Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
e-mail to President Tripathi re Dean Makau W. Mutua's perjury - legal analysis 4-20-2014

e-mail to President Tripathi re Dean Makau W. Mutua's perjury - legal analysis 4-20-2014

Ratings: (0)|Views: 104|Likes:
Published by Jeffrey Malkan
These are the elements of perjury under state and federal law as applied to the evidence of Dean Mutua's and President Tripathi's false testimony.
These are the elements of perjury under state and federal law as applied to the evidence of Dean Mutua's and President Tripathi's false testimony.

More info:

Published by: Jeffrey Malkan on Apr 21, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Subject
Dean Makau W. Mutua's perjury - legal analysis
From
Jeffrey Malkan (jeffrey.malkan@outlook.com)
To
 jbaker4@buffalo.edu; robert.ruggeri@suny.edu; jljarvis@buffalo.edu; jrnewton@buffalo.edu; gbinder@buffalo.edu; cewing@buffalo.edu; ubprovost@buffalo.edu; newsroom@ubspectrum.com; lynn.vance@goer.ny.gov; liesl.zwicklbauer@suny.edu; jereed@buffalo.edu; finleylu@buffalo.edu; mutua@buffalo.edu;
Date
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.
 
 3.
His false testimony was repeated in federal court.
 After an interval of three years, during which he failed to correct or recant his false testimony, he repeated and embellished the same lies at a deposition taken on December 19, 2013 under the auspices of the federal court of the Western District of New York. This was a second attempt to leverage the credibility and trust conferred by his state office into a miscarriage of justice. Just as he knew that his sworn testimony would likely be treated deferentially by any judge before whom he appears, he can expect that he will be held to the highest standards of diligence and honesty when his perjury is examined by state and federal prosecutors. 4.
His false testimony was material to the proceedings in which it was made.
 Dean Mutua falsely claimed that that the P&T Committee never considered a resolution to vote on my faculty appointment, but instead voted only to recommend that I be granted a one-year terminal appointment to an administrative post. On this basis, he claimed that all subsequent employment actions taken on my behalf by former-Dean Olsen, including the issuance of my contract and the renewal of my faculty appointment, were "ultra vires" and voidable at his discretion. If true, this testimony might be construed to negate essential elements of my legal claims in state and federal courts. 5.
You may be culpable for protecting Dean Mutua and obstructing justice.
 You must recall that, on December 5, 2013, you signed a sworn legal instrument in which you claimed that appointments and promotions for law school clinical faculty do not pass across the Provost's desk. You further claimed that you were unaware of my allegations against Dean Mutua because SUNY Counsel intercepts your mail without briefing you on legal matters and you do not read the UB Spectrum, even articles in which you are accused of wrongdoing. I don't think it will be difficult for law enforcement agencies to determine that these careless fabrications were materially and knowingly false. Your motivation was to protect a high-ranking member of your administration from the investigation of a crime. Over four months have passed since you signed that affidavit and Makau W. Mutua is still occupying the Dean's Office under your protection. I have copied the relevant federal and state perjury statutes below. You may want to retain outside counsel to review the University's as well as your own liability since, on review of the evidence, I believe that most experts in criminal law would find you complicit in this subversion of the judicial process. In addition, the three tenured SUNY Buffalo professors who specialize in criminal law -- Charles P. Ewing, Guyora Binder, and Luis E. Chiesa -- will no doubt give you the benefit of their scholarly expertise, if you ask them. Sincerely, Jeffrey Malkan
Jeffrey has files to share with you on OneDrive. To view them, click the links below.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->