Clark College and County: Part I
My health has suffered due to recent termination at Clark College. Many people have contacted me about their own cases that involve some of the same persons, agencies, networks and cabals running, or trying to, Vantucky and Clark College. Because there are definite crimes involved, and because the mandate of law and my own conscience is to do all I can to see that clear predicate evidence of felony crimes (offenses against all of society and many other innocents) is taken to law enforcement and if refused at one level, then take it public and to the highest levels which is what I am about to do with a personal visit to Washington DC and my own networks. Civil litigation will follow with each person alleged to have committed torts or crimes named personally in both criminal complaints and in civil litigation.
I prefer evidence, law and reason and thus I present provable facts and supporting documents, tapes, emails, correspondence with WEA and AHE both truly treacherous entities the evidence will show, and let them speak for themselves.
- Facts in Clark College Actions in my Unlawful Termination:
2) Tenured faculty over 17 years, teacher of economics, geography, statistics and other subjects (see Linked-in profile) near 40 years;
2) Whistle-blower against a faculty member who bragged to me and another faculty member of collecting and disseminating child pornography (caught with over 1700 files but the warrant was screwed-up and he walked and is still teaching at Clark College);
3) Charged with “disrespectful speech” on the Union-only list for discussions and union issues allowed by the Contract to College email system; this is like being given time off without pay and medical coverage for comments at a union meeting;
4) Union, WEA, allowed me and my family to suffer:
- a) reprimand (all the same charges disrespectful speech and violation of the “Respect Code”) while on medical leave; no Laudermill Hearing, no grievances;
b) 7 days off while on medical leave, no Laudermill Hearing, no grievances and discipline imposed and timed upon my return to take me out of the classroom and assign my classes to scabs hired through the backdoor unvetted by me the senior economist; my name was kept on the schedule of classes to draw in students even as I had been taken out of the classrooom;
c) 8 days off, again while on medical leave and same conditions as above with discipline pre-arranged and imposed to take me out of the classroom and assign my classes to scabs;
d) 107 days off with no pay and attempts to take away medical coverage; 4 letters of notice of discipline sent to my house and to my official mailbox, on December 24, while I was in critical care unit of SW Hospital from double stent operation on the right coronary artery; this went to arbitration but lost it due to previous perjury by president and union’s failure to own-up to “dropping the ball” (their words) in representing not only me, but more importantly the principles and not allowing precedents to be set as they did allow;
e) One year off with no pay or medical coverage for my family; this time got a Laudermill hearing (by the president who arranged for complaints to be filed, rewarded those with public employment for their complaints, taken out of the classroom prior to the hearing, denied scheduled overtime pay, and then convicted, given discipline and two levels of appeal all by the same persons who caused me to be charged, charged me, pre-sentenced me to terms of discipline prior to being convicted then handled two levels of appeal against their own “investigation”, charges and findings);
f) union WEA failed to go to arbitration as it would expose their own serial failures to represent me even as it was union officers who charged the president with perjury (testified that president told them: “Morale problem? There is no morale problem here. There will be no morale problem when we get rid of professor Craven”; the president had previously sworn never having made such statement) WEA did not even order a copy of the transcript to consider appeal as their own refusal to report felonies exposed by their own officers in their sworn testimonies per 18 USC 4 and 73.
Corruption is self-replicating just as are lies that beget more of the same to cover-up previous lies. More and more adjuncts are being hired unvetted because they are then beholden for jobs they are not qualified for and would never get in open competition; they are ready-made “Team Players” for management full of “Ed Leadership” types who have never been leaders or educators of anything often. After doing corruption, each is in a position like Tom Paine: “We must all hang together or surely we shall all hang separately.”
I have gone to law enforcement as a public employee (Clark College is an Agency of the Government of the State of Washington) and as a public employee and tenured professor, I have Constitutional rights including First,4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendment rights. Fixing jobs for friends, relatives or as payback for services rendered by scabs is not only immoral and wrong, it is criminal conduct (Trading in Public Employment is a Class-C felony) plus Conspiracy Against Rights (18 USC Part 241) and Under Color of Law (Part 242).
Finally, please look at my documents (that I had no hand in originating or the content of nor prior knowledge of when written) at:
Please note that all my statements to law enforcement and the Courts are sworn under penalty of perjury at my insistence when not required. I have made myself accountable under law and have invited FBI to prosecute me if even one lie or misrepresentation. I have also offered to meet with FBI (and did for only one hour) and answer on any subject (my views are radical, I have been under FBI surveillance for many years including COINTELPRO) and I have been a Visiting Professor of Economics and Geography at Tsinghua University (the MIT of China) and at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and have lectured in Yunnan, teaching post-Docs (which means I have been thoroughly vetted in China) and have consulted with members of the Government of China on ethnology and genocide issues (I am published in the area of international law and genocide as well as on genocide in the Americas against indigenous peoples)
I have job offers in many places but refuse to leave the place to scabs, perjurers, fascists and the like; I teach at this level for a reason as I came out of poverty and “up” the hard way and want to work with students who have been screwed-over and needing a second-chance for their education.
Plato said it long ago: “Those who seek power are invariably the least fit to hold and wield it.” The types who go into administration are more often than not the same types who become judges, politicians, management and yes teachers. They think they are special and self-anoint and select themselves as having “leadership potential” merely by their selections of degrees to pursue. They purport to be “leaders” based on some piece of paper to be parachuted “down” to “lead” those who have had no say or consultation about who will “lead” them. Real leaders do not call themselves leaders, they were selected by and have the mandate of those they purport to “lead”, and they do not parade around in the “gear” of management; they just do what leaders do. Academia is one of the target-rich environments for psychopaths and many are found in management and administration.
Corporate unions like WEA or AFT or AAUP are sadly not real unions. Take the case of WEA, how many know that the representatives of WEA, the grunt workers, are in their own union and have been working out of contract for some time; union representatives (non-lawyers) as grunt workers in their own union working out of contract while working for a supposed union? What is wrong with that picture?
I swear to all of you, that all along this and only this has been the basis of my resistance and refusal to turn a blind eye to corruption that hurts real people in real ways and I will continue as I have to fight alone with even people I have known 20 years and supposed “colleagues” turning away like frightened “Good Germans” in 1933:
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
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
The corruption reaches into the AG’s Office (see letter of Emma Kim and picture of secret file of 4900 pages kept on me since 1994 ordered by AG’s office) the Clark County Sheriff, the Vancouver Police, the Clark County Clerk’s Office, Washington Court of Appeals (refused oral argument even on appeal) and Thurston County Superior Court.
The new Governor Inslee has been sent (at his request) some of my materials and has asked for more. I have had heart attacks and each time they went after me when I was down and counted on the union aiding their cover-ups with their own mutuality of interests (that was actually said to someone by the administration and relayed to me–that the union cannot support me as it would open up their failure to do so previously even when it was they who accused the president of perjury and other felonies and wanting to “get rid of professor Craven”.
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 7:25 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: A Note of Thanks
Dear Professor Craven,
I’ve been meaning to send you a note of thanks for quite a while. I’m sure you don’t remember me, I’m a former student of yours from 9 or 10 years ago. As a Running Start student I had the privilege of taking your Economic Geography, Microeconomics and Macroeconomics classes. At first I didn’t quite know what to make of them. I come from a very conservative background, and I distinctly remember leaving your class and listening to Sean Hannity on the drive home.
Needless to say I disagreed with many of your points of view. However, I accepted your challenge to be open to them and to consider them. This was a valuable lesson and started me on a process of learning and thinking (and relearning and rethinking) that has stayed with me.
After I left Clark, I transferred to UW in Seattle. After a semester as a business major, I switched to economics, and after a semester of that I added a math major as well. I did well in the department there and learned a lot from the economics faculty. After what I had learned from you (which, I think, represents the radical perspective in my own education) that department was decidedly a moderate-left perspective. I started taking graduate courses in my second year and finished in my third year having completed the graduate micro and macro first year sequences.
Having not figured out the answers to all the world’s problems as an undergrad, I then started my Ph.D at the University of Minnesota. Minnesota was good for me because I had come to appreciate the formalism of really rigorous mathematical modeling. Also, it hadn’t occurred to me at the time, but in retrospect I can appreciate that Minnesota’s right wing perspective rounded out the education that I got at Clark and UW. Again, I did quite well at Minnesota and finished my Ph.D and MA on time in 5 years.
The last year of the Ph.D, of course, is devoted to finding a job, and I was quite successful. My old advisers at UW remembered me, and were impressed enough with the work that I had done to offer me a tenure track job. But, as hard as it was, I had to turn them for the University of Notre Dame. I just finished my first year here as an assistant professor.
What made me think of you tonight is that I taught Principles of Macro all year this year and I got back my student comments. On average they were very good, but I was a bit disappointed with the comments. Some of them used words like “standard” and “boring”, and I was trying to think of how to improve. Then I thought back to my own experience in your Macro course and realized that you probably never get “standard” or “boring” as student feedback. And that makes me think, maybe I can teach a bit more like you. And if I can, maybe I can have the type of important impact on some of my students that you have had on me and many others.
And with that thought in mind, I thought I should finally get around to emailing you to thank you not just for the education you gave me, but also for challenging me to give that same quality of education to others. You’re a real asset to Clark College, and you give your students a chance (whether or not they take it) to get a real education. That’s something I will strive for in my career as an educator.
Alright, sorry for the very long message. I hope all is well with you and your family. And thanks again!
Subject: Your eternal studen
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 17:55:25 +0200
I just saw your post with your email address. I thought I would send my message via email in addition to Facebook:
Professor Craven, it has been way too long since we’ve connected (I think your great talk at the Marxist School of Sacramento back in 2002 was last time).
After Clark, Portland State University, University of Copenhagen and 10 years at my father’s insurance company, I finally decided I had enough and wanted to finally finish my degree and realize the dream I have had since taking my first college class with you (economic geography). This is my third attempt as I first started in Copenhagen (way too autistic economics!), before starting again at Cal State Sacramento. After having a beautiful daughter (Josephine), I took a break and studied insurance, risk and law (I actually taught a bit too!). My nephew starting studying economics in college (as a 16 year-old at UC Davis!) and I found my passion again while tutoring him. We moved to Norway about 2 years ago, where I still work in insurance, but also study development economics part-time. As bland as the Nordic culture can be, it gives me the opportunity to provide well for the family while pursuing my dream of a PhD in economics. I am very happy here.
I really want you to know that I reverently thank you every time I read my text books or attend lectures. You not only opened my world to the joys, pains and insights of economics, history and American Indians, but also critical thinking. I still remember all the fallacies you taught and am now teaching my daughter those same principles. It has also given me a spiritual foundation to the world’s knowledge.
I hope you are doing well, although when trying to find your current contact info, I found some nasty stuff that Clark has been doing. It saddens me to think about the students who won’t be inspired, just as I was 15 years ago. Well, as you always said, Keep the Faith!
Love, your eternal student, ….
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:10 PM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: Macro Economics
Hi, my name is Michael . I took your micro economics class last spring quarter. I was registered for your macro economics class this fall, but I recently checked my schedule and I’ve been switched to a guy named Kraley. This isn’t okay with me, I was wondering if there was a reason, that you knew about, why I was transferred. It also could have been a glitch in the system, and I could still be registered for your class. It’s unlikely though, and I would really like to take your class, not Kraley’s class. I left you a message on your answering machine, but you may not get it until Monday. I will try to catch you on Monday, and hopefully we can figure this out.
This was the response that I gave to Michael that prompted his comments above:
From: “James Craven”
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 5:42:24 PM
Subject: FW: Macro Economics
Please reply to me at this address not at Clark College as I am under suspension with pay until next quarter and then off for one year without pay. I am charged with hostile, threatening and disrespectful speech. The problem is no complaint has been filed. Further, this time they kept my name on the schedule to draw in students like you when they had already told me I will not be teaching, and, and this is the good part, BEFORE my hearing this Monday, September 26th, 2011 that is supposed to be about the very question of if or if not I am guilty and, if so, what discipline do I deserve (already set).
The last time I got two quarters off for the same thing (felony truth telling and refusal to turn a blind eye to or participate in any corruption) that time they took my name off the schedule and replaced it with replacement names, again BEFORE the one Laudermill hearing I got to determine, again, if or if not I was guilty.
What was I protesting? Well we have a bunch of adjuncts hired around me as department head of economics and the only one qualified to vet teachers for competence in economics and the teaching of it (John Fite, the only other full-time tenured economist got his masters from Georgetown in the early 1970s, never once worked as an economist, took no additional courses, never taught prior to coming to Clark) and I do not know what most of them look like and have never spoken to the others—and I am department head.
I am sending you something that tells the whole story or a lot of it. Please tell as many students as possible that they are being ripped off and in this case, as they did with you, they kept my name on the schedule (after screwing up last time and taking it off before the hearing) to draw in students not caring one bit who was teaching and how and by whom had the teachers been vetted.
I have my hearing on Monday at 1 pm and it will be taped plus all of this has been turned over to the attorney general. Please keep these messages secure but I owe you and the other students an explanation and I will be writing an open letter to the students. See next messages coming for what is going on.
I responded to Michael (see below) which prompted this response from him:
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:14:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Macro Economics
Oh my Gosh! This is some crazy stuff! Although, I can’t say I’m surprised. You never hold back when it comes to speak the TRUTH! That’s what I loved about your class. I will mention this to as many of the students I know about from your previous classes as I can. Anything I can do to help. As far as Clark lying to me about who my professor for Economics would be, I feel very ripped off, and wish there was something I could do. I wish you the best of luck on your hearing, and I hope that no injustice is found so that you can continue to teach in the incredible way that you do! I thoroughly enjoyed your micro econ class.
You truly are a fantastic teacher!
(P.S. if anything I’ve said in my emails thus far can help you in any way, feel free to use them!)
And this was my response to Michael’s response:
Thanks for the note and I must and will confess my own guilt in some of this: I trusted and did not vet (in most cases not allowed to but in two or more cases they were “colleagues” whom were already established and subject to other forms of assessment) but I have not even met and not vetted Bailey, Newman, Bayer, Foreman; I never seen John Fite teach one class but he sat through a whole course of mine; Adnan Hamideh has an MBA and is not qualified to teach upper-level economics; I have met Atkinson but have not vetted her except in a job interview for full-time which she did not get; Shon Kraley has been vetted by me. And I am head of economics (see attached on how they once promoted me). What is wrong with that picture? And you can see from some of the documents that I sent that I have been protesting this and other forms of corruption for a long time.
One thing all of you can do is go to the media…and the students have a right to know all of this as I am scheduled for discipline to commence for one year off without pay, next quarter so there was no reason to take me out of the classroom other than they were providing work, with my classes, for these adjuncts hired through the back door with no verification of credentials or vetting for competence by me and I was available. You can let people know who are in my classes now, particularly Economic Geography, what has gone on, that there are teachers unvetted, and find out how many signed up specifically for my classes. I am in a position of conscience, like a cook ordered to serve and cover-up the serving of uninspected meat and I have evidence some of the clients have been poisoned and harmed already. Students, even the ones who hate me, are not commodities, or numbers or “FTEs (full time enrollments) or revenue generators, but are, for me, real feeling, complex human beings trusting me and the college to not only be on our game but to care for them as real people with real needs.
thanks for everything and your kind thoughts and words. That is why I became a teacher.
Please note that ALL Public Employees are covered by the U.S. Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
Response from a lawyer:
You don’t know me (and I don’t want to identify myself), but I’m a lawyer with knowledge of the unemployment compensation system, I’ve read the Court of Appeals opinion in our case (which is available online), and I’m also a Vietnam veteran (I’ll explain the relevance of this below). I’d like to share my observations, and I’ll be very honest and frank about my view of your situation.
First, I think your #1 priority should be to keep your job. Your employer does not like the means and manner by which you’ve expressed your opinions on personnel and departmental governance matters, and they’ve responded with “progressive discipline.” They’re going to fire you the next time, so you need to make sure there isn’t a next time. That requires you to change how you express yourself on professional and institutional issues.
The employer views your mode and style of expression as unprofessional, inappropriate, and unacceptable. So did the administrative law judge, and so did the Court of Appeals judges. I’m compelled to agree with them. The college has a right (and a need) to expect its employees to deal with workplace issues through the channels they specify (or via a union grievance process) and in a non-disruptive manner. The college owns the computers and e-mail system, and can decide who can use it and for what purposes, as well as establish usage protocols.
In the context of the unemployment benefits case, this is not about free speech or academic freedom. The administrative law judge and the court viewed the issue in terms of the employer’s right to regulate its workplace and reasonable expectations of its employees. You were denied unemployment benefits during your period of suspension because the department and administrative law judge found you violated a reasonable rule of the employer of which you were (or should have been) aware. If I had been the judge in your case, I would have reached the same conclusion.
I am not an academic, so I’m not an expert on academic freedom. The concept, as I understand it, relates to a scholar’s professional prerogative to teach, for example, a theory of economics he believe to be true. But employment law principles and the statutes governing eligibility for unemployment benefits do not require an educational institution to grant its teaching staff academic freedom. A religious college, for example, can require its staff to teach intelligent design instead of evolution. The law does not require such a college to employ scholars who believe evolution is the correct theory. Once hired by that college, an instructor is obliged to follow the college’s curriculum, and if he chooses not to in the name of free speech and academic freedom, that college can choose to not employ him. Whether the instructor in this hypothetical would qualify for unemployment benefits is a gray area that could go either way depending on the specific facts of the case. Mere unsatisfactory performance, error of judgment, or failure to satisfy the employer’s performance expectations generally is not disqualifying. However, willful refusal to comply with the employer’s policies or insubordination is generally disqualifying.
From my online research of your case, it’s my understanding you served in the Army 1963-1966. If you are a Vietnam veteran, you should consider applying for veteran’s disability compensation. In my opinion, your disciplinary record at Clark College is consistent with typical symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and your repeated disciplines is evidence of PTSD disability. Especially if there is another occurrence and you end up losing your job, the fact of job loss and the circumstances of your employment problems can be used to prove you are PTSD-disabled. If you qualify for a 100% disability rating by the V.A., you would receive monthly disability benefits of approximately $2,971 (if you are married) and free medical care from the V.A. system. It takes the V.A. at least 2 years to process an application for disability compensation, so I recommend applying now (if you haven’t already done so), even if you remain employed. I have enough experience with veterans and the V.A. benefits system that you look like a veteran eligible for some level of PTSD-based disability rating. I know someone with employment issues very similar to yours who was granted a 50% disability rating after an evaluation interview by a contract psychologist working for the V.A. If there is any chance you are eligible for V.A. benefits, you owe it to yourself and your family to line up these benefits as a backstop in case you are unable to hold onto your college teaching job. What I’m saying is, if you end up losing your job, it need not be a total financial disaster. If you served our nation in wartime and are impaired in your professional functioning because of your military service, our government has promised to take care of your support and medical needs. You put your life at their disposal and they made a commitment to you that is good for your lifetime. I, and others, are encouraging all Vietnam veterans and especially those having medical and/or employment difficulties to apply for V.A. benefits. This is something we all owe to you.
Thank you for your reading and comments on my case. With all due respect, you have not seen even the totality of the documents from which selected quotes, or even snippets of quotes were taken. I could indeed take snippets of your own responses and make something out of them other than what you intended or argued.
The bottom line is that I am a bonafide whistle-blower on serious issues. No one goes after a whistle-blower except under pretexts. As a public employee, I have Constitutional rights including the 14th Amendment right not to suffer loss of life, liberty or property without the due process of law and no “respect code” (typical for management control these days) trumps the U.S. Constitution.
Did you know that all these communications were on an intra-union list allowed on Contract to discuss union affairs without surveillance and control by management? This is like sanctions for comments at a union meeting being brought to management by the very scabs hired through the backdoor without vetting which is one of my complaints (defrauding students; trading in public employment, etc)?
Did you read that under progressive discipline (which means due process at each stage of a finding that is a predicate for higher stages of discipline in is mandatory nor optional)?. In my case, a) Reprimand while on medical leave, no Laudermill hearing no greivances; b) 7 days off not pay, no Laudermill, no grievances, discipine imposed upon returned and timed to take me out of the classroom with students signed up for me as a teacher, scheduled overtime pay lost and classes assigned to unvetted teachers; c) 8 days off no pay same situation as b); d) 108 days off no pay, taking out of the classroom prior to the one hearing I got to determine if or if not I could be teaching; e) one year off no pay no medical coverage, taken out of classroom prior to a hearing, lost scheduled overtime pay, classes assigned to unvetted adjuncts.
In all but the last case there was no formal complaints given; informal complaints were made and then turned into formal charges by the very persons that then a)”investigated” their own charges; b)pre-assessed discipline prior to their hearing; c) then acted as “fact finders” on their own “investigation”; d) then assessed discipline that was in fact pre-determine prior to the hearing; e) then acted as “appeal authorities” on two or three possible levels of appeal the third level being arbitration.
As to the findings of the Courts, garbage in garbage out. You have never seen anyone framed? Why would the Washington Court of Appeals deny me an oral argument–only 20 minutes of their time?
What about a secret file kept on me since 1994? There is no need to deny due process to the guilty as their guilt should be undeniable enough to convict them; only the innocent need to be framed. There is no need for perjury on the part of the president if his case is sound and intentions honest; only if they are not.
With all due respect, you have not read anywhere near what you would have to read from my position to come to the summary and it would appear to me precipitous conclusions you have come to and these kind of summary conclusions are why I have had to work pro se as many lawyers want low-hanging-fruit and a long-term conspiracy case is not one of those; that was the idea.
Imagine that you are a government lawyer you are the most senior attorney and responsible for vetting in your area of expertise and all of s sudden you find 6 attorneys you have never met let alone vetted working in your area and suppose further that they were all hired outside of standardized protocols, some close to those who hired them and of those who hired them none was an attorney? Suppose further you have already gathered evidence of serious harm to real people by some of those hired?
My story was picked up and printed with good motives but without some of the most salient facts being evident from what was taken had I known about it prior to showing up here.
I am fully aware that I am about to be fired. This time they hired Miller Nash to come in and investigate my complaints as well as those of others against me. But there is a lot more to this case and all my statements are sworn under penalty of perjury. And why did FBI send me to County and local police? Why did County police then send me to Vancouver police and vice versa if only potential torts were involved?
Finally, thanks to Roger Rabbit for taking the time to give a personal opinion from the facts he is aware of on my case. But there is so much more and I have had to fight alone with no money and a family because I know for a fact that there is a pattern of repression against whistle-blowers under various pretexts against several senior faculty with disabilities to get them out and to bring in less qualified or unqualified adjuncts who are cheaper and beholden for jobs they would never obtain with standardized, free and fair open competition as is demanded by law in public employment.
There have been several findings against Clark College for dismissals under pretexts (by the same individuals involved) that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars of settlements to avoid going to trial where I have no doubt serious felonies would have surfaced. The union, having “dropped the ball” [their words] on previous representation is now in a position in that if they now fully and properly represent me this time, they are on the hook for failing to do so previously: “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”