Ted Smith Teacher
I  am making a complaint to various government agencies and asking for an  investigation based on evidence that the Department of Education (DOE)  of New York City, the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI),   Arbitrator Bonnie Weinstock (Weinstock) and my former attorney David  Kearney (Kearney) committed  conspiracy, corruption, fraud and “fraud on  the court”, in particular the Appellate Division, the First Department  of New York and other Courts.  They violated the color of law statute,  falsified government agency reports, lied under oath and severely  violated the Constitution. The schemes involved are truly frightening.   The U.S. and the New York State governments, and the New York State  Commissioner of Education, must conduct an investigation, since the  rights of everyone are involved. This scheme and corruption cannot be  ignored.  This letter covers a small part of what has occurred. There is  documentation for every statement of fact referred to in this letter.  (E-mails, letters, tapes and transcripts are available in the public  records, some of which I am enclosing).
Briefly,  I am a former tenured teacher employed by the DOE from 1995 through  2010.  Until 2005, I had only the highest annual evaluation ratings in  every category. For 15 years I also worked with the United Nations  After-School program, until the program was discontinued in 2010.  I  have earned a Supervisory License and had planned to become a principal.
This  entire situation began in 2004 when I accepted a position of teaching  physical education at the New York City Museum School (Museum School)  since I was told that an assistant principal position would be opening  up. The principal,  Lindley Uehling, (Uehling) misrepresented the  program to me. I was a full-time teacher, but I was hired for what  amounted to a part-time program. Instead of making the program full  time, the school had fewer than needed number of classes, cramming over 60 students  into many of the classes, without proper advance notice to me or to the  Chancellor of Education.  When I complained to the DOE, Chancellor Joel  Klein and Mayor Michael Bloomberg that the school had illegally and  dangerously put too many students into it classes, without assistants  much of the time, I was charged with incompetence and insubordination.   The principal testified under oath that it was part of my job to  supervise about 100 children without an assistant. I was given a first  unsatisfactory rating in 2005, and the DOE further violated the New York  State Education Law, 3020-a, by denying me peer intervention and  sending me in September, 2005, to the notorious Teacher’s Reassignment  Center, also known as “the Rubber Room.” 
While  in the “Rubber Room”, separated from the Museum School since September,  2005, and waiting to have a hearing regarding the charges against me  for the 2004-2005 school year, a new principal, Darlene Miller (Miller)  was assigned to the School. I have never met her, yet in January of  2008, when I had not been at the Museum School since the 2004-05 school  year, additional charges were submitted by the DOE on January 9, 2008,  regarding Arbitrator Tillem.  Darlene Miller signed a Principal’s  Determination of Probable Cause, stating to me and the New York State  Education Department, “In view of your unprofessional conduct as a  teacher at the New York City Museum School, during the 2006-2007 school  year, the following charges are being preferred…”. She was accusing me  of threatening the Arbitrator.  In 2006-2007, I was in the “Rubber  Room”, and thus not under Miller’s supervision. And then again in May,  of 2009, in violation of the Education law, again signed a probable  cause regarding absences. This same principal, who has never known me  was arrested in December, 2011, after hitting a police car and as stated  in the NY Post.”…smelled of alcohol and had impaired speech and  coordination, according to the officer’s deposition”, and refused a  breathalyzer.  Education officials were quick to point out that  Miller  did not follow protocol in reporting her arrest.
I  had spent two and a half years of unlawful confinement in the Rubber  Room, where rules did not permit any meaningful work to be done, before  hearings finally got started in January, 2007.  The Arbitrator was Jack  Tillem (Tillem), and my attorney was David Kearney (Kearney) an  associate with the law offices of Neal Brickman.  Representing the DOE  was Susan Jalowski (Jalowski).
After  the DOE completed its case, Arbitrator Tillem  determined that I should  take a 3 to 6 month suspension. This was before any of my witnesses  were heard.  I rejected Mr. Tillems offer of a suspension, since  certainly he knew from the evidence and facts in the record that I was  in an illegal program, that I did not have assistants most of the time  to work with me in classes that had over 60 students, and that the  testimony and facts clearly showed  that even the school’s  administration had concerns regarding the safety of putting so many  children in a class.  I wanted to be heard on these issues.
In  October ,2005, I had engaged the law firm of Neal Brickman, to file a  Federal lawsuit against the DOE.  My agreement with the law firm  precluded billing for services for the 3020-a proceedings. The Federal  lawsuit that the firm was handling was on a contingency basis, and  Kearney appeared at the 3020-a hearings beginning in January, 2007.   Starting on or about April 27, 2007, Mr. Kearney began to threaten me  that he would not attend the final hearing in May 10, 2007, unless I  signed a document stating that I would pay at a future time for the  3020-a hearings, contrary to the agreement with the Brickman law firm. (Enclosed are Kearney’s taped threats). As can be seen, on May 3, 2007, Kearney said, “You need to sign the consent form or we don’t show up on the 10th.   I don’t know much clearer I can be.”  There is no indication of his  storytelling in his telephone taped messages of any threats – in fact,  even after telling Tillem on May 8, 2007, that I threatened him, he  continues to pressure me into signing a consent form.
In  response to this harassment, and because I feared that I would not have  proper representation for the final hearing which was scheduled for May  10, 2007, I sent a letter to Arbitrator Tillem on May 3, 2007.
On  May 8, 2007, Kearney notified me that Tillem was going to recuse  himself because of my letter of May 3, 2007. However Kearney was still  harassing me and threatening not to appear at the final hearing.
Unknown  to me on May 8, 2008, Kearney was conspiring with Arbitrator Tillem and  the DOE attorney, Jalowski, to make false claims which Kearney said  were made in a private phone conversation with him, that I had  threatened to kill Tillem and him. The evidence and facts show that  Tillem,  Jalowski and Kearny made an “agreement” on May 9, 2007 that   Tillem would recuse himself based on my May 3, 2007  letter. Kearney testified under oath at the SCI, in June, 2007.  He  asked the Arbitrator Tillem, not to mention the threats he had  reported.  He stated, “The last thing that I want is for there to be a  record of my disclosure, which could be used for any number of  purposes.”  As stated and in the record, Tillem and Jalowski agreed to  this scheme, the “agreement”.  This conspiracy is clearly shown in the transcript of May 10, 2007,  in a conference call in which I participated. The other participants  were Kearney, Tillem, Jalowski and Theresa Europe, Deputy Counsel to the  Chancellor. The collusion is also shown in various e-mails among the  parties, including e-mails from me in which I pleaded to have my side of  the story heard and was ignored.  The conference call on May 10, 2007  is documented to have lasted for 57 minutes. The transcript copy shows  only about five minutes of testimony. The reason is that most of the  time Europe, Jalowski, Kearney and Tillem were in private discussions,  excluding me.  Kearney requested that he go off the record to speak with  Europe.  Europe agreed, and Tillem said, “Well, in all fairness to the  process, I---I’m inclined to agree with Ms. Europe…”.  Fairness to the  process??
I am also enclosing my letter to Richard Condon,  the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI) for the New York City  School District, of May 22, 2007, which includes parts of the  conversation that I recorded but did not end up in the official  transcript. This behavior of Arbitrator Tillem, the DOE and Kearney to  condemn me without hearing one word from me regarding Kearney’s false  story of threats, along with the dishonest behavior of the DOE’S lawyers  is unethical, and it gets much worse as I will explain.  The transcript  of May 10, 2007 is clear.  Arbitrator Tillem, acting in the capacity of  a judge, recused himself and changed his reason for recusing himself as  directed by Kearney.  Suddenly, during the conference call, I was  accused of being a threat and a danger, and before I could say anything  to rebut those false charges, everybody immediately hung up. 
On May 10, 2007, following the above conference call, I e-mailed Europe,  as did my mother, Lillian Smith demanding a meeting with an  investigator.  Europe forwarded the e-mails to Regina Loughran, an  attorney for the SCI.  There was no response to meet with an  investigator, not even after I and Lillian Smith complained to the District Attorney’s office,  and that office referred the complaints to the SCI. In fact, a case  number was opened by the SCI.  As explained below, the DOE and SCI,  secreted these documents for two years, at which time I was kept in the  “Rubber Room”. It is important to know that the SCI refused to interview  Lillian Smith.
Meanwhile,  on May 11, 2007, one day after the conference call, at Europe’s  direction, Jalowski on behalf of the Office of Legal Services at the  DOE, requested that paperwork be submitted that I have a psychiatric  evaluation under Section 2568 of the New York State Education law.   Michael  LaForgia, a Local Superintendent, sent me a letter in which he  stated that I made verbal threats to my attorney about the arbitrator  and further stated that I can be a threat to others.
On  May 16, 2007, I was directed to attend a medical examination by the  Medical Department of the DOE. The exam was ordered for June 11, 2007.   On June 12, 2007, I received two letters  dated June 11, 2007 from the State Education Department, dated June 11,  2007. One stated that Howard Edelman (Edelman), an Arbitrator, had  agreed to serve as the Hearing Officer and that the Hearing Officer had  scheduled a hearing date for June 15, 2007. I was also advised that the  hearing would proceed whether or not I was in attendance.  I immediately  called the State Education Department and explained that I had received  no advance warning of a hearing scheduled to be held in only three  days.  I was advised to call the Office of Legal Services at the DOE. In  response to my inquiry, on June 12, 2007, I received an e-mail from Europe,  in which she stated that Jalowski was still the attorney assigned and  that the hearing was a continuation of the matter formally assigned to  Arbitrator Tillem.  On June 13, 2007, I informed Jalowski in an e-mail  that I knew nothing regarding the hearing scheduled for June 15, 2007  and requested that she please inform Arbitrator Edelman to which she  responded.
Before  there was any decision regarding my Section 2568 medical evaluation on  June 11, 2007, I was notified nevertheless, that arrangements had been  made for me to meet with the new arbitrator. Edelman.  The hearing was  held at the Office of Legal Services, at the DOE, with Edelman, Jalowski  and me on June 15, 2007. Edelman stated in part that he would write to  the prior arbitrator, Tillem, to get all of the prior transcripts.
As  this conspiracy and fraud unfolded, it became clear that after the  Office of Legal Services of the DOE, made accusations on May 11, 2007  that I was a threat to the Arbitrator and to others, directing me to  attend a medical evaluation on June 11, 2007, as stated above, and  without any decision regarding my Section 2568 examination, on that very  same day, June 11th, I was notified nevertheless that arrangements were made for me to meet with the new arbitrator, Edelman. on June 15, 2007.  
On July 12, 2007, I received a fax from the medical office of the DOE that on July 11th,  2007, it was found there were “no objective findings to preclude return  to work”.  The DOE knew all along that I was not a threat and a danger,  and that Kearney’s story was false, but that did not stop an ongoing  conspiracy  between the SCI , the DOE and several arbitrators.
There were continued hearings with Arbitrator Edelman following June 15th, 2007.  On August 10,  2007, at a conference call hearing  I attended with Edelman, Jalowski, William Gerard (Gerard), my new  attorney at which time, Gerard , wanted to the discuss what had occurred  at the May 10, 2007 hearing with  Tillem.  Jalowski objected to any discussion regarding Tillem’s recusal  and stated, “I – I think that in the interest of justice, that it was  not necessary for him [Edelman] to know the – reason for the recusal”  (interest of justice????) and then … "that he does not have the record  for that”.  Edelman repeatedly stated, “I don’t need it, I really don’t  want to hear it”. Clearly, death threats were never an issue to the DOE,  and yet the DOE falsely charged me with making death threats, that I  was a threat and a danger, got the SCI and the Arbitrators to back up  their false statements, knowing that Jalowski stated they secreted from  Edelman the facts of what occurred at the May 10, 2007 hearing –  it is  important to know that Weinstock, the Hearing Officer for the new  charges which I am enclosing, knowing of my meeting with Edelman on June  15, 2007,  prior to any determination of the examination on June 11,  2007,  totally ignored this crucial fact and the fact that I was  subsequently found determined to be fit for DOE employment on July 11,  2007; nevertheless falsely concludes on June 4, 2010, that I suffer from  a rage, and am not fit for DOE employment, a total contradiction of  Section 2568 of the New York State Education Law, which determined that  there was no reason to preclude my return to work. This continued  disregard of the law and the facts, cannot be overlooked. If Weinstock’s  statements and determinations were true, then it would appear that the  DOE expected me to kill Edelman, who was unaware of the fact that I was  accused of threatening to kill Tillem and Kearney.  Again, this  corruption and fraud by the DOE, SCI and Weinstock must not be  sanctioned by any government agency.
Also, DOE attorney, Victor Muellen (Muellen) in cross examination  on June 10, 2009, (after waiting two years to be heard on these false  charges as the facts show), confirmed the fact, “And it wasn’t until  July 11th that the  medical review concluded with no objective findings to preclude return  to work; Correct.” Additionally, there are the documents from the  medical department, the SCI report stating , “Smith was examined as  directed by the DOE, and was determined to be fit for DOE employment”,  the e-mails of Europe and Jalowski, my own testimony, and yet this was  entirely ignored by Weinstock, and she continued her misconduct and  fraud.
I complained to the SCI in a letter dated May 22, 2007, which is enclosed.  On July 2, 2007, Michael Humphreys, (Humphreys) an SCI Investigator, confirmed our meeting to be held on July 10, 2007  (which was cancelled to July 16, 2007). I brought various information  as requested, and my attorney submitted the affirmation that Kearney  submitted to the Federal Court on May 25 ,2007, 16 days after his story  to the DOE, accusing me of threatening him and arbitrator Tillem.  My  attorney  gave this document to the SCI, since Kearney lied under oath  and we wanted to discuss his false statements. They quickly looked it  over, but never asked me one question, in fact, in the taped interview,  which lasted for one hour and forty-eight minutes and produced 115 pages  of testimony, not one question was asked of me regarding any death  threats to Tillem or Kearney, as stated in Kearneys affirmation, and it  wasn’t until about two years later when the DOE turned over discovery to  be used in the hearing in May, 2009, on the charges that I threatened  the arbitrator, that I learned that the DOE and SCI were surreptitiously in contact,  and were aware of my communications with Europe, starting on May 10,  2007,  pleading to meet with an investigator, not to deprive me of my  rights and also ignored the fact that Lillian Smith wrote to Europe,  also asking to be heard.  Europe sent these emails , which I am  enclosing to Regina Loughran, the attorney for the SCI.  No one  responded, again not one question was asked of me on July 16, 2007, and  yet the SCI falsified their report of October 9, 2007, by stating that  my denials were not credible, among other serious misrepresentations,  stating that I first met with Edelman in September of 2007, when they  knew that it was June 15, 2007, at the instructions of Europe. I am also  enclosing  internal memos of the SCI dated May 2007, written by Michael  Humphreys (Humphreys) an SCI Investigator, in which he speaks about an  e-mail he received from the Office of Legal Services, and the clear  knowledge that the SCI knew I wanted to meet with an investigator.  This  before my interview on July 16,  2007.   How can this be? This conspiracy between the DOE and SCI is too  outrageous and I say again must be investigated. Arbitrator Weinstock  received all of these internal memos from the SCI, during the hearing in  May and June of 2009 and totally ignored every one.  The interview on  July 16, 2007, was conducted by Gerald Conroy, Deputy Commissioner and  Humphreyes. How can a government agency have absolutely no respect or  regard for the law??
To  further cause me severe grief and humiliation , the SCI submitted a  falsified report to the press on October 9, 2007 and the District  Attorney, to which Europe testified under oath in May, 2009 that she  approved, when she knew that I was never asked a question regarding the  report until after it was published, and directed me to meet with  Arbitrator Edelman on June 15, 2007, prior to a determination by the  Medical Department of the DOE, in compliance with Section 2568 of the  New York State Education Law, that on July 11, 2007, that there was no  reason to preclude me from returning to work.  I received a letter from Francesca Pena, a DOE Superintendent,  after the publication to the  press stating that she wanted to meet  with me regarding a complaint by the SCI, but would not say what the  report was about. We arranged to meet on November 3, 2007.  The report  was the October 9th letter that was sent to the press and Chancellor Joel Klein.
In,  October, 2007, Richard Condon (Condon), the Special Commissioner of  Investigation, after sending a press release on October 9, 2007, which  was falsified and explained in this letter, then gave an interview to  the publication, The Chief, that I threatened the life of Arbitrator  Tillem.  This false statement, which again was part of a falsified  report and falsified investigation, by the Special Commissioner is an  assault on our democracy and me. 
In  addition, unknown to me or my attorney, I was the target of an  investigation on July 16, 2007, when I was interviewed by the SCI.  Two  months prior to my interview, Europe, Jalowski, Tillem and Kearney were  interviewed under oath as a part of an investigation against me.  This  was more than unethical behavior by the SCI.  As indicated, based on my  complaint of May 22, 2007, and Humphrey’s call on July 2, 2007, my  interview was going to be based on my complaint.  There is not one word  in the taped interview of July 16, 2007, that I was the target of an  investigation which e-mails state were started in May, 2007.  Europe,  Jalowski, Tillem and Kearney were interviewed under oath in May and June  of 2007.
The  3020-a hearing with Edelman who took the place of Tillem regarding the  Museum School charges continued on June 15, 2007. Arbitrator Edelman  found me guilty of charges relating to the Museum School on December 4,  2007.  My attorney, William Gerard  filed an article 75.  Judge Alice  Schlesinger, a New York State Supreme Court judge found in my favor,  that I should have a new hearing. The DOE appealed and in keeping with  their unethical and dishonest behavior, misrepresented to the Appellate  Division, First Department, false statements which will be discussed  below.  Judge Schlesinger stated in part, “These are very unusual and  disturbing circumstances, circumstances that did not become public and  relevant until petitioner and his former lawyer, David Kearney became  involved in a nasty fee dispute”.
The  appeal was overturned by the Appellate Division.  I was suspended for  one year on December 4, 2007.  In January, 2008, I was charged with new  charges regarding Arbitrator Tillem and the alleged death threats, and  after the completion of my suspension as ordered by Edelman, I returned  to the “Rubber Room” in January, 2008, and did not have a hearing of  these charges until May, 2009 and further, no decision until June, 2010.
Kearney,  my accuser, was not available to testify and to be cross examined. As  the record shows, Kearney had left the country and did not respond to  e-mails sent to him by the DOE.  The  record shows that Muellen, a DOE attorney stated that Kearney did not  respond to the DOE and how very difficult it was to try to find him.  Nevertheless, since the 3020-a does not follow the strict rules of  evidence, Weinstock determined Kearney’s affirmation to the Federal  judge was reliable and would be accepted as hearsay evidence. This when  she knew, that his affirmation to the Federal judge was perjurious,  based on the evidence and facts in the record and the fact that he was  unreliable as told by Muellen. Weinstock, the DOE and SCI knew that  Kearney gave different dates as to when these alleged death threats  occurred  to the Federal Judge with other untruths. In fact, following  his affirmation on May 25, 2007, he sent a letter to the Federal judge,  and gave yet another date of when he said the threats were made, during a  private conversation regarding the production of medical records for a  hearing, and yet another date to Arbitrator Tillem.  All in the record,   Weinstock states in her decision that she didn’t care if the date of  the threat was early March, 2007, late March or April, 2007. The record  shows there was no hearing on March 23, 2007 as Kearney claimed in his  affirmation on May 25, 2007, and  the date of the threat was not  important to Weinstock.  Neither Weinstock, the DOE or the SCI could  justify the charge that I threatened Tillem on April 12, 2007 or at  anytime. As the record shows, there were hearings with Tillem in 2007,  on January 3, 11, February 8, 15, 22, 28, March 1, 8, 20, April 18, 23,  and May 10th. Except for May 10th,  2007 which was a telephone conference hearing, all hearings were held  at the Office of Legal Services, at the DOE. The fact that the final  hearing, May 10, 2007, was held by phone, was based on the fact that  Kearney told Tillem on May 8, 2007, that I had threatened to kill both  him and the Arbitrator for threats Kearney told Tillem about on May 8,  2007, in which he said were made on April 12, 2007, while telling a  Federal Judge on May 25, 2007, and again in a letter that it was March,  months earlier. This did not matter to Weinstock, even though the facts  and evidence could not have been more clear. Weinstock stated, “The  Arbitrator finds the timing of the threat much less problematic. The  important factor is that the Respondent was due to see Arbitrator Tillem  again [May 10, 2007] in the confines of a small hearing room at the  offices of the Department of Education”.  The same “small hearing room”,  the same place, the Department of Education that Weinstock knew I had  met with Arbitrator Tillem, on April 18, 2007 and April 23, 2007 with  Kearney and Jalowski present and on June 15, 2007 with Arbitator  Edelman, at the direction of the New York State Education Department,  Europe, Jalowski and Edelman, in the same “small hearing room” at the  Department of Education. “The important factor….???”  The important  factor is the fact of the fraud and conspiracy committed by Weinstock,  the DOE and the SCI.
Additionally,  the SCI report does not specify the date of the alleged  threats, and  Humphreys testified that it was not his focus to determine when the  threats were made.
Weinstock, not having any regard for the truth or the law, consolidated additional charges  in May, 2009, even though Chapter II of the Commissioner’s Regulations,  subpart 82-1.10 (c) only empowers the hearing officer to consolidate no  later than five days before the pre-hearing conference.  Here, the  pre-hearing conference occurred in September, 2008, eight months before  the consolidation, over the objections of my attorney.
Weinstock  not only ignores the evidence and facts, but changes it. Kearney’s  taped telephone messages and emails are clear, that he will not attend  the final hearing unless I sign a consent form but Weinstock said the he  was prepared to attend the final hearing when she knew there was no  final hearing since Tillem was recusing himself. She asked that the tape  of my transcript of my interview of July 16, 2007 by the SCI be  transcribed.  As stated earlier there were 115 pages of that interview,  in which the DOE based their charges that I threatened Arbitrator  Tillem.   Weinstock knew that the SCI report concluded that my denials  that I threatened Tillem were not credible, when she knew the SCI never  asked one question about the alleged threats. She totally ignored this  fact and evidence.  What could be more corrupt?
Humphreys,  testifying for the SCI, while testifying that I was not credible, could  not identify a single instance in my SCI interview where my sworn  testimony was inconsistent, or conflicted with the testimony of Tillem,  Jalowski, or Europe.
I am enclosing the charges I was served in January of 2008.   Although there is a lot more to tell, I will make reference to several  of the charges. The DOE acknowledged in Specification 2, that I mailed a  letter to the office  address of Jack Tillem, not his home.  Regarding the letter to Jack  Tillem, Tillem testified that I never threatened him, the letter was  preposterous, it did not frighten him, and it wasn’t until May 8, 2007  that he had concerns, when Kearney told him that I made a threat.  Specification five was removed, since there was no evidence by the SCI  that I made false statements on July 16, 2007. Further, there were never  any criminal charges against me by any government agency, as falsely  stated by the DOE and based on the falsified report of the SCI.
Weinstock  further committed a “fraud on the court”.  The DOE falsely stated to  the Appellate Division, the First Department, that I had threatened the  arbitrator, when in fact no such findings had been made or substantiated  by the Tribunal. This unsubstantiated finding was later referred too in  the decision of Weinstock, thereby perpetrating this untruth to further  tribunals.
In  causing unsubstantiated allegations to be submitted to the Court and  others, the DOE and Weinstock committed ”fraud on the court”. Weinstock  eventually found me “Guilty” of these charges on June 4, 2010 and  terminated me.  This has caused me to file appeals, based on the  conspiracy and fraud by the DOE, SCI and Weinstock.
This  scheme, this hoax, this conspiracy and fraud has caused me to suffer  more than I can explain.  This assault hurts all of us and I am  depending on the various government agencies to see that there is  justice.
 

 
 






