« Contrasting Views Of New Orleans | Main | First Days Of School For Angelina Jolie's Little Boy »

Democrats For Education Reform -- An "Emily's List" For Education?

| 2 Comments
DSCN0617.JPG
DSCN0614.JPG
There was a little too much speechifying and not enough informal talking at the latest DFER happy hour, but the drinks were free and the attendees were an interesting mix of current and former educationistas. LEFT: Some notables (pictured, left to right) included the DOE's Laura Smith, school finance guru Kent Anker, and DFER's Joe Williams. RIGHT: I also met Eddie Rodriguez, who just left the DOE to run an AP incentive program, and Christina Brown, who does charter school facilities stuff for Civic Builders, and Josh Greenman (not pictured), who writes editorials for the New York Daily News. I still don't know exactly what DFER does, much less whether it will be of any influence in the current campaigns, but who knows? Money talks. These guys have money. Someday soon someone will get elected with DFER's help.
2 Comments

Yes, money talks (or swears, as Dylan put it). But remember the rest, bullshit walks.

The following is a copy of the text of the letter I sent the SDNY's Judge Loretta
Preska, which I posted on my web page at http://nycdoeuft.com

From:
Mr. Wilbert Moore
[email protected]

February 20, 2007

Re: Docket number 03 Cv 2034(LAP)

To:
Judge Loretta Preska / SDNY
500 Pearl St. 12th Floor
New York, New York 10007

Dear Judge Preska,

I'm alleging the following; this affirmed letter is my official notification and protest
of the alleged recently discovered installment of an ongoing onspiratorial pattern of misconduct being perpetrated by the NYC Department of Education (DOE). I was informed by the Pro Se
Clerk's Office that on or around February 6, 2007, the DOE's Attorney, Mr. Andrez Shumree Carberry, Esq. submitted and docketed an official "Notice of Appearance" which
allegedly still listed the DOE's co-defendants as Student A, B, C, and D, without presenting proof of the
anonymous Students existence.

2. Normally the filing of a "Notice of Appearance" is a routine process that was designed to formally inform the Court and the opposing party of the fact that a new or additional
attorney will be introduced. However, I did not receive a copy of Mr. Carberry's February 6, 2007, "Notice of Appearance". I called the DOE's Attorney Carberry at (212) 788-
0924 and spoke to him once. I've subsequently placed several follow-up telephone calls to him requesting a formal copy of the missing Notice of Appearance document but I
was unable to reach him. I've left several messages on his answering machine in which I've requested a copy
of the above-mentioned Notice of Appearance, but to no avail. I've also placed several phone calls to your office requesting a courtesy copy of the DOE's Notice, but to no avail.

3. The reason I'm deeply concerned about this missing "Notice of appearance" document is because, I'm alleging that this recent missing document incident is a part of a
much larger on going conspiracy being perpetrated by the DOE. I'm alleging
that, by not proving to the Court the existence of Students A, B, C, and D, Attorney Carberry is committing
"Fraud upon the court" and is still using Laches to obstruct justice. In my opinion, the DOE and or the Clerks Office allegedly mistakenly violated the SDNY's Local Rule 50.3 by
concealing an affirmed incomplete "Civil Cover Sheet" information document that failed to
prove the existence of the Students that allegedly accused me of abusing them. I'm alleging that had I known about the existence of the incomplete "Civil Cover Sheet" I
would have filed a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's (FRCP) Rule 1447 (c) Motion that could have prevented
my case from being removed from the NY State Supreme Court and could have
allowed Judge Renwick to award to me the default judgment I requested.

4. Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (FRCP) states, and I
quote; "Rule 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight
or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders." End quote. I'm
respectfully submitting this instant letter to you Pursuant to the FRCP's Rule 60 hoping that you
will make the following necessary corrections as soon as possible.

5. In my opinion, according to USC Title 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the February 23, 2004, Award of Arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman, Esq. should have superceded your
adverse order of March 31, 2004. However, in alleged violation of USC Title 9, you mistakenly
failed to acknowledge and confirm Arbitrator Scheinman's Award. In my opinion, the only explanation you gave for not complying with the FAA's USC Title 9 was, stated in your June 29,
2005, "Endorsement" where you stated, and I quote; "ENDORSEMENT having
reviewed Plaintiff's successive motions for relief from judgment [Docket nos. 39 and 41], I find there is no basis for the relief sought by Plaintiff. Any future motions brought pursuant to
Rule 60(b) that allege the facts set forth in the above-referenced motions will also be denied." End quote.

6. I'm alleging that you made a clerical mistake when you assumed and stated in your above-mentioned "June 29, 2005, Endorsement" that I was seeking "Relief from judgment"
when in fact I was actually trying to exercise my constitutional right to have the Arbitrators favorable Award confirmed and respected by the Court. I'm alleging that had you complied
with the FAA's USC Title 9, there would not have been a need for your March 31.
2004, adverse judgment. In my opinion, had you confirmed the Arbitrators Award, the Award would have had the same authority, and would have superseded and or made unnecessary your
March 31, 2004, adverse Court Order. In my opinion, had you complied with
USC Title 9, the NYC Department of Education (DOE) would have had to file an appeal in a timely fashion to
overturn the Arbitrators Award. However, instead of complying with USC Title 9, you mistakenly submitted your own adverse order, in which you ruled in favor of the DOE.

7. Arbitrator Scheinman, Esq., stated the following in his opinion and Award of February 23, 2004, and I quote; "After reviewing the evidence and argument submitted, I make the
following rulings: 1. The letter of May 20, 2002, shall be deleted from Wilbert
Moore's File because it is unfair and inaccurate as these terms have been defined by the parties." End quote. If the Arbitrator concluded that Attorney Elenor Radzivilover's May 20,
2002, letter of termination was "unfair and inaccurate," and her letter of termination stated that, and I quote;
"Dear Mr. Moore, The Office of Special Investigations has substantiated
allegations of corporal punishment as follows; 1. CPU Log # 02-0178 – You grabbed a male student causing a scratch to his arm. 2. CPU Log # 02-0180 – You grabbed another student by
the neck, choked and pushed him." End quote, it's logical to assume that a
clerical mistake was made by you when you totally ignored Arbitrator Scheinman's "Opinion and Award" and
ruled in favor of the DOE's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and dismissed my complaint.

8. I respectfully submit that you were fully aware of the fact that an Arbitration was forthcoming because, you stated on page 4 paragraph 9, in your adverse Order of March 31, 2004, the following, and I quote; "Finally, even plaintiffs own documents indicate
that his union is in the process of scheduling an arbitration hearing on his claims. Exhibit 24, As such, it appears that Mr. Moore is receiving due process both in the courts and in the
arbitral forum." End quote. My above-mentioned Arbitration was held on
November 21, 2003. On or around March 9, 2004, I sent a letter to you to inform you of the fact that I had won the above-mentioned November 21, 2003, Arbitration.

9. I formally informed You of Arbitrator Scheinman's Award in a Rule 60(b) motion I submitted to you on April 27, 2004, by stating the following, and I quote; "15. Plaintiff is presenting the following as "New Evidence;" on or around February 23, 2004, AAA's Arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman, Esq. ruled in Plaintiff's favor and officially removed the
NYC Department of Education's defamatory letter of termination dated May 20, 2002, from Plaintiff's personnel file (See exhibits 23, 24 and 25). End quote. In my opinion,
the information in Attorney Radzivilover's May 20, 2002, defamatory hearsay letter of termination is
the DOE's only evidence in the record of my using Corporal Punishment on
Students A, B, C, and D, with the letter removed, the DOE has no case. This case has been dragging on for over
5 years, I'm hoping that you will carefully consider the above information and make the
necessary corrections pursuant to the FRCP's Rule 60. Respectfully Submitted,
Wilbert Moore
USPO Receipt for Certified Mail Number: 7005 1820 0007 6200 9454

Dated: February 20, 2007
New York, New York


Comments are now closed for this post.

Advertisement

Recent Comments

  • Patrick: A very fitting farewell. So does this mean that David read more

Archives

Categories

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here