Saturday, May 5, 2007

Coarse FUR & Mathur's inventiveness

.
MAN, I wish I could find me a better crew of critics and opponents. The "Friends uv Raghu" (F.U.R.) are an embarrassment. If they don't come up with better stuff soon, I'll have to write my own anti-Dissent comments.

Have you been reading the comments to our blog? There's been lots of support, but lots of FUR, too.

Evidently, FUR imagine that I, Chunk, instigated Cely's suit, or that Carol Sobel did.

No. Cely had been victimized (does anyone really doubt that?), and she needed an attorney. At some point, she approached Carol. Carol did not approach her.

I have never been involved in this case in any way.

My connection to this case amounts to this: I was aware of it. I attended 4 of the 6 days of the trial. I attended and reported on the trial because I support Cely (qua victim of workplace violence, qua victim of Mathur), because Carol is a friend of mine (she was my attorney), and because reporting on this trial made sense for Dissent.

How so? I knew that, whatever the trial's outcome (which was always in doubt, for discrimination suits, I was told, are notoriously difficult to win), testimony would permit highlighting the truth about Mathur.

Example: on the stand, Mathur acknowledged that the documentation for his mysterious "4th reference check" (on Poindexter)--the other three provided no substantial grounds for hiring P--has been lost (or, anyway, has not been produced by the district). How very convenient for Raghu.

That reminds me of Mathur's 1998 accusation that some IVC faculty were sending him "hate mail" and hate messages--perhaps a half dozen instances. That was mighty convenient, too (Mathur had just suffered a vote of "no confidence").


MATHURIAN CLAIMS, MATHURIAN DOCUMENTATION:

During a subsequent depo (see below), he was asked if he kept any of the mail. No, he said. He was asked if he kept any of the emails. No, he said. He was asked if he kept any of the alleged voicemail. No, he said. He "kept" nothing. Absolutely nothing. He had zero documentation to support his stunning and obnoxious claim.

And now, again, he has no documentation for the crucial claim (to defending the wisdom of his chosing Poindexter) that there was one reference who had "very positive" things to say about Poindexter, the man he hired despite his manifest lack of qualifications.

One needs to ask: how likely is it that this crucial required documentation was lost? Of all the "ref check" forms filed at the district, why is this one lost?

Mathur deposed: Sept. 28, 1999

During the May 21, 1998, board meeting, Mathur, stung by a recent 74% faculty vote of no confidence, lashed out at an alleged faculty cabal who were, he said, “at the very core” of the vote against him. In the course of his rantings, three instuctors were named, including Bauer. Remarkably, without offering a shred of evidence, he asserted that “People in this core in the past have sent me mail threats saying, ‘Go back to your country.’ These threats have come from some of these people, I am confident of it. When I went to the Sheriff’s Department and exposed it, all of a sudden those mail threats stopped.” He ended his remarks with a rhetorical flourish, describing how he had arrived on “American shores some 31 years ago with eight dollars in my pocket [and]…a dream.”]

The attorney asking the questions is Carol Sobel. Mathur’s attorney, David Larsen, was provided by the district.

Q Did you ever make any statements to the effect that you had received e-mail you perceived to be threats against you?

A Yes.

Q When did you make those statements?

A I made a statement to that effect at a board meeting….

Q What did you tell the board about the e-mail you received?

A That I have received threats. I don’t recall exactly what I said, but something to the effect that I have received threats from a small group of faculty staff members, and that’s essentially what I said.

Q How many threats did you receive?

A I believe I have received about three or four.

Q Were they all received close in time to each other?

A Over a period of time. I don’t know if I would characterize [it as] close together.

Q Over what period of time were they received?

A About six months or so.

Q Did you print them out?

A Some were already imprinted. I received them in the form of letters, and I remember one was a voice mail.

Q So it is not correct then that you received e-mail threats; is that correct?

A I may have received them, but I don’t recall right now.

Q You don’t recall if you received any e-mail threats?

A I’m thinking. I believe I have received one or two….

Q Now, let’s talk about the first threat you recall receiving. Was that voicemail, letter, or e-mail?

A That was a letter.

Q Do you have that letter today?

A I had turned the letters over to the sheriff’s department….

Q Is there some document you can consult to find out the name of the individual at the OC Sheriff’s Department you consulted with?

A I did try, but I think maybe—yeah. I can try.

Q Well, you said it’s somebody you work[ed] with [at the Sheriff’s Dept.]. In what capacity did you work with the person?

A Whatever his official capacity was. I don’t remember. But I went to file a complaint, reported it to the receptionist. She brought one of the inspectors and I told the story and he wanted copies of those [letters] turned over. And he advised me to talk it up in the college, which I did. And this was after two or three such letters I have received, and in the time being, it stopped. The threats had stopped.

Q Where did you go to report this?

A Laguna Hills Sheriff’s Department….

Q Do you recall when it was that you went to the…Sheriff’s Department?…

A I believe it was sometime in 1990.

Q Did you receive these in 1990?

A Yes.

Q Was there some reason why you waited nine years to raise this with the board?

A It’s because the threats were becoming more violent in nature in terms of references to dropping granite or in terms of attacks on me, on my implications of attacks on my body and so forth. I felt that I had to convey my concerns to the board.

Q Between 1990 and the time Professor Bauer started publishing the Dissent and ‘Vine, which I believe was sometime in late ’97, how many letters did you receive conveying threats to you?

A As I indicated, three to four letters I received, and I did report at the time also to the chancellor of the district.

Q I understand that. You indicated, if I understood your prior testimony—and if I’m incorrect, correct me—that you had received three or four letters at the time you went to the OC Sheriff’s Department, which now turns out to be in 1990?

MR. LARSEN: What do you mean “now” turns out to be 1990? Probably always been.

MS. SOBEL: The witness testified that he went to the board a year ago. The e-mail threats have now become several letters and voice mail and perhaps one or two e-mails, and the letters were all in 1990, so I’m just trying to make sure that I have this chronology accurate.

MR. LARSEN: Your questions and tone of voice are argumentative. That’s all. Go ahead.

MS. SOBEL: I appreciate it, but you can imagine my surprise that these [incidents] turned out to be eight years earlier.

Q In between the letter that you received that caused you to go to the…Sheriff’s Department and the time you spoke to the board, how many letters did you receive conveying threats to you?

A All together including e-mail, voice mail, written letters—

Q I’m just asking for the letters right now, Mr. Mathur.

A It was all together about half a dozen.

Q When were the other three or two received by you? Were they after you went to the sheriff’s department?

A Yes.

Q When was that?

A Some were received in the last couple of years.

Q When you say the last couple of years, Mr. Mathur, can you be more specific? We are only talking about two or three letters here, so were they received in 1990 after you went to the sheriff’s department, or were they received in 1995?

A Well, some [were] received in the 1990 time frame. Some have been received in the last—two or three have also been received in the last couple [of] years.

Q Do you have copies of any of the letters? We are now up to about six or seven…..

A I will have to look into my files and find out if I do or don’t.

Q Did you turn over the subsequent letters to the OC Sheriff’s Department as well?

A This time, I didn’t because—

MR. LARSEN: Well, you answered the question.

Q Why didn’t you go back to the OC Sheriff’s Department, if you received more letters?

A Because of my experience from the first time. What they advised me was to talk it up, and that’s what I’ve done, and that’s why I chose to talk about it at the public board meeting.

Q Had you received the letters just prior to the time you spoke at the public board meeting?

A It’s possible. But I can’t give an exact time frame.

Q Were any of the letters signed?

A They were unsigned.

Q What do you recall was the content of the first letter you received?

A “Go back to your country where you came from.”

Q And that was one of the letters in 1990, correct?

A No. This is one of the letters I receive now.

Q Is that the first letter you recall receiving?

A In the recent times, yes.

Q Was the letter handwritten or typed?

A It was typed.

Q Was it typed in just a regular type face or words cut out of a magazine and pasted on paper?

A No. Typed.

Q Was there anything about the letter that was distinctive that suggested to you what the source might have been?

A No. Seemed it was written by someone from within the college.

Q Why did it seem like it was written by someone from within the college?

A Because this is where Bauer was publishing newsletters and creating a hostile work environment.

Q When do you recall receiving this letter?

A Before I made those comments at the public board meeting.

Q But you don’t know when?

A I can’t give you the exact time….

Q Did you look at it to see where it was mailed from?

A Yes.

Q What did it say?

A Santa Ana.

Q And did you keep the envelope?

A I may have. Like I said, I don’t know whether I saved the letters or not, based on my experience with the previous situation.

Q Did you inform anybody at the time you received the letter that you had received it?

A Informed my family.

Q Did you receive the letter at home or at work?

A At home….

Q Who did you show the letter to in your family?

A Showed it to my wife….

Q Now, other than saying “Go back to your country where you came from,” what else did the letter say?

A I don’t recall. That was the statement that stands out in my mind.

Q How long was the letter?

A About half a page.

Q And you don’t recall anything else said in the letter?

A No.

Q Other than the fact that Professor Bauer was publishing his newsletter, do you have any other basis on which you form the conclusion this came from somebody within the Irvine Valley College campus?

A No, I don’t.
For the entire depo, go to Mathur’s deposition

16 comments:

  1. Mighty defensive, aren't you, Chunk? The fact is, these criticisms must sting. Why else would you be spinning yourself silly to defend against them? But pretending that the critics have nothing is pretty weak, even by your standards. Everyone reading this blog knows it. Only the most hard core kool aid drinkers are still with you, old man, fighting the fight that ended ages ago. And just like those old Japanese soldiers in the jungles of Borneo who refused to give up, you lost this war, too.

    Truth be told, Chunkster, all the testimony you point to that shows this and that about Mathur was ignored by the jury; he and the district were "exonerated." That's what juries do. And this jury slammed you and your crowd and your old, worn out claims in all of 45 minutes. That's unheard of in the world of litigation. This wasn't a "notoriously difficult" case; it was no case. The jury tossed Mora out on her ear the first chance it got and then complained about Mora and Sobel wasting the jury's time.

    Now the best you can do to defend yourself is trot out your tired, nearly ten year old, shtick. Pathetic, Chunk, just pathetic. Get a life. The district is moving on without you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Faculty’s vote of no confidence in Raghu Mathur:
    No confidence = 98%
    This is the part of their survey that they don’t disclose;
    (Sample size = 8, Margin of Error = ±89%, Confidence Level = 11%)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I appreciate what you do here Chunk. So do others.

    People read this blog -- especially the late- and newcomers to the SOCCCD - those who are trying to figure out why it's so F*!?ed up in some places.

    The blog matters and that's why Mathur's supporters are so angry about it. Otherwise they wouldn't take the time.

    You can measure the blog's effectiveness by the level of their invective.

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "MAN, I wish I could find me a better crew of critics and opponents. The "Friends uv Raghu" (F.U.R.) are an embarrassment. If they don't come up with better stuff soon, I'll have to write my own anti-Dissent comments."

    In other words you want those of us who disagree with you and your leftist followers to waste our time wallowing in your pit of despair and meaningless factoids about shit that means nothing except to those who think they can create a community college nirvana. Go fuck yourself, you condescending twit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. all I know is that if we didn't have DISSENT no one would knows what goes on because they don't want us to know.

    If we didn't have DISSENT we wouldn't be able to embarrass them into action about mold growing in A-200 or deteriorating classrooms or accessibility hazards or any number of issues that the admin types don't see or don't want to see.

    me, I liked learning that Raghu - when given a chance, will violate the hiring policy in order to get some mentally unstable incompetent into a job. It explains a lot.

    Yeah, a few may not like what they see here but most everybody reads and laughs along with Chunk - not at him. We shake our heads too. There's sadness here as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 45 whole minutes! That was one hard working jury, taking lots of time to consider all the testimony and look at the evidence--their work ethic is just amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  7. hey, the jury wanted to get to their weekend too!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "If we didn't have DISSENT we wouldn't be able to embarrass them into action about mold growing in A-200 or deteriorating classrooms or accessibility hazards or any number of issues that the admin types don't see or don't want to see."

    It's just amazing that 10 years ago when you folks had absolute power and control, you really weren't concerned about such things like hazards & safety. You’re small group was into persecuting Professors that didn't subscribe to your extreme communist ideals and ass-kissing. You folks are the ones who broke all the laws. Remember Hugh Glenn? Remember the HUGE settlement he got after your crowd had him ILLEGALLY thrown out from his job? What about that Chuck?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the district should just buy this Chuck guy out and say good riddance. I think it would be more cost effective in the long run to get rid of him. It’s pretty plain to see he’s on a path of institutional hostage-taking and self-destruction. How much is it going to take Chuck? 2, 3, 4, or 5 million? It’s the same dilemma as the Ward Churchill situation, the district’s hands are tied as they are with all tenured faculty. Please don’t get me wrong, most all tenured faculty with our schools have already grown up and very professionally understand and practice Collegiality.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And they know how to use capital letters and adverbs when necessary.

    Who's Chuck?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bring back Poindexter!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bring back Hugh Glenn!

    ReplyDelete
  13. What on earth are you babbling about, 5:07? Extreme communist ideals--huh? Been listening to Sean and Rush lately, and addicted to sound bites?

    If you're not going to be coherent, please go away.

    (And note how you're is used in that last sentence.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Note my next comment, 10:19 - blow me!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Coming to terms with your latent homosexuality, 8:53?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Please no extreme closeups of the chancellors mouth it is quite gory.

    ReplyDelete

Trolls and flamers will be cursed by our team of black magicians