate the participants against future civil as well as criminal charges and prosecution. Otherwise why the last minute hush money offer with 21 days to consider (all of a sudden no time pressures) and why no “ruling” on the motion to limit all evidence or stages of progressive discipline until the morning of the hearing and after the hush money offer made?
This will be going to EEOC, PERC, Washington DOP, Governor Inslee, Washington Ethics and law enforcement. There is no need to fear going to paper with and explaining the law and reasoning behind, decisions if they they are clean and defensible; only if they are not. There is no need for hush money, perjury, obstruction of justice, motions to limit (hide), displacing fingerprints and accountability, lack of transparency and accountability if the case is clean only if it is dirty. I also asked for proof that this case has been sent to NEA because of the precedents and issues involved.
The FBI at PDX asked me to bring the hush money offer and attorney Margaret Olney to their office. That was their request once they knew the terms of the offer and when it was made, they only wanted to know if it was in writing. When Margaret could not or would not accompany me, I had not only a right but a duty under law not to continue her representation knowing that it would build on more obstruction of justice and perjury to continue. None of these issues have been addressed. This hush money offer could not have been made without the active sign-off by the Clark College Board of Trustees, Mr. Knight, the AG’s Office, Mr. Stonier and thus they have all impeached themselves and their fitness to sit and pass on any aspect of this case by their own conduct. I have no doubt the three trustees I did not know were spoon-fed what the other two (also with material conflicts of interest to sit as “judges” on whether I am guilty or not).
Finally, because of the medications I am on, I cannot drive sometimes and thus do not get me mail except once a week. Please send a copy of anything sent in the mail also to my email and the snail-mail game, if played as it has been on me in the past, also reveals patters which reveal connections, intentions as well as mens rea. All of these machinations and attempt to escape contradictions and webs of deceit and cover-ups will simply not work; the more the avoidance and refusal to recognize and follow the laws cited to you the worse it will be in the other venues that will come. Please regard this as a good-faith attempt to apprise of and attempt to mitigate, real damages and threats to me health and life, not only to myself and family, but to students who are being defrauded and handed unqualified and unvetted faculty being kept on as those who act unlawfully with others become beholden on each other as one goes down can and will take down the others. This is a recipe for more cover-ups and serial denials of basic due process that the union itself has alleged in past submissions now being taken as the union having “stipulated” to previous stages of progressive discipline as duly conducted and charges duly made.
James M. Craven/Omahkohkiaaiipooyii (signed electronically)
Professor of Economics