A group of NYC teachers have had enough.
With BloomKlein
And the UFT.
We represent teachers and counselors who have been excessed, unfairly U-rated for political reasons, teachers forced into ATR status, and high-salaried and senior teachers who have been discriminated against. We feel abandoned by the United Federation of Teachers, which by its silence is allowing Bloomberg and Klein to destroy our careers.
Jodeam is a
- NYC teacher tired of the blame game played against teachers for the last forty years. Tired of Bloomberg-Klein who want to destroy teaching as a long-term career option. Tired of a press and public who accept smoke and mirrors as "educational reform."
- And
- Tired of a UFT leadership that is allowing the above to happen.
Visit them at: http://teacheradvocacygrpnyc.blogspot.com/
From: Wilbert Moore
ReplyDeleteI’ve enclosed a copy of the letter I sent to Federal Judge Loretta Preska. The UFT is aware of my situation. I’ve also posted a copy of this letter on my web page. My web page address is: http://nycdoeuft.com.
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 conspiratorial 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