Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum

‘There are many Kenedeños’

2009-01-03T06:50:00.000-08:00

“[The website] is to help cleanse the bowels of Del Mar.”
– Anton Haley (Jaime Kenendeño)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2006
How blogging affects Del Mar

by Marissa Edwards

Spurred by a recent string of events Anton Haley, whose alias is
“Jaime Kenedeño,” has been posting his and other’s thoughts on a
blog about issues revolving around Del Mar College. Some of the
remarks made on delmarhousekeeping.blogspot.com have been
perceived by some as libel and slanderous, which might lead to
lawsuits. According to Haley, he will not cease until he is forced to shut down
or the problem is resolved because the truth must be revealed.
The issues written about, some of which are still in litigation,
include lawsuits filed by Alberto Benitez, Melody Lopez, Theresa Cox,
and Shari Parker against DMC and President Carlos Garcia.
These lawsuits contain allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination.
Haley, a former DMC student and current writer, began his involvement
with the blog about two years ago after his brother’s girlfriend
accused a DMC employee of sexually harassing her.
According to Mike Westergren, DMC in-house counsel, a compliant
was filed regarding this issue, but when it was taken to the board, the
girl decided to no longer pursue the matter.
“[The incident] ruined her life and messed up his,” Haley said. “I
thought they were both nuts, but then I began to look into her allegations,
little by little I found information about what was going on at
Del Mar.”
After purportedly looking into the allegations of sexual harassment
at DMC, Haley said, “Girls and moms that I didn’t know began emailing
me and calling me, telling me that their daughters were being
sexually harassed at Del Mar.”
None of the girls who have allegedly been sexually harassed could
be contacted by press time.
“These are administration men making advances toward daughters,”
according to Haley. “There were auditorium men watching them
[young girls] change.”
Haley said that as he looked further into the subject, all the stories
were the same.
“There has to be truth,” Haley said.
Some of the letters written by the girls have been posted on the
website, though their names have been omitted.
In one letter that was posted, a girl describes an incident that
occurred while she was performing as a dancer at Richardson
Auditorium, “I saw a man standing at the foot of the stairs that led to
our dressing room. As we would go up and down, he would look up
and watch us.”
Though the letters are there, there has not produced any proof that
these incidents occurred.
According to Haley, the Board of Regents at the time was told about
these incidents, but ignored them.
“They [Board of Regents] are in so much of a rut, they can’t get out,” Haley said. “But, sooner or later they will have to clean this up.”
Westergren has sent a cease and
desist letter to the user of the name
“Jaime Kenedeño,” stating “you are the
individual responsible for a long series
of e-mails and blogs which have been
sent to Del Mar College
recipients…there are limitations when
free speech interferes with an individual’s
right to be free of defamatory
statements particularly in a public
forum. Because of the extremely irresponsible
nature of some of your blogs
as they relate to Del Mar personnel, we
are demanding that you cease and
desist from any further contact with
Del Mar personnel…or we will seek
legal action.”
Westergren said that “because there
are statements of criminal conduct of
Del Mar employees” the letter was sent
out.
“It is to protect the faculty and students
from defamation,” Westergren
said. “Some of these blogs are wild allegations.”
According to Westergren, the issue is
currently under review if DMC will
take legal action against Haley.
“I find it very amusing that they
would dream of taking us to court,”
Haley said. “When they take me to
court, they will have to take the Caller-
Times to court because this is a
Freedom of Speech issue. I feel the letter
was a threat.”
In regards to the letter, Haley
responded to Westergren in an e-mail
stating, “please, by all means continue
with the due process. It will be a fresh
start for DMC. At least finally, we will be
able to witness the Due Process work at
Del Mar, for once without it being thwarted.”
Westergren pointed out posts from
August 19, September 26, and October 31
of this year where slanderous statements
were made.
“[People] have a right to discuss in a
public forum, but there are limits on what
you can say,” Westergren said. “[Haley] is
exceeding the limit of what he can do
electronically. If you say someone is guilty
you better be right about it.”
Though Haley remarks that there are
“many that have access” to the blog and
anyone can post, Westergren has “evidence
that ‘Jaime Kenendeño’ is Anton
Haley.”
The website does not censor anyone
and posts all submission.
On his blog, Haley said “Del Mar is
being used right now for a select group of
people. People that are using the system
for themselves are ruining the Del Mar
reputation, not us.”
According to Haley, “The truth, which
is supported by documentation, is not
always the favorite thing to be heard. A
lot of girls there [Del Mar] dress provocative,
but that does not give administrators
the right to do that [sexually harass].
There have been incidents when Garcia
has taken girls into his office and a few
have come out crying,” according to
Haley.”
According to Westergren, the cease and
desist letter was sent out to “protect
employees from unreasonable defamatory
remarks,” such as these.
Haley believes that everything he posts
is the truth.
“My sources are my sources,” Haley
said, though he will not reveal anything
that confirms his allegations.
Joe Ortiz, of the American GI Forum
agrees with Haley that there is something
wrong going on at Del Mar.
“The fox is taking care of the chicken
coop,” Ortiz said. “This is an important
issue and we have to come together. I
have never seen anyone as disrespectful
as Carlos Garcia.”
According to Ortiz and Haley, Ortiz
had been looking into sexual harassment
allegations before Haley. Both believe that
the Board of Regents should “micromanage
on that level” to stop the allegations.
“People that live in a glass house
should not throw rocks because we will
throw back. I don’t have a glass house,”
Haley said.
The blogspot “is for the kids. We don’t
gain anything from it,” according to Ortiz.
“We believe what we write is the truth.”
The results of the dispute are yet to be
seen. However, precedents in online
defamation are being set already. In a
recent lawsuit, a Florida jury awarded
$11.3 million to a Florida woman “in a
defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana
woman who posted messages in the
Internet accusing her of being a ‘crook,’ a
‘con artist’ and a ‘fraud,’” according to
USA Today.

Corpus Christi Watchdog Authority: A total of $507,500! Lawsuits against DMC by two former College employees and a student were settled out of court

2008-03-28T02:55:00.000-07:00

Corpus Christi Watchdog Authority: Friday, March 28, 2008
A total of $507,500! Lawsuits against DMC by two former College employees and a student were settled out of court

Lawsuits against DMC by two former College employees and a student were settled out of court, for a total of $507,500.

Theresa Cox, former dean of Equal Opportunity/Affirmitive Action, Equity, Access and Compliance was awarded $450,000 after suing the college for wrongful termination, demotion, retaliation, and change in work assignments, according to the suit.

In another settlement stemming from a joint lawsuit against the college, citing civil rights violations, former student Melody Lopez received $7,500 and Alberto Benitez, former criminal justice instructor, received $50,000.

"Upon the advice and recommendation of the College's outside litigation counsel and its risk pool carrier, the lawsuits filed by former student Melody Lopez and former employee Theresa Cox were settled out of court to avoid additional expense and disruption of College business," Auggie Rivera, Counsel to the BOR, said.:

This isn't corruption......Oh Yeah~ Define corruption; Be specific and your opine is just that , your opinion.

2008-03-10T03:32:00.000-07:00

Caller.com Corpus Christi News and Information

Garcia fined for campaign finance violations

By Dan Kelley
Originally published 04:45 p.m., January 14, 2008
Updated 04:45 p.m., January 14, 2008

STORY TOOLS

More Local News

SHARE THIS STORY

State Representative Juan Garcia has been fined $1,800 by the Texas Ethics Commission for campaign finance violations, including a failure to disclose $12,500 in campaign contributions.

The commission also found that Garcia failed to disclose information about out-of-state donors and violated rules that require candidates to list the occupation and employer for donors who give more than $500.

Garcia said the violations were technical difficulties that happened in the final days of a tough campaign.

“In the heat of an intense campaign, I know mistakes were made,” Garcia said. “My campaign from the beginning has been about transparency.”

The fine stems from a complaint filed nine months ago by former Nueces County Republican Party chairman Joel Yowell. It is the fourth complaint local Republicans have filed against Garcia and the only one to result in a fine.

“I’ve been confident all along they would make some sort of finding,” Yowell said. “I felt like he really violated some rules.”

Nueces County Republicans uncovered the unreported campaign contributions when examining the campaign finance reports from the Good Government Political Action Committee, a group run by trial lawyer Mikal Watts.

Mike Bertuzzi, current chairman of the county GOP, said the amounts reported by Garcia and those reported by the PAC didn’t add up.

“Mr. Garcia and his cronies apparently felt they were above the law and didn’t want Texans to know that his election was bought and paid for by liberal trial lawyers,” Bertuzzi said.

Garcia said there was no attempt to hide anything.

ArticleComments

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 4:53 p.m.

Wow.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 5 p.m.

Just when I thought he was doing a good job - Now this. Reminds me of the Gene Seamans ethics problem - Oh, but that was Gene's wife. Just goes to show you can't trust a politician.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 5:24 p.m.

WOW IS RIGHT. He didn't want us to know that he was bought and payed for by the biggest phony of them all:

MAURICIO CELIS!. Who will probably become our next convicted drug runner for the Mexican Cartel.

Juan Garcia, just give the money back. It sure would make you look more like an honest man.....which by the way was how you tore down your opponent Gene Seaman.

The letters on the front page of the Caller Times couldn't have been any bigger. GENE SEAMAN HAS TWO HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS!!! You would have thought the guy had committed murder or something.

I hope the Caller Times has big bold Black Letters in tomorrow's paper! Oh wait, they only do that to Republicans.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 5:52 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6 p.m.

The Garcia website says, “Let's pass strong campaign finance laws to limit the ability of special corporate interests to subvert our democratic process,” yet he is willing to subvert the process by not reporting Mikhail Gorbachev Watts, Inc.’s contributions. By the way Juan, the Texas Bill of Rights states, “The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government.” We do not live in a democracy, it is a representative democracy. Also there you will find that, “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.” This means it was not established for a bunch of ambulance chasing plaintiff lawyers.

“Garcia said the violations were technical difficulties that happened in the final days of a tough campaign.” Yet, the order he signed says that, “This order and agreed resolution describes violations that the commission has determined are neither technical nor de minimis.” So he says they are technical problems but has signed a consent agreement with the Ethics Commission that admits that they were not technical. By the way, for all you victims of a government education de minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, that is to say that the law is not interested in trivial matters. This ain’t trivial.

Quick, call the surgeon; he is talking out of both sides of his mouth again! A little cheeky, wouldn’t you agree?

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:01 p.m.

Seaman claimed two homestead exemptions (illegally) while being a realtor and then blamed it on his wife.

Seaman illegally funneled campaign money through his wife so they could buy a lakeside condo in Austin.

Seaman is allegedly banned from certain areas in the Athletic club for improper behavior.

Seaman shilled for the insurance lobby helping keep home insurance rates high.

Republicans now pick someone who actually lobbied for increases in windstorm coverage after they have made cash hand over fist. Todd Hunter is Gene Seaman in a different suit.

I am happy with Rep. Juan Garcia's performance in Austin and the Coastal Bend and unlike Seaman, owned up to mistakes made unintentionally.

After three failed attempts denied by the state, it is time to move on Yowell.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:05 p.m.

The Republicans are no better, vote independent .

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:09 p.m.

To post #4. You use the word "nazi" in your comments. First capitalize the word and then look at the definition. You will find that Hillary and Obama both have a political philosophy that is called fascist. Now your homework assignment is to tell the teacher what the last great fascist political party called themselves. You learned that in school, I’m sure.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:11 p.m.

In the overall scheme of things - $12,500 seems like a pretty insignificant amount.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:12 p.m.

By the way - I believe Juan Garcia was one of the first to re-gift Celis' donation to a local charity. Might want to look that one up folks.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:13 p.m.

To post #7. We are on a roll here. What are "mistakes made unintentionally?" Are there intentional mistakes?

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 6:24 p.m.

Post 9, the answer to your question is "Republicans".
Hugs and kisses, Post 4.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 8:36 p.m.

post 11, the only thing Juan Garcia re-gifted was the 2000.00 givin to him for this years re-election campaign.

He hasn't given a red cent back of the thousands he received from Mauricio Celis and from Mikal Watt's Pac fund,....(which is another word for illegal campaign donations) from Celis again. Money made from the drug market. Money made on the backs of the drug cartels.

Smelly Smelly. Trial Lawyers and fake Trial Lawyers/fake cops. Juan should be so proud that he party'd with these boys on the campaign trail.

I can even see the image of Juan and Mauricio's photo op. You know there's a pic of them hugging out there somewhere. Maybe just maybe it will end up on the front page of the CC Caller Times this year.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 8:36 p.m.

someone call the waaaaaambulance...how long has it been since Garcia beat Seaman? Quit crying like little babies. Get over it. Get a life. Get a real candidate.

Republicans....you lost. Try again.

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 9:41 p.m.

Democrats......you cheated, try again. Everything you accuse the Repubs of doing, Demos turn around and do it even worse.

Since when do 2 wrongs make a right? Oh that's right, when your a DEMOCRAT! yeeee hAW!

Posted on January 14, 2008 at 9:59 p.m.

Congratulations Joel. Keep up the good fight my friend.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 12:47 a.m.

Rules are rules, and if you can't play by them you ought not participate in the process. The problem is, the rules only apply to the honest man and woman, and the crooks are getting away with murder

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 12:51 a.m.

Post 19, wake up. Your hero confessed to violating the most basic rule of campaign finance. Failure to report a $12,500 contribution is flagrant and you are blind.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 7:27 a.m.

He did not give back the Celis donation and that was widely reported. What does that say for him? I don't trust the lot of them!

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 8:09 a.m.

Post 7 - "Seaman claimed/Seaman illegally/Seaman is/Seaman shilled..."

Seaman also lost, remember? He no longer holds public office, remember? This is about Juan Garcia, remember? Are you trying to change the subject?

The problem here is that Garcia has been found GUILTY of the same things Seaman was ACCUSED of!

Politicians and political operatives are ACCUSED all the time by their opposition but GARCIA HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY BY THE STATE OF TEXAS AND FINED!

Sorry but it's no longer just POLITICS once he's CONVICTED of doing the same things he ACCUSED his republican opponent of doing!

I wonder what other boogers are hiding in the woodpile out back???

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 8:38 a.m.

DIRTY POLITICS!take advantage & abuse our freedom of speech.
Can we hear something meaningful, good for our community, our country, our people? C'mon, ADULTS! Act your age, what's happening to INTEGRITY & RESPECT! This bickering, greed, jealousy, selfishness, narcisstic people thinking they're better than others! Nobody's better than others! It's what YOU make of YOURSELF-that's who & what you are. Give us SOMEBODY that can be trusted, that has created HIS image of WORTHY...is there someone out there.....hm,hm..Ltmethnk.....stilstnking....

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 10:47 a.m.

Dont politicians have some kind of "treasure-secretary" that's suppose to keep up with (financial things, paperwork, donations and who's who donating and expecting favors in return)?

Maybe the "treasure-secretary" of both the Seaman and Garcia camps need to be tarred and feathered?

Vote Independent for a non-criminal America.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 2:15 p.m.

Juan Garcia's CAMPAIGN made a mistake. He is fined. He will pay. And he admitted the mistake.

He is a decent, upright, patriotic American. He has already performed magnificently for this state, and he will continue to have my confidence.

Posted on January 15, 2008 at 8:22 p.m.

He has come forward and hasn't denied any of this.
This shouldn't be turned into a scandal.

I'm sure that the contributors were private individuals supporting Garcia's cause and not bussinessmen/women that were lobbying for his vote.

He has done an excellent job in the House and we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Bertuzzi didn't do this research for the sake of Corpus Christians and Rockportians, he did it for the sake of his party.

This isn't corruption.

Parkdale Bank: Ray Mc Murrey Is From Here, He Still Believes Like It Says In The Intro, "I'll be a straight-shooter & a square-dealer "& He Does "Reme

2007-12-28T01:04:00.000-08:00

Parkdale Bank: Ray Mc Murrey Is From Here, He Still Believes Like It Says In The Intro, "I'll be a straight-shooter & a square-dealer "& He Does "Remember The Alamo"

"I'll be as hardy of mind as I am of body. I'll be a straight-shooter and a square-dealer. My family name will be sacred My word will be as good as any contract. I'll remember the Alamo. I'll stick by my friends. And I'll eat more chicken-fried steak."

"We do not win by replacing a corporate Republican with a corporate Democrat," said Mr. McMurrey, speaking to about a dozen supporters at an East Austin residence.

Ray told me this before he spoke at his Official Announcement to run against the Corporate Democratic Military Industrial Complex Candidate for Texas US Senator.

A very passionate candidate who is anything other than a fake or what some like to call a politician.

Ray is not a Politician and this is a very very positive attribute.

Dont get me wrong he is very well suited for the Senate and the diplomacy is there but there is a sternness that demands his respect kind of like the respect and command he possesses in the classroom. I think we can all agree, if he can handle our youth in the classroom he will do well for us in Washington.

Two more things

Remember the Alamo

and

Stay tuned for Jan 2 next year.

"We do not win by replacing a corporate Republican with a corporate Democrat," said Mr. McMurrey, speaking to about a dozen supporters at an East Austin residence.

Ray Mc Murrey is from Corpus Christi.

He tells us upfront of his progressive leanings and his disappointment in both of the Hegemonic Parties.

Hegemony,.... Watch the Movie "Hot Fuzz".

2007-12-26T00:26:00.000-08:00

August 8, 2003

Going…Going…Going Online This Fall
High demand spurs College’s Death Investigation Program to offer Internet courses worldwide

When Del Mar College began offering its Death Investigation Program two years ago, 33 students began taking one of the first three courses developed. Over 100 other local students had to put their name on a waiting list to enroll in the classes.

But a partnership that emerged nearly four years ago with the U.S. Congress, the Kitsap County Coroner’s Office in Washington State, the Nueces County Medical Examiners Office and local computer software company INDX, Inc. is now putting death investigation at the forefront on the Internet. This fall, Del Mar will begin offering its courses online to reach more students across the country–even around the world.

“Our program has grown exponentially during the past two years,” says John Graham, instructor of criminal justice. “And we expect even more growth when our online degree program is promoted internationally through the NOMIS Project.” Online courses the College will offer include Death Investigation I, Death Investigation II and the Legal and Social Aspects of Death and Dying.

The Network of Medicolegal Investigative Systems, known as NOMIS, is a computer program developed and owned by INDX, Inc. The company offered to modify NOMIS for the government to assist in the investigation of tracking incidences of death, including those caused by weapons of mass destruction and bioterrorism. The program will facilitate the collection, analysis and retrieval of data in several areas, including identification of missing/unidentified deceased persons; mass fatality victim identification; investigator training and certification; electronic death registration; evidence control and disposition; Emergency Room casualty tracking; military combat aid station tracking; contagious diseases and epidemics; AMBER Alert communications; serial homicides; among several others.

NOMIS will offer a comprehensive solution to the needs of medicolegal and law enforcement jurisdictions and provide a common national infrastructure that serves multiple agencies at all levels of government. National security, national defense, criminal justice, public health and disaster mitigation, response and recovery will all benefit from the application.

The partnership is sponsoring the deployment of the NOMIS Basic Death Investigation Web Service application this month with an anticipated in-depth testing date set for Aug. 8. The Web site, located at www.nomisproject.com, will also link to Del Mar’s Death Investigation Program.

Of the partnership, Graham says, “This marriage was made in heaven, not only for Del Mar College but for the entire nation.” He reiterates that under the agreement, NOMIS will provide worldwide instant access to the College’s Death Investigation Program while Del Mar will have perpetual access to data stored onsite for research purposes or educational needs. “This is a great deal for us.”
Graham says that in 2001, U.S. Congressman Solomon Ortiz successfully funneled a line item appropriation through the Department of Justice as part of the 2002 national budget to fund INDX, Inc.’s expansion of the NOMIS application’s abilities.

According to Graham, NOMIS was created using “what experts called an impossible amount of funding, only $300,000, to complete what normally takes millions of dollars.” Del Mar College and INDX, Inc. worked together and are now close to completing the second version of the application.

“Del Mar College has achieved a minor miracle with the funding received in the line item appropriation,” he notes. “We created a new degree, a national data collection program and retained the right to access data from that program. We could not afford to purchase this kind of powerful tool or build it without the dedication of College faculty with the Legal Professions and Computer Science Departments and Information Technology personnel, who all had a hand in making this a reality.”

Additionally, Del Mar Criminal Justice students tested the Alpha version of NOMIS using a simulated attack on the Port of Corpus Christi. Many fatalities were incorporated into the exercise so that students could pretend to be first responders to a central emergency command post.

“With no training, they were able to master the program and begin downloading data within five minutes,” Graham says. “This type of usability is of paramount importance. If this system had been available on 9-11, the process of recovery and identification may have been enhanced.”

Graham says that requests for entry into the Death Investigation Program continuously come from individuals across the nation. “Demand is high, but now that the program will be promoted on the NOMIS Project homepage, the Legal Professions Division is gearing up for an additional influx of requests,” he says.

“We’re literally calling medical examiners and investigators all over the country to recruit adjunct instructors to teach this fall’s online courses,” Graham adds. “I’ve even spoken to a forensic pathologist in Great Britain.”

“Del Mar College is the only institution of higher education that offers a degree program in Death Investigation,” notes Graham. “Combined with the national deployment of NOMIS, the number of requests for this degree are probably going to be beyond our immediate ability to respond. What a wonderful problem to have.”

###

Sidebar Story:

Death Investigation Student Currently Working in Field
Director of Morgue Services with Nueces County Medical Examiners Office close to finishing program

She only lacks taking five classes to complete Del Mar College’s Death Investigation Program. But as Alex Medina puts it, “The field is not for everyone.”

“You don’t know what work is going to be like from one day to the next,” says Medina, a criminal justice and death investigations major and the director of morgue services at the Nueces County Medical Examiners Office. “You deal with death every day, and you see people you have known, friends or someone you went to school with. You just don’t know who you’ll see until you pull the cover back.”
The Corpus Christi native enrolled in Death Investigations courses when the College’s Department of Legal Professions began offering the program in fall 2001. Medina says her extensive experience in healthcare, including clinical, administrative and emergency services have been beneficial as she’s worked through the program.

“I enrolled in the Death Investigation Program during its infancy,” she notes. “But the program is expanding and is great for students here in Corpus Christi.” She notes that the high employment demand in the field means graduates have opportunities to find positions all over the country.

Prior to returning to Corpus Christi three years ago, Medina joined the U.S. Navy and began serving as a corpsman and EMT (emergency medical technician) in 1987. The 34-year-old is a nationally registered EMT, a certified medical assistant and a licensed ambulance driver.

But, Medina’s fascination with forensics and work with several pathology groups over the years spurned her interest to enroll in the Death Investigation Program when she decided to go back to college. “I started taking 22 to 26 credit hours when I enrolled,” she says. “I also wanted to get my foot in the door and made myself known to Ric Ortiz, who’s the chief investigator in the county’s Medical Examiners Office and was one of the first adjunct instructors to teach courses in the new program.”

“During class tours of the facility, I made a point of meeting the forensic staff and kind of pushed my way in here,” she muses. “When a position became available, I applied for it and went through the same process as the other candidates. But my education and work experience was key to my getting the position.”

Medina says death investigations is very demanding--physically and psychologically. “People are fascinated as to why I chose this field, but I believe I am where I’m suppose to be at this time in my life. I find the work intriguing. It’s like solving a puzzle.”

She adds, “This field requires special people who can find the answers as to why or how someone died.”

-DMC-me

Return to CRO News Releases
nanotechnologicu.blogspot.com

Guess you haven't heard of the Albert Benitez/John Graham/Linda Garcia/Chris Adler/Carlos Garcia/Shari Parker Do some homework before U hurt yourself

2007-11-11T00:18:00.001-08:00

Guess you have not heard of the Albert Benitez/John Graham/Linda Garcia/Chris Adler/Carlos Garcia/Shari Parker//Port Royal/Student Government Association/Mike Westergren/Theresa Cox/Ben Blanco/Cohen/Gabe Rivas/Attorney General/Guadalupe Rangel Report/Baker Botts half a million dollar report/Howard Karsh/ Asbestos Debacle

Restraining order meant to prevent the policy changes

By Israel Saenz (Contact)
Originally published 10:17 a.m., November 9, 2007
Updated 11:49 a.m., November 9, 2007

CORPUS CHRISTI — A judge Friday denied Del Mar College professors’ request for a temporary restraining order meant to prevent the college from implementing policy changes proposed by its interim president.

Judge Jose Longoria with the 214th District court told Robert Heil — an attorney representing faculty members Ann Thorn, Loyd Poplin, Nancy Bednar and Dana De La Plaine — that he did not present a basis for the filing and denied the request.

Longoria set another hearing for Nov. 19.

The professors, as well as the college’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, filed a lawsuit Tuesday to prevent interim President Travis Kirkland from implementing changes to tenure policy, as well as other administrative changes.

Tenure is a contractual arrangement that gives faculty due process before possible termination.

Kirkland seeks to separate tenure from promotion at the college — current policy dictates that when faculty members are promoted, they also receive tenure. The college’s board of regents will consider that and other proposals Tuesday.

View latest stories with comments »
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: We've changed the way comments appear on the site. Click here for more information.

Post 1 November 9, 2007 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good

Post 2 November 9, 2007 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Clearly the circus is back in town. Tenure should be earned and not some goody type of reward for passing a probationary term of employment.

On the other hand if mediocrity is the goal, go on and maintain the current standard.

Post 3 November 9, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a travesty. Without tenure it will be impossible to recruit and retain quality faculty. Del Mar students will be denied the opportunity to have quality education.

Education is expensive, and Del Mar offers one of the best opportunities for that education for the money in the area. It has a high reputation nationally, something that will change if we can no longer recruit quality faculty (because they don't even look at jobs that don't offer tenure).

Post 4 November 9, 2007 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 3... they are not eliminating tenure... they are simply making it to where the instructors have to actually work for it... just like a normal person would have to work to secure thier job in the marketplace... by making it too easy for the instructors to get tenure actually drops the level of education... The instructors that are worried about this are probably not doing thier jobs and have sub-standard scores for the college and are worried about thier jobs... if you are doing your job, then why are you worried... I am glad the judge denied this...

Post 5 November 9, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

what is tenure referring to? a pay raise? someone fill me in please.

Post 6 November 9, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

post 5... tenure is a status that an instructor achieves after years of dedication and excellent scores to secure thier job there... it makes it litterally impossible for them to get fired... even if layoffs are required because the program they teach is no longer in demand... and keeping these programs and teachers around when there is no demand only drives up the cost of education... I know that if my job was no longer in demand, they would not bat a lash before canning me (no matter how good my reviews are) because it is simple "demand" in the education field... I am not a teacher though therefore I can not get tenure...

Post 7 November 9, 2007 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dccortez

Welcome to the real world. Staying current and doing your job is key to staying employed.

Post 8 November 9, 2007 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At present, promotion and tenure go hand in hand. In order to get both, you have to prove that you deserve it through a variety of methods. (I have a friend who is going through that preparation right now.) In other words, post #4, they have to show that they have worked for and earned their promotion and tenure. It doesn't make sense to tell someone, you're good enough to be promoted, but we want to be able to fire you without cause anyway.

Under the proposed plan, you would have to go through the entire process to get the promotion in one year, then the next year go through the same process to get tenure. Talk about a waste of time.

Does the tenure situation need to be fixed? Perhaps. My beef with the whole process right now is that we have a temporary person seeking to make permanent changes by fiat; completely ignoring the input of those people who will be most affected by the decision. I think that's presumptuous of the INTERIM president and I hope the Del Mar Board shows some uncharacteristic common sense for a governmental agency and turns this plan down. It's bad enough when they're a rubber stamp for a permanent person...but to rubber stamp the actions of a temporary person? Ridiculous!

Post 9 November 9, 2007 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to go Judge Longoria! You are truly serving the citizens of Corpus Christi in an honest and ethical manner!

I hope you do the same when you weigh the decision on whether or not to grant Hannah Overton a new trial. She should have to pay for her crime, one way or another. Hannah is the one that didn't want to plead down the charges. She's the one that gambled the chance to be convicted of Negligent homicide.

Why should we let the taxpayers have to go through this all over again.

And if you do grant her a new trial, I hope you keep it right here in Corpus Christi.

And post 4, I agree with you. The professors should have to earn their tenure.

Post 10 November 9, 2007 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tenure protects a faculty member from termination without cause. The DMC method prevents much of the internal politics that can corrupt an internal tenure system. As I understand it at the DMC if you can keep your job for three years you recieve tenure. That seems fair to me. Just consider what the current Board under Chris Adlers direction want do do. A faculty member would have to work at the DMC for many years and say that faculty member believes in freedom of speech and offends Chris Adler and most of the administration who do not believe in freedom of speech? Than you don't get tenure. Perhaps Ms Adler decides that evolution is out and inteligent design is in. As faculty if you beleive one or the other you don't get tenure? May be your Jewish and the rest of your department are christians? Maybe you don't get tenure? The fact is that any employee that can keep their job at the DMC for three years deserves what the State of Texas denies them. If an employee is not doing their job in that amount of time it is the college that is at fault if that employee was incompetent. Tenure protects a proven employee from the political tyrany and insider corruption of Ms Adlers Board and administrators and their incompetence.

Post 11 November 9, 2007 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Without tenure, SOME professors will be required to actually teach something useful in class as opposed to just going through the motions while wallowing in their brain dead position of mediocrity.
Tenure protects SOME professors from being held accountable for their current inability or unwillingness to effectively teach anymore.

Post 12 November 9, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In response to Post 11. Don't believe it. You will just end up with a professor who is afraid to offend the powers that be. That does not make a better teacher. This is not about the students. This is about the corruption of the administration and the power of those that support them. Students are the last thing on their minds. This is all about internal politics, power and who gets the biggest piece of the taxpayer’s money for the least amount of effort. This is about a faculty that will be afraid to stand up for the best interests of the students. If your professor is in the "in" group and he is the biggest jerk in the world to students he/she will get tenure and you will still suffer, maybe even worse. There will be nothing you can do.

Post 13 November 9, 2007 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, post 8, for a good explanation of the tenure process. I also agree that it is foolish to allow an interim president to make such a huge change in current policy. What if the decisions of the interim president result in an exodus of highly qualified professors and an adverse impact upon the quality of education at Del Mar? Kirkland will be long gone by then--but the Board of Regents will still have to face the voters. Ms. Adler and the rest of the Board should be aware that they will be held responsible, should the actions of the interim president have a negative impact upon the educational quality at Del Mar.

By the way, I know a few of the professors at Del Mar, and the tenure issue is only part of the problem. The "other administrative changes" have also caused morale to be at the lowest point I can recall. Unhappy professors tend to look elsewhere for employment; the best ones can find other positions. Who does that leave at Del Mar?

Post 14 November 9, 2007 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I want to tell a story here that might help students understand that this is not about the student. I spoke with an ex English instructor who did not have tenure. He told me that the English Learning Lab was in essence a scam to get more money from the government by forcing students to go to the learning lab to pick up assignments that could be handed out in class. They would have to sign in and the college used that to inflate statistics to the state. He questioned this and other practices that he thought hurt the students. Guess what? He does not work for the DMC anymore. My son who attended the DMC complained about wasting his time in the Learning Lab and I thought he just didn’t want to do the work. I owe him an apology. Why tenured faculty have not spoken out, I don’t know. Maybe if this instructor had made it to tenure he would have. As I understand it, he was a good instructor and he was for the student, and he is gone.

Post 15 November 9, 2007 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One of the biggest misconceptions about tenure is that it prevents the college from being able to dismiss a faculty member. This is simply not true. What it does do is require that due process steps be followed before a faculty member is dismissed AND guarantees a faculty member academic freedom to be able to disagree with administrators, be able to teach and discuss controversial topics, and be able make decisions about their courses without interference. There are a number of situations and conditions under which a tenured faculty member can be dismissed.

There are also a number of other policy proposals being put forth by the Interim President, most of which are attempts to reduce faculty control over those areas that faculty are closest to, including the issue of academic freedom and job security, selection of our faculty representatives, and departmental Chairs.

Post 16 November 9, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Make teaching at Del Mar like being a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader. You must re-apply and qualify every year. You must compete for your job and you must be the best.

At Del Mar, quality has never been job #1.

Post 17 November 9, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post # 5:

Are you a regent? McCampbell or Adler? Or are you an interim president? Kirkland? If not, you have a lot in common with them.

Post 18 November 9, 2007 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who can DO, those who can't TEACH.

Post 19 November 9, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And those who are ELECTED serve their constituents, the TAXPAYERS, not their special interests.

Can we get a big HOO-HA for Chris and Trey?

Post 20 November 9, 2007 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You people are funny. Everyone here knows the truth. This is all Adler trying to have a power trip. Actually Im glad she is doing this because she has lost 3/4's of her allies.

Its just a matter of time before Adler is removed.

Trey is a big disgrace to the community. Boycott American Bank!

Post 21 November 9, 2007 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have the following question. What if anything connects the following dots? Taypayers funds, Del Mar College construction projects, Chris Adler, Fulton Construction and Atlas Iron & Metal?

Post 22 November 9, 2007 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who can do, those who can't teach?....... What an idiot!
How did you learn to read, write, calculate?? By someone who can't?
Can't make a living in the real world? Can't show up to work for 8 hours? Try teaching a difficult concept to 25 adolescents. Come on in to our classrooms and maintain focus and discipline.....what are you waiting for? Step up..... or shut up....the face that is connected to the brain that obviously cannot see past his own immature catch phrase.
I am proud to be a part of a profession that gives up our love, devotion, true patriatism, accepting low pay, and the spittle from idoitic ramblings like yours. Idiot.

Post 23 November 9, 2007 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

patriatism?

Got on a rant and forgot to use spell check?

Post 24 November 9, 2007 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yea, guess i did!

Post 25 November 9, 2007 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Got to hate it when that happens. Good rant though.

Post 26 November 9, 2007 at 10:28 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Post 27 November 10, 2007 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Post 4: "They are not eliminating tenure... they are simply making it to where the instructors have to actually work for it... just like a normal person would have to work to secure thier job in the marketplace."

Well, I hope your not in the English Dept.

Do you not have "tenure"?

Do not presume to know what this change in policy will or will not accomplish.

The fact is Travis Kirkland nor the Board of Regents have the power to "modify" the policy when it obviously contrary to EEOC.

The are using Kirkland to do this power play , DMC BOR are the BOSS not the DMC President (who should be a Professor).

Travis Kirkland he is INTERIM.... that means TEMPORARY.

And you keep being their cheerleader but you are deluded when they do not need you don't come crying.

~D1~

Post 28 November 10, 2007 at 1:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Guess you have not heard of the Albert Benitez/John Graham/Linda Garcia/Chris Adler/Carlos Garcia/Shari Parker//Port Royal/Student Government Association/Mike Westergren/Theresa Cox/Ben Blanco/Cohen/Gabe Rivas/Attorney General/Guadalupe Rangel Report/Baker Botts half a million dollar report/Howard Karsh/ Asbestos Debacle?

Do some homework before you hurt yourself.

Guess you haven't heard of the Albert Benitez/John Graham/Linda Garcia/Chris Adler/Carlos Garcia/Shari Parker Do some homework before U hurt yourself

2007-11-11T00:18:00.000-08:00

Hey Gabe Rivas, Let's see how the ABC gang want your Law School?!?!

2007-09-10T21:39:00.000-07:00

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

SUPERIOR COURT---PROVIDENCE, SC.

THOMAS P. SEYMOUR [Pro Se],
Plaintiff

----- v. -----

CITY OF PROVIDENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT; SERGEANT RHONDA KESSLER; OTHER UNKNOWN OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS WHO RESPONDED TO PLAINTIFF'S HOME ON OR ABOUT JUNE 28 AND NOVEMBER 28, 2002, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants

C.A. No. PC/2003-0261

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

1. This is a Civil Rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive and other appropriate relief brought by Plaintiff, Thomas P. Seymour, a United States citizen, appearing pro se. Mr. Seymour brings this complaint for violations of his individual and associational rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and 1986; 29 U.S.C. 794 (Rehabilitation Act of 1973), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq (Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988, FHAA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182, 12203 (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA); Article I, sections 2, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 21 of the Rhode Island Constitution; Sections 9-1-28.1, 11-44-26, 11-59-2 (stalking/threatening), 34-18-1 et seq (Landlord-Tenant Act); 34-37-1 et seq (R.I. Fair Housing Practices Act), 42-87-1 et seq (R.I. Civil Rights of People with Disabilities Act) and 42-112-1 et seq (R.I. Civil Rights Act of 1990, RICRA) of R.I. General Laws.

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to sections 8-2-13, 8-2-14, 8-2-15, 9-30-1 et seq, 42-87-4(a) and 42-112-2 of R.I. General Laws, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. See Ward v. City of Pawtucket Police Dept., 639 A.2d 1379, 1381-2 (R.I. 1994) and Dempsey v. McQueeney, 387 F.Supp. 333 (D.R.I. 1975).

3. Cathedral Square Apartments (CSA) in Providence, is a Federally-subsidized apartment complex for low-income elderly and/or people with disabilities. It is owned and managed by Property Advisory Group, Inc. (PAG), Gregg W. Jenner and others.

4. Mr. Seymour is a qualified individual with disabilities, as defined by section 42-87-1 of R.I. General Laws. Mr. Seymour has orthopedic/mobility impairments, Crohn's disease, panic disorder and depression. He has been a tenant at CSA since April 1991. PAG and Gregg W. Jenner attempted a retaliatory eviction against Mr. Seymour in relation to this case, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604, 3617; 42 U.S.C. 12203, 34-18-46, 34-37-4(a) and 34-37-5.1 of R.I. General Laws. Their retaliatory eviction action was dismissed by this Court [Indeglia, J.] in September 2002 [PD/02-4743]. See Kingstown Mobile Home Park v. Strashnick, 774 A.2d 847 (R.I. 2001).

5. Another CSA resident, Saffwat (a.k.a. "Jimmy") Hanna ("Hanna")[D.O.B. 8/26/63], an Egyptian-born drug addict with a history of violent/psychotic behavior, assaulted and battered Mr. Seymour on 4/16/02 and 11/28/02, in violation of section 11-5-10.2 of R.I. General Laws, and stalked/threatened Mr. Seymour on a number of occasions on or about 11/28/02 to the present, in violation of section 11-59-2 of R.I. General Laws. On [Thanksgiving Day] 11/28/02, Hanna complained to Defendants about the presence in the building of Mr. Seymour's lawful invitee/guest, with whom Hanna allegedly had an altercation on or about 4/16/02 [P2/02-1808-A; PC/02-2038; PC/02-2051].

6. The [City of] Providence Police Department (PPD), and its officers and supervisors are responsible for protecting the physical safety of persons and property in Providence, including CSA. PPD also maintains a mini "sub-station" at Building 5, CSA.

7. Officers of the PPD failed to prevent the conspiracy enforcement of a discriminatory eviction/trespass action and false imprisonment against Mr. Seymour's lawful invitee/guest. She is a 56-year old woman with emotional, cognitive and physical disabilities, with whom Mr. Seymour maintains a familial/caregiver ("mother-son") type of relationship as a result of his friendship/companionship with her late daughter, who passed away April 9, 2002. Defendants physically and forcibly removed and falsely arrested a woman with disabilities from Mr. Seymour's home, without a warrant or probable cause, and absent exigent circumstances, thereby violating Mr. Seymour's rights of privacy and security in his home, and of persons located therein, under the Fourth Amendment [through the Fourteenth Amendment] to the United States Constitution [violating 42 U.S.C. 1983], and Article I, section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution. See State v. O'Dell, 576 A.2d 425 (R.I. 1990)[citing Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)][Third-party rights under Fourth Amendment]; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 596-7 (1980)[Warrantless entries under Fourth Amendment]; Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 67-70 (1992)[Fourth Amendment's protections triggered by search or entry incident to eviction or repossession] and State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d 377, 383-4 (R.I. 2001)[Tenant has the right to exclude landlord and police from his premises].

8. PPD's removal and false arrest of Plaintiff's lawful invitee/guest violated Plaintiff's rights of associational privacy under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983], and Article I, section 21 of the Rhode Island Constitution. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958)[Freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations] and Edmonds v. Oxford House, 514 U.S. 725, 732-3, and fn.1 (1995)[citing Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499-500 (1977)][Familial association].

9. This was a repeat of a similar incident on or about 6/28/02 in which certain officers failed to prevent Mr. Jenner, PAG, Hanna, and others from conspiring to violate Mr. Seymour's constitutional and civil rights, by barging into his home, threatening him with arrest and interfering with a lawful invitee/guest located therein. Defendants engaged in a malicious prosecution based on guilt by association, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983], and Article I, sections 2, 10 and 14 of the Rhode Island Constitution. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 269-73 (1994)[citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976)]; Senra v. Cunningham, 9 F.3d 168, 173 (1st Cir, 1993) and Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971).

10. PPD's enforcement of a no-contact order against Mr. Seymour's invitee/guest was illegally enforced against Mr. Seymour, was overbroad, and was inconsistent with section 11-44-26(b) of R.I. General Laws, as Mr. Seymour's lawful invitee/guest was a former CSA tenant and had a legitimate purpose for being on the CSA property, where Mr. Seymour is a lawful tenant. See State v. Conti, 672 A.2d 885, 887 (R.I. 1996)[coincidental contact does not violate no-contact order]; Peltier v. Roy, 453 F.Supp. 1373, 1375 (D.R.I. 1978)[Plaintiff's invitee had legitimate purpose under section 11-44-26 of R.I. General Laws], and Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish, La., 279 F.3d 273, 285 (5th Cir, 2002)[Deputy Sheriff misconstrued a TRO as an eviction order against ex-wife].

11. PPD's actions interfered with Plaintiff's personal, contractual and property rights by discriminating against Mr. Seymour in his association with a person with emotional/cognitive disabilities, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 794, 42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182(b)(1)(E), 12203; 42-87-3(5) and 42-112-1 et seq of R.I. General Laws. See Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 598-602 (1999)[ADA requires public entities to accommodate individuals with disabilities in most integrated setting]; Gorman v. Bartch, 257 F.3d 738, 749-51 (8th Cir, 2001)[reversed on other grounds Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002)][ADA applies to arrested persons with disabilities], and Roe v. Boulder Housing Authority , 909 F.Supp. 814, 822-3 (D.Colo. 1995)[citing Roe v. Sugar River Mills, 820 F.Supp. 636, 640 (D.N.H. 1993)[so-called "dangerous" tenants with mental disabilities must be reasonably accommodated].

12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are referenced, incorporated and realleged.

COUNT I-- VIOLATION OF THE REHABILITATION ACT, ADA, R.I. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1990 (RICRA) AND R.I. CIVIL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES ACT

13. Defendants, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present, interfered with the personal, contractual and property rights of Mr. Seymour, individually and in his association with a person with emotional and cognitive disabilities, and retaliated against Plaintiff based on same, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 794, 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(2)(C), 3617; 42 U.S.C. 12132, 12182(b)(1)(E), 12203(a-c); 34-37-4(a), 42-87-3(3),(5), and 42-112-1 et seq of R.I. General Laws. See Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc., 929 F.Supp. 562 (D.R.I. 1996) and Liu v. Striuli, 36 F.Supp.2d 452, 478 (D.R.I. 1999).

COUNT II-- VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE

14. Defendants actions created a type of malicious prosecution based on "guilt by association," which violated Mr. Seymour's Due Process rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983] and Article I, sections 2, 6, 10 and 14 of the Rhode Island Constitution, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present. See United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 266 (1967). Mr. Seymour was denied notice of accusation, the right to confront his [would be] accusers, and of his presumption of innocence. See Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U.S. 478, 480 (1974)[citing Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960)][notice of accusation]; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 447-8 (1966)[illegal police procedures]; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404 (1965) and State v. Brown, 706 A.2d 465, 473 (R.I. 1998)[citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974)][right to confront accusers/witnesses]. The Plaintiff is being deprived of significant liberty and property interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (i.e., the ability to decide who may visit or enter his home). See L.A. Ray Realty v. Town of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202, 210-11 (R.I. 1997)[citing Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990)][Substantive Due Process]; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 481-6 [cited in Lawrence v. Texas, Case No. 02-102 (USSC, 6/26/2003)], and Aurelio v. R.I. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 985 F.Supp. 48, 56-57 (D.R.I. 1997)[Procedural Due Process].

15. Defendants, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present denied Mr. Seymour's rights of Equal Justice by recourse to the laws under Article I, section 5 of the Rhode Island Constitution.

COUNT III-- VIOLATION OF ASSOCIATIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION [42 U.S.C. 1983] AND RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

16. Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights of associational, familial and personal privacy and liberty under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983] and Article I, section 21 of the Rhode Island Constitution, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present.

COUNT IV-- VIOLATION OF THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF PLAINTIFF'S HOME UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION [42 U.S.C. 1983], AND THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

17. Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights to the security and privacy of his home, and of persons located therein, under the Fourth (through the Fourteenth Amendment) Amendment to the United States Constition [under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and Article I, section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution. Specifically, the defendants barged into Mr. Seymour's home to forcibly remove and falsely arrest his lawful invitee/guest, without an arrest or search warrant and absent exigent circumstances, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02. See State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d at 383-4, and Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. at 95-100 [Overnight guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy, absent exigent circumstances]. Neither PPD, its officers, PAG nor Hanna had any business intruding into the [constitutional] privacy and security of Plaintiff's apartment [and persons located therein] on or about 6/28/02, Thankgiving Day [2002], or at any other time, without a valid warrant or probable cause, and absent any exigent circumstances, to carry out an action concerning a months-old allegation by a neighbor against Mr. Seymour's lawful invitee/guest. See Steagald v. United States, 439 U.S. at 214-15, fn.8.

COUNT V-- FAILURE TO PREVENT CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE FEDERALLY-PROTECTED RIGHTS

18. Defendants failed to prevent a conspiracy between Mr. Seymour's Federally-subsidized landlord, PAG, Gregg W. Jenner and other individuals, to deprive Mr. Seymour of his Federally-protected rights on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. See Andrade v. Jamestown Housing Authority, 82 F.3d 1179 (1st Cir, 1996). Specifically, Defendants failed to prevent the execution of a discriminatory and retaliatory trespass and eviction under 42 U.S.C. 3604, 3617; 42 U.S.C. 12203, 34-18-46, 34-37-4, 34-37-5.1 and 42-87-3 of R.I. General Laws.

COUNT VI-- FALSE ARREST/IMPRISONMENT

19. On or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02, the Defendants executed a false arrest/imprisonment within the confines of Plaintiff's lawful home, and against a lawful invitee/guest located therein. See Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 816 (1985); Dyson v. City of Pawtucket, 670 A.2d 233 (R.I. 1996); Weber v. Cranston School Cmte., 212 F.3d 41 (1st Cir, 2000)[standing under 29 U.S.C. 794] and Carroll v. Capalbo, 563 F.Supp. 1053, 1057, fn.7 (D.R.I. 1983)[citing Gordon v. Crouchley, 554 F.Supp. 796, 798 (D.R.I. 1982)[Third-party litigant's standing to assert constitutional rights] and Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 411 (1991)[citing Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 187-9 (1973)][threat of prosecution against third party].

COUNT VII-- INVASION OF PRIVACY

20. Defendants invaded the personal seclusion and solitude of Plaintiff on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02, in violation of section 9-1-28.1(a)(1) of R.I. General Laws. See Liu v. Striuli, 36 F.Supp.2d at 479-80.

COUNT VIII-- TRESPASS

21. Defendants trespassed on Plaintiff's lawfully-leased premises, in violation of section 11-44-26 of R.I. General Laws. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 596-7, fn.45 [Common-law and colonial laws against warrantless entry...A man's house is his castle]; State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d at 383-4.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Thomas P. Seymour respectfully asks this Court to grant him such declaratory, injunctive and other relief as it deems just and proper.

PLAINTIFF,

THOMAS P. SEYMOUR [Pro Se],
4 Cathedral Square, Apt. 109
Providence, RI 02903

The Del MAr Board Of Regents Will Spit in the Face of Voters. Gabe Rivas (Sore Loser) is Coming Back Despite the Public.

2007-08-22T22:54:00.000-07:00

Gabe Rivas will be appointed back onto the Del Mar Board of Regents after the voters tossed him out.

The regents are content to disrespect the voters of district 1 and the electoral process.

Notice how the Regents, Valdez and In House Counsel want to follow the election code when it suits them and then revert back to the by laws so as to appoint whomever they please?

Oops,.....I mean to appoint Gabe Rivas.
The Regents who vote to place Gabe Rivas back on the Del Mar Board of Regents are crooked and have no place leading in our community. It is an abomination to the community rendering this political subdivision corrupt and untrustworthy.

Go for it guys, Gabe Rivas will be the downfall of each and everyone of you who affirm him.

"Insiders say Gabe Rivas
has 4 votes already":

I followed that race and Gabe got beat fair and square. It's obvious
District 1 wanted change. This is an example of Gabe's sour grapes
rotting in the hot Corpus sun. He should respect the voters wishes and
move on with his life and business. However...Linda's mistake was
signing a voter registration card stating she voted in Kingsville and
have it dated AFTER her application for candidacy (which is
monumentally stupid!) You HAVE to reside in the county you vote in,
that's the law. I doubt Texas recognizes 'dual' residency.Perhaps
District 1 needs a completely NEW person for that seat. The voters
deserve way more than sour grapes and stupidity.

Posted by intheknow on
July 18, 2007 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)To be fair Gabe was on the
ballot and he was voted down. It was the will of the people. Someone
new should be picked and Gabe can try to run again when the special
election is called.

Posted by dannoynted1 on July 23, 2007 at 3:25 a.m.
(Suggest removal)Obviously there were enough people angry at Gabe Rivas
and more than enough to vote him out.

Posted by dvillarreal1981 on
August 2, 2007 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)There's no way people
should support Gabe Rivas now. He needs to go just as much as she
does.Posted by jenbarcor on July 26, 2007 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest
removal)Is Gabe just a sore loser?

Insiders say Gabe Rivas has 4 votes already

2007-08-13T03:21:00.000-07:00

Prove me wrong, I dare ya. or will he re gain his Board President Position as well? He sure did run a meeting far better than the current Brd Prez ...

Who Dat?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is a quasi-lateral concurrence, well at least we can agree on that, "At least Gabe Rivas knew how to run a meeting "

Del Mar sets regent deadline

By Israel Saenz (Contact)
Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Garcia resigned from the board last week.

CORPUS CHRISTI — The Del Mar College Board of Regents has set an Aug. 22 deadline for those interested in applying for the District 1 seat vacated by Linda Garcia last week.

Garcia, whose eligibility to run for the seat last November was under investigation, resigned Aug. 1, stating in a resignation letter that she had accepted a job outside of the city. Del Mar regents at Tuesday's called meeting accepted the resignation.

The applicant must be a District 1 resident and a registered voter. Board President Chris Adler said no timeline has been set for when regents seek to fill the seat.

"We'll go over the resumes, interview candidates and select someone," Adler said.

Adler said Tuesday no one yet was in the running for the seat, but former District 1 regent and board president Gabriel Rivas -- who was unseated by Garcia and spurred District Attorney Carlos Valdez's investigation -- said Tuesday he planned to apply.

"I'm definitely interested in returning," Rivas said.

Rivas submitted Garcia's application to run for the seat and her March statement of residency to Valdez's office in January. The documents, Valdez said, contained contradictory information on her stated home address.

While the candidacy application contained a District 1 address, the statement of residency showed a Kingsville address.

Valdez did not return phone calls Tuesday. The regent who replaces Garcia will fill the seat until 2012, the next time it is up for election.

The board's last vacancy came when District 5 Regent Bill Chriss resigned in July 2006 to pursue a fellowship at the University of Texas at Austin.

Regents called for that seat to be filled by a special election, held last November.

Contact Israel Saenz at 886-3767 or saenzi@caller.com

View latest stories with comments »

Posted by torontomail on August 8, 2007 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I smell something fishy here, Rivas definitely SHOULD NOT be appointed to fill this position. If he is, the electoral system in Nueces County is a kangaroo court.

Posted by iwabazan on August 8, 2007 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe the voters spoke when they voted Rivas out. Take the hint. The voters did not have confidence in him and he should move on.

Posted by kingalonzoalvarezdepineda13 on August 10, 2007 at 1:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Insiders say Gabe Rivas has 4 votes already.

Prove me wrong, I dare ya

Will the regents disrespect the voters of district 1 again?

Notice how the Regents, Valdez and In House Counsel want to follow the election code when it suits them and then revert back to by laws to appoint whomever they please?

Also did you guys know 4 of our regents recieve DMC Group hEALTH INSURANCE @ $360 per month? We will be posting the documentation.

DMC FOI Request Insurance Production

2007-08-10T21:19:00.001-07:00

Corpus Christi Daily Digital: DMC FOI Request Insurance Production

Why does Libby go free while this kid winds up in prison? Why does Libby go free while Ramsey (a decent man) is banished to life in prison?

2007-08-05T02:40:00.000-07:00

DMC's own John Crisp speaks up against injustice.

Hard time in Texas over pot, parole

By John M. Crisp

A friend of mine is an undercover do-gooder who looks for anonymous ways to help those on the lower end of our societal ladder to climb up a rung or two.

A kid who sometimes works in his yard is in trouble with the law, so my friend is supplying some of the encouragement and support that, in a better world, would be part of every kid's birthright. He asked me to come along for the ride to the prison where the kid will spend the next four months.

The trip generated a few questions about our penal system - and about I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

A thousand people live in the prison, set on the hot, brushy coastal plain of deep South Texas. A product of the Texas prison-building boom of the last decade, it doesn't have brick walls and guard towers like Alcatraz; instead, it's an extensive sheet-metal complex surrounded by high chain-link fences and impressive tangles of barbed wire.

It's a serious world of uniforms, guns and rules: Open the trunk, open the hood. Leave all wallets, keys and cell phones in your car. You will not enter the prison without official authorization. Do not take paper money into the prison.

Most of the rules are probably more or less necessary, but I wonder if visitors aren't worked over with a little more attitude than is called for.

Like most people, my friend and I tend to be intimidated by men with uniforms and guns. We show up at a place like a prison already prepared to do what we're told.

But inside, things got tougher.

My friend's name was on the authorized-visitors list and he had been previously vetted by authorities in Corpus Christi. He had his picture ID, as required. But his unusual last name was misspelled on the prison's list and, as a result, he was subjected to a stern lecture and threatened with being turned away after a 140-mile drive.

Of course, the guard eventually let him in; after all, it was just a misspelling.

I had my choice of two places to wait: in my car (in South Texas in July!) or at the picnic table on the far edge of the parking lot. The table had a little shade, so I settled in with a good book.

Soon an older Hispanic gentleman joined me. He had been shooed off the parking lot by a guard who, for some reason, wouldn't allow him to stand next to his car. His disabled wife, his son and he had driven three hours to see his grandson. They had almost been turned away, as well, because of his wife's clothes, even though she had already been allowed inside the prison three or four times previously while wearing similar outfits.

The guard wasn't very nice, the old man said. But after a humbling lecture, he let them in.

But only the wife and son. And while visits are limited to two hours, his wife or son wasn't allowed to come out after the first hour in order to allow him to visit during the second. Why? I don't know.

First question: I suspect that this prison is an efficient, professionally run facility. And prison is a place where structure and discipline are essential. But why not make visiting easy, rather than difficult, since lack of interested human contact is already a significant contributor to many prisoners' incarcerations?

Second question: What's my friend's acquaintance doing in a place like this, anyway, along with murderers, rapists and other hard cases?

He's just a decent kid who got caught with pot. But his big mistake was having wandered down to the convenience store on the corner for a soft drink just when his probation officer happened to show up.

Third question: I'm all for accountability, but why does Libby go free while this kid winds up in prison?

President Bush points to Libby's record of public service. But given that Libby was an inside player during one of the worst governing episodes in our nation's history, and given that all this kid did was have the bad judgment to walk to a convenience store when he should have stayed home, who has done our country more harm?

John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. E-mail: jcrisp@delmar.edu.

Justice is Duck Blind spelled Just Us.

Was It Not About Orientation & Who Dr. Gustavo Valadez Ortiz Held Hands With?

2007-08-03T09:02:00.000-07:00

Page 1 MINUTES OF THE CALLED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE DEL MAR COLLEGE DISTRICT July 28, 2003 The Called Meeting of the Board of Regents of the Del Mar College District opened in the Isensee Board Room, Harvin Student Center, Del Mar College East Campus, 101 Baldwin, Corpus Christi, Texas, at 11:30 p.m. on Monday, July 28, 2003, with the following present: From the Board: Mrs. Chris Adler, Mrs. Minnie Arriaga; Dr. Haysam Dawod, Mrs. Olga Gonzales, Mr. Bill Martin; Mr. Gabe Rivas, Mrs. Dorothy Spann, Mr. Guy Watts, and Ms. Beverly Winters. From the College: Dr. Gustavo Valadez Ortiz, President; Mr. Jose Alaniz, Vice President, Business and Finance; Mr. Jose Rivera, Vice President of Student Development and Community Learning; Ms. Claudia Jackson, Assistant to the President for Community Relations; Ms. Barbara Riley, Executive Administrative Assistant to Vice President of Business and Finance; and other administrators, faculty, and staff. From the Attorney's Office: Mr. Stephen Hilmy. Others: Other interested citizens. Mrs. Olga Gonzales, president of the Board, presided and called the meeting to order. With a quorum present, she requested a moment of silence. The meeting opened with public comments. Mrs. Gonzales announced that, because of the number of people who signed up to address the Board, public comments would be limited to three minutes. Ms. Laura Parr asked the Board to remember the comments she had made at the last meeting, and stated that those comments were made by her as a taxpayer and as an employee of the College. Mr. Justin Shirley, a student at the College, expressed his support for Dr. Valadez and the activities he has been involved in with students. Mr. Raul Saenz addressed the Board as a taxpayer in support of Dr. Valadez and his accomplishments. Ms. Angela Garcia, deputy director for the elderly at the state level for LULAC, expressed her support for Dr. Valadez for the things that she had heard he had done at the College. Page 2 Ms. Rosa Rosales, national vice president of Southwest for LULAC, gave her support for Dr. Valadez as a Latino, and expressed the need to have more Latinos in higher positions. Ms. Ann Thorn, faculty member in the Computer Science department, asked that the Board give due consideration to the resolutions presented by the Faculty Council and Council of Chairs. She admonished those who were labeling the issue as “racism.” Mr. Mike Anzaldua, faculty member in the English department and speaking for himself, expressed his anger for those who stated that there was racism at the College. He reviewed the many administrative positions at the College held by Hispanics or minorities. Ms. Dolores Huerta, faculty member in Business Administration and speaking for herself, informed the Board that she was hired 20 years ago based on her credentials, not race, and that she has earned her rank as Professor. She asked that the Board omit the issue of ethnicity and race in any decision they make. Mr. Ruben Lopez Rodriguez, an employee of the College for 31 years and speaking for himself, commented on the effect the issue is having at the College and in the community. He also asked that the issue of race not be a factor. Ms. Nancy Vera, president of LULAC Council #4444, voiced her support for Dr. Valadez and the initiatives he had taken during his tenure at the College. Because Ms. Vera continuously addressed the audience, and addressed her comments to individual Board members, Mrs. Spann requested that Ms. Vera be told to follow the rules of decorum. Mr. Howard Karsh, auditorium supervisor, expressed his appreciation for Dr. Valadez’ assistance in making progress with auditorium issues. Mr. Ray Madrigal, 1113 18 th Street and speaking as a citizen, expressed his concerns for the financial impact on the College, and thus, the taxpayer, if the College has to pay off the remainder of the College president’s contract. Mr. Willie Perez, speaking on behalf of LULAC Council #4444 and Griselda Leal, commented on the issue of racism. He read a note from Ms. Leal in which she expressed her support for Dr. Valadez. Several speakers were exceeding the three-minute time limit, and Mrs. Arriaga requested that the Board president adhere to the limit and the comments appropriately. Mr. Joe Ortiz, member of the Felix Longoria Chapter of the G. I. Forum, insinuated that there was a “witch-hunt” and asked that the Board provide Dr. Valadez due process. Page 3 Ms. Lula Hinton, an employee of the College and speaking for herself, reminded the Board that they needed to make a responsible decision, and pointed out that the majority of speakers were not employees of the College. She asked that the Board give attention to the resolutions presented by two major factions of the College. Mr. Jose Rivera announced that he was asked to read a letter addressed to Dr. Valadez. The letter, from Mr. Mike Roberts, superintendent of Sinton ISD, expressed support for Dr. Valadez. Mr. Rivera asked that the Board consider that Dr. Valadez may not have been given the opportunity to address the issues presented in the resolutions. Mr. Pete Rivera stated that, although he did not know Dr. Valadez, he knew of him from the media, and asked that the Board make any decisions based on facts. Mr. Albert Benitez, instructor in the Criminal Justice program, reported that he felt there was racism within the Criminal Justice program. Mr. Benitez expressed his support for Dr. Valadez because the president had introduced himself to Mr. Benitez’s class. Ms. Mary Kay, faculty member at the College and speaking for herself, stressed that racism was not a factor with the issue of the College president, and reminded everyone that Dr. Valadez was selected as College president because he is a Hispanic. She assured those present that all students are being taught on an equal basis and not based on their skin color. Mr. John Crisp, faculty member in the English department and assistant chairperson of the Faculty Council, clarified that the resolution made by the Faculty Council was not based on racism or a witch-hunt, but made by professionals at the College who did not take the issue lightly. Mr. Ben Morin, faculty member and chairperson of the Business Technology department, pointed out that a previous president of the College was also dismissed, and being that the president was not Hispanic, questioned the direction of racism, if it was evident. No one else signed up ore requested to address the Board. Mrs. Gonzales announced that the Board would enter into closed session in accordance with Government Code Sections 551.071 and 551.074 beginning at 12:37 p.m. The Board ended closed session and reconvened at 2:45 p.m. Mrs. Gonzales announced that the Board had approved, effective today, a settlement and release agreement with College president Dr. Valadez, and that the Board and Dr. Valadez felt that the disengagement was in the best interest of the College and students. Mrs. Gonzales expressed the Board’s appreciation to Dr. Valadez for his service, and their best wishes for his future endeavors. Dr. Dawod made a motion to approve the final settlement agreement and full release between Dr. Gustavo Valadez Ortiz and Del Mar College. Mrs. Spann seconded, and the motion carried with Adler, Arriaga, Dawod, Martin, Rivas, Spann, Watts, and Winters voting in favor; Gonzales opposing; and none Page 4 abstaining. (This Settlement Agreement will recorded as Document #03-12 in the document section of the Official Minutes of the Board.) Mrs. Arriaga made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rivas, that the Board appoint, as acting president of Del Mar College effective at 5:00 p.m. today, July 28, 2003, Joe Alaniz, vice president of Business and Finance, who has strong support from his administrative staff, pending deliberations and action by the Board of Regents to appoint an interim president. The motion carried by unanimous vote. Mr. Alaniz expressed his appreciation for the Board’s confidence. Under Calendaring, the Board was reminded of the called meeting scheduled for the next day at 9:00 a.m. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m

CCISD: the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission, Department of Public Safety, Texas Department of Transportation, Albert Benitez and Dr. Denise Hutchinso

2007-08-03T08:31:00.000-07:00

CCISD: the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission, Department of Public Safety, Texas Department of Transportation, Albert Benitez and Dr. Denise Hutchinson

The Kenedy Pasture Company: "Mr. Benitez is one of those instructors who are there for students," Camacho said. "I have never seen him turn a student

2007-08-03T08:16:00.000-07:00

The Kenedy Pasture Company: "Mr. Benitez is one of those instructors who are there for students," Camacho said. "I have never seen him turn a student away."

Such Choreography, Scripted or Encrypted Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela (I. BACKGROUND)

2007-08-03T05:17:00.000-07:00

On the morning of August 9, 2003, Albert Benitez was in his garage apartment with Reynolds, his girlfriend. Suddenly the couple heard a loud thumping on the door. Benitez opened the door to encounter a man, later identified as Franciso Perez, pointing a gun at him and asking if he was Albert. Benitez slammed the door and yelled for Reynolds to call 911.

At trial, Benitez testified for the State that he held the door closed as Perez rammed into it for a few minutes. After the ramming ended, Benitez continued to hold the door until he was shot from behind by Perez. Benitez believed Perez had entered the garage apartment through Benitez's parents' attached house. Perez shot Benitez two more times before Benitez ran outside. Benitez ran into an entrance of his parent's adjoining house to find a phone and call 911. Perez chased Benitez into his parents' house and shot him for the fourth time in the kitchen. Benitez testified that he ran to the back porch and was shot a fifth time. After being shot for the fifth time, Benitez lost his balance and fell off the porch. Perez then shot him a sixth time. Benitez ran to another area outside the house and saw Perez and Reynolds slowly driving away in Benitez's green Crown Victoria.

Benitez called 911, and the police arrived. He told the officers that he had never seen Perez before, but he was able to give the officers a description. He told them that Perez had kidnaped his girlfriend and that the two were traveling in Benitez's Crown Victoria.

Later that morning, Reynolds approached Kingsville Police Officer John Greif in the parking lot of the Kingsville police station. Officer Greif testified for the State that Reynolds approached him crying, yelling, and claiming she needed help. Reynolds told him her boyfriend had been shot and that she was abducted at gunpoint by the shooter and forced to drive to Kingsville. Reynolds also told Officer Greif that the shooter jumped out of the vehicle on the highway at a speed of between 55 and 70 mph.

Officer Ted Figueroa participated in the conversation between Reynolds and Officer Greif. Officer Figueroa testified Reynolds seemed upset but was not crying. He further testified that she appeared to be shaking, but when asked a question, she would stop and answer it. When asked to give a description of the shooter, Reynolds told the officers she did not know what he looked like because he was wearing a ski mask. Officer Figueroa asked Reynolds if her boyfriend had gotten any help and Reynolds told him that she did not know; she did not mention placing a 911 call. Officer Figueroa then went to the section of the highway where Reynolds said the suspect had jumped from the vehicle, but he did not find any evidence to indicate anyone had jumped from a moving vehicle.

Texas Ranger Oscar Rivera questioned Reynolds about the shooting and testified about her responses. According to Ranger Rivera, Reynolds phoned 911 from Benitez's parents' kitchen shortly after hearing gunshots. After dialing 911, Reynolds threw the phone on the kitchen table and ran towards the garage apartment yelling for Benitez. Unable to find him, she walked outside and was taken hostage. However, Ranger Rivera testified that there was no record that Reynolds had ever placed a call to 911 and that even if she had hung up after placing a call, there would be a call record. Ranger Rivera also testified about his visit to the crime scene, observations of the bullet holes in the door, and his conclusion that based on the location of these holes, the shooter had to have been in the kitchen area of the house.

After the shooting and alleged kidnaping, Reynolds was unable to identify Perez in a line up. On a second occasion, however, when she was shown photographs, she pointed to Perez's picture and said that he kind of looked like the shooter.

Ranger Rivera testified as to certain forensic evidence and business records utilized in the investigation. He stated that a shirt Reynolds later identified as the one worn by the shooter was found approximately a half mile off the highway where Reynolds had said that the shooter had jumped from the vehicle. Ranger Rivera testified that the shirt was not damaged in any way. He also testified that he pulled Reynolds's cell phone records. During the three month time frame from July 2003 to September 2003, Reynolds made over one hundred phone calls to a number that belonged to Sara Perez. A review of Reynolds's bank accounts revealed that Reynolds transferred $2,000 to her checking account on the day of the shooting. The record also contains a $2,000 check dated August 10, 2003, the day after the shooting, written from Reynolds's checking account to Francisco Perez.

The State's final witness was Sara Perez. Ms. Perez testified she was the mother of Francisco Perez. Ms. Perez said that sometime around August 9, 2003, Reynolds called her house and asked to speak to Francisco Perez. After Ms. Perez told Reynolds that Francisco was not there, Ms. Perez testified that Reynolds told her that if a Texas Ranger came to her house, she should lie and say that she was Reynolds's maid.

After hearing the testimony and deliberating on the evidence, the jury convicted Reynolds of criminal solicitation of capital murder. After a sentencing hearing, the jury sentenced Reynolds to life in prison. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Reynolds to life in prison pursuant to the jury's verdict. A motion for new trial was timely filed, but denied by operation of law. (1) This appeal ensued.

Corpus Christi Caller Times: Corpus Christi Daily Digital: Linda was the first person in a Corpus Christi Public Housing Dev. to successfully run 4 pu

2007-08-03T00:01:00.000-07:00

Corpus Christi Caller Times: Corpus Christi Daily Digital: Linda was the first person in a Corpus Christi Public Housing Dev. to successfully run 4 pub office: a person who picked

Corpus Christi Daily Digital: Linda was the first person in a Corpus Christi Public Housing Dev. to successfully run 4 pub office: a person who picked herself up by her bootstraps

by hkarsh

August 2, 2007

I was a candidate for the Del Mar Board of Regents. I picked up the package to run for office. I am College Educated. I have several degrees. I'm pretty good at reading and writing contracts and such. I'm not a lawyer and believe me I could have used a lawyer to explain all the stuff I was responsible for and had to do. Del Mar wasn't going to explain it to me and the local party bosses wouldn’t have anything to do with me. Del Mar certainly wasn't going to help Linda whose brother they had railroaded out of a job. Now Linda was the first person in a Corpus Christi Public Housing development to successfully run for a public office and her neighbors were very proud of her. So here we have a person who picked herself up by her bootstraps with out the aid of the local democratic or republican bosses and won her election. So what do the local politicos do and that includes our slimy DA

there's more at the link above

Is there an agreement between the In House Counsel (DMC) and the Caller Times?

2007-07-31T22:30:00.000-07:00

Adriana,

Did you not receive the attachment word doc? The original email went to you and a private investigator by the name of Don Shawver. Don Shawver conducted an investigation on DMC Regent Linda Garcia. We feel it is in the Public's Right to know the details of this investigation and the person or entity who funded it. Did the Caller Times hire Mr Shawver and if so why not the same scrutiny of all the other candidates? A DMC Public Records Requests turned out nothing significant except the fact that DMC answered it (the FOIA request) readily before the time period. I understand that there is an agreement between the In House Counsel (DMC) and the Caller as there is a recording of the in house counsel responding to what he believed to be a Caller TImes Reporter. The Reporter was questioning the in house counsel regarding the following published FOIA request:

Corpus Christi Watchdog Authority: Fwd: [Bay of Pigs] Judge Westergren has been given the opportunity to produce the ...

Political Retaliation or Duke Maliciousness, it is in the interests of WHO? Why is a Regent Election So Important NOW?

2007-07-30T00:10:00.000-07:00

AND NOW, this 30th day of July , 2007, the Defendant’s
request for preliminary injunction

SUBCHAPTER E. INJUNCTION

§ 273.081. INJUNCTION. A person who is being harmed or is
in danger of being harmed by a violation or threatened violation of
this code is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief to prevent
the violation from continuing or occurring.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

TITLE 3.

ELECTION OFFICERS AND OBSERVERS

CHAPTER 31.

OFFICERS TO ADMINISTER ELECTIONS

SUBCHAPTER A. SECRETARY OF STATE

§ 31.001. CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER.
(a) The secretary of state is the chief election officer of the state.

CCISD: policy was instead an attorney general's opinion that had not been adopted locally. hear that?

2007-07-29T20:51:00.000-07:00

CCISD: In his audit, Carroll indicated such purchases were against policy. But in testimony last week he said he made a mistake in his audit by citing a board policy prohibiting the district from paying non-members' expenses. Carroll said the apparent policy was instead an attorney general's opinion that had not been adopted locally.

Del Mar College’s consistent failure to lawfully obey the Texas Public Information Act

2007-07-29T20:38:00.000-07:00

Howard Karsh

#### Wooldridge Road,

Corpus Christi, Texas. 78413

361-993-####

July 29, 2007

Office of the Attorney General

Open Records Division

PO Box 12548

Austin, Texas. 78711

To Whom It May Concern;

On July 10, 2007 at 11:54 AM, I hand delivered and had date stamped in the College Presidents Office an Open Records request for the following information; (see attached document)

“I respectfully request copies of, and or access to the following information: How many of the current Del Mar College Regents and ex Regents are receiving community college group health insurance benefits from Del Mar College? What is the specific written designated DMC policy that these benefits are distributed to these Regents under? How much money do these current Regents and ex Regents pay in premiums for individual and family benefits? How much does the College pay for their benefits? Exactly what is the name of the budget item and the designated budget code number of the budget item that pays for these benefits? What are the names of these current Regents and ex Regents receiving these community college health insurance benefits?”

As of July 29, 2007, by my estimate, thirteen business days have passed and I have received no answer to my open records request. Del Mar College has not denied the information and records exist. Nor have they denied that the information exists in the form of copies or documents. This is the second time in less than twelve months that I have requested information and the second time Del Mar College has not complied with the law. As such, I again have been forced to write to the Attorney Generals Office to get Del Mar College to comply with the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552. I would request that the Attorney General intercede in this matter and order Del Mar College to release the information requested. I am also requesting an investigation into Del Mar College’s consistent failure to lawfully obey the Texas Public Information Act and request that the Attorney General seek punitive measures against administrators and regents for this purposeful failure to obey the law.

Sincerely,

Howard Karsh

"A candidate for trustee must be a resident of the trustee district the candidate seeks to represent".

2007-07-23T02:01:00.001-07:00

The education code that DMC has operated under for many many years does not specify a 6 month residence requirement.

"§ 130.0822. ELECTION FROM SINGLE-MEMBER TRUSTEE

h. "A candidate for trustee must be a resident of the trustee district the candidate seeks to represent."

DMC has operated under this code without waiver for quite a while. Why now, does Westergren & Valdez seek an AG Opine.

There is also another clause of the Education Code that reads,

"except where there is a conflict with the provisions of this section, then this section is controlling "

The Voter registration card - many of our politicians are registered to vote here but they are not residents that actually live here as residents. Also, these politicians register to vote in other states.

I have not seen the voter card but suppose it is one issued after she filled out the candidate application. There is a way one lives elsewhere but keeps the voting place in their hometown. I know a few people who live in Corpus Christi but their voting place of record remains in their home town.

Maybe she didnt think she had a chance of winning and was making plans to move back to Kleberg County or maybe the card was reissued by an automated system.

We cant go changing the rules when we dont win and but that is how DMC wins; by cheating.

The voters made their choice; but it is not the choice of the "Pick and Choose" self dealers, so they whine. Always changing the rules in the middle

2007-07-20T19:41:00.000-07:00

Corpus Christi Watchdog Authority: When the District Attorney has questions and the SOS has cleared the Candidate to run, how can there be criminal proceedings?

Whichever suits the interest of the "Pick and Choose" self dealers of Del Mar College. The voters made their choice; but it is not the choice of the "Pick and Choose" self dealers, so they whine. Always changing the rules in the middle of the process and calling it due process and they actually believe their own prevarication. It is requested that the AG attend the board meetings and closed sessions in the interest of Del Mar Taxpayers, Faculty and Student body as the AG did in the Kenedy Foundation debacle with Rene Gracida.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

South Texas Judicial Watch Dog Authority: Dear Officers of the Court, submitted for further investigation

2007-05-22T00:27:00.000-07:00

South Texas Judicial Watch Dog Authority: Dear Officers of the Court, submitted for further investigation

In Re: State v Villa

Do a little research on Del Mar College's in house counsel, Sean Meredeth, DMC Auditorium, Ballet Nacional, little girls, Joe Alaniz, and the relationship with our DA

Why is this evidence not included in the current prosecution of Villa?

Why not drag the whole bunch down to the Courthouse?

Friends of the Prosecution or not, enough of the selective prosecutions. Plaisted, Applebee, and the one's who covered it up at Parkdale Baptist & St Joseph's here in the Jurisdiction of the Nueces County / 105th District Attorney. Zealously

Possible Brady Material?

Does this material not merit a Grand Jury Investigation?

Pervert in Auditorium

“any person who willfully violates any provision of this chapter . . . .” The SEC has jurisdiction to enforce this provision....

2007-05-13T03:17:00.000-07:00

Sunday, May 13, 2007
Section 3(b) provides:

Sarbanes-Oxley Criminal Whistleblower Provisions and the Workplace: More Than Just Securities Fraud
by Jay P. Lechner and Paul M. Sisco

Page 85

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in 2002 to restore investor confidence in the nation’s financial markets in the wake of the Enron scandal.1 Its whistleblower provisions, both civil and criminal, were specifically designed “to prevent recurrences of the Enron debacle and similar threats to the nation’s financial markets” by protecting whistleblowers who report fraudulent activity which could damage innocent investors.2 In light of these goals, one might reasonably assume that a whistleblowing employee must assert at least some degree of fraud affecting shareholders before SOX’s protections are implicated.3 However, as the following two scenarios demonstrate, both SOX’s criminal and civil whistleblower provisions can be interpreted as extending far beyond their intended scope.

EEO Participation Clause Retaliation Claims — Potential Criminal Sanctions and Civil RICO Liability
Assume an employee at a small, privately-owned company files an EEOC complaint alleging her supervisor discriminated against her because of race. In response, the supervisor and her coworkers engage in a pattern of harassment until the employee finally complains to the owner. The owner promptly fires the harassers and resolves the problem to the employee’s satisfaction. Because the company has less than 15 employees and promptly corrects any harassing behavior, liability arising from the harassment is unlikely under Title VII. In addition, because the company is not publicly traded and no fraud against shareholders is alleged, one might assume that SOX’s whistleblower provisions would not be implicated. However, that is not necessarily the case.
• SOX Criminal Whistleblower Provision — SOX contains both civil and criminal whistleblower provisions. The criminal provision, §1107, provides:

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any [f]ederal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Criminal sanctions include, for individuals, fines up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 10 years and, for organizations, fines up to $500,000.4 The Attorney General has expressed that the DOJ will “play a critical role” in implementing the criminal provisions of SOX, including §1107.5
Section 1107’s real value as a substantive prosecutorial tool may be questionable, however. It is arguably merely an extension of the already existing obstruction of justice charges currently available under 18 U.S.C §1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and 18 U.S.C. §1512 (tampering with witnesses, victims, or informants). What it does do, however, from a sentencing perspective is increase the penalty for such offenses from a maximum of five years in many cases to a maximum of 10 years.
The specific inclusion of §1107 within SOX certainly reflects Congressional intent to aggressively ferret out criminal malfeasance in the post-Enron corporate environment. As recent prosecutions such as United States v. Scrushy, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (N.D. Ala. 2005), may suggest, however, Congress’ zeal to get tough in the corporate sentencing arena often has the unintended result of creating more trials and less guilty pleas.
Additionally, §1107 does have a number of potentially significant ramifications, none of which have yet been addressed by the courts. First, §1107 applies not only to publicly-traded companies, but to any “person.” Because the term “persons” generally includes individuals, corporations, and other organizations, §1107 covers both employers and employees. Therefore, employees who in the past were not subject to individual liability under other federal retaliation statutes now could face enormous fines and jail time for their workplace misconduct. Moreover, employers are covered regardless of corporate status or number of employees. Thus, companies too small to be covered under Title VII or other antiretaliation statutes are covered under §1107. Finally, because there is nothing limiting the criminal provision to the employment relationship, third parties, regardless of their agency relationship with the employer, may be liable for participating in prohibited retaliatory conduct.
Second, §1107 may criminalize retaliatory conduct in seemingly unrelated contexts which, in the past, may have given rise only to civil liability. Protected activity under §1107 is not limited to complaints of fraud or securities violations, but covers truthful disclosures to any “law enforcement officer” relating to commission or potential commission of any federal offense. This provision could reasonably be interpreted as protecting complaints to the EEOC under federal employment discrimination statutes such as Title VII, ADA or ADEA, or to the DOL under the various statutes within its jurisdiction. Whether such an interpretation is adopted by the courts hinges largely on the meaning of the term “federal offense,” which is not defined anywhere in SOX or the federal criminal code. Although the term is usually used in reference to criminal violations, the courts have used the term in both civil and criminal contexts.6 Moreover, it appears that an act committed in violation of a federal statute will still be considered an “offense” even if the statute of limitations on the offense has run.7
Third, if the term “federal offense” is interpreted as including violations of federal civil statutes, a complaint to the EEOC, DOL, or other employment-related agency would likely be covered under §1107, because “law enforcement officer” is defined broadly as including any federal officer or employee “authorized under law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense.”8 Surely, federal agencies such as the EEOC or DOL have the authority to investigate and supervise the prevention of violations of the statutes within their purview. In what appears to be the first case to date addressing this provision, hospital employees contended they suffered retaliation in violation of §1107 for having informed their employer/hospital’s governance board of ethnic remarks made by hospital administration and staff concerning another employee. The court noted that §1107 “simply cannot be read to reach the reporting of ethnic remarks to a local hospital’s governance board.”9 The court did not comment, however, on whether such reports would be covered if they were made to the EEOC or even if such a private cause of action would be viable under §1107.
Finally, the conduct prohibited by §1107 is extremely broad, covering any action “harmful” to any person, including “interference with the lawful employment or livelihood” of any person. An actual violation is not required, as a disclosure is protected as long as it is “truthful” and relates to the “possible commission” of any federal offense. Unfortunately, Congress did not define the terms “harmful” or “interference,” leaving it to the courts to decide their meaning. However, these concepts are certainly at least as expansive as the hostile work environment concept applied under other discrimination/retaliation statutes. Indeed, nothing limits §1107 to retaliation that causes economic harm or even to retaliation that occurs during or within the scope of the employment relationship. Thus, harassment occurring outside of the workplace could give rise to criminal sanctions even if it is not covered by Title VII. Furthermore, one can readily think of any number of workplace-related actions that may not rise to the level of “severe or pervasive” harassment or otherwise constitute an adverse employment action, but would be “harmful” to a person or would “interfere” with one’s employment or livelihood within the meaning of §1107.
As a result, companies, supervisors, and coworkers who engage in participation clause-type retaliatory harassment, even if not subject to civil liability under Title VII, could be subject to felony criminal sanctions, including jail time.
• Civil RICO — In addition to criminal sanctions, the above harassment scenario could give rise to a cause of action under the civil RICO statute, with the availability of treble damages. This is so because §1107 amends 18 U.S.C. §1513(e), and under RICO, “racketeering” includes “any act which is indictable under . . . 18 U.S.C. §1513.”10 Therefore, by engaging in a pattern of retaliation prohibited by §1107 (e.g., by creating a hostile work environment) and/or commission of other predicate offenses under RICO (e.g., mail, wire, or securities fraud), an employee or company commits a predicate act of racketeering under RICO.
Of course, to state a civil RICO cause of action, one must allege more than just the occurrence of racketeering, but also “1) conduct 2) of an enterprise 3) through a pattern 4) of racketeering activity.”11 One must also allege an injury in fact arising from the conduct constituting the violation. In other words, the injury must be proximately caused by the predicate acts sufficiently related to constitute a pattern.12 A civil RICO action may proceed even if the defendant has not been convicted of a predicate act or of a RICO violation.13
Prior to the enactment of §1107, retaliatory discharge did not fall within the definition of “racketeering” and, therefore, generally could not give rise to a RICO action.14 Even if a plaintiff did allege that her employer committed a predicate act under RICO, the injury suffered from the retaliatory action would have been caused by the adverse employment decision and not the result of a predicate act under RICO.15 Some courts recognized a limited pre-SOX exception to this rule in the rare case where the adverse employment action was proximately caused by racketeering activity, such as retaliation by commission of the predicate offenses of witness tampering or obstruction of justice.16 Section 1107, by identifying retaliatory discharge as a predicate act, gives whistleblower victims legitimate grounds to allege civil RICO claims against their employers or coworkers beyond the very limited circumstances involving witness tampering or obstruction of justice.
Of course, a plaintiff must also prove the other civil RICO elements, such as existence of an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering. The Supreme Court has described an “enterprise” as “an entity, for present purposes a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.”17 Returning to the above scenario, one could reasonably argue that a group of coworkers who engage in long-term or ongoing harassment against a complaining employee act with a “common purpose” and could have sufficient organization and continuity to constitute an enterprise under RICO. Additionally, a “pattern of racketeering” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity and must manifest “continuity” and “relatedness.”18 Ongoing harassment egregious enough to give rise to a hostile work environment would arguably manifest “continuity” and “relatedness” and would almost always involve at least two acts in violation of §1107 sufficient to constitute a “pattern of racketeering.”

FLSA Collective Actions or Discrimination Class Actions — Potential SOX Civil Liability and Criminal Sanctions
Assume an HR employee of a publicly traded company reports to her supervisor that, due to a company-wide policy of not paying employees for their 10-minute breaks, employees are regularly underpaid in violation of the FLSA. In retaliation, the supervisor fires the employee. Despite a seeming lack of connection to fraud against shareholders, this action could give rise to civil and criminal SOX liability.
• SOX Civil Whistleblower Provision — Under §806 of SOX, publicly traded companies may not “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment” because of any protected whistleblowing activity.19 To constitute protected activity:

(1) The action must involve a purported violation of a federal law relating to securities fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, or violation of “any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of [f]ederal law relating to fraud against shareholders”;
(2) The employee’s belief about the purported violation must be objectively reasonable; and
(3) The employee must communicate his concern to either a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct), the federal government or a congressional member.

In the above scenario, the employee’s complaint regarding pay shortages, although protected under the FLSA, would not appear at first glance to constitute protected activity under SOX because it does not implicate a violation of a federal law relating to fraud or violation of an SEC rule or regulation, or any “provision of [f]ederal law relating to fraud against shareholders.”
Yet, one administrative law judge has written that “complaints of systemic violations of FLSA might reach the necessary magnitude to effectively perpetrate a fraud on shareholders,” and, therefore, may fall within the purview of §806.20 The judge noted that §302 of SOX, which requires corporate officer certification that a financial disclosure is accurate and does not contain any untrue statement of material fact, is “a provision of [f]ederal law relating to fraud against shareholders.” Conceivably, company-wide systemic under compensation of a company’s employees could rise to the level of materiality such that it could “impermissibly alter the accuracy of its financial disclosures mandated by SOX.”21 Accordingly, an employee’s complaints that such systemic violations are occurring and are not being accurately reported in the company’s financial disclosures could constitute protected activity under SOX.
Two administrative law judges have recently addressed similar concerns arising out of complaints of racial discrimination. One judge has suggested that “[p]erhaps, the failure to disclose a class action lawsuit based on systemic racial discrimination with the potential to sufficiently affect the financial condition of a corporation might become the subject of a SOX protected activity if an individual complained about the failure to disclose that situation.”22 Another judge has noted that a disclosure of company-wide discrimination could form the basis of a SOX whistleblower claim if the potential liability rises to a sufficient level of materiality, explaining, “[h]ad [a discrimination law]suit actually been filed, and if [the company] had prevented that information from reaching its shareholders, and if the [c]omplainant learned of this omission and if he had reported it, then he would have engaged in protected activity under the [a]ct.”23 Thus, publicly traded employers must be aware that complaints regarding systemic discrimination or FLSA violations sufficient to give rise to class or collective actions may now, in certain circumstances, give rise to SOX liability.
• SOX §3(b) Criminal Provision — Because there was no complaint to a “law enforcement officer,” it does not appear that the above scenario regarding a complaint of pay shortages would give rise to criminal sanctions under §1107. However, beyond §§806 and 1107, another section of SOX can be interpreted as expanding criminal liability for any retaliatory action prohibited by §806, including the above collective action scenario, regardless of whether the retaliation was related to the disclosure of truthful information to a law enforcement officer.
Section 3(b) provides:

a violation by any person of th[e Sarbanes-Oxley] Act . . . shall be treated for all purposes in the same manner as a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) . . . and any such person shall be subject to the same penalties, and to the same extent, as for a violation of that [a]ct or such rules or regulations.

In turn, the penalty provisions of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78ff, provide for fines up to $1,000,000 and 10 years in jail for “any person who willfully violates any provision of this chapter . . . .” The SEC has jurisdiction to enforce this provision.
Interpreted broadly, §3(b) would create potential criminal liability for any act that gives rise to civil liability under §806’s civil whistleblower provisions. On November 9, 2004, Senators Grassley and Leahy sent a letter to SEC Chair William Donaldson advising him that they want “aggressive enforcement to deter retaliation against corporate whistleblowers,” and asking, “[w]hat is your position on whether or not a violation of the §806 whistleblower prohibitions can generate criminal liability under Section 3(d) [sic] of the [a]ct?” In February 2005, Donaldson responded to the effect that, while §3(b) is a useful provision allowing the SEC to enforce new laws enacted under SOX, the SEC has been guided by the principle that its resources can be applied most effectively to combat substantive violations of the securities laws, thereby leaving it to the DOL to investigate and prosecute potential §806 whistleblower violations.24
Regardless of whether the SEC interprets §3(b) as criminalizing whistleblower retaliation prohibited by §806, it is important to note that all §806 complaints are brought to the attention of the SEC and, therefore, may give rise to prosecution for substantive violations of the securities laws. In his response to Senators Grassley and Leahy, Donaldson noted that OSHA regulations require the DOL to notify the SEC of §806 complaints. The SEC and DOL have established a system under which such referrals are sent directly to the Division of Enforcement, and the DOL and SEC are considering the need for preparing a memorandum of understanding to further facilitate coordination.

Conclusion
One well-publicized example of how a whistleblower claim can give rise to both civil RICO claims as well as federal investigations by the DOJ and SEC is the case of Whitley v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 03-CV-1504 (N.D. Ga., dismissed Oct. 9, 2003). In Whitley, a former manager asserted civil RICO and retaliation (but not SOX) claims arising from his termination, which he alleged occurred in retaliation for his reporting that Coke manipulated market tests relating to Frozen Coke. Defendant argued in a motion to dismiss that, under Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000), retaliatory discharge was not an act of “racketeering.” The civil case quickly settled but the allegations led to investigations by both the SEC and the DOJ. According to a company press release, on April 18, 2005, the company settled with the SEC, and the DOJ decided to close its investigation.25 Now, in light of the potentially sweeping scope of SOX’s criminal and civil whistleblower protections, employers should be aware that civil liability, treble damages under RICO, federal investigation, and criminal sanctions for workplace retaliation could become more common place, even in situations where the whistleblowing activity does not appear to fall within SOX’s intended scope.

1 See 148 Cong. Rec. S1786 (daily ed. March 12, 2002) (statement of Senator Leahy).
2 See S. Rep. No. 107-146, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. 19 (2002); 148 Cong. Rec. S7420 (daily ed. July 26, 2002) (statement of Senator Leahy).
3 See, e.g., Minkina v. Affiliated Physician’s Group, 2005-SOX-19 (A.L.J. Feb. 22, 2005) (SOX “was enacted to address the specific problem of fraud in the realm of publicly traded companies and not the resolution of air quality issues, even if there is a possibility that poor air quality might ultimately result in financial loss”).
4 See 18 U.S.C. §3571.
5 See Attorney General Memorandum on Implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Aug. 1, 2002) (“it is vital that all components of the Department of Justice …work together to ensure that we take full advantage of the provisions of this new law to enhance our prosecution of significant financial crimes”).
6 See, e.g., Cole v. United States Dept. of Agric., 133 F.3d 803 (11th Cir. 1998) (referring to “criminal and civil offenses”); Thornton v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 715 F.2d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1983) (referring to “[b]oth criminal and civil offenses”).
7 See United States v. Keller, 808 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1986).
8 18 U.S.C. §1515(a)(4).
9 MacArthur v. San Juan County, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25235 (D. Utah June 13, 2005).
10 18 U.S.C. §1961.
11 See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985).
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 See Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000).
15 See Miranda v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 948 F.2d 41, 47 (1st Cir. 1991).
16 See, e.g., Dooley v. United Techs. Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8653 (D.D.C. June 17, 1992).
17 United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981).
18 Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n.14.
19 18 U.S.C. §1514A(a).
20 Harvey v. Safeway, Inc., 2004-SOX-21 (A.L.J. Feb. 11, 2005).
21 Id.
22 Harvey v. Home Depot, Inc., 2004-SOX-20 (A.L.J. May 28, 2004).
23 Smith v. Hewlett Packard, 2005-SOX-88 (A.L.J. Jan. 19, 2006).
24 See James Hamilton, SEC Responds to Senate Letter on Whistleblower Provisions, 2005-32 SEC Today Online (CCH) (Feb. 17, 2005).
25See News Release: The Coca-Cola Company Comments on SEC Settlement (Apr. 18, 2005), available at www2.coca-cola.com/presscenter/nr_20050418_corporate_sec_settlement.html; see also SEC Press Release: The Coca-Cola Company Settles Antifraud and Periodic Reporting Charges Relating to Its Failure to Disclose Japanese Gallon Pushing (Apr. 18, 2005).

Jay P. Lechner, a graduate of the University of Florida School of Law, is an associate with Zinober & McCrea, P.A., in Tampa, where he represents employers in labor and employment matters.
Paul M. Sisco is a board certified criminal trial lawyer at Jung & Sisco in Tampa focusing primarily on white collar criminal defense.

This column is submitted on behalf of the Labor and Employment Law Section, Frank D. Kitchen, chair, and Frank E. Brown, editor.

[Updated: 07-01-2005 ]

Labels: DelMar College, DOJ, SEC, SOX, Whistleblower

Del Mar Electronic Anonymous Input Forum

‘There are many Kenedeños’

Corpus Christi Watchdog Authority: A total of $507,500! Lawsuits against DMC by two former College employees and a student were settled out of court

This isn't corruption......Oh Yeah~ Define corruption; Be specific and your opine is just that , your opinion.

Caller.com Corpus Christi News and Information

Garcia fined for campaign finance violations

By Dan Kelley Originally published 04:45 p.m., January 14, 2008Updated 04:45 p.m., January 14, 2008

STORY TOOLS

More Local News

SHARE THIS STORY

ArticleComments

Parkdale Bank: Ray Mc Murrey Is From Here, He Still Believes Like It Says In The Intro, "I'll be a straight-shooter & a square-dealer "& He Does "Reme

Guess you haven't heard of the Albert Benitez/John Graham/Linda Garcia/Chris Adler/Carlos Garcia/Shari Parker Do some homework before U hurt yourself

Guess you haven't heard of the Albert Benitez/John Graham/Linda Garcia/Chris Adler/Carlos Garcia/Shari Parker Do some homework before U hurt yourself

Hey Gabe Rivas, Let's see how the ABC gang want your Law School?!?!

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

The Del MAr Board Of Regents Will Spit in the Face of Voters. Gabe Rivas (Sore Loser) is Coming Back Despite the Public.

Insiders say Gabe Rivas has 4 votes already

Prove me wrong, I dare ya. or will he re gain his Board President Position as well? He sure did run a meeting far better than the current Brd Prez ...

This is a quasi-lateral concurrence, well at least we can agree on that, "At least Gabe Rivas knew how to run a meeting "

Del Mar sets regent deadline

Garcia resigned from the board last week.

Post Your Comments

DMC FOI Request Insurance Production

Why does Libby go free while this kid winds up in prison? Why does Libby go free while Ramsey (a decent man) is banished to life in prison?

Was It Not About Orientation & Who Dr. Gustavo Valadez Ortiz Held Hands With?

CCISD: the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission, Department of Public Safety, Texas Department of Transportation, Albert Benitez and Dr. Denise Hutchinso

The Kenedy Pasture Company: "Mr. Benitez is one of those instructors who are there for students," Camacho said. "I have never seen him turn a student

Such Choreography, Scripted or Encrypted Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela (I. BACKGROUND)

Corpus Christi Caller Times: Corpus Christi Daily Digital: Linda was the first person in a Corpus Christi Public Housing Dev. to successfully run 4 pu

Is there an agreement between the In House Counsel (DMC) and the Caller Times?

Political Retaliation or Duke Maliciousness, it is in the interests of WHO? Why is a Regent Election So Important NOW?

CCISD: policy was instead an attorney general's opinion that had not been adopted locally. hear that?

Del Mar College’s consistent failure to lawfully obey the Texas Public Information Act

"A candidate for trustee must be a resident of the trustee district the candidate seeks to represent".

The voters made their choice; but it is not the choice of the "Pick and Choose" self dealers, so they whine. Always changing the rules in the middle

South Texas Judicial Watch Dog Authority: Dear Officers of the Court, submitted for further investigation

“any person who willfully violates any provision of this chapter . . . .” The SEC has jurisdiction to enforce this provision....

By Dan Kelley
Originally published 04:45 p.m., January 14, 2008
Updated 04:45 p.m., January 14, 2008