« University Of Florida Student Tasered At Kerry Speech | Main | Education Staffers, Democratic Presidential Campaigns »

Hype Alert: Democrats For Education Reform

| 1 Comment
Not that I haven't hyped them myself -- DFER is a fascinating concept (a PAC for pro-charter, pro-accountability Dems) and Joe Williams is a nice guy -- but let's let them actually do something (help Obama beat Clinton?) before we give them way too much attention and credit. Right now, DFER makes KIPP and Green Dot -- previous subjects of the Hype Alert -- look like accomplished veterans. Or let's at least ask them tougher questions than what their positions are: how much money do they have, how much have they given out, and to whom? What are their priority races for 2008, local or national? What specific influence or advocacy are they pursuing, and how's it going with that?
1 Comment

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

Mr. Wilbert Moore
[email protected]

February 20, 2007

Re: Docket number 03 Cv 2034(LAP)

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 conspiratorial pattern of
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
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

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
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
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
"Rule 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical
in judgments orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from
or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on
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),
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
Plaintiff's successive motions for relief from judgment [Docket nos. 39 and 41], I
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
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
when in fact I was actually trying to exercise my constitutional right to have the
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.
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,
mistakenly submitted your own adverse order, in which you ruled in favor of the

7. Arbitrator Scheinman, Esq., stated the following in his opinion and Award of
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
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
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,
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,
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,

USPO Receipt for Certified Mail Number: 7005 1820 0007 6200 9454
Wilbert Moore
Dated: February 20, 2007
New York, New York

Comments are now closed for this post.


Recent Comments

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




Technorati search

» Blogs that link here