Affidavit in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Supreme Court of the State of New York - County of Rensselaer

Paul Trummel, Plaintiff

against

R. Byron Pipes
Gary Judd
Sharon Kunkel
Merrill D. Whitburn
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, et al. Defendants

	This draft application for a restraining order prepared by the author will give readers some idea of the lengths to which HH&S/LL&C Cabal and RPI administrators will go to prevent students completing their doctorates. It shows that the administration could care less about due process of law in their totalitarian gambit. The author had to put the filing on hold. RPI took advantage of that delay to increase the coercion and blackballed him internationally. He needed legal representation which he could not obtain without money. The Cabal had bankrupted him with tuition and $6,000 legal fees incurred to have his registration reinstated after Halloran and Judd frivolously cancelled it. Local attorneys either alleged conflict of interest which resulted from case spreading or feared filing against the monolithic RPI without receiving many thousands of dollars in legal retainers. Filing pro se did not present a viable option as RPI officials had effectively used SLAPP* tactics. New York legislature passed SLAPP legislation to counter an increase in frivolous lawsuits designed to silence people who openly express their views to government agencies. Those suits enforce silence by causing collateral economic damage. Rensselaer took the first steps by retaining an attorney and using police officers to intimidate. They forced the author to devote substantial time and money to defend himself after reporting unlawful activity by Rensselaer to State of New York. SLAPP law states in part that: the legislature finds that the threat of a civil action for damages can act as a deterrent to citizens who report information to federal, state, or local agencies. The costs of defending those suits impose a severe burden upon individuals by institutions. Purposely, it protects individuals for reporting issues that concern any government agency and gives the individual immunity from civil liability. To contest a SLAPP lawsuit the author met a primary and three secondary criteria: involvement with communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome; and, secondarily: a civil complaint or counterclaim; a filing against a nongovernmental institution; and, a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance but could not afford to file suit and could not find an attorney to work on a contingent fee basis. *Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation in government.

Sirs:

PAUL TRUMMEL, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. That the Defendants have denied doctoral student re-registration rights to the Plaintiff, a mature doctoral student in the department of Language, Literature, and Communication (LL&C) working on a PhD prerequisite for him to continue employment as a professor. The Plaintiff has 46 years industrial and academic experience in technical communication, has held, among other appointments, positions as: corporate chief executive officer of publishing companies; associate professor of communication at a California university; lecturer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), and associate editor of an academic journal. The Plaintiff also holds elected fellowships in two international institutions.

2. That until 1985, the Plaintiff’s employment as a professor depended upon his accredited European, terminal masters degree equivalency. The Plaintiff held that qualification for many years. During the early 1980s, United States university policies changed and required a PhD even from mature faculty members who already held academic positions. Consequently, an MS degree remained terminal in the Plaintiffs profession but became inadequate for him to continue his employment as a professor. The Defendants offered the Plaintiff the opportunity to obtain a PhD degree in the Plaintiff’s discipline. The Plaintiff paid tuition and entered the Defendant’s doctoral program in the fall of 1985 in order to preserve his academic employment status as a professor. Subsequently, RPI appointed the Plaintiff lecturer in the graduate program. Since that time the Defendants have stonewalled the Plaintiff from forming a doctoral committee and precluded him from defending his dissertation. Concurrently, the Defendants have willfully caused the Plaintiff to lose his position as an associate professor at San Jose State University, California. The Plaintiff, as a direct result of this action by the Defendants, also lost his tenure appointment and retirement benefits. Additionally, the Defendants have refused to supply information about the Plaintiff's academic progress to some universities and disseminated false information to others thereby causing the removal of the Plaintiff’s name from professorial candidate lists. The foregoing actions by the Defendants have caused the Plaintiff to remain unemployed for a period in excess of four years. Subsequently, the Defendants have altered the Plaintiff’s academic transcripts and falsified other academic files in attempts to cover-up their actions.

3. That the Plaintiff earned an additional MS degree (Communication and Rhetoric from RPI) during January, 1992, as part of his doctoral degree program. He continued his work toward his doctoral degree and completed a draft dissertation. On October 14, 1992, his former advisor at RPI provided a statement of satisfactory progress to meet changed criteria for ongoing doctoral study. On December 9, 1992, the Defendants informed the Plaintiff that they were requesting a progress statement from the Plaintiff's advisor to which the Plaintiff responded on December 15, 1992. "On December 16, 1992, the Defendants refused to re-register the Plaintiff stating that he had "not made satisfactory progress toward your [his] degree". On December 22, 1992, the Defendants arbitrarily dismissed the Plaintiff from the graduate school on the grounds that he had "not made satisfactory progress". On December 29, 1992, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendants to request a review of the dismissal and to arrange an appointment to discuss the matter. On January 7, 1993, the Plaintiff's academic advisor at the University of Washington provided an additional statement of satisfactory progress to the Defendants. On January 13, 1993, the Plaintiff arrived in Troy from Seattle, Washington, where he now resides, to discuss his dismissal from the graduate school. The Defendants arranged for restriction of the Plaintiff's movements by RPI police for a period of four days. The Plaintiffs have acted arbitrarily and maliciously. The Defendants have violated the Student Bill of Rights by failing to: give a warning of dismissal; define the term "satisfactory progress;" provide the names of the "graduate committee" responsible for the dismissal; provide a copy of the minutes of the meeting; or give a satisfactory reason for dismissal from the graduate school. [Rubens] [Winn]

4. That the Defendants have wrongfully denied re-registration in the Doctoral program, Department of Language, Literature, and Communication (LL&C), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (the Institute) and have discriminated against the Plaintiff on account of his age and professional and academic experience.

5. That the Defendants have retaliated against the Plaintiff by expelling him on two occasions for bringing to the attention of the Institute the criminal practices extant in LL&C. The Plaintiff has made documented representations that include forgery, manipulation of federal and state funds, and cover-up of other criminal activity.

6. That the Defendants have denied the Plaintiff re-registration and dismissed him from the graduate school without cause. The Defendants have supported their contentions through the following actions:

1. Changed the criteria for re-registration to preclude the Plaintiff from re-registering in abrogation of a doctoral student contract entered into during 1985.

2. Refused to acknowledge the Plaintiff's compliance with the changed criteria and made false representations to coerce the Registrar into ignoring the positive progress reports of two academic advisors.

3. Refused the Plaintiff all Institute student appeal procedures and have arbitrarily prevented the Plaintiff from proper representation.

4. Restricted the Plaintiff's movements on Campus to prevent him interviewing Institute personnel in his attempts to conciliate and mitigate damage. The Defendants have falsely informed the Campus Police that the Plaintiff has a violent disposition. This information caused the Campus police to place the Plaintiff under "campus arrest" for a period of four days while they investigated. The Campus Police found that the charges had no foundation.

5. Forged the Plaintiff's transcripts and files over a period of eight years to support their contentions.

7. That the Defendants have supplied false information to potential employers at RPI to prevent the Plaintiff from gaining Institute employment. The Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff by appointing less-qualified and less-experienced individuals to Institute positions by re-advertising after the closure dates for appointment. As a result the Plaintiff, the prime contender on three occasions, could not gain employment with the Institute.

8. That continued discrimination against the Plaintiff, now 60 years of age, by the Defendants prevents the Plaintiff from defending his dissertation, completing his PhD, and obtaining gainful employment. The Plaintiff has completed all the course work, written dissertations, and completed all other requirements for a PhD at both Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the University of Washington. The Plaintiff has obtained doctoral cumulative grade averages of 3.85 and 4.0 respectively. The malicious actions of the Defendants have prevented the Plaintiff from completing a PhD at either university.

9. The Plaintiff has taken all reasonable steps to effect re-registration and to continue progress toward his doctoral degree and to mitigate the damage occasioned to him both professionally and academically by the Defendants. The Defendants have consistently blocked the Plaintiff from achieving the degree essential to his employment.

10. No other provisional remedy pursuant to CPLR 600 has been secured or sought in this action, and no prior motion has been made for the same or similar relief as is sought herein.

Wherefore, deponent respectfully requests the issue of a preliminary injunction to enjoin and restrain the Defendants from refusing to re-register the Plaintiff at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for PhD completion. Furthermore, the Plaintiff requests that the order restrain the Defendants from any other actions that will preclude the Plaintiff from defending his dissertation or gaining employment either within the Institute or elsewhere. All arrangements to be made under the auspices of independent arbitrators.

Paul Trummel PhD (RPI ABD), PhD (UW ABD), MS (RPI), MSc (UK), BSc (UK)
UK equivalencies in graphic communication recognized by Boston University, Northeastern University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Fitchburg State College, San Jose State University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and University of Washington with comparability twice certified by International Education Research Foundation (IERF), a credential evaluation service accredited by US Department of Education

Associate Professor, Communication and Rhetoric (Retired)
Special Doctor of Philosophy Program (SPhD), University of Washington
Fellow, International Society of Typographic Designers (FISTD)
Fellow, Institute of Paper Printing and Publishing (FIOP)
Member, Society of Authors, London

International Federation of Journalists, Brussels (International Press Card)
National Union of Journalists, London (UK Press Card)

Nothing Succeeds like Excess Academic freedom, an absolute right not an abstract philosophy, should not subserve economic considerations. Moreover, information technology remains a right not a privilege despite technocratic claims to the contrary. Legislative and judicial decisions have determined the right of individuals to distribute information freely and the Bill of Rights documents the protection individuals should expect from the state. However, laws do not provide much protection when despotic administrators interfere with computer resources because they disagree with the content of messages: a disagreement probably based upon disclosure of their own malfeasance. They fear dissent and have an aversion to controversy. Their addiction to political correctness frequently causes them to invoke censorship of Internet activities. They not only empower their systems administrators to handle frivolous email complaints by arbitrarily removing computer access but also allow them to censor incoming mail - an outrageous invasion of personal privacy. They act upon an irrational expectation that certain categories of email may contain something that Big Mama would not wish others to read then arbitrarily reject it. Interference with email transmission not specifically proscribed by federal law classifies as a federal offense which Rensselaer and University of Washington officials commit with impunity.

New Releases September 2007 Shirley Ann Jackson, the latest arrival in a trio of uncaring Rensselaer presidents: Schmidt (1988), Pipes (1993), Jackson (1999), continued to employ Thomas Phelan, former H&SS Dean, as "university historian" and publicly adulated him at his death (2006), knowing that he had defrauded the university of millions of dollars by posing as a PhD when he did not hold a post-graduate degree. Phelan's fraud trickled down to negatively affect students. Informed about denial of due process of law to untenured faculty and students, Jackson did nothing about it. She maintains a hypocritical political silence on issues that have had a devastating effect on many faculty and student lives while she unashamedly touts an ethical institution. Phelan's deanship allowed him to employ a cabal of unqualified and inexperienced faculty that in turn short-changed hundreds of students who had paid one of the highest rates of tuition in the US. RPI breach of contract left them with a huge tuition debt and cost them millions of dollars in income through loss of their careers. Successive deans Duchin (1996) and Harrington (2002) covered up the criminal activity that they inherited which effectively made them accessories after the fact. 2007 has seen publication of a series of articles that expose academic and criminal fraud at Rensselaer and University of Washington (UW). They describe a cover-up of ongoing fraud that Jackson, Palazzo, and Harrington (RPI) also Emmert (UW) have neglected to address. http://contracabal.us/ A list of fifteen articles published during September includes a new series entitled Roll of Dishonor which exposes alleged criminal activity by individual tenured faculty members and administrators. New case studies will continue to appear each month. Information about academic fraud and deceit frequently surfaces after alumni and former faculty members read Contra Cabal. That information becomes part of a relevant case study after verification and validation. Students and current faculty members also write letters to the editor on politically sensitive issues. Some correspondents request name withholding to avoid retaliation which the editor, a professional journalist, honors. Send letters to the editor at: [Letters to the Editor] Case studies explain in detail the nature of alleged crimes.

Letters to the Editor Letters should not exceed 250 words, with preference given to those letters responding to articles published in Contra Cabal. Letters must include the author's name, city, and state, email address, and a phone number for contact and verification. The Editor reserves the right to edit letters for length and clarity and not to publish all letters. By submission of a letter, the author agrees that Contra Cabal may publish and/or license the publication of letters in print, electronically, and for archival purposes.

About the Author

Paul Trummel (Nmesis) Paul Trummel, published since 1944, uses the pseudonym Nmesis and openly declares personal or conflicting interests. These conflicts may relate to topics or to opinion, especially when the content draws upon advocacy, experience, conclusion, or interpretation. As an accredited journalist, he conforms with the code of conduct and ethics of the journalism profession, tested by courts in both Great Britain and the USA. Since 1947, he has worked as a journalist, an editor (commercial and academic peer-review), a technical communicator, an associate professor (visual communi-cation and rhetoric), and as an administrator at several leading universities. He has held international press credentials since 1959 and holds two elected international graphic arts fellowships. He earned professional letters in the UK that translated into two baccalaureate degrees and a terminal graduate degree in the US. He has also earned a Rensselaer graduate degree and two US PhD degrees (now ABD). [Sherking Responsibility] He taught graduate level students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Northeastern University, Fitchburg State College, San Jose State University, Massachusetts Bay Community College, and a private institute of graphic design. He held an administrative post at University of Massachusetts, Boston, and has lectured at universities in US, Europe, and Japan. In 1957 (London), he founded and operated the first full-service technical communication organization, a group of publishing and technical/graphic communication companies where he held the position of chief executive officer. In 1973 (Connecticut), he designed and marketed the first typesetting system driven by a minicomputer, the precursor for today's desktop publishing systems. He has won an international silver medal for his satire and a US city award for his educational programs for disadvantaged people. Since 1992, he has investigated and written several hundred articles on bureaucratic and elder abuse. He founded Contra Cabal, one of the first electronic magazines to appear on the web, for which he develops the site, writes articles, designs pages, and produces graphics. http://ContraCabal.org Contra Cabal has now published for almost fifteen years. Earlier, it published as email for six years. The hits/month now range between 100,000 and 150,000 with more than a million hits during the past twelve months. Articles cover ongoing criminal activity by bureaucrats and elder abuse. They describe the actions of corrupt judges and gross misconduct by lawyers who file frivolous law suits against tenants in government financially-assisted housing. They outline how managers use unlawful retaliatory measures and propaganda to destroy the reputations of people who report illegal activity and racism. Washington Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court decision that effectively allowed prior restraint and defined journalism inquiry as surveillance and harassment. Repeatedly, lawyers who could find no fault with content instead personally attacked the author or his genre. A corrupt judge imposed prior restraint and jailed him for contempt when he challenged the court decisions as a basic violation of constitutional and human rights. To further coerce him, in consort with other jurists, the judge then arbitrarily transferred him to solitary confinement among murderers and rapists. His published work in the print media for more than sixty years has received no challenge relating to accuracy. People, among them elected judges and lawyers upon whom the public should be able to rely, have tried to stop him publishing information on politically sensitive issues. That prior restraint, and restrictions on personal mobility, has now become a matter of international concern. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU - Seattle), International Federation of Journalists (IFJ- Brussels), National Union of Journalists (NUJ - London), American Society of Authors and Editors (ASAE - New York), and Seattle Weekly have all filed amicus curiae briefs with Washington Supreme Court in support of his successful First Amendment stance. Credential validation upon request by journalists and other responsible parties from:

ContraCabal.org ContraCabal.net ContraCabal.com ContraCabal.us