Town of Olive, Board Member Bruce Lamonda, Olive Town Board, and Supervisor Berndt Leifeld Mismanage Special Reserve Funds

The Town of Olive has mismanaged its special reserve funds according to a report from the New York State Comptroller's office. 

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/lgmg/reservefunds.pdf

Points from the above report that should have been brought up at the October 10, 2011  meeting:

Currently, the Town of Olive does not budget reserve funds in its annual budget.  This is poor practice. Written reserve fund policies ought to be developed.  Legal counsel concerning the establishment and continuation of funds needs to be sought on an ongoing basis. The board should be provided with ongoing reports of reserve fund activity. There should be ongoing review of reserve funds and on-the-record discussion of whether the reserves are reasonable and necessary.  Reserve balances should only be retained at appropriate levels. The board should openly discuss whether the needs of taxpayers are being met. Boards should also periodically assess the reasonableness of the amounts accumulated in their reserves. All reserve fund transactions should be transparent to the public. When conditions warrant (subject to legal requirements), the board should reduce reserve funds to reasonable levels or liquidate and discontinue a reserve fund that is no longer needed or whose purpose has been achieved.

In general, boards should behave as though they have fiduciary duties to the public.  That means disclosure and reasonable discussion of management policies that are public.  Reasonable discussion includes evaluation of the purposes and limits of the reserve funds, and whether the funds ought to be discontinued.  

Quotations from the above report:

1.       Reserve funds should be used for appropriate, stated purposes that are well designed. They should not be parking lots for excess cash.

2.       Local governments and school districts should balance the desirability of accumulating reserves for future needs with the

      obligation to make sure taxpayers are not overburdened

3.      There should be a clear purpose or intent for reserve funds that aligns with statutory authorizations.

4.      Each statute that authorizes a reserve fund should set forth a particular underlying purpose for the fund.

5.      All too often, however, reserve funds are established and substantial cash is accumulated without due diligence in monitoring the reasonableness of reserve fund balances.

6.      Is the board provided with periodic financial reports on reserve fund activity?

7.      Are reserve balances at an appropriate level?

8.      finance reserve funds on a regular basis should develop a written policy that communicates to taxpayers why the money is being set aside, the board’s financial objectives for the reserves, optimal funding levels, and conditions under which the assets will be utilized. Boards should also periodically assess the reasonableness of the amounts accumulated in their reserves.

9.      Boards should also periodically assess the reasonableness of the amounts accumulated in their reserves. When conditions warrant (subject to legal requirements), the board should reduce reserve funds to reasonable levels or liquidate and discontinue a reserve fund that is no longer needed or whose purpose has been achieved.

10.  All reserve fund transactions should be transparent to the public.

11.  Ideally, amounts to be placed in reserve funds should be included in the annual budget.

The Ulster County Republicans in a Can't-Do America

I just submitted this piece to The Lincoln Eagle. 

The Ulster County Republicans in a Can't-Do America

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.*

On May 13, Robin Yess resigned from her position of chair of the Ulster County Republican Committee.  In an e-mail that she sent to the county's executive committee, which is comprised of the chairs of the town Republican committees, she wrote that the good 'ol boys' network, the GOB, is the problem with the GOP.  In particular, Yess cited five unnamed GOP county legislators who intend to vote in favor of the $80 to $100 million Golden Hill Health Care facility that will provide senior care to only one percent of Ulster County's seniors, many of whom are related to political officials and the county's wealthiest segment. The facility will cost each Ulster County taxpaying household more than $1,000, not counting interest on the loan, which could cost you another $1,000.  Yess wrote that she believes in limited government and lower taxes.  In her view support for the facility among GOP legislators is inconsistent with the GOP's principles.

               
Yess's resignation was accompanied by the usual political infighting.  But the principle ought to be of interest to anyone concerned with America's future.   Both Democrats and Republicans in Ulster County are committed to spending $100 million (not counting interest on the loan, which could amount to another $100 million) after twenty years of Ulster County's growth being one third of the national average.  New York is experiencing an exodus of young and hardworking taxpayers because of liberal taxation, and neither party senses a problem. 

              
The Golden Hill facility is an example of the age-old American phenomenon of special interest politics.  Both parties have pet causes. The Democrats have George Soros, the Trial Lawyers Association, the National Lawyers' Guild, and NYSUT, while the Republicans have Halliburton.  So it is at the county level.  Both parties have friends in the construction industry, in labor unions, and in the grant seeking business.

Both the Ulster County Law Enforcement Center--the county jail--and the Golden Hill facility benefit special interests.  Making matters worse is the absence of a serious press or media (other than The Lincoln Eagle) that employ journalists who are capable of analysis without ideology or being embedded in the special interests concerning which they are supposed to be reporting. 

Back in the day of the Second Bank of the United States, the precursor of today's Federal Reserve Bank, Whig politicians were on the Bank's payroll until Andrew Jackson, the equivalent of today's Ron Paul, abolished the bank and set the stage for the greatest economic expansion in world history.  After the Civil War, Standard Oil captured a number of state legislators, much as Bruce Ratner and The New York Times recently utilized New York State's Empire State Development Corporation to evict law-abiding property owners for Ratner's and The Times's benefit.

In the 19th century the nation's shared belief in limited government restrained lobbying.  Because Americans believed in limited government, corrupt city governments in places like New York and Minneapolis, and the corrupt federal government, could do limited damage. In those days the corruption in New York was due to the Democrats, but the corruption in the federal customs houses was due to Republicans.

The limits on corruption changed with Theodore Roosevelt's election in 1904.  TR, a Republican, strongly believed in expansion of government. Many of his ideas were copied during the 1930s and later.  TR was brighter than his more famous cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  By the 1930s both parties had adopted variants of the Progressivism that TR had adapted from Herbert Croly's Promise of American Life.  The GOP, inspired by President William Howard Taft, whom TR detested after Taft's first term, favored less regulation and opposed welfare; the Democrats, inspired by FDR, favored more regulation and a greater degree of help to the poor.  Both parties favored subsidies to the wealthy. On balance, the Democrats favored greater subsidies to both the very poor and the very rich than did Republicans, but it is difficult to generalize. Both parties changed from their Jacksonian origins to the Progressivism of Roosevelt, Taft and Woodrow Wilson.

Americans who still believe in the ideas that built America--limited government, hard work, innovation and individualism--have no representative in Ulster County, in New York State, or nationally.  The Republicans and Democrats are both Progressive.  That is, Yess is only half right about Republican principles.  The liberty Republicans, led by Ron Paul and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, are one remnant of the Jacksonian Democrats.  The rest of the GOP is comprised of Progressives and, perhaps more commonly, self-interested hacks.  There is a smaller remnant of Jacksonian Democrats within a Democratic Party which is dominated by left-wing Progressives and, just like the Republicans, self-interested hacks.

Until recently, Americans could afford to be complacent. Politicians are politicians, many have reasoned, and you can't fight city hall. But politics has become intrusive; government is ending the American way of life.  Unless the silent majority begins to take an interest, America as you once knew it will end.

The Constitution does not have a word to say about political parties, but most Americans feel that they need to vote for either Democrats or Republicans.  After all, a third party might be radical and do strange and unexpected, extremist things. For example a third party might:

-Start three wars at a time
-Quintuple the nation's money supply and hand the printed money to commercial banks and stock brokers
-Legalize unconstitutional searches and seizures
-Borrow nearly a trillion dollars and give it out to politically connected friends

-Replace the education system with an ideologically driven, politically correct indoctrination system that does not teach writing

-Propose a cap and trade law (and UN Agenda 21 under George H. Bush) that would force you to move out of your home
-Declare morality to be dead and then claim that on moral grounds they have the right to tell Americans what to eat.

Wait, that's what the Democrats and the Republicans have been doing, most of all Barack H. Obama but also George H. and George W. Bush.  So Yess is wrong. We cannot expect the Republicans to think or act like Americans. The GOP is a big government Progressive Party just like the Democrats.  Do Americans want more government and economic death, or to rise to Yess's call for integrity within both parties or a third party? So far, the results are bleak.  Unlike their ancestors, today's America has declined so much that it is now a can’t-do nation.  

*Mitchell Langbert teaches at Brooklyn College. He blogs at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com

Chair of Town of Olive Republican Committee

I am going to be chair of the Town of Olive Republican Committee this coming year.  As a result, I will also be on the Ulster County Republican Committee's executive board.

New York's Conservative Party Belongs in Yesterday's Trash

I dislike the label "conservative" when applied to people who believe in freedom and in life. The debate between laissez faire liberals and mercantilists goes back to the 18th century. Advocated by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, and David Hume, mercantilism was an earlier doctrine than laissez faire. Adam Smith wrote in response to Shaftesbury just as Locke wrote in response to Filmer, who advocated the divine right of kings.  David Hume was the source of Alexander Hamilton's belief in a central bank and in government intervention in the economy. Hence, state activism with respect to the economy is an older doctrine than laisser faire, which has always been a radical response to the failure of traditional (i.e., conservative) doctrines like monarchy, state intervention in the economy and central banking.

More important with respect to today's Conservative Party in New York is that the purpose for its very existence has been obviated.  The Conservative Party was founded for two conceivable reasons: (1) the dominance of corporatist, big government Republicans, so-called "Rockefeller Republicans," in New York's Republican Party and (2) the pro-choice platform of many Republicans.  Some Republicans are pro-choice and some are pro-life.  The Conservatives were presumably aiming to define themselves as "social" as well as economic "conservatives" and so offer a position consistent with the Catholic Church's and the various Protestant denominations' that are pro-life.

In 2010 the Conservative Party, led by Mike Long, chose to nominate Rick Lazio over at least two superior alternatives (there were likely more; virtually anyone I know would have been a superior alternative to Rick Lazio): Steve Levy and Carl Paladino.  The Conservatives' and GOP's backing of Lazio removed Levy, who lacked the resources for an independent bid.  The Conservative Party and the Republican Party memberships had the opportunity yesterday to redeem their parties from, respectively, the Rockefeller Conservatives and the Rockefeller Republicans, who are eager for jobs and corrupt bonuses from big government.  The GOP membership showed that it is fundamentally "conservative" in the sense that I don't like using the word.  The Conservative Party members showed that it is less "conservative" than the GOP.

Although much press has been given to "Rockefeller Republicans" much less has been given to "Rockefeller Conservatives."  Yet, it is clear that under Mike Long's leadership the Conservatives have veered to the left and are now more "liberal" (another inappropriate term) than the GOP.   So who needs a Conservative Party?

The Conservative Party is creating a serious problem.  The "conservative" candidate, who is pro-life and for small government, is running on the GOP line but not on the conservative line.  The Conservative Party has reserved their line for a pro-choice, big government advocate, Rick Lazio.  The Conservatives are proving that corrupt motivations rather than an interest in liberty or in life is are enough to determine their nominations.   Conservative Party members might consider that by belonging to it they are harming the cause of "conservatism."

Yesterday's election proved that the GOP is more conservative than the Conservative Party.  It was enough to consign Mike Long and the Conservative Party to the trash bin of history.

My Piece Too Politically Incorrect for Karkhanis's Patriot Returns

My good friend Sharad Karkhanis publishes a newsletter that goes to about 13,000 City University of New York faculty and employees called Patriot Returns. To give you an idea as to how controversial Patriot Returns is, Sharad just settled a multi-year libel suit by one of the union officers whom he had ruthlessly satirized for years.  Sharad has asked me to write for him a number of times, most recently concerning David Seidemann's law suit against the faculty union and concerning the Charles Rangel Center at the City University of New York (forthcoming). 

But even Patriot Returns is too tame for some of my stuff.    I had submitted a piece to him concerning an article in the faculty union's newsletter, the Clarion.  Karkhanis told me that it is simply too controversial even for Patriot Returns.  The New Caucus is the extreme left-wing "party" that runs the CUNY faculty union. I suppose my claim that the CUNY faculty is more racist than the membership of the Tea Party is simply too hot for anyone in academia to handle, even though it is true.

 New Caucus Racism

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D. *

Recently, William Tabb, professor emeritus of Queens College, made accusations of racism against the so-called Tea Party in the pages of the Clarion, the newsletter of the CUNY faculty union.  In fact, the Tea Party is a highly decentralized and diverse group that is scattered across thousands of locales around the country. Racism may exist in some locales, just as racism may exist in some quarters of CUNY.   I have attended eight meetings of the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party near my home town as well as one or two in my home town of Olive, New York.  I did not detect a single instance of racism.  There is more racism on the CUNY faculty than in the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party.  I very much doubt that Professor Tabb or the NAACP have done any research as to whether there is actual racism.  I am a former contributer to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which made similar kinds of irresponsible allegations. I voiced my concerns to Morris Dees, the founder, directly, and have ceased any involvement with that organization.  

Competent academic research poses hypotheses and then attempts to falsify them through evidence.  Professor Tabb offers no evidence. Rather, he asserts unfounded, lynch-mob style accusations.  This disturbs me.  Professor Tabb is a distinguished professor from Queens College.  If his standards are so low as to make wild, ungrounded accusations about Tea Party racism one must wonder about standards among the New Caucus in general.

 In response to Professor Tabb's allegations of racism, I did an informal survey of the Professional Staff Congress's representation of various minorities.  I counted the number of African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, Asians and South Americans in its leadership group.  My finding is that the proportion of minorities who are officers of the Professional Staff Congress is lower than the proportion of minority group members who have have attended the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party.  In other words, the evidence is that Barbara Bowen, Steve London and the rest of the New Caucus are MORE RACIST THAN THE TEA PARTY.

My affirmative action plan is straightforward. The CUNY faculty needs to replace PSC's president, Barabara Bowen.

*Mitchell Langbert is associate professor of business at Brooklyn College. He blogs at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

Ashokan Farewell III

Here are some more photographs I took on January 14. It was 14 degrees F when I took them.

Request for Updated Copy of Susan O'Malley's CV Sent on 12/31

From: "Mitchell Langbert"
To:
Subject: Copy of Your Curriculum Vita
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:13:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C84BBF.B22A1C00"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198



Dear Sue: May I have a copy of your curriculum vita to post publicly on my blog? Thanks,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Susan O'Malley v. Sharad Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe. Does Mad Magazine Defame?

I have obtained a copy of the formal legal complaint of Susan O'Malley v. Sharad Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe. O'Malley is represented by Joseph Martin Carasso, Esquire, 305 Broadway Suite 1204, New York, NY 10007. The New York Sun has previously quoted O'Malley as saying that "It's all very, very silly". I have copied the 21-page complaint in this blog, excerpting about 95% and omitting only a few paragraphs of technical legal argument, personal information and the like. According to the complaint, O'Malley is a:

"distinguished scholar and author. The author of many publications on early modern pamphlet literature and drama, Shakespeare, higher education, disabled women and civil rights, she has presented papers at conferences and lectures sponsored by the Shakespeare Association of America, the Society for the Study of Renaissance Women, the Modern Language Association, the Renaissance Society America...and is a recipient of NEH, Mellon, Fulbright, Huntington Library, Folger Library and CUNY grants.

"Susan O'Malley has served with distinction in various CUNY university roles...

"During her long service to KCC and CUNY and as Chair of the UFS, Susan O'Malley has acquired and retained a high standing and reputation among the CUNY academic community for her advocacy of high academic standards, accessibility of higher education and her humanity and intelligence...

"In May 2006 Susan O'Malley was the recipient of a resolution of the Executive Committee of the (University Faculty Senate)...honoring her long career dedicated to governance both at KCC and in the wider CUNY community, honoring her advocacy for combining high academic standards with accessibility to higher education, her diligent work, her great humanity and her intelligence and acclaiming O'Malley as a worthy and eminent leader.

"In October 4, 2006, members of the UFS presented a framed copy of the Resolution to Susan O'Malley and gave her a standing ovation for her past and present work and dedication.

"Karkhanis is currently a retired librarian of KCC...Karkhanis was and is at all times relevant and hereinafter mentioned, the owner and publisher of a website and email newsletter known as "The Patriot Returns," located at IP address www.patriotreturns.com

"Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned John Doe was and is also a contributor to the Newsletter and specifically was a contributor to Volume 35, Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4; Volume 36, Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4; Volume 37, Numbers 1, 2 and 3; and Volume 38, Numbers 1 and 2 of said Newsletter.

"Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned Jane Doe was and is also a contributor to the Newsletter and specifically was a contributor to Volume 35, Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4; Volume 36, Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4; Volume 37, Numbers 1, 2 and 3; and Volume 38, Numbers 1 and 2 of said Newsletter.


"MATTERS PERTAINING TO ALL CLAIMS

"On or about the dates and as set forth in the paragraphs below, statements or utterances published (hereinafter the "Utterances") by the defendants Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe concerning the plaintiff were and are both false and defamatory.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth below, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained false statements of facts or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the Utterances and published the Utterances with reckless disregard of whether they were true or not.

"By letter (hereinafter the "Letter") dated April 18, 2007, sent by certified mail to Karkhanis...plaintiff by her attorney advised Karkhanis that portions of the Newsletter specifically Volume 35, Number 4 published on or about March 12, 2007 contained false, damaging and defamatory Utterances.

"In addition, the Letter stated that print publications of the Newsletter contained defamatory Utterances.

"The Letter requested that Karkhanis retract the defamatory Utterances and refrain from making any other defamatory Utterances

"Karkhanis never responded to the Letter

"Karkhanis continued to publish false and defamatory Utterances about Susan O'Malley after receipt of the Letter.

"AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (above)...

"Commencing on or about February 6, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in the Newsletter Volume 35, Number 2:

"'TERRORISTS TO TEACH AT KCC?
SAY NO TO THE QUEEN OF RELEASED TIME!'

"The Patriot believes that the current actions of the Queen of Released Time, Susan O'Malley, may be rooted in her childhood. Susan hails from a wealthy family so money was never an issue. She decided that it should not be an issue for anyone. So advocating a union that champions criminals and terrorists while cutting ordinary folks' salaries was just perfect.'

"and

"'By intimidation and by joining radical groups she became the leader of the University Faculty Senate, solely for the purpose of enjoying the good life without having to dirty her hands with chalk...In the year 2004 Susan O'Malley found out that Susan Rosenberg was asked to leave her adjunct position at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It was the perfect time for O'Malley to come to help a convicted criminal.'

"and

"'Was Susan trying to open an opportunity for Yousry in KCC's English Department? Was she thinking that as a Very Important Person in the University she would pressure the Chair and members of the English Department's P&B to hire Mr. Yousry? She probably thought that with all that experience transmitting written screeds and instructions from the Sheik to his terrorist minions, Yousry should be able to teach our KCC students with ease. If Mr. Yousry ever lands at KCC, be assured it is courtesy of the Queen of Released Time...Susan believes in those who preach and practice revolutionary violence, like Susan Rosenberg. She supports the terrorist Yousry who aided fellow terrorists and murderers in a most substantive way, by conveying instructions for murderous activities, directed against us all.'

"and

"'LYNN STEWART AT THE PSC?

"'In October this year campus cafeterias and hallways were filled with hush, hush rumors:...Lynn Stewart...will herald her joining the staff of the PSC. This would be, of course, courtesy of the Queen of Released Time for her idol in distress.'

"and

"'O'Malley will have no trouble pushing Lynn's appointment as a PSC attorney with a sizable salary, to assist the PSC's current convicted-felon attorney, Nathaniel Charney.'

"By this publication, the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal and 'terrorist' character, who supports 'terrorist' activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without any regard for the CUNY academic community, who believes in those who preach and practice terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability and influence to secure jobs for criminals and 'terrorists' instead of and at the expense of upstanding citizens and law-abiding Americans.

"Hired at KCC in 1974, Susan O'Malley has taught English for many years, has been a full professor of English since 1991 and has often 'dirtied her hands with chalk.'

"Over the course of 28 years (1974-2002) Susan O'Malley received some reassigned time for scholarly research awarded through her winning grants, some reassigned time for co-directing the College Now English Program and teaching in two high schools for the American Social History Project, some reassigned time for being elected to the Executive Committee of the UFS and as the elected KCC Union Chapter Chair for three years.

"Susan O'Malley's life has been dedicated to teaching, scholarly research and governance at KCC and CUNY.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley worked hard for her achievements and did not hail from a wealthy family such that money was never an issue for her or her family.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley attended public schools and raised two children on her own as a single parent.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley believes in and has always practiced peaceful and lawful resolution of disputes

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterance, Susan O'Malley does not believe in terrorism or violence

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley believes that the decision to hire faculty should be decided by faculty and not by other groups outside of the faculty departmental committees.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley never met Susan Rosenberg or talked to her on the telephone

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the faculty at John Jay College of Criminal Law (hereinafter 'John Jay') were concerned with the removal of Susan Rosenberg, and expressed outrage that they were not consulted when she was not allowed to continue teaching at John Jay because of the objections of a group outside of John Jay.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, it was Susan O'Malley's duty as UFS Chair to represent the views of the faculty at John Jay.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Mohammd Yousry (hereinafter 'Yousry') had taught part time at York College for 7 terms and had received favorable reviews. The faculty at York College wanted him to continue teaching at York College and did not understand why he was removed from the classroom in the middle of the term and forbidden to teach there again.

"Upon information and belief, if Yousry had been a full-time faculty member he could and or would not have been removed without consultations and due process.

"Contrary to the defendants' utterances, Susan O'Malley represented the faculty at York College, including Yousry, which was one of her duties as UFS Chair.

"Contrary to the defendants' implications, Susan O'Malley met Yousry only once at a conference, did not communicate with him at any other time and does not support him in his alleged 'terrorist' activities.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley supports the right of adjunct faculty, including Yousry, to receive due process and not to be removed from the classroom without consulting the head of the department that hired him.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley never emailed or spoke to Lynne Stewart on the telephone, and she never invited her to join the staff of the PSC and never requested that she join the staff of the PSC.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley is not now and has never been in the position to hire or fire faculty, except for the six years that she was elected to the Personnel and Budget Committee (hereinafter "P&B") for the English Department of KCC in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley has never pressured anyone from within the University to hire any faculty at KCC or CUNY.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley was elected to the Chair of the UFS by a democratic vote of the faculty of CUNY and was not elected by 'intimidation'.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley found the position of UFS Chair to be a high stress, demanding, nerve-wracking position, requiring her to be in constant communication with the faculty and the Chancellory.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of fact and false implied statements or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"As a result of the publication and the acts of the defendants, plaintiff fears that people who know her only through the defendants' false Utterances that she associates with terrorists and advocates violence will harm her.

"By reasons of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and reallages each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 through 22 and 24 through 52 inclusive, of this complaint, with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein.

"Commencing on or about March 7, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 35, Number 3...to wit:

"'O'MALLEY-QUEDA TRAINING CAMP: FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS A KCC EXCLUSIVE!'

"'We believe that the newly formed "Never-Any-Action Caucus" is the creation of Susan O'Malley (aka Queen of Released Time). Her major goal is to establish a Training Camp to recruit and train, at Kingsborough, people like herself who are misguided, misdirected, misinformed. O'Malley seeks to find jobs at KCC and other CUNY colleges for Mohammed Yousry.'

"and

"'O'Malley doesn't care about us--her only concern is that Yousry should teach at CUNY. O'Malley has also been job-searching for Susan Rosenberg.'

"and

"'O'Malley, though, doesn't care about us--her only concern is that Rosenberg should teach at CUNY.'

"and

"'We believe that the above mentioned KCC individuals [Susan Farrell, Robert Singer, Jack Arnow, Robert Putz, Patrick Lloyd] were selected for the O'Malley-Queda Recruitment Camp because she thinks that (1) they all are naive and gullible and (2)
she can infiltrate the Department and College-wide P&Bs at KCC and at other CUNY colleges to push her PERSONAL AGENDA of finding jobs for Yousry, Rosenberg and other terrorists...Meanwhile remember: the Queen of Released Time is a devious, dangerous and More to come on the Queen...'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal and 'terrorist' character who supports 'terrorist' activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without any regard for the CUNY academic community, who acts purely for her own selfish reasons and not for the best interest of the academic community, who believes in those who preach and practice terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability and influence to secure jobs for criminals and terrorists instead of and at the expense of upstanding citizens and law abiding Americans.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, there is no O'Malley-Queda Training Camp.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the only entity with the authority to hire faculty is the College President upon the recommendation of the Personnel and Budget Committees for the various departments of the colleges of CUNY.

"Susan O'Malley served as a member of the KCC English Department P&B for 6 years in the late 1980s and early 1990s and during her service on the P&B no 'terrorists' were hired.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances that except for announcing at a UFS meeting that she heard that Yousry was loooking for a teaching job, Susan O'Malley has never undertaken any action to obtain a position for Yousry or given any kind of support to Yousry in any way.

"The defendants' Utterances imply that Susan O'Malley gave Yousry or Susan Rosenberg emotional and financial support and or that Susan O'Malley somehow conspired with Yousry or Rosenberg to conduct criminal or terrorist activities at KCCD or CUNY or elsewhere, and or that Susan O'Malley has a goal or personal agenda to find positions at KCC or CUNY for criminals or terrorists and or that Susan O'Malley has criminal and terrorist friends and associates, any and all of which is false and published with the intent to malign Susan O'Malleys good name and character.

"Yousry, a faculty member, called the UFS which represents all CUNY faculty and asked if anyone had a teaching position and left his phone number at the office and not with Susan O'Malley personally.

"Upon information and belief, the UFS office personnal had access to Yousry's phone number.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"As a result of the publication and the acts of the defendants, plaintiff fears that people who know her only through the defendants' false Utterances that she associates with terrorists and advocates violence will harm her.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damage in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courst which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"...Commencing on or about March 12, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 35, Number 4...which contains the following matter, to wit:

"'MOHAMMED ON HER MIND! O'MALLEY'S OBSESSION WITH FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS'

"'Queen O'Malley was so obsessed with finding a job for Mohammed Yousry...'

"and

"'Yes, yes, Mohammed was on her mind and she was not going to rest until she got this convicted terrorist a job.'

"and

"'Our questions are:

"'1) Has Queen O'Malley ever made a 'Job Wanted' announcement like this for a non-convicted, non-violent peace loving American educator for a job in CUNY? There are hundreds of qualified people looking for teaching jobs. Why does she prefer convicted terrorists who ar bent on harming our people and our nation over peace-loving Americans?'

and

"'We believe that O'Malley was so obsessed with putting Mohammed back on the CUNY payroll that it pretty much confirms what we said in our earlier Patriot returns (Issue 35.3), i.e., that she is recruiting naive, innocent members of the KCC faculty into her Queda-Camp, to infiltrate college and departmental Personnel and Budget Committees in her mission -- to recruit terrorists in CUNY. Given the opportunity she will bring in all her indicted, convicted and freed-on-bail terrorist-friends...Many of us know peace loving, law abiding never-even-convicted for littering citizens who need work. How many law-abiding adjunct faculty have to worry about getting their two courses in order to hold onto medical benefits? She does not worry about the 'ordinary' adjunct--but she is worried about convicted terrorists! She will take these few precious courses away and give them to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers...We at the Patriot take the liberty of asking you, our readers, a question: How many of you know, or have friends who know, a convicted terrorist an his or her home telephone number?...We sure don't and believe that you don't either. But, watch out-Queen O'Malley does!'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal and terrorist character who supports "terrorist" activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without any regard for the CUNY academic community, who acts purely for her own selfish reasons and not for the best interest of the academic community, who believes in those who preach and practice terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability and influence to secure jobs for criminals and 'terrorists' instead of and at the expense of decent upstanding citizens and law-abiding Americans.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances and implications, UFS Chair Susan O'Malley duties included representing all faculty of CUNY (including Yousry, who was then a member of the faculty) each of whom she believes are entitle to due process.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley was not obsessed with Yousry, or with finding him a job.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Yousry called the PSC and did not call or speak with Susan O'Malley individually.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.


"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publicaation and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"As a result of the publication and the acts of the defendants, plaintiff fears that people who know her only through the defendants' false Utterances that she associates with terrorists and advocates violence will harm her.

"By reasons of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"'AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (above)....

"Commencing on or about April 17, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 36, Number 4... to wit:

"'O'MALLEY TO SEEK CUNY JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR LYNN STEWART'S DAUGHTER ACCUSED OF FAKING SICK LEAVE'

"'It has been rumored in CUNY circles that Susan O'Malley, Community College officer on the PSC Executive Committee was in contact with Brenna Stewart, 45 year old daughter of Lynn Stewart'

"and

"'...O'Malley has obtained Brenna's resume and made copies for distribution at the next Delegate Assembly. Similar to the appeal she made for terrorists Mohammed Yousry and Susan Rosenberg (The Patriot Returns Vol. 35, no. 3 and the Patriot Returns Vol. 35 no. 4). She plans again to use her PSC position to make a personal appeal to the DEA to alert members to her wish for a job for Breena in one of the CUNY units.'

"and

"'O'Malley intends to find a lucrativc job for Brenna at CUNY. College Presidents, Department Chairs, be on the lookout. Brenna will be on your campus this summer, courtesy of the Queen of Released time, and you may be singled out as O'Malley's patsy.'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal and terrorist character who supports "terrorist" activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without any regard for the CUNY academic community, who acts purely for her own selfish reasons and not for the best interest of the academic community, who believes in those who preach and practice terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability and influence to secure jobs for criminals and 'terrorists' instead of and at the expense of decent upstanding citizens and law-abiding Americans.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has never met or talked to Brenna Stewart, never saw her resume and therefore never circulated her resume and never intended to or discussed looking for a position for Brenna Stewart.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances and the implications contained therein, plaintiff Susan O'Malley believes in peaceful resolution of disputes and the rule of law, does not believe in "terrorism" or violence and does not support terrorist activities.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time time defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably harmed in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"As a result of the publication and the acts of the defendants, plaintiff fears that people who know her only through the defendants' false Utterances that she associates with "terrorists" and advocates violence will harm her.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action excees the jurisdictional lmits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges (the above)...

"Commencing on or about September 11, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter Volume 37, Number 1...which contains the following matter, to wit:

"'It is now OFFICIAL. The Queen is ABSENT from KCC AGAIN this year

and

"'The arrogance of being away for four years and immediately requesting a sabatical at 80% of the top Full Professor salary! But now, after only one year's stint, still with many hours of released time, she is again away at 80% of salary! Plus, most likely, money from the PSC (that's our dues money). How conniving you can be when you are Queen! Obviously, the Queen doesn't like associating with those lowly peasants and serfs, otherwise known as working faculty. Just take the final step already, O'Malley: leave for good!'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a thief, a person of dishonest and disreputable character, who works for her own selfish interests and against the best interests of the CUNY academic community, who improperly takes monies and or dues from the PSC and uses them for her own benefit, and further a person who dislikes and looks down on her academic colleagues and staff.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has always represented the faculty at KCC and CUNY in an honest manner and has never taken money or received money from the PSC.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has many friends and associates among her faculty and would never call them 'lowly peasants and serfs' which term implies that she is superior to them and which implication is false and defamatory.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparabley injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.


"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.


"AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeates, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation....

"Commencing on or about March 29, 2007 and continuing to the present day the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 36, Number 2....to wit:

"'She talks about her scholarly merit but does not bring along her supposed publications. It makes one wonder how scholarly she really is.'

"By this publication, the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being unscholarly, lacking scholarly excellence and characterizing her academic achievements dishonestly.

"Contrary to the defendants' implication that Susan O'Malley research was not scholarly, Susan O'Malley has written and edited books and articles for publication, including by the University of Illinois Press, the University of Delaware Press, Oxford University Press and SUNY Press, all of which prior to publication were peer reviewed to assure their scholarly merit.

"Contrary to the defendants' implication, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has presented papers, given lectures and participated in seminars at conferences sponsored by the Shakespeare Association of America, the Group for Early Modern Cultural Studies, the Modern Language Association, Attending to Early Modern Women,k the Society for the Study of Women in the Renaissance, the English Forum at the CUNY Graduate School, Princeton University and the International Conference on Higher Education in Ankara, Turkey, Columbia University and the CUNY Graduate School.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley was appointed to the Liberal Studies Program at the CUNY Graduate Center which is an indication of CUNY's respect for Susan O'Malley's scholarship and teaching.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of fact and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.


"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation....

"Commencing on or about Ocotber 6, 2006 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of an concernng the plaintiff in their Newsletter,Volume 35, Number 1 ...to wit:

"'CUNY's Queen Abdicates!'

"'The University Faculty Senate breathes...A SIGH OF RELIEF!!...Professor Susan O'Malley, longtime member of the English Department at Kingsborough Community College and a former editor of/contributor to the Radical Teacher, has returned kicking and screaming to her teaching position after four years as chair of the University Faculty Senate. Many considered her service there to be embarrassing, unproductive and harmful to the university. Long-suffering members of the UFS' staff were so delighted that--according to some reports--they threw a party in celebration of her departure at an undisclosed location in Chelsea. Numerous senators were so overjoyed that they, too, gathered at a watering hole in the Garment District and celebrated with a toast, or so rumor has it.'

"and

"'THE RETURN OF THE QUEEN?'

"'Prior to her elevation to the Senate, the Queen was seldom seen on her home campus. She was far too busy politicking for more released time.'

"and

"'She considered demonstrating in front of Chancellor Goldstein's residence or conducting a candlelight vigil at KCC President Regina Peruggi's house.'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of lazy and disreputable character and who was working for her own selfish interests and against the best interests of the academic community for KCC and CUNY, that she dislikes teaching, mistrusts her staff and colleagues, and is in all respects a person who has failed to contribute anything of value to her students, CUNY governance and the CUNY academic community.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley had a distinguished career as a scholar and teacher, and has made outstanding contributions to university governance and to the Faculty Staff Union.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, during her term as Chair of the Faculty Senate, Susan O'Malley has acquired and retained a high standing and reputation among the CUNY academic community for her advocacy of high academic standards and accessibility of higher education, her humanity and intelligence.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley has always conducted her professional duties with dignity and grace, and her service as UFS Chair has been distinguished and productive.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley was honored with the Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate honoring her service and diligent work, her humanity and intelligence and acclaiming her a worthy and eminent leader emerita.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the term of the UFS Chair is limited to four years, Susan O'Malley served her full term as UFS Chair, and she did not abdicate her position.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley likes and enjoys teaching and in fact defines herself as a teacher as well as a scholar. During her four years as UFS Chair, she missed her students and the classes she taught upon her return to teaching at KCC were rewarding and valued.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the only party was held by Susan O'Malley and the UFS Senators and staff to celebrate her four years as Chair of the UFS.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, during her term as UFS Chair Susan O'Malley's primary workplace was at the CUNY Central Office, located on E. 80th St., New York, but in addition she attended various administrative functions at KCC.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, during her term as UFS Chair Susan O'Malley worked a minimum of 5 days per week, 8 hours per day, and often worked into the evening, on weekends and during the summer.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the UFS Chair is automatically reassigned from teaching to working full-time at the UFS Office in CUNY's Central Office, and such reassignment is approved by the Chancellor.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley never politicked to be reassigned from her teaching duties.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley has never demonstrated or conducted a candlight vigil at the KCC's President Regina Peruggi's home.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of fact and false implied statements or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (abvoe)...

"Commencing on or about March 20, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter Volume 36, Number 1... to wit:

"'IF YOU VOTE FOR THE NO/ACTION SLATE THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT'

"'You will be required...To participate in a candlelight vigil in front of President Peruggi's home. (After all, the New Caucus' Bowen/London did it in front of Chancellor Goldstein's home. Why not Lloyd/O'Malley in front of Peruggi's home?

"By this publication, the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of disreputable character, who participated in a demonstration in front of Chancellor Goldstein's home and who advocated demonstrations of no value or merit for her own interest and against the best interest of the CUNY academic community.

"At the time the Utterance of was published, plaintiff Susan O'Malley did not know the location of President Peruggi's home.

"Plaintiff Susan O'Malley has never discussed demonstrating in front of President Peruggi's home.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the results of the publication adn the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (above)...

"Commencing on or about April 9, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 36, Number 3, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, which contains the following matter, to wit:

"'...of course she's been AWOL (from KCC) for years!'

"and

"'Know that the Queen of Released Time is running for this election not to serve you and the needs of KCC faculty, but for her own selfish interest.'

"and

"'Susan O'Malley attended a demonstration in front of Senator Joe Lieberman's Connecitcut home last Easter Sunday to oppose his support for fighting terrorists'

"and

"'ON YOUR DUES MONEY'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable character who works for her own selfish interests and against the best interestthe CUNY academic community, who is lazy, selfish and disreputable character, who supports the activities of 'terrorists' and opposes those who fight terrorists that she is a thief and is only interested in avoiding teaching.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances that Susan O'Malley has been AWOL from the KCC for years, Susan O'Malley was elected and served from 2002-6 as the Chair of the UFS (the first Community College Professor to do so), attended College Counsel meetings at KCC, served as the representative for KCC and attended numerous committee meetings at KCC, all in service for and at KCC.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley never attended a demonstration in front of Senator Joe Lieberman's Connecticut home to oppose his support for fighting terrorists or for any other reason.

"Contrary to the defedants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has never received reassigned time from the current PSC leadership.

"At the time the defendants pubished the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of fact and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publications and the acts of the defendeants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"By reasons of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

"Plaintiff reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (above)...

"As a result of the defendants' false and hurtful Utterances in the Newsletter, on or about the dates set forth above, plaintiff has maintained severe mental and emotional anguish and distress.

"The defendants outrageously intended to cause or recklessly caused plaintiff mental or emotional distress, mental anguish and fear for her personal safety.

"Defendants in inflicting severe moral and emotional distress upon Susan O'Malley at all times acted willfully and with actual malcie toward plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction

"WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley, demands judgment against the defendants as follows:

"A. On the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seveth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action, awarding plaintiff Susan O'Malley actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of this action;

"B. For an Order permanently enjoining the defendants from making any oral and or written communication to any person, other than their attorneys, that suggest the plaintiff has committed unlawful acts or crimes, or that could foreseeably impugn the plaintiff's character, integriy or reputation in the opinion of an ordinary person;

"For an Order that all pleadings, papers, exhibits and other matter filed with Court in this action be sealed;

"For an Order directing the defendants to publically apologize for their defamatory Utterances and to publish retractions of same;

"Awarding plaintiff Susan O'Malley her costs, and disbursements in this action and

"Granting the plaintiff Susan O'Malley such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.

"December 21, 2007

"Joseph Martin Carasso, Attorney for Plaintiff
305 Broadway, Suite 1204
New York, NY 1007
212-732-0500"