O'Malley v. Karkhanis Settles, Higher Education in Turmoil

Two and a half years ago the now-defunct New York Sun reported that a Kingsborough Community College (KCC) professor, former head of CUNY's faculty senate and a union official, Professor Sue O'Malley, was suing her colleague, Professor Emeritus Sharad Karkhanis. Karkhanis writes a satirical newsletter, Patriot Returns, which is e-mailed to 13,000 people associated with CUNY. Patriot Returns had frequently ridiculed O'Malley's zero-courses-taught schedule (due to released time associated with her extensive bureaucratic duties) and the tendency of CUNY's faculty, including O'Malley, to support terrorists. CUNY's performance in the latter regard has been much in line with other universities, as a review of David Horowitz's The Professors will confirm. Karkhanis frequently called O'Malley "the Queen of Released Time", an appropriate appellation if there ever was one, and his newsletter was good for a once-a-month laugh.

In an article in Frontpagemag in November 2007 Phil Orenstein wrote that:

"...Professor Susan O’Malley, a member of the PSC executive committee, former chair of the University Faculty Senate and professor of English has been a regular target of Dr. Karkhanis’s irreverent discourse. Past issues of TPR have exposed O’Malley’s pleas to find a teaching position for convicted terrorist conspirator, Mohammad Yousry. TPR documented her protests against the firing of imprisoned Weather Underground terrorist Susan Rosenberg and her attempts to find Rosenberg a job at CUNY. Also, past issues attacked O’Malley’s support for anti-religious Professor Timothy Shortell’s bid for chairmanship of the Sociology Department of Brooklyn College. He is noted for his claims that all religious people are 'moral retards' and 'an ugly, violent lot,' and statements, 'Christians claim that theirs is faith based on love, but they'll just as soon kill you.'"

In his newsletter Karkhanis asserted that the "Queen of Released Time" (quoted in Orenstein's article):

"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."

O'Malley apparently believed that hiring an attorney to sue Karkhanis in response to his satirical newsletter would exemplify her interpretation of the concept of "collegiality" upon which she and her fellow union officials supported an attempt to crucify one of my Brooklyn College colleagues, Professor KC Johnson. Apparently, O'Malley thought that readers and her colleagues on the university senate really did believe that O'Malley was running an al Qaeda camp at Kingsborough.

In the Sun article O'Malley was quoted as saying "It's all very, very silly" but the suit has involved dickering over several years.

In the current issue of Patriot Returns, released yesterday, Karkhanis publishes a statement of his lawyer, Mark Jakubik about the settlement of the case:

"First, as noted in the publisher's statement, the settlement did not involve an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Dr. Karkhanis. To the contrary, as is clearly iterated in the statement, we continue to believe that none of the material published in The Patriot Returns that was at issue in the lawsuit was defamatory or otherwise actionable for any reason. Second, there is no financial aspect to the settlement, and Dr. Karkhanis is not required to make any payment whatsoever to Dr. O'Malley or anyone else. Third, Dr. Karkhanis remains free to publish The Patriot Returns without prior restraint. In sum, we believe that, given the terms upon which Dr. Karkhanis agreed to resolve this matter, the settlement represents a significant victory for free speech and academic freedom, and The Patriot Returns will continue to stand as an unabashed defender of those values."

Mr. Jakubik's response to O'Malley's cause of action states that Karkhanis did not defame O'Malley and notes that:

"Yousry and Rosenberg were terminated from their positions at CUNY because the university administration was concerned about their possible involvement with individuals involved in terrorism related activities."

Karkhanis agreed to make the following statement:

"We do not believe Professor Susan O'Malley to be a terrorist, and deeply regret if she, or any of her associates, understood us to have labeled her as such. We are sorry if anything published in “The Patriot Returns” has been interpreted in such a way. We do not believe that anything published in The Patriot Returns has exceeded the bounds of permissible speech, but express our profound sorrow if Dr. O'Malley sustained any damage to her reputation or suffered any emotional pain or suffering as a result of these statements."

Note that Karkhanis does not apologize for calling O'Malley a terrorist. Rather, he apologizes for the misunderstanding of any of her associates who may have thought his satirical newsletter to be serious. Of course, no one with common sense would have thought O'Malley actually is a terrorist.

Inside Higher Education ran an article about the case today and I posted the following comment.

>I appreciate this mostly accurate article but the title is misleading. No one thought that "Sue" O'Malley was really a terrorist or ran an Al Qaeda training camp, so in saying that he is sorry that anyone concluded from Patriot Returns that O'Malley really was a terrorist and did run an al Qaeda training camp Karkhanis is not apologizing. Nor should he. The Professional Staff Congress is dismally run, and, if anything, Karkhanis did not go far enough.

You contradict yourself with respect to Karkhanis's calling Mohammed Yousry a terrorist. In the third paragraph you correctly state that Yousry was convicted of abetting terrorists, but then a couple of lines later claim that Karkhanis dubbed Yousry a terrorist. Someone who associates with and abets terrorists in effect demonstrates support for terrorism. Conviction of association with terrorism, which was demonstrated by abetting it, is what dubbed Yousry a terrorist. If you want to take issue with Yousry's conviction, you might demonstrate your doubts with a few shards of evidence. You won't find much evidence from the extremists who, you state, call the conviction unfair.

In the concluding paragraph you quote Professor O'Malley as saying that she hopes that the case might create some good case law. I showed that statement to a couple of my undergraduate business students who happened to be visiting me and they started laughing because they know from their undergraduate business law class that settled cases do not create case law. I told them not to laugh just because a senior faculty member is less knowledgeable than they are. After years as an officer of the CUNY faculty union O'Malley might be thought to have picked up some sense of the real world. My students are planning to initiate a class discussion on this in my elementary management skills course next year.

Phil Orenstein on Fahad Hashmi

Phil Orenstein's trenchant article "No Terrorist Left Behind" appears in the current issue of Frontpagemag. Orenstein traces the pro-terrorist atmosphere among leftists in universities. Orenstein writes that:

"According to the indictment filed in Manhattan federal court, he (Fahad Hashmi) was charged with providing and conspiring to send money, material support and military gear including night-vision goggles to associated al Qaeda fighters in South Waziristan, Pakistan to use against United States forces in Afghanistan. The charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 50 years. Due to a violent outburst attacking arresting officers at Heathrow Airport, and shouting that he hoped they would be killed, bail was denied at a hearing and he was placed under secure lockdown."

Yet, oddly, over 500 academics have signed a petition protesting Hashmi's arrest and treatment. These same academics include a swathe of those who supported Ward Churchill's statement that the 9/11 victims were "Little Eichmanns" and many spread nonsensical lies such as the claim that the United States and George Bush perpetrated the 9/11 disaster.

Orenstein notes that:

"According to the NYPD intelligence report (2007), Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat, Hashmi became radicalized while he was a student... Those who knew him described him as a quiet, bright, and caring young man who was passionate about Islam but not overzealous. However, Hashmi as well as many young Muslims in New York City struggling with their identity, often fall victim to extremist Islamic ideologies."

As well, university 9/11-deniers have attacked the distinguished Professor Sharad Karkhanis when he attempted to bring this and similar abuses to light. Professor Karkhanis has been subjected to a frivolous, $2 million law suit. The named plaintiff, Susan O'Malley, has publicly stated her case against Karkhanis is "silly", yet she has forced him to incur legal fees to defend himself against the Professional Staff Congress, the CUNY faculty union's, surreptitious suppression of free speech.

Phil Orenstein does a public service by bringing these often secretive academic abuses to full public view.

Publius on Attorney Martin Carasso

"Sue" O'Malley's attorney Martin Carasso has apparently gotten into a snit with "Publius" and other advocates of free speech at the Free Speech at CUNY website. I have something in common with Attorney Carasso. My first name is Mitchell and Attorney Carasso attended the William Mitchell College of Law. Also, in 1984 an attorney punched me in the eye while I was driving and wearing glasses (he was a passenger in my car) and I had to get seven stitches. Ultimately, I settled for $3,000. Thus, I know something about low-cost legal advice. Therefore, I must comment.

Allegedly, Attorney Carasso wrote an article entitled "Joseph Martin Carasso on low-cost legal advice for independents" and now claims that he "never advertised for low cost legal services.” This is disturbing. Very disturbing. Attorney Carasso should come clean and tell Publius the fee he is receiving for representing Professor O'Malley in suing the awe-inspiring, exalted Professor Karkhanis.

Sharad Karkhanis--Man of The Year

I just put up Phil Orenstein's press release concerning the Queens Village Republicans' award to Sharad Karkhanis as "Educator of the Year". I have decided that Sharad should also be awarded "Man of the Year". I am hereby designating him the first official recipient of Mitchell Langbert's blog's Man of the Year award. Who needs Time?

Candace de Russy Blogs Latest Developments in O'Malley v. Karkhanis

Candace de Russy blogs the latest developments in O'Malley v. Karkhanis on NRO online.

>"O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe [Candace de Russy]

"CUNY Professor Susan O’Malley recently filed a formal defamation complaint against Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis. Professor Mitchell Langbert has recorded the entire complaint in his blog, noting three aspects of the case that merit public scrutiny:

"One involves the scope of academic freedom. A second involves freedom of speech in a collective bargaining unit and the interaction of labor law with defamation and First Amendment rights. A third involves the extent to which the courts and public dispute resolution processes interact with collegial academic processes.

O'Malley v. Karkhanis: In Pursuit of the Acadmic Alfred E. Neuman

Professor Susan O’Malley’s attorney, Joseph Martin Carasso of New York City, filed her formal defamation complaint against Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis 11 days ago. The complaint is well-written and Attorney Carasso deserves credit for clear, no-holds-barred writing. I have recorded the entire complaint in my blog.

There are several issues in O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe that deserve public scrutiny. One involves the scope of academic freedom. A second involves freedom of speech in a collective bargaining unit and the interaction of labor law with defamation and First Amendment rights. A third involves the extent to which the courts and public dispute resolution processes interact with collegial academic processes. After mentioning these points, I review the blogger and media coverage of the O’Malley case. Then, I mention a couple of the key points in Professor O’Malley's complaint and offer some comments.

The O’Malley case is consistent with the long-observed deterioration of universities’ willingness to tolerate dissent. It may suggest an extension of this deterioration to universities’ use of the courts to suppress external criticism. Much as Singapore’s dictator Lee Kuan Yew and Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz have used litigation to silence Chee Soon Juan and Rachel Ehrenfeld, so universities may have begun to use tax-exempt and publicly financed assets to bring politically motivated law suits.

Another potential implication of the O’Malley case is that Professor O'Malley implicitly argues that academic freedom is more limited than the freedom of speech associated with public political discourse. In other words, academic freedom may be more rather than less constrained than public freedom with respect to discourse concerning public figures. Whether O’Malley is a public figure is debatable. The courts may choose to fashion a different standard of speech for academic discourse than for public discourse.

A third point is that there are potential labor issues. In union certification elections the National Labor Relations Board has attempted to establish the concept that there must be laboratory conditions whereby employers and unions cannot threaten or cajole bargaining unit members to vote for or against a union. The PSC is a creature of New York’s Taylor Law, not the National Labor Relations Act. The question in this case is whether an elected union officer, who shares interests in common with the union president (Barbara Bowen) and other officers, should have the right to suppress dissident speech and opinion through the transactions costs associated with law suits. The pro-union New York courts may well consider that this is acceptable.

A fourth point pertains to collegiality. Several officers of the faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), to include President Bowen and Professor O’Malley, have previously publicly attacked another member of the faculty, Professor KC Johnson, in part claiming that he lacked collegiality. Now, Professor O’Malley sues Professor Karkhanis, sidestepping collegial processes and turning her dispute with him into a matter of public record. Can law suits be viewed as part of academic governance processes? If so, can the public continue to support the expense of collegial processes given that academics cause additional dispute resolution costs also at the public's expense?

Media and Blogger coverage of O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe

On October 31, Annie Karni of the New York Sun noted that Professor O’Malley said of her case that "it's all very, very silly". Karni also quotes Professor Karkhanis as saying that the law suit is “an attempt to infringe on his freedom of speech” and that all of his comments were meant as “satire”. The two statements are parallel. Professor O’Malley characterizes her case as “silly” because Professor Karkhanis’s statements about her were satirical.

As well, the Sun quotes Professor Karkhanis:

"She's a public figure, and I have a right to say that, based on the evidence I have and the pattern I've seen of this woman…Why would someone try to assist the terrorist people when you have good Americans who are looking for the job?"

The Sun notes that Professor Karkhanis criticized Professor O’Malley for defending the right of Susan Rosenberg to teach. Rosenberg had spent 16 years in prison for explosives possession. As well, Professor Karkhanis criticized Professor O’Malley’s statement in a University Faculty Senate (UFS) meeting that Mohammed Yousry, convicted of terrorist-related activity, ought to be given a job.

In the New York Post, Dareh Gregorian notes that much of Professor O’Malley’s complaint revolves around Professor Karkhanis’s statements concerning her “obsession with finding jobs for terrorists" and her support for Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry and Susan Rosenberg. Gregorian also notes that Professor Karkhanis believes that what he wrote was satire and that his statements were “appropriate."

Candace de Russy notes that Professor Karkhanis made several accusations about Professor O'Malley after she proposed to rehire Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic-language translator convicted of supporting terrorist activities. He was fired from York College.

In FIRE’s the Torch, Luke Sheahan points out that Professor Karkhanis has been a critic of Professor O’Malley and that he had stated that she was trying to “bring in all her indicted, convicted, and freed-on-bail terrorist friends to the university”.

In Frontpagemag, Phil Orenstein notes that the PSC has a history of aiding and abetting terrorists. Phil also notes that the PSC has focused on left-wing political activity while bread and butter issues have languished and “welfare fund reserves fell by 97%”.

Phil also notes that past issues of Karkhanis’s newsletter, Patriot Returns, have attacked Professor O’Malley for supporting Professor Timothy Shortell, who claimed that all religious people are “moral retards”. Professor Karkhanis has also attacked Professor O’Malley for attempting to find Susan Rosenberg a job and her public statement that Mohammed Yousry was seeking a job at a faculty senate meeting. Phil argues that Professor Karkhanis’s newsletter is a check against abuses of power by the PSC and that the law suit is a free speech issue.

The United Federation of Teachers, Phil points out, has seen considerable internal rancor but has never seen a law suit by a union officer against a member, with the union openly taking the officer’s side. Phil also argues that O’Malley is a public figure and so is fair game for criticism.

In a recent blog in Democracy Project Phil Orenstein also notes that the Queens Village Republican Club in New York has named Professor Karkhanis “Educator of the Year” and will hand him an award for his ongoing struggle for freedom of speech and his refusal to be silenced by the PSC’s program of suppression of conservatives.

An example of the PSC's suppression of conservatives appears in History News Network. KC Johnson notes that Dorothee Benz,a PSC spokesperson argues that

“Free speech has limits, as any first year law student knows. O’Malley’s case concerns one of those limits, where the right to free speech comes up against the harm caused by libelous statements. Whether accusing someone of aiding and training terrorists, in a post-9/11 world, rises to meet the legal standards.”

The PSC sees conviction for explosives possession or conviction for colluding with terrorists as protected speech, but it views criticism of its officers as falling outside the limits of free speech, even when those accusations have factual basis.

Johnson adds that although Karkhanis’s rhetoric can be “over the top”, it played a key role in last year’s union election. Karkhanis’s newsletter has called O’Malley “Queen of Released time” and has criticized O’Malley for multiple office holding and “non-accomplishment” Johnson points out that

“unless O’Malley is going to claim that Yousry and Rosenberg were not convicted terrorists, Karkhanis’ statements about her urging CUNY colleges to hire terrorists were factually true. Rosenberg was a member of a terrorist organization; Yousry was accused and convicted of aiding a convicted terrorist. So what would motivate such a suit?"

Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed notes that while “Karkhanis said that he does not believe O’Malley to be a terrorist (or a queen, which he calls her frequently)", Professor O’Malley’s attorney said that “falsely accusing or alleging someone is a terrorist or is aiding terrorists in the current year, post-9/11, is a serious charge”. Professor Karkhanis replies that “the factual basis behind the terrorism jabs — that O’Malley went to bat for these individuals — has been demonstrated by e-mail messages he posted on his Web site.”

The O’Malley Complaint

I blog the O’Malley complaint in its virtual entirety here. A few of the points are that Professor Karkhanis said that Professor Susan O’Malley comes from a wealthy background, which Professor O’Malley denies. He also said that she used “intimidation” and joining “radical groups” to become leader of the University Faculty Senate to avoid “dirtying her hands with chalk”. He said that O’Malley tried to help Susan Rosenberg, a convicted criminal. He said that O’Malley tried to pressure departmental chairs to help Yousry, who was convicted of abetting terrorism. He said that the “Queen of Released Time” (Professor O’Malley) was jockeying to have Lynn Stewart hired to the staff of the PSC union. In a second cause of action, Professor O’Malley complains that Professor Karkhanis’s newsletter used a headline:

“O'MALLEY-QUEDA TRAINING CAMP: FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS A KCC EXCLUSIVE”

and that Professor Karkhanis called the New Caucus, the left-wing group that dominates the Professional Staff Congress, the “Never-Any-Action Caucus”. Professor Karkhanis states that:

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

There are eight additional causes of action, for a total of ten. Each of them refers to this sort of silly diatribe about Professor O’Malley. The entire complaint is here and it is evident that all of these statements were satirical. I would have referred any CUNY faculty member who said to me that they really thought that Professor O’Malley wore a crown and held a scepter as “Queen of Released Time” or actually ran an al-Queda Recruitment Camp to the university's counseling center.

Analysis

There are potential dangers to freedom of speech emanating from Professor O’Malley’s decision to bring this case, so although it seems likely that she will lose, it is important to take it seriously. Arguably, the case is frivolous. However courts are not always predictable.

It is evident that Patriot Returns is and always was considered to CUNY’s own Mad Magazine. It is funny, and although I disagree with the “New Caucus” union leadership, I and likely no one else ever concluded that the Patriot's satirical claims were true. On a few occasions, based on statements in the newsletter, I contacted the union leadership such as Steve London and Barbara Bowen for further details, and they did not choose to reply.

College professors don’t always have common sense, but they are not complete idiots. An audience of college professors is able to discern satire from fact. Also, the PSC has far more resources than Professor Karkhanis, while Professor O'Malley has the same, and both the PSC and Professor O'Malley could have responded openly through ordinary internal communication processes to any accusations. I do not recall receiving any communications from Professor O'Malley, although I have met her several times.

Along these lines, Professor O’Malley openly stated to the Sun's Annie Karni (kudos, Annie) that this is a “silly” case. As well, Karkhanis presents evidence in the form of minutes of the senate meeting that Professor O’Malley in fact made the comments he alleges. There is little debate about the underlying fact that Professor O’Malley has repeatedly and openly supported left wing kooks. The questions that the complaint raise focus on satirical hyperbole. In political discourse, should free speech be infringed? The New Caucus and the Professional Staff Congress think so. I disagree with them.

Arguably, by virtue of her becoming an ex-officio member of the Board of Trustees of CUNY, Chair of the University Faculty Senate, Executive Director of the Radical Caucus of the Modern Language Association, contributor and Editor of Radical Teacher and member of the CUNY union's Executive Committee, Professor O'Malley became a public figure. I am not sure of the definition of “public figure”. I have contacted a respected labor and fiduciary duty attorney I have known for many years and posed him the question whether a union officer and/or faculty senate officer who runs for office is considered a public figure in the same sense that a public politician is. I suspect that this is an open question, and that Professor O’Malley’s case might do serious damage to the cause of free speech if it is not viewed as frivolous.

As well, there is a serious question whether the kind of freedom of speech that applies to public discourse applies to private universities. As a public university CUNY is subject to the same First Amendment rules as apply to public discourse, in which case officials ought to be treated the same as they are ordinarily, although this is not certain. As a union officer and head of the faculty senate Professor O’Malley might be construed as a public official, but are these roles really public? I would hope that the answer is yes, but if Professor O’Malley has intended to institute additional avenues for suppression in American universities, she has been creative in selecting this avenue.

My opinion about the “John and Jane Doe’ defendants is that Professor O’Malley is reaching. In my conversations with Professor Karkhanis he never once mentioned a coauthor. In fact, the very use of the “John and Jane Doe” are a kind of legal slur. Perhaps Professor O’Malley is thinking that other satirist, Alfred E. Neuman, is John Doe.

In summary, Professor O’Malley probably has no case. If she does, it is one more stake in the heart of academic freedom and of universities. Clearly, she attempts to use the legal system to intimidate Professor Karkhanis. She does not want Professor Karkhanis to continue his writing of the Patriot to benefit of the PSC’s radical leadership.

O'Malley v. Karkhanis; Johnson v. Yousry

I have emailed the following inquiry to Susan O'Malley, a CUNY activist who is suing Sharad Karkhanis:

From: "Mitchell Langbert"
To: "Sue O'Malley"
Cc: "KC Johnson"
Subject: Karkhanis, Johnson and Yousry
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:17:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01C84BF2.87BF9E30"
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 UFS Chair O'Malley:

Further to my earlier e-mails, I would like to respectfully ask you two additional questions for my blog. I hope you don't mind.

As I am reading through your complaint concerning Professor Karkhanis, I noticed the following statement:

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

I am somewhat curious about the link between this point and your comments about Professor KC Johnson that were recorded several years ago. In particular, you were unsupportive of Professor Johnson's promotion bid at that time and publicly stated so.

Do you feel that you were remiss in your treatment of Professor Johnson? Or did you have a change of heart since then concerning your role in representing all faculty as chair of the UFS?

Second, do you feel that your treatment of Yousry was equivalent to your treatment of Johnson? The complaint about Johnson involved collegiality, and failing to represent him, you voiced concern about him, saying that it was a difficult question. In contrast, Yousry was convicted of terrorist-related activity.

Third I am curious as to the implications of this point for CUNY policy. The departmental chairs on rare occasion make frivolous decisions based on collegiality and other pretexts that are inconsistent with serious academic criteria. If you claim to represent all faculty how do you reconcile the representation of a chair who makes a frivolous decision and a capable junior faculty member who is terminated on the frivolous grounds?

Thanks for your help and clarification. I will blog your answer along with this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Addendum: KC Johnson just reminded me that in 2003 Erin O'Connor of Critical Mass called O'Malley's attacks on Johnson "libelous": O'Connor writes:

"For example, it is now acceptable at CUNY for top administrators to libel those junior faculty they seek to fire. Susan O'Malley, English professor at Kingsborough Community College, president of the CUNY University Faculty Senate, and ex oficio member of the Board of Trustees, published a statement on Johnson's case in the Senate Digest. Here is the text:

"'As the faculty member on the Board of Trustees, although without a vote, I first heard that the Board was being asked to vote on Professor Robert David Johnson's promotion and early tenure as the February 24, 2003 Board meeting was convening. A sheet of paper announcing an addendum to the University Report was placed at my seat. We were to vote on Professor Johnson's promotion to full professor effective 1/1/03 and his tenure effective 9/1/03. This action had not been presented to the Board Committee on Faculty, Staff, Administration for discussion and vote, nor had it been placed on the Board Calendar so that faculty could address it at the Board Public Hearing. The only discussion at the February Board of Trustees meeting consisted of a statement from Trustee Pesile that she had been trying to bring this matter to the Board's attention since October. However, Trustee Wiesenfeld had made known to the New York Sun his views supporting Professor Johnson.

"'Chancellor Goldstein recommended to the Board that it overturn the decision by the Brooklyn College faculty and the President of Brooklyn College. He said that after having received a complaint from Professor Johnson's attorney, he had given Professor Johnson's file to three professors who had distinguished records, and who had voted to promote Johnson to full professor after his having taught for three and one half years at Brooklyn College. The three professors who voted to promote Professor Johnson are Pamela Sheingorn, Professor of History at Baruch and Executive Officer of the Doctoral Program in Theater at the Graduate Center; David Reynolds, University Distinguished Professor of English at Baruch College; and Louis Masur, chair of the City College History Department.

"'It is not my place to judge Professor Johnson's scholarship. A historian, he has written several reputable monographs. However, although he has one other monograph in press, he has not published since his tenure clock started at Brooklyn College. He was scheduled to have another year at Brooklyn College before coming up for tenure. While I agree with the AAUP that collegiality, a reason cited in the. Johnson case, should not be the sole criterion for the denial of promotion, as I talk to Brooklyn College faculty I realize that this is an extremely complex case.
"What kind of message does this give to faculty coming up for promotion? That it is better for a faculty member who anticipates any difficulty to hire a private lawyer and ask the Chancellor to form his own committee to recommend promotion and tenure?.

[I note that that Professor Johnson's record at that point far exceeded the number of publications that Professor O'Malley pretended and that Professor O'Malley's statement at this very critical point in Johnson's career was utterly untrue and a defamatory lie. Given her reckless disregard for the truth in this matter, O'Malley should hang her head in perpetual shame rather than engage in litigation about her own flimsy career.]

"'As Chair of the University Faculty Senate and as one who is concerned with governance issues, I believe that the Chancellor's action does a disservice to shared governance at CUNY. On March 25, 2003, th UFS plenary voted to support a Resolution on the Integrity of the Promotion and Tenure Process which was written in response to the Chancellor's grant of early promotion and therefore tenure to Professor Johnson. Chancellor Goldstein's action overrode the decisions of the three committees at Brooklyn College involved with the promotion and tenure process, as well as the decision of the President of Brooklyn College. The UFS resolution "calls upon the Chancellor to affirm a policy of non-interference with established campus and university governance and contractual procedures, including appeals and grievances."

[Professor O'Malley, with respect to Professor Johnson, saw her role as defender of academic processes rather than representative of "all faculty of CUNY". It seems that Professor O'Malley carries a many-edged sword, none of the edges being particularly truthful.]

"'Cordially,

"'Susan G. O'Malley'"

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"

Karkhanis Blasts PSC Leadership

The Professional Staff Congress, CUNY's faculty union, has elected the "New Caucus", a group of left-wing extremists to its leadership. In his latest Patriot Returns, Sharad Karkhanis, who has been harassed with a law suit by "Sue" O'Malley, a member of the extremist group, takes the union to task. Karkhanis writes:

The concerns of Barbara Bowen and her fellow New Caucasians have never been limited to such issues as higher salaries, lower teaching loads, and better benefits, of course. These mundane matters often seem of secondary importance to larger political goals, such as ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and preventing one with Iran. Indeed, the Dear Leader was one of the featured speakers at United for Peace and Justice's October 27th march to Foley Square...

Karkhanis has a point, and once again, as always, serves a major public service through his newsletter. If New Caucus leader and union president Barbara Bowen expects to win Eliot Spitzer and his fellow Democrats over, might she not leave the attacks on the Democrats to Republicans? Bowen's combative approach has repeatedly failed. As a result, I have invited Randi Weingarten to commence a merger of her United Federation of Teachers with the Professional Staff Congress.

Are the New Caucus and Barbara Bowen Taking a Page from Lee Kuan Yew's Playbook?

I have blogged about "Sue" O'Malley's and the New Caucus's attempt to silence Sharad Karkhanis via "Sue" O'Malley's lawsuit (also see here, here, and here). Have the "progressives" of the New Caucus merely taken a page from the playbook of the suppressive retired Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew?

The following is how Wikipedia describes Mr. Lee's abuse of law suits to suppress and bankrupt political opponents:

>"Singaporeans and foreigners have criticized Lee as elitist and even an autocrat, and that the economic prosperity under Lee was achieved at the expense of much political and social freedom. Lee was once quoted as saying he preferred to be feared than loved...

"Lee has been criticized for implementing some harsh measures to suppress political opposition and freedom of speech, such as outlawing public demonstrations without an explicit police permit, the restriction of the press freedom, and the use of defamation lawsuits to bankrupt political opponents, such as Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong and Chee Soon Juan. On political matters, public opinion was rarely solicited.

"On the above issue, Devan Nair, the third president of Singapore and who was living in exile in Canada, remarked in a 1999 interview with the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail that Lee's technique of suing his opponents into bankruptcy or oblivion was an abrogation of political rights. He also remarked that Lee is 'an increasingly self-righteous know-all', surrounded by 'department store dummies'. In response to these remarks, Lee sued Devan Nair in a Canadian court and Nair countersued.[6] Lee then brought a motion to have Nair's counterclaim thrown out of court. Lee argued that Nair's counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an inflammatory attack on the integrity of the government of Singapore. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to throw out Nair's counterclaim, holding that Lee had abused the litigating process and therefore Nair has a reasonable cause of action. [[5]]. After his death, The Economist published an obituary of Nair which was critical of Lee Kuan Yew. The following issue, The Economist published a letter from a Singaporean official which claimed Nair's drunkenness was a source of his mental disturbance in his latter years. The Economist did not publish other letters that were supportive of Nair due to the reason that the publication would be forced into another lengthy libel trial."

Rather than defend academic freedom, the insiders of the New Caucus and the Professional Staff Congress rely on role models like the suppressive Mr. Kew to silence Karkhanis with a law suit, taking a page out of Lee's playbook. Perhaps the PSC thinks that New York has become sufficiently "suppressive" that

Karkhanis Defends Against Professional Staff Congress's Attack on Academic Freedom

The latest issue of Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns features a letter from Fred Brodzinski and Stephen Peter Russell alleging that the City University of New York's incompetent union, the Professional Staff Congress, may have violated union election procedures:

"It seems that the merry krew at Bowen's Broadway Bunker may have been tampering with pending elections for HEO alternate representatives to the Delegate Assembly. Rather than putting forward the names of candidates who took the trouble to attend a nominating meeting, the New Caucus seems simply to have made up their own slate. Another example of democracy, "Dear Leader" style, perhaps?"

Karkhanis writes an assuring letter to union President Bowen:

"Let me say that I am deeply, deeply sorry if there was any misunderstanding between us regarding my absolute and undying loyalty to the New Caucus Party and the Professional Staff Congress (not that I would ever imply of course that there should be ANY difference between the two)....And how can I NOT give monumental thanks to First Vice President Steve London, the modern day Prometheus of the American Labor movement, for his great gift of unwavering loyalty and dedication to the Party."

In response to Karkhanis's anti-Professional Staff Congress newsletter, the PSC leadership, via PSC lackey "Sue" O'Malley, has filed a law suit, O'Malley v. Karkhanis. Karkhanis notes that:

"The sum of $2,000,000 is being sought in monetary damages, as is a permanent injunction prohibiting Professor Karkhanis from "making, printing, publishing and distributing wrongful statements" regarding Professor O'Malley in the future."

"Karkhanis's supporters have set up a website, freespeechcuny,. According to the site,

"On Friday, November 9th, attorneys representing Sharad Karkhanis filed, on his behalf, a formal notice of appearance in the case, along with a demand for a complaint, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. This filing compels Susan O'Malley and her attorney to file her formal complaint, setting out in detail the factual basis for her claims, within 20 days."

The Free Speech CUNY website also defends Karkhanis's allegation that "Sue" O'Malley has supported terrorists:

"Lest anyone assume that Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis has pulled his comments from thin air, the records of CUNY’s University Faculty Senate provide ample evidence to the contrary. At the April 5, 2005 plenary session of the UFS, chaired by Professor “Sue” O’Malley, the following resolution was passed:

"...We deplore the denial of due process for adjuncts in two recent cases, which in effect denies them academic freedom:

"We deplore the decision by the Central Administration of CUNY to remove Mohammed Yousry* in April 2002 from his post as an adjunct in Political Science at York College. Our disagreement with the Central Administration's decision in no way trivializes the federal charges against him, but addresses the Chancellery's refusal to initiate formal proceedings and to accord Mr. Yousry due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and all legal processes are exhausted.

"We deplore the exclusion of Susan Rosenberg from any further teaching at John Jay College of Criminal Justice as a result of a decision in December 2004 by President Jeremy Travis in response to complaints by a police fraternal organization and without appropriate faculty consultation. President Travis offered no academic grounds for the exclusion, and his decision compromises the long-held academic tradition of faculty self-governance in selecting who shall teach and what shall be taught....

*On February 10, 2005 Yousry was indicted in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, along with attorney Lynne Stewart and Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of conspiring to provide, and providing, material support to terrorism and conspiring to defraud the U.S. government, and was convicted. According to an article in The Nation, Yousry was originally scheduled to be sentenced in September 2006, but he was actually sentenced on Monday, October 16, 2006 to one year and eight months, as reported by CNN in an article that has disappeared from their archives, but which can still be read in the version cached by Google.

Judge Judy's Producer Sends out Feelers Re O'Malley v. Karkhanis

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.