FW: The Struggle Continues

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 7:47 PM
To: Hasart, Tana; Jackson, Yvette; Craven, Jim
Cc: Farley, Janelle
Subject: FW: Response II to Mr. Watson -- Please delete if you have no i
nterest.


Dear Dr. Hasart:

I'm not planning to respond to this on the master list but I will be
referring to this matter again in another venue.

If you define "collegiality" as a willingness to say black is white and
white is black, and a willingness to ratify, cover-up or spread outright
lies, then I will never be "collegial". If being "collegial" means
testifying under oath that someone who was interviewed for a position was
not tape recorded (while my voice is on the tape telling that person he is
being taped), or if being "collegial" means destroying and altering public
records associated with a hire that is the subject of litigation in a
Federal Title VII case, then I will never be "collegial". If being
"collegial" means turning away from or even participating in job rigging for
insiders or using public resources for personal empire building of a
few--taking away needed resources for the central missions and mandates of
this institution--I will never be collegial.

But I don't just blame Watson for continuing to tell lies that he knows are
lies. He has been given plently of green-lights by others that telling
outright lies at Clark is business as usual. By the marginalization,
demonization and ostracization of me that has gone on at Clark for many
years, he has been given a green light to continue his harassment. A simple
example: this collector of child pornography sits on a tenure committee
while I have never served on one in my time--seven years-- here.
Marginalization, demonization and ostracization are all forms of harassment,
intimidation that cause tangible damages and represent violations--federal
offenses-- of Title VII under the USC. They not only tacitly and explicitly
call into question my credibility, stature and credentials as a professor,
they signal to the Watson types that it is open season on me and the
Administration will do nothing about it--as has been the case in the past
when I have complained about harassment from Watson and nothing was done.
According to Watson, he wasn't even given a letter of reprimand in his
personnel file as a result of the findings--to which he stipulated--of the
Ethnics Commission; contrast that with how I have been treated at Clark.

He now says that I "bilked" the College in my ex-wife's settlement. Really?.
Why did a conservative Federal Judge, Robert Bryan, in denying Clark
College's motion for summary dismissal of the case on procedural grounds,
write:  "She [Dr. Thomas] has offered sufficient evidence to show her
application was not fairly evaluated, that she was qualified for the
position and that she was entitled to participate in the next step." ?  Why
did Clark College demand, as a condition of settlement, that my ex-wife not
seek to have prosecuted, any crimes that "may have" been committed by Clark
College personnel? Why did Clark College settle four days before going to a
Federal Court and go from $30,000 to $50,000 plus part-time with retirement
contributions, to $90,000 to $125,000 to $162,500 to $165,000 (with the
stipulation that Aleyamma never apply for any position at Clark). Further,
because of all of the obstruction of discovery, misuse of discovery,
perjury, destruction of public records, material alterations of public
records, obstruction of justice and subbornation of the previously-mentioned
that took place in that case, Aleyamma could have filed for legal fees in a
separate judgment but was so burned out and beaten down she wanted nothing
more to do with this cesspool. Further, the College also tried to demand
that I  (not even a co-litigant) also waive the right to sue for the damages
I suffered from that case? Why in nine separate presentations to the Clark
Board and a separate meeting with AGs, was I given no answer or rebuttal to
my allegations and specific physical evidence of perjury and alterations of
public materials/records? Why do I have a copy of a check for $165,000? Why
did Dr. Johnson and Vice-President Burch sneak out like whipped dogs
forgoing the usual "shaking of hands" after a settlement? Why do I have a
copy of a tape, released under discovery, in which all but a portion of
Kibota's interview was redacted--all but the part where he states his name
and is told that the interview is being recorded-- and yet have a full copy
of his whole interview (that two illustrious faculty members swore under
penalty of perjury was never made) released later under RCW 41.17.250? Why
have the Clark Board and AGs not commented on this matter after having been
provided copies of both tapes?

Watson now claims that no child pornography was in his computer and then
claims simultaneously any child pornography in his computer was planted by
myself and/or Gerry Smith. According to the Columbian article on the matter,
based on court records of sworn testimony of the Washington State Patrol
detectives, they not only found some 1700 pornographic files, but those
files included materials
that involved "homosexual, heterosexual, animal sex acts plus children
engaged in explicit sex acts"? Has Watson filed charges against those
detectives for perjury and swearing false oaths and/or filed a lawsuit for
libel against the Columbian (which does have money to go after)? Why did the
"Independent" article on the Watson case mention an e-mail written from
Watson's account  mentioning being on the telephone with a new "little
friend" in Canada and soliciting pornogrpahic polaroids? And as for this
nonsense that these Washington State Patrol detectives engaged in any form
of duplicity or "playing-one-off-against-another" or engaged in anything
less than highly professional police work is pure slander and/or libel--and
I will inform them of this bogus allegation.

I could go on and on with very specific and concrete evidence revealing that
Mr. Watson's lies have only begat more lies. "Oh what a tangled web we
weave, when we practice to deceive". Those involved in my ex-wife's case,
writing even more ugly and harmful lies in print in the Independent, were
not sanctioned but rather encouraged and supported by the previous
failed-President and Dean, and now find themselves in your administration
promoted and ratified in their own minds.

I will never submit to a definition of "collegiality" that involves
ratifying--by silence and acquiesence--naked and provable lies and
cover-ups. Since logic and reason and evidence seems not to work around this
place, perhaps a Federal Court, with very specific rules of
evidence/hearsay, protocols and prohibitions against piling on contrived and
irrelevent pseudo-evidence, will be necessary for me to practice some real
"effective citizenship" and seek redress for my grievances. I am sick and
tired of posturing pretenders, thinking they are some kind of royalty,
trashing and hijacking the institution at which I work,
ratifying/covering-up old lies and allowing new ones.

If  Watson dares to repeat his harassment and lies one more time, this
letter goes out on the master list and we go full-court-press with my
attorney Mr. Zoretic--and all of you in the Admin and the Clark Board will
be named personally with the execption of Dr. Jackson--and we'll let
discovery and the Court process (there will be no settlement with public
monies at the last moment) sort out who is who and what is what; who is
lying and who is telling the truth. This is not a threat, this is merely a
statement to mitigate potential damages; it is a statement of my intent to
lawfully pursue my legal and civil and Constitutional rights, and is
intended as a statement of the agony and damanges to which I have been
subject and that have been exacerbated by Clark Administration failure to
act, double-standards and insider versus outsider treatment--in my protected
opinion that is shared by my attorney Mr. Zoretic who has written and
protested the denial of due process I have suffered at Clark many times with
no response.

Sincerely,

James M. Craven
Professor, Economics





-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Watson [mailto:dwatson@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 1999 2:15 PM
To: Craven, Jim; Campus Master List
Subject: RE: Response II to Mr. Watson -- Please delete if you have no i
nterest.





Jim, you state:




I agree here that debate is impossible if one or more parties feels free

to tell lies at will with no qualms. So anyone wanting to know who lies

and who doesn't can request the following from the Washington State

Ethics Commission: "Notice of Board Action", March 20, 1997, of the

State of Washington Executive Ethics Board.



One should read the ENTIRE document, not just the quoted passages.



The charges were not specifically Collecting Child Pornography (note the

presss accounts quoting the Washington State Patrol Detectives who

reviewed all materials in Watson's computer indicated--in sworn

testimony-- not only collecting/disseminating child

pornography--children engaged in sexual acts with adults-- but also

predatory behavior in requesting privately-made pornographic "poloroids"

of "little friends" be sent using Clark.edu as the originating address;

have those sources been sued for slander and libel?)



I was told I could not sue Mr. Craven nor Mr. Gerry Smith for slander/libel
as the NATURE of the charges they stated UNDER OATH would bias a jury
against me. Besides, as others on campus who wanted to sue under libel, the
lawyers stance is 'you can't get blood from a turnip' and that it would just
cost the plantiffs money they would never recover.


However, other people that were at the gathering where they claim I
discussed the matters above have no recollection of my having said what they
claim I said! Also, if you check with the state police, I am sure they well
tell the evidence that was thrown out of court was a set of 7 photos taken
at a nudist gathering, similar to kinds of gatherings Mr. Smith said he went
to rather than come to my 4th of July party.

Absolutly no sexual acts were displayed in these photos!!


 Craven further swore under oath that I have a program called Netscope,
which is legal only for law enforcement to use and is used to hunt down
child pornography sites. What kind of nonsense is this? I checked with a
colleague and was told there IS a UNIX program called Netscope, but it is
unable to be used as stated AND the colleague rather apologetically said
that I would not be able to use it for its intended purpose, let alone for
hunting down child pornography. I just don't know enough about networks and
UNIX.






There was no reference in his stipulations,

however, to the quite conscious and predatory behavior of soliciting

private polaroids as was alleged in sworn oath by the WSP detectives and

cited in the press accounts at the time.



That is because it was found I had no NEED to respond to these allegations!
I responded to facts, not allegations.







 Watson has yet to address the substance of the debate or even the

question of the right/imperative of any faculty or staff or

administrator to bring the debate out into the open--assuming it is even

going on on what many feel are insider-packed/cloistered committees.


Jim Craven



How can I when the substance of every 'debate?'comes back to me. I was not
convicted of any crime! I don't try to 'win' by bullying and intimidation. I
know I am going to be chastised by my colleagues for replying to you, but
you disseminate so much misinformation, I felt I must.

I replied to the school and to the charges as recommended by my lawyer. I
didn't just get a windfall of money by browbeating the college and making up
accusations or twisting facts.


Dennis W. Watson