IV: Statement of Claim: (Amendment to Preliminary Draft with Linked Exhibits Now Printed) State as briefly as possible the fact of your case. Describe how each defendant is involved. Include the names of other persons involved with dates and places. Do not give any legal arguments or cite cases or statutes. If you intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Use as much space as you need, attaching additional pages if necessary. Despite 90 days of searching for legal assistance, Plaintiff Suran Wije—a male of color—has been unsuccessful in securing a civil rights attorney. Plaintiff’s Texas Woman’s University (TWU.edu) problems such as fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, and retaliation ended after a delayed internal investigation in April of 2013 (Exhibit 1). Plaintiff sought an external investigation and received the Department of Education’s (DoED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) “exhausted all avenues” letter two days after its June 5, 2014 date stamp (Exhibit 2). The OCR complaint against Plaintiff’s Alma Mater alleged some of the following: (1) professor exam cheating fraud, (2) breach of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), (3) race and gender discrimination, (4) entrapment, (5) conspiracy to defraud, (6) racketeering, (7) usurpation/abuse of power or process, (8) denial of due process rights, (9) invasion of privacy, (10) defamation of character/libel, (11) retaliation, (12) negligence, and (13) white collar financial crimes against taxpayers. Discrimination at TWU.edu begins with sublet yet acrimonious political litmus tests for unsuspecting male learners. Normally, pupils taking a government class would not have to disclose their political affiliations and pupils taking a religious studies class would not have to disclose their beliefs or faith practices; however, in her Psychology of Women graduate-level course, Defendant Dr. Linda Rubin asks students if they are feminists with course participation points hanging in the balance. This can be divisive to male students, since some feminists insist that men can never be feminists, because they have a penis. Instead, the best that men can achieve is the second-class citizenship or affiliation status of “pro-feminists” much like how many gay Americans in some states can still only have a civil union and not the equal status of marriage. During class, Plaintiff Wije rejected these labels pointing out how this dyadic “caste system” limits the goals of feminism—equality and justice—while also discriminating against humans who are born with penises yet feel like and identity as women or identify as neither men nor women but a third type of human being. Fraud is intentional lying such as bait-and-switch or nondisclosure fraud. With regard to teacher cheating techniques, there are at least two methods for professors to defraud their pupils: Defendant Dr. Linda Rubin administered an exam with objective and quantitative evaluation criteria (Exhibit 3). It sought specific elements like “A, B, C . . .” and did not mention the word “comprehensive” even once. In addition to this exacting, tangible, written instruction, Dr. Rubin further emphasized verbally before the classroom to precisely follow the instructions and stay on topic if students want to earn an “A,” given the limited number of pages granted for this term paper final exam. Unfortunately, after grading, the exam furtively changed into subjective and qualitative evaluation criteria. It sought undisclosed items like “X, Y, Z . . .” (Exhibit 4) and mentioned the word “comprehensive” four times (Exhibit 5). After grading, the exam’s questions had changed to match (or favor) particular answers personally selected (ex post facto) by Defendant Rubin to benefit students with a certain gender or race (Plaintiff provided existing evidentiary proof to DoED’s OCR). Why go to all this trouble? Why was it done? Perhaps, this twisted Noble Cause Corruption scheme allows for tacit discrimination by professors who still resent the fairly recent, mid-1990’s, possibly court-ordered, gender integration of TWU.edu, which is our nation’s largest publicly financed women’s university. Furthermore, it permits professors who loathe men in their classrooms to gender and racially profile—in a scholastic context—so as to covertly design a deliberately disparate or hostile educational environment for weak and vulnerable minority pupils. Plaintiff Wije told Defendant Rubin that he did not write about X, Y, and Z, because they were outside the scope of the original instructions or off-topic (formally called scope creep), but Defendant declared that Plaintiff was not “comprehensive” enough in his paper. Plaintiff asked if he could measure comprehensiveness by academic journals’ objective industry standards such as ranking his paper with other papers in terms of total reference count but Defendant autocratically refused. Consequently, to promptly prove fraud and discrimination, Plaintiff filed a Texas Public Information Act (PIA) request for de-identified data preserving student privacy. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is intended to protect learners, but TWU.edu regulatory-captured it, and in an abuse of power perverted FERPA to harbor grading discrimination and higher education corruption. Plaintiff appealed the PIA denial all the way up to the Texas Attorney General (AG), but apparently the AG’s office automatically trusts without verifying when a university claims FERPA concerns. Thus, “comprehensiveness” at TWU.edu remains a phony yet convenient and effective pretext or falsehood permitting professors to “cherry pick” winners and losers based on gender, race, and feminist political ideology rather than on scholarly merit and objective performance. Another second type of discrimination was grade point deductions through entrapment. Although Plaintiff informed Defendant in advance that he was invited by TWU.edu to attend its Fulbright ceremony as an award recipient, and Defendant Rubin made no objections at that time, Plaintiff was disheartened to discover later at the end of the semester that he received grade point deductions unlike other Fulbright finalist student attendees. It should be noted that Plaintiff Wije gave Defendant Rubin a perfect score on her course performance evaluation, because these DTPA-violating patterns and practices are well hidden from students and accreditation organizations like SACS.org, which recently visited but completely missed this fraud. Moreover, while DoED’s OCR publicly warns against retaliation, it negligently abandoned Plaintiff’s complaint despite two strongly-evidenced appeals for help with even congressional lobbying! The first OCR appeal’s facts were overlooked allowing the clock to run-out so that the second appeal could be deemed time-barred. Open records accountability requests via documents (like a corrective action plan) and U.S. citizen constituent meeting requests (with DoED’s Secretary Arne Duncan) were all denied. But for DoED’s anti-retaliation false promises to debt-peonaged students and its manipulative malpractice, Plaintiff would not be degreeless now. Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a wrongful act, and racketeering is the offering of a phony service. Drs. Ann Stuart, Robert Neely, Ann Staton, Jennifer Martin, Daniel Miller, Barbara Presnall, Linda Rubin, Stephen Souris, and Christian Hart participated in a six-stage, approximately one-and-a-half yearlong, grade appeal process, which was really a phony racket to delay, exhaust, punish, and further swindle taxpayers’ dollars. This was Plaintiff’s first-ever grade appeal. In another instance of abuse of power or process, Plaintiff was thrown into this “kangaroo court” grade appeal scheme without his signed consent as mandated by TWU.edu policy. When merely asking questions in trying to assess pursuing the grade appeal, Defendant Rubin grew tired of Plaintiff’s questions and without even a face-to-face meeting for the first-level appeal, she transitioned Plaintiff to the second-level appeal stage. Despite a PIA request, TWU.edu could not produce an official grade appeal consent form signed by Plaintiff. Perhaps part of Defendants’ eagerness for getting Plaintiff into this grade appeal system was that now, they could control, manipulate, and conceal their bad faith conduct by appearing to provide due process. For example, in deciding to go forward with the appeal, Plaintiff relied upon the TWU.edu policy stating that he was entitled to witnesses. Plaintiff reasonably requested only one witness, the University’s Ethics Officer/General Counsel, but again like the above “no signed consent” adverse action, TWU.edu changed or ignored its written policy. When pleading his case before the appeal committee, Plaintiff had no witness or even the slightest reasonable support in getting that germane witness (Exhibit 6). Now, more serious retaliation began. In a gross invasion of privacy and despite Plaintiff’s specific and numerous pleas in writing to stop, during the grade appeal, as a breach of official capacity or another abuse of power/process, Plaintiff’s highly prejudicial and supposedly protected invisible disability health information was strategically leaked—like casual gossip—to other professors in other departments without a professional need to know (Exhibit 7). These professors were not even involved with the grade appeal. Plaintiff’s future application to changeover from the Women’s Studies certificate program to its Master’s was now effectively flagged. As a licensed psychologist, Defendant Rubin is sometimes a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)/Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) covered entity and should have known better! Then, the defamation of character began. Plaintiff had written A+ papers in three distinct Master’s programs: a medical school MS for which he was a CGIU.org winner, TWU.edu’s own business school MBA, and the Women’s Studies MA; however, during the grade appeal, Defendant Dr. Claire Sahlin, Women’s Studies Director (including for the MA program admission), misrepresented (Exhibit 8) this fact as a lie and no professional courtesy clarification (Exhibit 9) was ever given to mitigate the damaging wrong to Plaintiff’s reputation during this critical grade appeal timeframe. Defendant Sahlin teaches a course called Feminist Ethics at TWU.edu . Next, the economic retaliation ensued. Plaintiff had to apply to the same graduate school three different times: first for the MBA, then for the Women’s Studies Certificate, and lastly for the Women’s Studies MA. Although TWU.edu had both billed and permitted Plaintiff to already complete all the hours required for the MA, Plaintiff was still made to apply again. With each application, Plaintiff must write a new personal statement, obtain new professor recommendations, and pay the same (unreduced) fees over and over again. Additionally, one of Plaintiff’s loans is owned by TWU.edu . Although they knew or should have known that it automatically qualified for forbearance, that information was hidden from Plaintiff until the very end. Instead, Plaintiff’s loan was turned over to a collection agency that made unwanted and aggressive collection calls, and Plaintiff was fined approximately a 29% usurious fee (Exhibit 10)! TWU.edu policy states that a grade appeal must conclude in no more than one year; however, in yet another example of abuse of power/process or negligence, Defendants Dr. Ann Stuart (former Chancellor and President) and Dr. Robert Neely (current Provost and VP for Academic Affairs) simply ignored Plaintiff’s grade appeal when it properly reached their level or final stage. Only after Plaintiff followed-up, did Defendants finally provide closure by siding with Defendant Rubin for the sixth time. At each of these six appeal stages (Exhibit 11), Defendants claimed that they carefully and thoroughly investigated but never stated why Plaintiff’s appeal lacked merit or shared their due process reasoning. So, again, why would Defendants go to all this trouble? Why was this done? Maybe, this twisted Noble Cause Corruption scheme permits a certain class/caste of Americans—college professors—the ability to maintain their power, privilege, and profits (3P’s)? After all, unchecked academic tenure (or guaranteed lifetime employment) without internal (Chancellor/President) or external (SACS.org/DoED’s OCR) oversight inevitably becomes a system of impunity. As an aside, college and university costs are out of control; in fact, the cost of college has risen much faster than the cost for food, gas, or even inflation. Students also pay an expensive opportunity cost in lost time allocation: time reading long textbooks, time writing lengthy term papers, and time investing thousands of hours of their lives in late-night studying over many, many years. Then, after college, students spend decades repaying their toxic, non-dischargeable, student loan financial aid debt, which in their old age can even be garnished from their Social Security checks or pensions! Consequently, when universities allow a student (like Plaintiff) to take all their graded credit hours for a Master’s degree (in Women’s Studies) and universities eagerly bill the student thousands in tuition and fees, that student should be granted the degree upon fulfilling its total credit hour mandates. Unfortunately, in their third and final act of revengeful discrimination, co-conspiring Defendants Dr. AnaLouise Keating, Dr. Claire Sahlin, and Dr. Danielle Phillips boldly repossessed an expensive, time-consuming, graduate degree from Plaintiff who was a “straight A” super-minority student in their department. Apparently, since its inception, the Women’s Studies department at our nation’s largest publicly funded women’s university has never awarded an MA degree to a male of color despite over ten years of operations; nonetheless, as an uncle to four biracial nieces, Plaintiff had hoped to be its first. Instead, Plaintiff is now saddled with approximately six figures of student loan debt accruing a guesstimated $700-$900 in interest each month. Meanwhile, Defendants allegedly exploit their 3P’s by (1) using Plaintiff’s work product (Exhibit 12) for the prestigious ACBSP.org MBA accreditation while telling him that he was “not a good fit” for their MA degree, (2) giving themselves pay raises, (3) putting their names on University buildings, (4) bestowing upon themselves the University’s highest honor (Exhibit 13), (5) inducting themselves via Gov. Rick Perry into the Texas Women’s Hall of Fame (Exhibit 14), and (6) over the four years of Plaintiff’s ordeal, siphon an estimated $8.5 million or more in total compensation from student taxpayers’ federal financial aid coffers! Compared to Atlanta’s teacher cheating—due to Defendants’ race—it feels like not all white collar criminals are policed, prosecuted, and sentenced equally? For instance, given that 1 = answer, 2 = question, and 3 = fraud, since 1 + 2 = 3 in Atlanta, GA (change answer to match question equals fraud), why does the associative property in mathematics of 2 + 1 = 3 not hold true in Denton, TX (change question to match answer equals fraud)? Defendants, who are venerable university professors, would never tolerate this type of sexism, racism, and financial corruption—publicly disguised as feminism—at their alma maters like Harvard University, so why must I accept a 3P’s-driven moral myopia and ethically blind leadership (please see important videos) at my Alma Mater? The similar academic fraud in Atlanta and at Chapel Hill—while serious—never targeted students for direct harm; contrariwise, the lying, cheating, and stealing racket at TWU.edu permanently destroys students’ futures by invidiously clawing-back, already-earned, Master’s degrees with racist, gendered malice. V. Relief: State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments and do not cite cases or statutes. Attach additional pages if necessary. Regarding equal access to education in the South and at our nation’s largest publicly financed women’s university, this new type of “gender role reversal” claim exposes self-segregation, news.utexas.edu/2011/10/03/sex-segregated-schooling-ineffective-and-increases-gender-stereotyping-experts-warn/ , with national and generational implications for men (of color) wanting to help make the lives of women better through a Master’s or PhD in Women’s Studies; therefore, indigent Plaintiff humbly seeks the assistance of a civil rights attorney to get this case before a jury of his peers, if mediation fails. Additionally, on a more personal note, Plaintiff hopes to prove to himself and his fellow Americans that sometimes this economic unfairness, www.caught.net/prose/bias.htm , is untrue! That, at least at the federal level, with respect to whistleblower False Claims defending our Constitution’s guaranteed civil liberties, Americans are not granted only the amount of equality and justice—the core of feminism—that they can financially afford (by hiring an attorney).
[For the remaining sections, please see Case Number
4:14CV571 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern TX, Sherman Division and Case Number 16-40495 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]
|
|
Due to the national implications for all American students . . . , this case was appealed—alone, pro se, as an indigent, and losing 7+ years—all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS); unfortunately, SCOTUS only hears about 1% of the cases before it (please see also SCOTUS 7-page main document). Consequently, now, a frightening new precedent has been established in United States higher education where a student can take all the graded credit hours for a college degree; pay all the expensive tuition and fees; stay up late until 3 a.m. writing term papers and earning "A's" in all the courses; and amass six-figures in toxic, bankruptcy non-dischargable, student loan debt; nonetheless, the student can still be told by the unaccountably discriminating and retaliating university that s/he is "not a good fit" to get that degree s/he had already earned—rightfully—by any objective standard. |