Blog #41: Amor Y Cohetes- Tourism

“Locker Room”

“For the tourists of the Lower Side, a chance to gain great cultural insight – for the natives, a chance to survive” (G. Hernandez 112).

This short comic strip begins with a mother standing with her two children. She calls over a man and tells him that she will left up her dress for a nickel. She does so and the quote above is what follows. After this, the man gives the woman a nickel and she and her two children say thank you. The last box in the comic states, “At least one family slept with full bellies.” This story reminded me of Helen from Omeros right away. The woman in this comic and Helen must use their sexuality as a way to “survive” in a nation that is controlled by (and now relies on) tourism. For the tourists, this degrading act is described as a way to “gain cultural insight.” The native woman must reveal a private and intimate part of herself for the sake of the tourists. This is not “cultural insight” at all, and it is sad that tourists may thank that this is part of the culture. It probably would not be happening if it wasn’t for tourism in the first place.

“Where Are We?”

“What do you think we can make a year if we turn it into a tourist trap?” (J. Hernandez 148).

In this comic, Rocky is talking to her robot, Fumble, after they have travelled to a deserted island. This quote seems like such a funny jab at the reality of tourism. Rocky is jokingly asking this question, but the meaning behind it and possibilities of the answer can come true. The whole scene is similarly funny because she has just landed on an island and they then find “native” footprints (J. Hernandez 149). Even if it is a joke, the first thing Rocky thinks of is turning it into a tourist spot for money, which says something about how people think about the history of discovery in the world.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Blog #41: Amor Y Cohetes- Tourism

  1. Marshll says:


    My name is Marshall Ross.
    My address is: 45 West 69th Street, Apartment No. 8
    New York, New York 10023
    My land-line telephone number is: 1-212-595-5857 (no voicemail)
    My cell phone number is : 1-347-569-3443
    My e-mail address is:
    I have no facebook.
    The only ways to communicate with me are: 1. letters to my address
    2. my land-line telephone
    3. my cell phone
    4. my e-mail

    I have several academic degrees:
    1. Bachelors of fine arts, Tel-Aviv University
    2. Artist diploma, Tel-Aviv University
    3. Bachelors of music, Juilliard School, New York
    4. B.S. in Accounting (with distinction), Hunter College of CUNY, New York
    5. M.B.A. (with distinction), Long Island University, New York
    I am a CPA (Certified Public Accountant).
    I am a playwright and wrote several plays for the stage. None produced: no connections, no production.

    In this statement, I am sharing with the readers my experiences with 5 entities:
    1. Lehman College of CUNY
    2. CUNY (City University of New York)
    3. New York State Education Department
    4. PSC (Professional Staff Congress)
    5. New York State Court of Claims
    This is a documentary covering corruption, injustice, anti-semitism, commission of crimes and torts, and commission of unethical and immoral acts. I accuse Lehman College’s administration of all the above. I accuse the other 4 entities of enabling Lehman College to do all the above and condoning all the above.
    What I ask the readers to do is stated at the end of this statement under the title, “WHAT I REQUEST FROM THE READERS”.

    1. Lehman College of CUNY
    Lehman College is one of CUNY’s colleges.
    The names mentioned here are:
    1. Ricardo Fernandez, president
    2. Robert Whittaker, associate provost
    3. Steve Castellano, assistant to Robert Whittaker
    4. Stefan Becker, dean
    5. Mary Rogan, president’s general counsel
    6. Hank Shreiber, former chair of the Economics Department
    7. Orhan Kayaalp, former chair of the Economics Department
    8. Emine Kayaalp, Orhan Kayaalp’s wife and a professor of the Economics Department
    9. Dene Hurley, current chair of the Economics Department
    10. John Cirace, an attorney and a professor of the Economics Department
    11. Eric Williams, director of Human Resources
    12. Arthur McHugh, associate director of Human Resources
    13. Peter Zwieback, PSC’s director of legal affairs
    14. Heather Parlier, CUNY’s former general counsel

    I was hired in 1994 and worked as an adjunct accounting professor until 1998, when I was promoted to a full-time professor (rank: lecturer). In 2003, I was granted CCE (Certificate of Continuous Employment), which is equivalent to tenure.
    Since 1994, I always excelled as a professor. Every semester, my student evaluations broke the records: between 95% and 99% of my students ranked me as excellent. My peer evaluations (other professors’ observation reports) were also superb. I went well beyond the call of duty: I continued my teaching in class and in my office long after the official class and office time. When classes were scheduled to end at 9 p.m., many times I taught until 10 p.m. A student of mine took the M.B.A. program at Baruch College and, when he showed his accounting professor the notes he had taken in my class, she told him, “Even at Baruch College we don’t have such an excellent professor”. I even helped quite a few students get high-paying jobs after Lehman’s Career Services Department had failed to find them jobs. I got the highest degree of respect and appreciation from Lehman’s administration, my colleagues and my students.
    In November 2003, my girlfriend who came to visit me at Lehman filed a complaint with the police, accusing one of the professors of sexually assaulting her. After that, President Ricardo Fernandez accused my girlfriend of exaggerating the sexual assault. Consequently, my application to be promoted from Lecturer to Assistant Professor was denied. A play which I had written and which was praised and hailed by the chair of Juilliard School’s drama department, was denied production despite Lehman’s drama department’s enthusiastic willingness to produce it.
    In 2006, Hank Shreiber, the then chair of the Economics Department, and Orhan Kayaalp, his right hand, approached me and told me to refrain from giving the “F” (failing) grade to students. They told me that, if a student deserves an “F” grade, I should give him/her a “D” grade (the lowest passing grade) instead. They also told me that these were the dean’s wishes. After that, in compliance with the dean/chair’s wishes, I substituted “F” for “D”.
    Around 2008, the Economics Department voted unanimously for Professor Hank Shreiber to continue to be the chair, a position he had held since long before I was hired in 1994.. President Fernandez overruled the election and strongly suggested that the faculty elect Professor Orhan Kayaalp. This took place while I was on a summer vacation, so I learned about it when I came back. Several colleagues of mine told me that Orhan Kayaalp had threatened them that he would make their lives miserable if they didn’t vote for him as the new chair. He said many times that President Fernandez is his close friend. So, the faculty voted for him.
    It was obvious to most of the faculty, myself included, that Orhan Kayaalp was far from being suitable for the position of the Economics Department’s chair. After he had become the chair, the quality of the students steadily declined. It came to the point where some of my students didn’t know basic math. One student, who graduated from Lehman and passed 2 accounting courses, told me that she doesn’t know what a percent is. I told her I didn’t believe it and asked her, “What is 20% of 300?” She told me that not only she didn’t know how to calculate it, she didn’t even understand what the question meant. I don’t understand how she was admitted to Lehman, I don’t understand how she passed the 2 basic accounting courses, and I don’t understand how she got an “A” (that’s what she told me) grade (the highest grade) in these accounting courses.
    At a rough estimate, Orhan Kayaalp and his wife Emine, both being Lehman’s professors at the Economics Department since long before I was hired in 1994, owe New York State Treasury about $180,000. As Lehman College is a CUNY branch, and CUNY is a New York State agency, Lehman’s salaries are paid by New York State. Since 1994, and almost certainly since long before I was hired, neither Orhan Kayaalp nor his wife Emine ever gave final exams in the final exams week. Instead, they gave their final exams on the last day of classes (which is one week before the final exams week), so that they would have one extra week for vacation, which they usually spent in Turkey. This is very easy to prove: either subpoena their former students or subpoena their passports and see the departure dates stamped on them. When we calculate their 1-week salary and multiply it by the number of semesters they worked at Lehman, we get about $180,000, which is a conservative estimate. President Fernandez knew or should have known about this. Funny: while still indulging in this 3-decade long custom, Economics Department’s chair Orhan Kayaalp sent an e-mail to all the faculty reminding the professors that they must give the final exams in the final exams week and admonishing those few that didn’t. The law does not classify the $180,000 as grand larceny, but my personal view is that this is grand larceny.
    Orhan Kayaalp fired several professors, then tried to replace them with his relatives, falsifying personnel records in the process. One of the professors he fired, a professor on the brink of getting the CCE, couldn’t understand how come 2/3 of his excellent student evaluations disappeared. I had the same problem: 2/3 of my Fall 2009 semester’s student evaluations disappeared. But I already had the CCE, so, unlike the other professor, I could not be fired. When I complained to Kayaalp’s secretaries about the student evaluations’ disappearance, Orhan Kayaalp violently pushed me out of the office.
    President Fernandez was behind my persecution and used his friend Kayaalp as a hatchet man. In 2009, the president’s office accused me of sexual harassment and directed me to take a couple of sexual harassment courses. Turns out that 2 of my Advanced Accounting students complained to Orhan Kayaalp that I had talked about Pushdown method, which they interpreted as sexual intercourse. Kayaalp instructed them to complain to the president. Actually, Pushdown method is an accounting method used in consolidation of parent and subsidiary. I explained it to Fernandez’s office, and they realized how stupid they were. Until Kayaalp became the chair, no student of mine had ever interpreted Pushdown method as sexual intercourse.
    In 2010, I was on medical leave. When I came back in January 2011, Orhan Kayaalp informed me that all my “C-” and “D” grades were changed. I asked him why he had changed the grades and why he had not notified me of his intention to change the grades and of the actual changes. He knew I was available despite my illness, as during my absence he e-mailed me complaints of 5 students regarding their grades and I, in response, e-mailed him how I had determined their grades. Kayaalp replied that even though he didn’t want to change my grades because they were all justified, he had to do it in compliance with an order given him by President Fernandez. He told me that Fernandez had said to him that the “C-” and “D” grades would undermine Lehman College’s reputation and would prevent accounting firms, especially the Big-4 (the 4 biggest accounting firms), from hiring these students. He also told me that Fernandez had ordered him not to tell me about the change of grades until I came back in January 2011. I asked Kayaalp if Fernandez had explained to him why he didn’t want me to know until I came back, and he said, “I will not tell you what I don’t want to tell you.”
    I wonder how many students whose grades had been changed behind my back were subsequently hired by the Big-4 for the most prestigious and highest-paying jobs in the accounting profession.
    In 2011, those “D” grades that were changed behind my back became the basis for a disciplinary action filed by Fernandez. Fernandez demanded that I be suspended for a whole semester without pay. It is still in process. Since then, Fernandez filed 2 other sets of disciplinary charges against me, and for each one of them he demanded my termination. I will elaborate later on these 3 sets of disciplinary charges against me.
    When I complained to PSC (Professional Staff Congress), which is the union of CUNY’s professors, about Kayaalp, they launched an investigation and discovered that not only my accusations were true but also that Kayaalp had committed other unethical and criminal acts. One of Lehman’s administrators, who preferred to be anonymous, told me that NBC and Daily News launched their own investigation into the wrongdoings committed by Orhan Kayaalp. I contacted both NBC and Daily News, and both refused to discuss the matter. When all this surfaced, even President Fernandez couldn’t continue to protect his friend without risking his own career, and Orhan Kayaalp was ousted.
    But Fernandez was not done with deciding on whom to put at the helm of the Economics Department. When Kayaalp was ousted, 2 candidates ran for the position of the department chair: Hank Shreiber and Dene Hurley. Everybody knew that I would vote for Professor Hank Shreiber, who, in my very strong opinion, was by far more intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced and qualified than Dene Hurley to be chair. So, I was not notified by the Economics Department of the upcoming election of the new chair to replace Kayaalp and, as a result, I was prevented from casting my vote for Shreiber. The vote was tied, so it was left to President Fernandez to break the tie, and he chose Dene Hurley. This came as no surprise, as 4 years earlier he had overruled the department’s unanimous vote for Shreiber and chose Kayaalp, during whose tenure as chair the Economics Department was all but destroyed. Had I been notified of the election, Hank Shreiber would have been the new chair. This renders the election illegal. I protested in person to Dene Hurley herself, then went to Dean Stefan Becker and President Fernandez and protested to both of them.
    In November 2012, President Fernandez came up with a new idea. Associate Provost Robert Whittaker contacted me and said they decided to train me for online courses. Whittaker introduced me to his assistant, Steve Castellano. Then, Whittaker sent me a training schedule for January 2013, claiming it was to have me ready to teach online in Spring 2013 semester. Since I had been hired in 1994, I never worked in January, as it is between the Fall and Spring semesters. I objected to be trained in my free time. Whittaker insisted, again claiming that I was scheduled to teach online courses in Spring 2013 semester. So, I went to the Economics Department office and asked the secretaries to show me the Spring 2013 semester class schedule, which had been posted on Lehman’s website. The secretaries showed me the class schedule and, as I had suspected, my name was not on the class schedule, and this was as good as a voluntary confession that Lehman’s administration merely tried to rob me of my free time. I asked the secretaries to give me a copy of the class schedule, but Dene Hurley hysterically jumped out of her office and instructed them not to give me the copy. 10 minutes later, I got the copy from another department. Naturally, I didn’t obey Whittaker’s harassing and malicious directive.
    I confronted Steve Castellano with this evidence. That’s when Whittaker realized his big blunder. So, just before the start of the Spring 2013 semester, Dene Hurley changed the class schedule and assigned me 4 classes: one in-class and 3 online. In November and December 2012, I e-mailed Steve Castellano frequently and asked for online training sessions, but he refused to train me, always claiming he was too busy with other things. Obviously, since Steve Castellano was too busy to train me in November and December 2012 and I refused to be trained in January 2013, Dene Hurley knew I was not ready to teach online, yet it didn’t stop her from assigning me 3 online classes, thus misleading all the students that were registering for these classes. In addition, she did not notify me that I was assigned any classes, even though she knew that I had the original class schedule posted on Lehman’s website in November 2012 and, therefore, I was certain I would not have any classes in Spring 2013 semester.
    As a result, I missed the first 2 classes of the one in-class course I was assigned to. Even after I had missed the first class, she didn’t mention to me anything about my being assigned, even though she saw me in person, and that’s why I missed the second class as well. Only after I had missed the second class, she phoned me and told me I was assigned a class.
    Then, students told me that she had said to them that I am to blame for my absence, that I am an irresponsible person, that I am a bad professor, and she apologizes to them for not assigning another professor to their class.
    Then, Lehman caused me to miss another class by scheduling a disciplinary charges arbitration hearing exactly at the time I was scheduled to teach, even though they had a wide range of alternative dates.
    While teaching this in-class course, I kept e-mailing Steve Castellano requests to train me online, but again, he was always too busy to train me. Then, just before the spring recess, Dene Hurley told me that I must be trained during the spring recess. I refused, saying that not only is the spring recess a free time I am entitled to, spring recess also coincides with Passover, which is one of the major Jewish holidays. She told me that if Easter is only one day, Passover cannot be 7 days. She told me that religion should not interfere with work and again insisted that I be trained during Passover. I refused. Both Dene Hurley and Steve Castellano are Christians, but this shouldn’t serve as reason for them to disrespect someone who belongs to another religion.
    Dene Hurley provoked the students against me constantly. One day, she e-mailed me that my students came to her and demanded that I let them use Wiley Plus (computerized program) and that it would “benefit them tremendously”. So, I asked 21 students of mine about Wiley Plus. Turns out that 18 of the 21 never heard of Wiley Plus, 2 heard of it but never used it, and 1 used it in a non-accounting/non-economics/non-business subject.
    Tenured and CCE professors are almost never observed by other professors. But Dene Hurley notified me that Professor John Cirace would observe my class on April 11, 2013, then file an observation report. The same John Cirace had observed my class 10 years earlier and subsequently gave me the very best observation report. By the way, John Cirace is an attorney. I knew that this time he would file an adverse observation report, because it was obvious for several years that Lehman’s administration was determined to get rid of me. And, indeed, John Cirace wrote an unusually long observation report, which was adverse. PSC sent their own observer, seemingly to defend me, but I will discuss PSC later. What John Cirace didn’t know is that I was recording the whole class on 2 highly sophisticated devices: a tape recorder (which records just the audio) and a spy video camera (which records both audio and video and shows the exact date and time, hour/minute/second). These recordings show that John Cirace’s observation report is false. Shortly after, I submitted to Dene Hurley a lengthy response refuting everything that John Cirace had stated, which ended with the revelation that I recorded the class and other classes that preceded the observed class. I also distributed to my students a written report specifying what Lehman had put me through since my girlfriend’s police complaint in 2003. Shortly after, on May 2, 2013, Dene Hurley saw me in the hallway, gave me a murderous look, then said to me, “Jewish people like to spy”. I went to Mary Rogan, an attorney who is the general counsel of Lehman and complained to her about Dene Hurley’s remark. Mary Rogan said to me, “The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, and this applies to Jews also”.
    Just as I was entering the classroom the next day, both Dene Hurley and Dean Stefan Becker were waiting for me. Stefan Becker told me that I was being removed from my teaching position and assigned an office work, which would require me to work many more hours than teaching hours and also would be during part of the summer vacation professors always have. I refused and said to him that: 1. Lehman does not have a justifiable cause to remove me from my in-class teaching position; 2. my doctor submitted to Lehman a medical report that prohibits me from doing any work besides in-class teaching (I have a certain extremely serious medical condition which I wouldn’t like to share with the public at the present). I gave that medical report to Human Resources, and they filed it.
    Stefan Becker, knowing that Lehman had no justifiable cause and reading the medical report, insisted that I go against my doctor’s instructions, but I continued to refuse.
    Meanwhile, another problem emerged: my pay stubs had wrong year-to-date numbers of tax withholding. Example: if the first pay stub in year 2013 shows Federal tax withholding of.$500 and the second pay stub also shows $500 Federal tax withholding, the year-to-date should be $1,000. But in my case the numbers were not added, so the year-to-date stayed $500. Then, when I file the tax return, the tax authorities will demand from me money that they already collected. I e-mailed Eric Washington, the director of Human Resources, explaining to him what the problem was and asked him to issue me the correct pay stubs. He promised he would correct the pay stubs, but he never did. So, I went to his office, showed him the erroneous pay stubs and repeated my request. To date, Lehman has not corrected the pay stubs and then filed the wrong numbers with the tax authorities on a W-2 form. So now I have to contact the tax authorities, and they will probably tell me to contact my employer. What does Lehman think: that I will pay the taxes twice?
    On May 29, 2013, just a few weeks after John Cirace’s false observation report, my mother, who lived in Israel all her life, died. To me, this was the greatest disaster imaginable, as I loved mom with all my heart and soul. She was the only person who loved me unconditionally, and the relationship between me and her was always special. I couldn’t share my grief with a sibling because I am the only child. I immediately bought a round-trip flight ticket from Delta Airlines, with the return flight scheduled for September 6, 2013, since I intended to teach at Lehman in the Fall 2013 semester. I notified both Peter Zwiebach, PSC’s director of legal affairs, and Heather Parlier, CUNY’s general counsel. I asked Peter Zwiebach to notify Lehman that I would fly to Israel and would come back to teach in the Fall 2013 semester. Heather Parlier did not reply to my e-mail. Peter Zwiebach sent me a consolation message and said he would represent me in my absence. After mom’s funeral I collapsed and was hospitalized. Later, I was hospitalized 2 more times. No Lehman’s administrator or professor sent me a consolation message. Instead, Eric Washington and Dene Hurley sent me e-mails that they were deducting my salary for my refusal to obey Stefan Becker’s illegal directive to do office work after being illegally removed from my teaching position and despite a doctor’s report prohibiting me from doing any work except in-class teaching. That’s how a college treats a grief-stricken professor who superbly served the college for almost 20 years. For this kind of people you won’t find proper adjectives in the dictionary. Physically and mentally I was destroyed, and my relatives supervised and assisted me constantly on a daily basis, as I lost the ability to function.
    Realizing I wouldn’t be able to function without the constant daily care of my relatives, on August 20, 2013, I went to the office of Delta Airlines in Tel-Aviv and changed the return flight’s date to December 6, 2013. Immediately after, I e-mailed Peter Zwiebach to notify Lehman that I wouldn’t come back in the Fall 2013 semester, but that I would be back to teach in the Spring 2014 semester. He did as I requested.and forwarded me his e-mails to Lehman College.
    That is when President Fernandez filed disciplinary charges against me for my being absent from work in Fall 2013 semester and demanded my termination. I was removed from payroll. No consolation message, deducting from my salary for disobeying Dean Stefan Becker’s illegal directive in May 2013, removing me from payroll for grieving inconsolably for mom, demanding my termination for not being able to work due to being heart-broken and totally devastated. THIS IS RICARDO FERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT OF LEHMAN COLLEGE, WHICH IS A COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, WHICH IS AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK!!!
    I returned to the U.S. on December 6, 2013. 2 hours after take-off, I fainted. A doctor determined that my heart stopped and advised the pilot to return to Israel. But Delta Airlines had 4 other doctors, and their combined efforts revived me, and the pilot was advised to continue the flight to New York.
    In New York, a lab and 2 doctors examined me and then issued 2 medical reports prohibiting me from doing any office work, recommending that I do only in-class teaching and prohibiting me from being exposed to any dispute, aggravation and hostility.
    Meanwhile, I got the class schedules of Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 semesters, where I was not assigned any class. This means that even had I come to work in Fall 2013 semester, I wouldn’t have worked, because Lehman had no justifiable cause to remove me from in-class teaching and because of 3 medical reports issed by 2 doctors and a lab prohibiting me from doing any work besides in-class teaching.
    January 27, 2014 was the first day of classes in Spring 2014 semester. I e-mailed Dene Hurley that I would come at 12 p.m.. I met her and Arthur McHugh, associate director of Human Resources. Both of them said to me that the reason why I hadn’t been assigned classes is that they didn’t know I was returning to work. This is a lie, because Peter Zwiebach had notified the college I was coming back to teach, and he forwarded me the e-mails he had sent Lehman’s administration. I gave them the last 2 medical reports (the first medical report they filed in May 2013). I showed them the erroneous pay stubs and the erroneous W-2 form, and Arthur McHugh admitted the errors and promised to issue correct pay stubs for 2013 and file a correct W-2 with the tax authorities. I told them the same thing I had told them in 2013 and asked Peter Zwiebach to tell them in 2013 and 2014, which is that I want to make peace with the college. We agreed that the next day I would meet with Eric Washington, the director of Human Resources. Needless to say, I recorded the meeting with Dene Hurley and Arthur McHugh on the audio and video devices.
    On January 28, 2014, I came to the scheduled meeting with Eric Washington. Arthur McHugh told me that Eric Washington would not meet me. He also told me that the reason for my not being assigned classes was the pending disciplinary charges against me. This, obviously, contradicts what they had said 24 hours earlier regarding the reason why I had not been assigned classes.
    Then, Dean Stefan Becker sent me a directive to do office work with many more hours than teaching hours, despite his having no justifiable reason to remove me from in-class teaching and despite the 3 medical reports. I refused to do any work besides in-class teaching. Since August 2013 to the present I have not received any salary. Practically, I was terminated in August 2013 and was never reinstated. Which means that tenure and CCE are meaningless.
    Despite seeing the medical report prohibiting me from being exposed to dispute, aggravation and hostility, President Ricardo Fernandez continued to send me threatening letters demanding my termination. These were not new threats, but constant repetition of the same old threats. One of his threatening letters caused me to faint. My doctor instructed me to ignore such letters in the future.
    I decided to file 2 lawsuits against The State of New York, CUNY and Lehman College: 1. for the salary from August 2013 to January 2014, based on breach of employment contract (removal of a professor from payroll during absence under circumstances like mine is, to my knowledge, discretionary and not mandatory); 2. for the salary from January 2014 to the date of my retirement, based on breach of employment contract, wrongful discharge, harassment, discrimination and other applicable torts. Just recently, I filed the first lawsuit with the New York State Court of Claims (which I will discuss later) and properly served the claim on the 3 defendants: 1. The State of New York; 2. The City University of New York; 3. Lehman College.
    Lastly, let me briefly specify the 3 sets of disciplinary charges against me:
    1. 1) Accusation that I gave my students too many “D” grades.
    The charge doesn’t even accuse me of giving unfair grades, so it should be dismissed on its face for lack of cause of action without even an arbitration hearing (the lawyers among my readers know what I mean). I showed Lehman’s administration the schedule where I accurately calculated all my grades. Giving “D” grades in lieu of “F” was in compliance with chair Hank Shreiber’s instructions in 2006 (see above). I cannot be charged for obeying my chair’s instructions.
    2) Accusation that I said in class that my students are not suitable to be accountants and have an intelligence level of McDonald’s employees.
    I never made such a remark because I don’t believe that either my students or McDonald’s employees have low level of intelligence. Had I really thought so, I am smart enough not to make a remark like this in open class. Here too the charge should be dismissed on its face without any arbitration hearing for lack of cause of action, as I am protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech). Mary Rogan told me that Dene Hurley’s anti-semitic remark is protected, so definitely a much less serious McDonald’s remark is protected.
    For the first set of charges, Lehman and Ricardo Fernandez demand my being suspended for a whole semester without pay.
    2. 1) Accusation that I wasn’t ready to teach online in Spring 2013 semester.
    First, the accusation does not say that it was my fault that I wasn’t ready to teach online, so it should be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
    Second, I have plenty of e-mails with the trainer Steve Castellano that show that he is the one that refused to train me even though I asked him many times to train me.
    Third, I was hired as an in-class instructor and that’s what I did since I had been hired in 1994.
    Fourth, most professors in the Economics Department do not and are not required to conduct online classes.
    Fifth, my doctor issued a medical report that prohibits me from online teaching and any other kind of work and allows me to do in-class teaching only.
    2) Accusation that I distributed to my students in Spring 2013 semester an e-mail I had sent to Dene Hurley which summarizes what I have been through at Lehman since I had been hired in 1994 and my response to John Cirace’s false observation report.
    Since Dene Hurley constantly provoked the students against me, I had the right to defend myself. After John Cirace’s false observation report, it became obvious to me that the students must be told the truth. This accusation also should be dismissed on its face without any arbitration hearing for lack of cause of action, as freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. As I already said, if the First Amendment protects one who makes anti-semitic remarks, it definitely protects one who defends himself against criminal conspiracy to get him fired.
    For the second set of charges, Lehman and Ricardo Fernandez demand my being terminated.
    3. Accusation that I took an unauthorized leave in Fall 2013 semester.
    First, I requested Peter Zwiebach from PSC to notify Lehman of mom’s death, and in August 2013 I told him to notify Lehman that I wouldn’t come back to the U.S. due to my being too heart-broken and grief-stricken, and only my relatives’ constant care enabled me to stand on my feet, not to mention that I was hospitalized 3 times in Israel. Peter Zwiebach forwarded me the e-mails he had sent to Lehman, notifying the administration that I would be absent and also explaining to them why I would be absent. To expect me to fill out forms to apply for an official leave of absence when I am across the ocean and being mentally paralyzed is to expect the impossible.
    Second, as I already stated, until August 20. 2013, I intended on coming back for the Fall 2013 semester, and only when I realized I couldn’t function without my relatives in Israel, I postponed the return flight to December 6, 2013.
    For the third set of charges, Lehman and Ricardo Fernandez demand my being terminated.

    2, CUNY
    The names mentioned here are:
    1. Heather Parlier, former CUNY’s general counsel
    2. Peter Zwiebach, PSC’s director of legal affairs

    In all the above, to my knowledge, CUNY is not involved, certainly not directly. But CUNY, as being the governing authority of its several colleges, could be held responsible for illegal acts committed by Lehman College. Moreover, CUNY is the one in charge of prosecuting CUNY’s professors in disciplinary arbitration hearings, where the arbitrator assumes the role of a judge and has the power to suspend and terminate the accused professor.
    At the time the first set of charges against me was filed, Heather Parlier was CUNY’s general counsel. She was my prosecutor in the first arbitration hearing, which was held on March 14, 2013, and my legal representative was Peter Zwiebach from PSC.
    It struck me as odd that she would prosecute charges that should be dismissed for obvious lack of cause of action. As an attorney, she should know better than demanding suspension for a whole semester without pay for giving “too many” “D” grades and for a McDonald’s remark that, even if it had been made, is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. She brought as witnesses 2 disgruntled former students and a professor who testified that statistically the number of “D” grades I gave was too high. She, as an attorney, knows that statistics are no grounds for prosecution or proof of guilt.
    I am familiar with legal proceedings, and I was amazed that she asked the 3 witnesses leading questions, as leading questions are asked in the case of hostile witnesses, not direct witnesses (those lawyers among the readers know what I am talking about). She also asked several questions that required hearsay testimony. Of course, Peter Zwiebach could have objected, but this statement will deal with Peter Zwiebach later.
    I felt strange that a 35-year old who never struggled for survival and success nearly as much as I did, would demand my suspension without pay in a cold unfeeling tone of voice that would have chilled the blood of a frozen flounder. A very attractive woman, but that’s the only good thing I can say about her, as she was far from displaying any brilliance or at least average intelligence. I wonder how a 35-year old woman who is far from being brilliant managed to become a general counsel of a very powerful organization like CUNY. CUNY is an extremely powerful organization, and general counsel is one of the top positions. A top position in a top organization, and a 35-year old attractive woman who is far from being brilliant is holding this position? There are people much smarter than her, and they either never got that position or had to wait quite a few decades until they got it.
    When mom died, I e-mailed her about my devastating loss and about my upcoming flight to Israel. She did not respond. Icy people can watch someone bleeding to death and continue drinking their tea.
    Shortly after, she was no longer CUNY’s general counsel. So now I asked myself 2 questions: 1. How come she got the position of CUNY’s general counsel in the first place? 2. How come she lost it? Maybe she was promoted, but general counsel is one of the few top positions, and I know she didn’t become the new chancellor or a vice-chancellor. Well, it’s for her to know the answers to these 2 questions and for me to find out.

    3. New York State Education Department
    The names mentioned here are:
    1. Paul Thompson, executive
    2. Mary X, attorney in the Legal Department
    3. Peter Zwiebach, PSC’s director of legal affairs

    New York State Education Department, among its various functions, oversees higher education institutions and grants many professional licences, including the CPA (Certified Public Accountant) license. In those days, to be able to sit for the CPA exam, a B.S. in Accounting degree was required, and to be granted the CPA license, The B.S. in accounting degree, passing the CPA exam and 2 years of public accounting work experience were required (today, also a Masters degree is required).
    Since many grades of mine were changed behind my back in 2010 by the former Economics Department chair Orhan Kayaalp, who told me that it was President Ricardo Fernandez who had ordered him to change my grades without telling me until I came back from my medical leave of absence, I decided to notify New York State Education Department about it. The readers should know that many of the students, whose grades had been changed behind my back, subsequently were hired by public accounting firms, including some of the Big-4 (the 4 biggest public accounting firms, which provide accounting services domestically and internationally), and corporations (both domestic and international).
    On March 8, 2013, I called up The headquarters of New York State Education Department. I stated the nature of my complaint and was transferred to the Legal Department. I talked to a lady who introduced herself as Mary and told me she is an attorney in New York State Education Department’s Legal Department. I told her about the change of grades behind my back and asked her to file an official complaint. She sounded scared and transferred me to Paul Thompson, whom she said is an executive who deals with complaints of this kind. I asked Mary for her last name, and she replied in a shaken and frightened voice that she refuses to give me her last name.
    A few minutes later, I spoke to Paul Thompson. After I had told him about my complaint, he instructed me to e-mail him the entire chain of events. He told me that he would respond to me after reading my e-mail.
    Before e-mailing Paul Thompson, I contacted Peter Zwiebach, PSC’s director of legal affairs and informed him about Paul Thompson. He instructed me to include in my e-mail to Paul Thompson the telephone number and e-mail address of Peter Zwiebach.
    On March 15, 2013, I e-mailed Paul Thompson a lengthy message, which I entitled “Pursuant to my March 8, 2013 phone conversation with Mr. Paul Thompson”. In that message, I included what the readers already know by reading the first section (1. Lehman College of CUNY), not including, of course, what took place after March 15, 2013. I included in that e-mail the telephone number and e-mail address of Peter Zwiebach.
    Neither Paul Thompson nor anybody else in New York State Education Department ever contacted me to respond to my complaint. I forwarded this e-mail to Peter Zwiebach, PSC’s director of legal affairs. Neither he nor anybody else in PSC responded.
    On May 2, 2013, I sent another e-mail to Paul Thompson and forwarded it to Peter Zwiebach, where I offered to present him with unshakable proof of my allegations. I added that I would post on the internet my allegations/accusations. No response was ever sent to me by either one of them.
    The non-response I interpret as silent approval by New York State Education Department, condoning the change of many grades behind the professor’s back, thus misleading the companies who hired those students and those in charge of administering the CPA examination and granting the CPA licenses.

    4. PSC
    PSC (Professional Staff Congress) is the union of CUNY’s professors.
    The names mentioned here are:
    1. Barbara Bowen, PSC’s president
    2. Debra Bergen, PSC’s director of contract administration
    3. Peter Zwiebach, PSC’s director of legal affairs
    4. Ricardo Fernandez, Lehman College’s president
    5. Stefan Becker, Lehman College’s dean
    6. Mary Rogan, Lehman College’s general counsel
    7. Heather Parlier, CUNY’s former general counsel
    8. Robert Whittaker. Lehman College’s associate provost
    9, Steve Castellano, assistant to Robert Whittaker
    10. Dene Hurley, chair of Lehman College’s Economics Department
    11. Hank Shreiber, former chair of Lehman College’s Economics Department
    12. Orhan Kayaalp, former chair of Lehman College’s Economics Department
    13. John Cirace, an attorney and a professor of Lehman College’s Economics Department
    14. William Swenson, former professor of Lehman College’s Economics Department
    15. Valerie Larifla, former professor of Lehman College’s Economics Department
    16. Rosalind Carey, professor of Lehman College’s Philosophy Department
    17. Duane Tananbaum, professor of Lehman College’s History Department
    18. Paul Thompson, executive of New York State Education Department
    19. Jennifer Wallick, former secretary of Robert Whittaker, who sued him, Lehman College and CUNY for being fired by Lehman College because she refused to provide favors to Robert Whittaker and rub his bald head (lawsuit filed on October 25, 2013)

    To my knowledge, PSC represented at least 2 colleagues of mine, Professor William Swenson and Professor Valerie Larifla, both professors of Lehman College’s Economics Department. They were excellent professors, hard-working and dedicated, and both were liked by most of their students. Both were candidates for tenure/CCE. Both were fired by Orhan Kayaalp who, the readers would remember, tried to hire his relatives as professors. PSC failed to protect their rights, and both lost their livelihood.
    PSC failed to protect my rights as well, giving me the very strong impression that they sided with the opposition. I exchanged plenty of e-mails with Peter Zwiebach, many of them messages complaining about his mishandling my case. Many e-mails to Peter Zwiebach I forwarded to Barbara Bowen, PSC’s president, and Debra Bergen, PSC’s director of contract administration. In January 2014, I also e-mailed Barbara Bowen a request to meet her in person to discuss my issues, complain to her about Peter Zwiebach’s mishandling my case and present her with the evidence. Barbara Bowen never responded to my messages.
    The list of my complaints against Peter Zwiebach is, as follows:
    1. When the proceeding of the first set of charges (the “D” grades and the McDonald’s remark) started, I gave Peter Zwiebach a list of 50 former students of mine, all of whom potential witnesses on my behalf. He never contacted any one of them.
    2. One of my former students, who had taken with me 5 classes, took the initiative and, upon Peter Zwiebach’s failure to contact her, contacted him herself. 5 times she called his office and asked to see him. Eventually he spoke with her on the phone but still refused to see her in person.
    3. During the arbitration hearing on March 14, 2013, on the first set of charges, Peter Zwiebach refused to file a motion to dismiss the 2 charges for lack of cause of action (the readers would remember the legal points I raised in regard to this).
    4. Peter Zwiebach continued to object to subsequent demands of mine to file such a motion. Any intern attorney would know that such a motion is justified on legal grounds.
    5. During the arbitration hearing on March 14, 2013 (which is the only arbitration hearing that took place thus far), there was a major discrepancy between the 2 witnesses’s testimony, which Peter Zwiebach didn’t notice. I asked him to confront the 2 witnesses with this major discrepancy. He said he would do it later, when they are recalled..
    6. Months later, when I reminded him of the major discrepancy, he e-mailed me that the reason why he hadn’t done so during the hearing is because this was not an official hearing, just a “kangaroo” internal pre-arbitration hearing and he wanted to save this cross-examination for the official hearing.
    7. When I corrected him and said that it was an official hearing, he admitted his mistake and said he forgot it was an official hearing. How can an attorney forget something like this? Now, he said that the reason why he didn’t confront the 2 witnesses with the major discrepancy is because pointing to a discrepancy is not a matter to be dealt with in cross-examination but in closing arguments. Any law student that just started taking law courses would know that such a discrepancy should be dealt with in cross-examination and later pointed out again in closing arguments. Funny: not only is there a discrepancy between the testimony of the 2 witnesses, but there is also a discrepancy between the 2 reasons Peter Zwiebach gave me for not confronting the 2 witnesses.
    8. At the arbitration hearing on March 14, 2013, where Heather Parlier, assisted by Mary Rogan, prosecuted the case, Peter Zwiebach did not object to Heather Parlier’s asking her direct witnesses irrelevant, hearsay and leading questions. All 3 types of questions should trigger off an objection by any law student long before his/her graduation.
    9. At my request, Peter Zwiebach sent 2 PSC representatives to 2 classes of mine, the second one of which was the April 11, 2013 class which was observed by John Cirace, who subsequently filed a false observation report, not knowing I was recording the class with 2 devices, a tape recorder and a spy video camera. But these 2 PSC representatives, Rosalind Carey and Duane Tananbaum (the latter observed the class which was observed by John Cirace), are both full-time professors of Lehman College, Rosalind Carey, a Philosophy Department professor, and Duane Tananbaum, a History Department professor. Why didn’t he send outsider professors who don’t work for Lehman College or any other CUNY college? How can a professor file a report in my favor, knowing that he is risking his own position by doing so?
    10.. Several times, I demanded from Peter Zwiebach that he instruct both Rosalind Carey and Duane Tananbaum to file their own observation reports and give them to me. He refused. So, I e-mailed Rosalind Carey a request that she send me her observation report. She didn’t, so I e-mailed her a second request. She still refused. I am of the opinion that both Rosalind Carey and Duane Tananbaum intended to file adverse reports. But, of course, they couldn’t because they got the news that I had recorded the classes on sophisticated audio and video devices. Now, both Rosalind Carey and Duane Tananbaum faced a harsh dilemma: 1. tell the truth, which is that I am an excellent teacher, and face Ricardo Fernandez’s fury; 2. tell a lie and face possible criminal charges for perjury if they testify falsely in arbitration or in court. And, so, both Rosalind Carey and Duane Tananbaum went into hiding. When this case goes to court, I will pull both of them out of their hiding places.
    11. Peter Zwiebach insisted that I obey Robert Whittaker’s directive in November 2012, even though I proved to him that Whittaker’s purpose was not to train me for online teaching but merely to harass me and take away my free time between semesters that I always had since I was hired in 1994. Practically, he insisted that I follow an illegal directive. Peter Zwiebach told me that contractually Lehman is within its rights, so I should obey the directive and then PSC would file a grievance complaint. In his words: “Obey first, grieve later”. I wonder if that’s the advice PSC gave to Jennifer Wallick, who, on October 25, 2013, had filed a lawsuit against Robert Whittaker, Lehman College and CUNY, claiming she was fired by Lehman College because she had refused to provide her boss Robert Whittaker with favors and rub his bald head. What she did is: “Disobey now, sue later”. Now, that’s not sexual harassment; only Pushdown accounting method is. Anyway, I replied that: 1. If contractually Lehman is within its right to force me to work during vacation time, then grievance complaint has no grounds and will be dismissed; 2. I disobeyed the directive, not because it was breach of contract, but because it was tort, both harassment and discrimination. Since the class schedule of Spring 2013 semester didn’t have my name on it, not in-class and not online, it was obvious that the directive had only one purpose: to rob me of my free time. And many subsequent refusals by Steve Castellano to train me despite my frequent requests also proved that Lehman never intended to train me for online teaching and merely used it as a way to take away my free time. Funny I should explain legal points to an experienced attorney, who has the most important position in the Legal Department of the all-powerful PSC union.
    12. Peter Zwiebach denied that he had known about Orhan Kayaalp’s criminal activities before he was caught. Oh, really? Almost every professor in the Economics Department knew about it, and nobody in PSC knew? To me, there is not a shadow of a doubt that PSC knew. And because PSC was either negligent or deliberately went along with those crimes, excellent professors like William Swenson and Valerie Larifla lost their livelihood.
    13. I demanded that Peter Zwiebach subpoena Orhan Kayaalp to testify in my arbitration hearing (a hostile witness could be even better than a direct witness). He refused.
    14. I demanded that Peter Zwiebach subpoena Hank Shreiber to testify in my arbitration hearing that he is the one, when he was the chair of the Economics Department, that instructed me to give “D” grades instead of “F”. He didn’t subpoena Hank Shreiber.
    15. I demanded that Peter Zwiebach perform thorough discovery of Orhan Kayaalp’s illegal acts, in light of CUNY’s intention to call him as the most important witness against me. And, in case CUNY does not call him as a witness, then PSC must call him to testify. Peter Zwiebach didn’t do any discovery.
    16. I demanded that Peter Zwiebach contact NBC and Daily News and ask them about their investigation of crimes committed by Orhan Kayaalp and perhaps other Lehman College’s administrators. Peter Zwiebach refused to do it.
    17. Peter Zwiebach never communicated with Paul Thompson, the executive in New York State Education Department, regarding the grades that Orhan Kayaalp changed behind my back, saying that it was President Ricardo Fernandez who ordered him to do so and conceal this information from me until I came back from my medical leave.
    18. When I was in Israel grieving for mom, I e-mailed a request to Peter Zwiebach, asking him to file a Notice of Intention to Sue in the Court of Claims, in order to extend the statute of limitations from 6 months to 2 years. He refused. No harm done: when I recently filed the first lawsuit, I was within the statute of limitations.
    19. I asked Peter Zwiebach several questions regarding my being able to sue while arbitration process is still on. I thought it is possible that I cannot file a lawsuit until arbitration is completed. Peter Zwiebach never gave me clear and simple answers to these questions, just double-talk evasive responses.
    20. I demanded from Peter Zwiebach to see me in his office with the tape recorder and spy camera, then copy the recordings on his equipment. The audio recording is copied on the same type of tape recorder, and the video is recorded on his laptop computer with the aid of equipment which I have. He never did.
    21. After being aware of the third medical report which prohibits me from being exposed to any dispute or aggravation or hostility, Peter Zwiebach continued to schedule pre-arbitration and arbitration hearings during my free time. Of course, those hearings were cancelled, because I refused to endanger my health and refused to take part in those hearings.
    22. Peter Zwiebach never filed a complaint against Dene Hurley for her anti-semitic remark she made to me on May 2, 2013.
    I can say only 2 good things about the way Peter Zwiebach represented me: One thing to his credit is that he duly notified Lehman College’s administration in August 2013 that: 1. I would be absent during Fall 2013 semester due to my being under constant care of my relatives in Israel while grieving for mom; 2. I would return to my in-class teaching at Lehman College in Spring 2014 semester. The other thing to his credit: unlike his going along with Robert Whittaker’s illegal directive in November 2012, he didn’t instruct me to obey Dean Stefan Becker’s illegal directive in May 2013.
    I shudder to think how many good, hard-working decent professors fell victims to corruption of CUNY colleges’ administration and lost their livelihood because of their defense being mishandled by PSC, the union whose purpose and goal are to defend and protect them.

    5. New York State Court of Claims
    In most cases, the New York State Court of Claims has the exclusive jurisdiction whenever a plaintiff files a lawsuit against the State of New York or any of the agencies of New York State. Unlike most other courts, the trial is a bench trial, which means a non-jury trial. Only one judge conducts the trial, and only this one judge decides on the verdict and the amount of money damages awarded to the plaintiff if he/she prevails. Since Lehman College is under the authority of CUNY, and CUNY is a New York State agency, most lawsuits filed against Lehman College must be filed and tried in the New York State Court of Claims.
    The names mentioned here are:
    1. Alan C. Marin, judge of the New York State Court of CLaims
    2. Arthur Scott, former New York City Housing Court judge
    3. Nileen Fazone, an attorney of the New York State Court of Claims
    4. Ricardo Fernandez, Lehman College’s president
    5. Peter Zwiebach. PSC’s director of legal affairs
    6. Jennifer Wallick, former secretary of Lehman College’s Associate Provost Robert Whittaker, who filed a lawsuit against Lehman College/CUNY, claiming that Lehman College fired her for her refusal to satisfy Robert Whittaker’s salacious sex drive

    The readers probably wonder why I even mention in this statement the New York State Court of Claims. After all, the court did not commit any of the crimes and torts mentioned here, did not do anything unethical or immoral, did not even get into the picture until I filed with it my first lawsuit against the State of New York, the City University of New York and Lehman College on February 18, 2014. So, what possibly could I have against the Court of Claims?
    Let me explain. Bribe-taking judges are rare in the American courts. Those judges that accept bribes from the defendants in civil lawsuits make up such a small percent, that this phenomenon is practically negligible. But, once in a blue moon, this happens. But in the New York State Court of Claims it NEVER HAPPENS. The defendant is New York State, and New York State does not pay bribes to the judges. Instead, it pays them full salaries. For a judge in any other court, taking a bribe is a serious crime. But for a judge in the New York State Court of Claims, taking a salary not only is not a crime, it is a natural must, otherwise he won’t have livelihood. In other words, what is known as “bribe” in any other court, in the New York State Court of Claims it is known as “salary”. And, while taking a bribe is illegal, taking a salary is perfectly OK and, in fact, is to be expected and respected, because nobody should be asked to do work without getting monetary compensation. Since trials in the New York State Court of Claims have no jury, this means that only the judge is entitled to monetary compensation, and nobody else. And this monetary compensation is paid by no other than the defendant, which is the State of New York.
    So, now, I would like to ask the readers: how can one reasonably expect to win a lawsuit against the State of New York in a court where bribes are substituted for salaries? Do you really think that even a plaintiff with overwhelming evidence like plenty of witnesses, printed documents and audio/video recordings can win against a defendant on whom the judge’s livelihood depends?
    Still not convinced? So, let me tell you what happened in 1994.
    The landlady tried to have me evicted, so she filed a petition with New York City Housing Court, claiming I didn’t pay her rent. The judge assigned to the case was Arthur Scott. From previous experiences, I knew that the landlady’s attorney was in a habit of bribing court personnel so that the case would be assigned to his favorite judge. So, I did some private investigation and found out that Arthur Scott was a drug addict. I filed a motion to recuse, citing accusations that Arthur Scott was a drug addict. When I filed this motion to recuse with Arthur Scott himself, he got mad and denied the motion, then changed the trial date to an earlier time without notifying me (this was one of his tricks in other cases), so that I wouldn’t be present, and he found me guilty by default and signed an eviction warrant. Foolish on his part, because someone who files such a motion accusing the judge of being a drug addict with the judge himself is someone to stay away from, especially since that judge took bribes from thousands of litigants before (he took bribes to finance his expensive drug habit) for many years. Thousands of times he got away with it, but with me nobody gets away with anything. I complained to judges all over New York State, the American Bar Association, the New York State Attorney General, the district attorney, the mayor of New York City and the New York State governor-elect George Pataki. This onslaught triggered off a sting operation, and Arthur Scott was caught red-handed accepting bribes. On December 12, 1994, he was arrested, duly charged and indicted, then he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2 1/2 to 7 1/2 years in prison. Obviously, he lost his job, and his license to practice law was revoked. I destroyed his life entirely. Since he violated my constitutional rights and caused me mental anguish, I sued the State of New York in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims judge assigned to the case was Alan C. Marin. For 3 years I worked hard on the case, since the State of New York kept filing motions to dismiss the case for all kinds of reasons. I filed brilliant answering papers, and the judge always agreed with me. But, eventually, without any warning, he invited the State of New York to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of judicial immunity. I filed papers in opposition that raised arguments that the best lawyers on the planet wouldn’t have come up with. But Judge Marin dismissed the lawsuit without even referring to my super-strong arguments. I filed an appeal, citing the most brilliant arguments. The Appellate Division couldn’t challenge my arguments, so they dismissed the case based on points that had nothing to do with the case. This was mockery of law and justice in broad daylight that resembled a mafia court proceeding. Only a lowlife piece of garbage of a court would do something like this. By the way, I filed that lawsuit under my original name, which is Rosenstein.
    And this is the court I am being forced to file a lawsuit with against Lehman College/CUNY. EVERY SINGLE JUDGE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COURT OF CLAIMS, WITH NO EXCEPTION, COULD WATCH LEHMAN COLLEGE’S PRESIDENT RICARDO FERNANDEZ PULL A GUN AND SHOOT ME TO DEATH AND TURN THE OTHER WAY, NOT CALL THE POLICE, NOT CALL AN AMBULANCE, DEFINITELY NOT FIND RICARDO FERNANDEZ GUILTY OF ANYTHING. Sounds crazy? Well, anybody as familiar with the New York State Court of Claims as I am would know that I am not exaggerating.
    Prior to filing the lawsuit against the State of New York/CUNY/Lehman College, I called up the court to get some answers about court regulations pertaining to my case. I was transferred to an attorney of the Court of Claims by the name of Nileen Fazone. I left a message on her voicemail. They promised to call me back, but nobody called back, so I called again, and again I left a message. Only this time I recorded my message, so that when she still didn’t call me, I called for the third time, only this time I let my tape recorder do the talking. This time, she called me. I asked her the same questions I had asked Peter Zwiebach, namely whether I was allowed to file the lawsuit against CUNY and Lehman College without having to go to arbitration through PSC. She didn’t know the answer, so, instead of saying she didn’t know the answer, she started mumbling some legal definitions that had nothing to do with my questions. I insisted on getting straightforward answers, and she said that for legal advice I need to hire an attorney, and I told her I wasn’t asking for legal advice, just certain information about court regulations. Eventually, she said that the next day another attorney of the Court of Claims would call me and give me the answers. I told her that it wasn’t fair to me to pay the $50 filing fee, just to find out my case couldn’t proceed without first going through arbitration. No attorney called me, so I filed the lawsuit and paid the $50. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the Court of Claims, which, in my view, has the same moral and legal principles possessed by any common thief, will pocket the $50, then dismiss the case without trial.
    Many times I asked myself why Lehman College persisted in breaking the law against me, why 2 administrators gave me illegal directives, why I was removed from payroll despite my having CCE, why a chair and his wife bilked New York State Treasury out of $180,000, why grades were changed behind my back in programs that result in a state license (CPA), why a chair fired excellent professors to make room for his relatives, why a chair falsified records and destroyed other records, how come Jennifer Wallick was fired for refusing to satisfy the sexual salacious drive of an associate provost (the last sentence is a quotation from the internet), how come the whole economy might be in danger because of students that graduate with grades that were changed behind the professor’s back and subsequently obtained jobs in the Big-4 and major corporations, why a chair directs an anti-semitic remark to a professor, why a college is unafraid of audio and video recordings which prove the administration’s corruption??? Well, here is the answer: LEHMAN COLLEGE KNOWS THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH MURDER, AS LONG AS THE VICTIM IS FORCED TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THEM IN THE NEW YORK STATE COURT OF CLAIMS.

    1. Contact any or some of or all of the 5 organizations I complained about and direct to them your questions or views or opinions or suggestions or recommendations.
    2. Forward my statement to any person or company or organization you believe either w

Comments are closed.