Dean Makau W. Mutua's perjury - legal analysis
Jeffrey Malkan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
Sunday, April 20, 2014 9:45 PM
This message is part of the record I am compiling to document your refusal to respond to my repeated attempts since November 11, 2010 to report a crime by one of your senior administrators.
Dear President Tripathi, I should perhaps explain Dean Mutua's culpability to you in legal terms, as I understand the relevant provisions of the penal statutes. 1.
His testimony was false
. At this point, seven tenured professors have confirmed that Dean Mutua lied about the vote of the Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Committee on April 28, 2006 that recommended my reappointment and promotion to full clinical professor. Five were under oath (Professors Olsen, Mangold, Avery, French, Steinfeld) and two responded by e-mail (Professors Dubber and Ghosh). Their testimonies were based on personal knowledge and supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence, specifically, handwritten tally sheets of the vote count. (See links below.) Not a single professor has come forward to corroborate Dean Mutua's lies. In addition, Dean Mutua himself admitted that crucial subpoenaed documents regarding my faculty appointment had been destroyed by the Dean's Office, although he attempted to blame former-Dean R. Nils Olsen, Jr. and former-Vice Dean Susan V. Mangold for vandalizing these files. Such a bizarre libel by a law school dean against his colleagues is aberrant and unprecedented. 2.
His false testimony was intentional.
Dean Mutua lied under oath at the hearing of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) on March 31-April 1, 2010. In that proceeding he lied under direct examination and, on the following day, repeated the same lies under cross-examination. His false testimony was premeditated -- prepared on four month's advance notice -- and was intended to cause a miscarriage of justice, which he succeeded in doing. His motivation was to justify his malicious misconduct and abuse of power, which includes breach of contract, violation of state labor laws, defamation, tortious interference with employment relations, misrepresentations of fact to the American Bar Association (ABA) Section on Legal Education, refusal to comply with mandatory law school personnel and grievance procedures, and denial of federal due process acting under color of state law.