Documentation to "My Case"

Page 1.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
Plaintiff,
-against-
STONY BROOK UNVERSITY,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------X
February 2, 2006
10:11 a.m.
300 Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, New York

EXAMINATION OF TIBOR GASPARIK, the Plaintiff herein, taken by the Defendant pursuant to Notice, and held at the above-mentioned time and place before a Notary Public in and for the State of New York.

Page 2.
APPEARANCES:
TIBOR GASPARIK, Pro Se Plaintiff
352 Plad Boulevard
Holtsville, New York 11742

ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorneys for Defendant
300 Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, New York 11788
By: LORI PACK, ESQ.

Page 3.
STIPULATIONS
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties herein, that filing and sealing be and the same are hereby waived.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that all objections except as to the form of the question, shall be reserved to the time of the trial.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the within examination may be signed and sworn to before any notary public with the same force and effect as though signed and sworn to before this Court.

Page 4.
TIBOR GASPARIK, a Plaintiff herein, after having first been duly sworn by Dawn Castiglione, a Notary Public in and for the State of New York, was examined and testified under oath as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MS. PACK:
Q. Please state your full name for the record.
A. Tibor Gasparik.
Q. What is your present home address?
A. 352 Plad Boulevard, Holtsville, New York 11742.
MR. GASPARIK: At this point, I want to put on record that I reserve the right to read the transcript to make corrections.
MS. PACK: Yes, you have that right under the federal rules. The deposition is not considered complete until a transcript is reviewed by the person being deposed.

Page 5.
MR. GASPARIK: Okay
MS. PACK: You will get a copy of the transcript in, probably, about a month or so, and you will have a chance to review it and sign it. At this point, the deposition is closed.
MR. GASPARIK: All right.

Page 6.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, my name is Lori Pack. I’m an assistant attorney general, and I represent the State University of New York at Stony Brook, the named defendant in this matter. You are here today pursuant to a notice deposition in a case you have commenced, Tibor Gasparik against Stony Brook University, CV-05 3817, in the Eastern District of New York. I’m going to be asking you some questions today with respect to the claims you have brought against the State University of New York. Have you ever been deposed before?
A. No.
Q. The court reporter is going to take down all of my questions and all of the answers that you give. So I ask that you give all your answers verbally and not with a nod of the head or any gesture, because she cannot take that down. If at any time you don’t understand the question I’m asking, whether they are confusing, just ask me to rephrase them and I’ll try to rephrase them the best that I can.
MS. PACK: Usual stips on the record.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, you are here without an attorney today; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you been advised that you have the right to have counsel with you representing you in this action?

Page 7.
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You have voluntarily appeared at this deposition without an attorney?
A. Yes.
Q. You are waiving your right to have counsel here today with you?
A. Yes.
Q I ask you that you allow me to finish the question before you answer, otherwise the court reporter has a question and answer on top of one another.
A. Okay.
Q. If at any time you want to take a break, you need a drink, you want to use the rest room, let me know and we can go off the record. That is no problem. I just ask that if there is a question pending, that you answer the question before we take a break. Okay?
A. Yes.

Page 8.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, have you taken any medication or consumed alcohol within the last 24 hours, which would impair your ability to testify truthfully today?
A. I consumed wine last evening.
Q. Would you consider that an amount sufficient to impair your testimony today?
A. No.
Q. Do you feel ready, willing and able to testify today?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you presently under any medication either prescribed or non-prescribed?
A. I’m not taking any medication at this time.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, where do you reside?
A. I reside at 352 Plad Boulevard, Holtsville, New York 11742.
Q. What is your data of birth?
A. My date of birth is July 21, 1950.
Q. Where were you born?
A. I was born in a town called Levice, former Czechoslovakia.

Page 9.
Q. Are you parents alive?
A. My father is dead, my mother is still alive.
Q. Where does your mother reside?
A. My mother resides in the same town where I was born.
Q. When did you first come to this country?
A. I came to this country in June 1976.
Q. Who did you come to this country with, if anyone?
A. I came alone.
Q. Did you come on a student visa, a work visa or some other way?
A. I’m a refugee from communism.
Q. Could you explain what that means?
A. I received a political asylum in this country.
Q. When did you receive that?
A. When I came here, this was essentially the country that agreed to take me in.

Page 10.
Q. Are you a citizen of the United States?
A. I’m a citizen of the United States.
Q. When did you become a citizen of the United States?
A. In 1988.
Q. From June 1976 to 1988, what was your status with respect to your citizenship?
A. I had a green card.
Q. Since you have been in this country, have you ever been arrested?
A. I have not been arrested.
Q. Have you ever been detained for any reason by any law enforcement agency?
A. I have not been detained.
Q. Are you presently married?
A. Yes. I’m married.
Q. What is the name of your wife?
A. My wife’s name is Susan.
Q. Does she go by the last name Gasparik?
A. Yes.
Q. What is her maiden name?

Page 11.
A. Halachian.
Q. When did you marry her?
A. July 19, 1981.
Q. Was your wife born in this country?
A. My wife was born in Cuba.
Q. In 1981, was your wife a citizen of the United States?
A. Yes, she was a citizen.
Q. Have you resided continuously with your wife since July 1981.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you have any children?
A. I have two children.
Q. Could you give me their names and their dates of birth?
A. Thomas Gasparik, born March 7, 1984, and Andrew Gasparik, born June 18, 1986.
Q. Are those both children of your wife, Susan, and yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Where do these children presently reside?

Page 12.
A. Andrew is officially residing in the same place, but he is a student at the SUNY Albany.
Q. When you say residing at the same place - -
A. His official residence is 352 Plad Boulevard.
Q. Your house?
A. Yes, but he is right now most of the time at SUNY Albany, where he is going to college.
Q. Where does Thomas reside?
A. Thomas’ official residence is still at the same address, 352 Plad Boulevard. But he used to go to college at Texas Tech in Texas, Lubbock. Now he took a break from his studies and is working as an aid to my sister-in-law in Houston.
Q. He lives in Houston, Texas?
A. In Kingwood, near Houston, Texas.
Q. Are either of your sons married?
A. No.
Q. Does anybody else reside in your house in Holtsville besides your wife and Andrew?
A. No.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. Yes.

Page 13.
Q. Where does she work?
A. She is an IRS employee, IRS Holtsville.
Q. What does she do there? What does your wife do?
A. She is an Appeals Tax Specialist.
Q. How long has she worked at the IRS? If you don’t know, you can approximate.
A. I think it’s close to 20 years.
Q. Did your wife go to college?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did she go to college?
A. SUNY Stony Brook.
Q. When did she graduate?
A. She graduated in 1976.
Q. Does she have a degree?
A. She majored in English. She doesn’t have a masters.
Q. Does she have a bachelors?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, I’m going to ask you some questions about your background. Where did you attend high school?

Page 14.
A. In the town where I was born.
Q. Did you go to college?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you attend college?
A. In the town called Bratislava, it’s the capital of Slovakia.
Q. Was that a four year college?
A. Five year college. It’s a university.
Q. What years did you attend that university?
A. 1968 to 1973.
Q. Did you obtain a degree from that university?
A. Yes.

Page 15.
Q. What was that degree in?
A. It’s equivalency of masters degree and it is in geology.
Q. What did you do after you obtained your masters in geology from that university?
A. I started working as an assistant professor at the same university. And the way things were, then you go to military service for a year.
Q. How long did you work as an assistant professor for that university?
A. Slightly over a year.
Q. What were you teaching?
A. I was in a research position.
Q. What were you researching?
A. I was at the department of geochemistry.
Q. What was your area of research?
A. Geochemistry.
Q. After you were an assistant professor, with the title of assistant professor, what did you do?

Page 16.
A. Well, then I became a refugee. Okay, I told you I went for a year to the military service.
Q. When did you go to the military?
A. 1973 to 1974. September 1973 until August 1974.
Q. What capacity did you serve in the military? Did you have a rank?
A. I was an officer, yes. All college graduates are officers.
Q. Did you work during that year that you were in the military? Was it a full time military position?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do in August of 1974?
A. Well, after I was discharged from the military, I went back to my position at the university.
Q. How long did you go back to your position at the university?

Page 17.
A. I was there between September 1974 and September 1975.
Q. Were your duties and responsibilities essentially the same as they were prior to you entering the military?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you teach any classes then?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever teach any classes at that university?
A. No.
Q. What did you do in September of 1975 with respect to your employment?
A. Well, I left the country.
Q. Did you come directly to the United States?
A. I went to Paris first.
Q. When did you arrive in the United States?
A. In June 1976.
Q. Did you have any relatives here in the United States?

Page 18.
A. No.
Q. Upon your arrival in the United States in June of 1976, where did you live?
A. My first job was in Westchester County. It was in Ossining on Route 101, and it was a restaurant where I worked as a janitor.
Q. Where were you residing at that time?
A. At that place. It came with a room.
Q. How long did you live and work at that restaurant?
A. Six months.
Q. What did you do at the restaurant?
A. I was a janitor. I cleaned. Sometimes I was a busboy when they needed extra help.
Q. What did you do upon leaving the restaurant? That would take us into December of ’76?
A. January ’77.
Q. What did you do in January of 1977 with respect to your employment?
A. I started graduate studies at SUNY Buffalo.

Page 19.
Q. Did you have a scholarship?
A. There was some scholarship, yes.
Q. What program were you enrolled at SUNY Buffalo?
A. Geology.
Q. Now, if you already obtained a masters in geology in 1973 at the university in Czechoslovakia, why were you continuing to take graduate classes?
A. That degree wasn’t very good in this country.
Q. What do you mean it wasn’t very good?
A. You really needed a degree from this country to get a job. It just was not enough to have a degree from Czechoslovakia. So that is why I had to go to school here to at least get some kind of a degree from this country so I would have a better chance of getting a job.
Q. Your goal was to obtain a graduate degree, a masters degree in geology from SUNY Buffalo?
A. In fact, I enrolled in the PhD program.
Q. Did SUNY Buffalo accept your masters degree in geology from the Czechoslovakia university?

Page 20.
A. Yes.
Q. When you say graduate studies, you really mean postgraduate how it is referred to here?
A. It is referred to as graduate studies here as opposed to the undergraduate studies. Postgraduate studies would be like a post doc.
Q. In furtherance of your obtaining a PhD, you attended SUNY Buffalo in January 1977, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you attend SUNY Buffalo?
A. For one year.
Q. Were you working during that year?
A. I did not work.
Q. Where were you living?
A. In dorms.
Q. How did you pay for it?
A. I saved money from those six months working in the restaurant.
Q. How many classes did you take at SUNY Buffalo during that year, if you recall?
A. I don’t recall exactly. I could look it up, if necessary. Basically I took a full load of classes.

Page 21.
Q. Took what?
A. A full load of classes.
Q. Did you obtain a degree from SUNY Buffalo?
A. No.
Q. What did you do when you left? You left there in January 1978?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I transferred to Stony Brook.
Q. Why did you transfer to Stony Brook?
A. I had an opportunity. I received an inter-campus doctoral fellowship. That was a program that allowed students to take advantage of opportunities at other SUNY campuses. So it was meant to be temporary. Temporary to take advantage of taking some courses at SUNY Stony Brook.
Q. Was your intent to return to Buffalo?
A. Originally, yes.
Q. How long was this fellowship originally for?
A. Six months.
Q. Were you working during that six months outside of the fellowship?

Page 22.
A. TA, teaching assistantship, where you receive some money for that and tuition waiver. That is the kind of job you take when you are in graduate studies.
Q. You finished on or about June of 1978?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Then I finalized my transfer to Stony Brook, so I didn’t go back to Buffalo.
Q. Did you continue taking classes at Stony Brook?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you attend classes at Stony Brook?
A. Until I received my degree.
Q. Which degree and when?
A. PhD in 1981.
Q. What was your PhD in?
A. It’s officially in earth and space sciences. That is how it is written on the transcript.
Q. Did you do a thesis?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do it in?

Page 23.
A. This was in experimental petrology.
Q. Was that published anywhere? Was it ever published anywhere?
A. Yes. It was published in three different papers, eventually.
Q. When was it published, if you recall?
A. 1984, ’85,’86. I think those are the dates when the papers came out.
Q. Why did it take four years for it to be published, at least four or five years?
A. Yes. When you do experimental work, you end up with partial results. And I waited with publication because I needed results from following studies to get a better understanding of the results that I obtained before I received my PhD.
Q. Were you working from 1978 to 1981, when you were finishing your PhD at Stony Brook, other than a teaching assistant?
A. No.
Q. Where were you residing during the time that you were obtaining your PhD from Stony Brook?
A. First I lived in dorms, and then I moved to places outside dorms where I shared apartments or houses with other students. My first residence outside the dorms was in Port Jefferson, where I shared an apartment with another student. Then I moved to Centereach, where I shared a house with three other students.

Page 24.
Q. What did you do in 1981 when you received your PhD with respect to your employment?
A. I moved to the University of Chicago where I started my post doc.
Q. At that time, were you married?
A. Yes. I married in 1981, so I left with my wife for Chicago.
Q. Were you enrolled in an educational institution in Chicago?
A. It was the University of Chicago.
Q. Were you there on some type of grant or scholarship?
A. It was a post doc that was funded by the National Science Foundation to my advisor, which was professor Robert C. Newton.
Q. I’m sorry, that was a fellowship? What did you say that was?

Page 25.
A. It was a grant.
Q. Did you apply for that grant?
A. That was a grant to my advisor.
Q. He applied for it on your behalf?
A. Well, he had a number of grants where he always had a post doc position. So, he was getting funded for a post doc position regardless of who was taking it. Then he hired me as a post doc to be paid with that money.
Q. Your supervisor, you are referring to a supervisor at Stony Brook or a supervisor at Chicago?
A. That was at Chicago, yes. Professor at Chicago.
Q. When did he become your supervisor?
A. When I moved there.
Q. When you moved there, you did not have this grant, correct?
A. That was his grant.
Q. How did you find out about this grant?
A. Well, I was just looking for a post doc, and he responded and was willing to hire me.
Q. How long was this grant, the term of the grant?

Page 26.
A. I don’t know. You don’t know these things when you are a post doc. It was obviously renewed during my stay there. It is always renewed if one ends. Usually these grants are for three years.
Q. How long did this grant last?
A. I don’t know. I don’t have any details about it.
Q. How long did you work under the grant?
A. I worked in Chicago from October 1981 to March 1985.
Q. Could you briefly describe your duties and responsibilities while you were working under this grant?
A. I did research. I did experiments.
Q. What type?
A. High-pressure experiments. You use equipment and press. In this case, it’s called piston and cylinder.
Q. Were you working anywhere else other than at the university under this grant during that time period?
A. No.
Q. Where were you residing during the time October ’81 to March ’85?

Page 27.
A. In Chicago. The address was 1401 Hyde Park Boulevard.
Q. You were residing there with your wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Was your wife working at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was she working?
A. She worked in IRS.
Q. In the Internal Revenue Service?
A. Yes.
Q. In March of 1985, what happened so that you did not work under that grant anymore?
A. I transferred back to Stony Brook. I started my job there on April 1, 1985.
Q. How did you find out about a job available at Stony Brook?
A. I attended a scientific meeting in Cincinnati where I found out that Stony Brook received a grant for a high-pressure lab. And so I talked to people from Stony Brook and suggested to them that they needed me.
Q. Who specifically, do you remember, that you spoke to at the Cincinnati meeting from Stony Brook?

Page 28.
A. Professor Weidner and Professor Prewitt.
Q. What type of grant was this that you were speaking to Weidner and Prewitt about?
A. This was a grant to three people, these two and Professor Liebermann. And it was a grant to build a new high-pressure facility that included a new kind of press that was imported from Japan, called multi-anvil press.
Q. What was funding this grant?
A. National Science Foundation.
Q. Is the National Science Foundation a federal government agency?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who applied for that grant?
A. Those three people.
Q. Do you know what the anticipated term of that grant was?

Page 29.
A. I think it was a three year grant. Then it was renewed again.
Q. How many other people were working on that grant at that time, if anyone, besides yourself and the three professors?
A. Nobody else. But there were students that the professors had, but nobody in an official position.
Q. What was your title at that time on April 1st of 1985 when you began working under the grant? Did you have a title granted by the university?
A. I think I list it on my resume as senior research assistant.
Q. Was that what the university labeled you, senior research assistant?
A. It was research assistant. I’m not sure about the title senior.
Q. Where were your offices physically located?
A. My office?
Q. Did you have an office?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where was it?

Page 30.
A. The office was on the third floor of the Earth and Space Sciences building, number 336.
Q. Did you share that office with anybody?
A. No, it was my office alone.
Q. Have you ever taught classes at Stony Brook?
A. Not officially.
Q. Could you explain what you mean by that?
A. Sometimes I was asked to give a lecture.
Q. Was it part of your job duties and responsibilities as a senior research assistant to assist in the preparation of classes?
A. No.
Q. In any way?
A. No.
Q. Was it part of your job duties and responsibilities to teach classes?
A. My official job was, once the lab was established, I was a lab manager. That was the paid position of a lab manager.
Q. What was the lab for?
A. We call it Stony Brook High Pressure Lab. It was essentially established from scratch, after I arrived. So I wasn’t a lab manager when I started. So after we build the lab that was the time when I became a lab manager.

Page 31.
Q. Where did the money come from to build this lab?
A. National Science Foundation.
Q. It was from the grant that you were working under?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that where your source of income also came from? Is that how you were paid, from that grant?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you work in that position?
A. Until I was dismissed in January 2002.
Q. Now, during the time period where you began at Stony Brook on April 1, 1985 until January 2002, did your duties and responsibilities change at any time with respect to your employment under this grant?
A. No.
Q. Did your title change at all with respect to your employment under this grant?
A. Yes. I was promoted to research associate professor.

Page 32.
Q. When was that?
A. It was in 1989.
Q. Now, under your title of research associate professor, did you teach any classes?
A. No. It was a research position.
Q. Did you assist in the preparation of any classes?
A. No.
Q. Was it part of your job duties or responsibilities to assist in the preparation or teaching of any classes?
A. No.
Q. How long did you work as a research associate professor?
A. It’s an academic position, so as long as I’m at Stony Brook University, I have that position. So, technically, I’m still a research associate professor.
Q. Are you still at Stony Brook?
A. I’m not paid, but I still have the position there.
Q. You just said you were terminated in January 2002?

Page 33.
A. My salary was terminated. Basically, I was terminated in the position of the lab manager, but research associate professor is an academic position. So as long as I am there, I keep that position. Technically, I could get my own funding and fund my salary. So those are my rights.
Q. Do you still refer to yourself as research associate professor.
A. Yes.
Q. To what third parties do you represent that you are a research associate professor?
A. I do not understand the question.
Q. Do you apply for grants under the title of - -
A. Yes, I applied.
Q. No, let me finish. Do you apply for grants under the title of research associate professor at Stony Brook?
A. For all grants, yes.
Q. How many grants have you applied for since January of 2002?
A. Two grants.
Q. Who are those grants for? Who did you apply for those grants from?
A. National Science Foundation.

Page 34.
Q. Were you the sole applicant on those grants?
A. Yes.
Q. Were those grants granted or denied?
A. They were denied.
Q. When were they denied?
A. The process takes about six months.
Q. Do you recall the dates when you received the denials from the National Science Foundation?
A. Yes.
Q. What were those dates?
A. The first grant; the deadline for application was December 1, 2002. It was denied in April 2003. The second grant I applied for was again in December 2003, and it was denied in April 2004.
Q. Did you apply for those grants under the title of research associate professor at Stony Brook?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you given a reason that those grants were denied from the National Science Foundation?

Page 35.
A. I could provide documentation for that explanation for denial. They were simply denied, as far as I’m concerned. The reasons are not that important.
Q. Were the reasons that they were denied contained in the denial letter that you received from the National Science Foundation?
A. Yes, of course.
MS. PACK: I’m going to ask for production of those.
MR. GASPARIK: It will be produced.
MS. PACK: Let me put on the record; I am going to ask for production of the letters containing the denial of the two grants on 4/1/03 and 4/1/04.
Q. What were the reasons for the denials contained in those denial letters, for lack of a better term? If you recall.
A. I can’t tell you the exact formulation.
Q. Do you remember the sum and substance of those letters? Essentially, what was the reason? For instance, lack of funding? Was it because your project wasn’t amenable to a research grant?

Page 36.
A. Usually, they mention something. It wasn’t competitive with other applicants.
Q. Do you recall what these letters stated?
A. I can’t tell you exactly. I will provide those letters. It is pointless for me to mention anything. It’s a matter of providing the documents and you will get the exact answers.
Q. That is fine. Now, just to back up a little bit. Before your termination as lab manager in January of 2002, immediately prior to that, what were your job duties and responsibilities in the six months prior to that?
A. Development of and supervision of lab users. Which is really a kind of, a form of teaching, because I was teaching all new users and all new students how to use the press, and then I supervised them.
Q. Were any of these paid positions, other than yours and the three people who had applied for the grant? Any of the people you are referring to as working in the lab, were they paid?
A. I was responsible for the operation of the lab.

Page 37.
Q. Was there anybody under your supervision who was paid under the terms of this grant?
A. Well, what happened was that in 1990 we received a center - - it was called a Center for High Pressure Research, which was one of the National Science and Technology Centers that provided then the funding for 11 years.
Q. Let’s back up. In 1990, that was a different grant than the one you began work at Stony Brook on 4/1/85?
A. Yes, we had the first grant that provided for the building and operation of the lab.
Q. That was on April 1st?
A. From NSF, grant under which I was getting paid. That grant was then renewed.
Q. Was that on 4/1/85, that grant you just referred to?
A. Right.
Q. Go ahead. I’m sorry.
A. That grant was renewed, and I don’t remember now exactly if it was renewed once or twice.
Q. Okay.

Page 38.
A. But I was a co-investigator on those grants.
Q. What was the original term of that grant before it was renewed once?
A. I believe three years.
Q. Do you recall when that grant expired, the one that was granted on April 1, 1985, the original grant, which you came to Stony Brook on?
A. Well, the beginning of the grant was not on that date. That was the date that I started my job.
Q. Okay, I’m sorry.
A. I don’t really know what was the official beginning of the grant, because that was a grant that was granted to those three people. So you have to ask them.
Q. Do you recall when that grant expired?
A. It must have been ’87 or ’88. ’87 probably.
Q. Upon the expiration of that grant, where did you work and how was your paycheck funded?
A. Usually you apply for a renewal before it expires so you have a continuation, if it is possible. Because the grant was renewed, I kept working.


Page 39.
Q. I thought you said it expired in 1987; is that correct?
A. But you apply for its continuation before it expires. So by the time it expires, you have new money so, you know, they could keep paying me.
Q. How long was that grant continuously renewed until, the one that was in existence when you came to Stony Brook in April of 1985? How long was that grant in existence with all the continuations?
A. I believe those grants were for three years.
Q. How long was it in continuation? When did it expire?
A. I think it was renewed once, but I’m not sure. Maybe it was renewed twice. But then we got the center that provided funding for my position and the positions of many other scientists for 11 years.
Q. When did that happen?
A. I believe the official start was 1990.
Q. Was there any gap between you working under the grant that you originally came to Stony Brook for and then working under the new grant that became effective in 1990, where you were not covered under any grant?

Page 40.
A. No, there was no gap.
Q. Was your paycheck transferred from one grant to another when Stony Brook received the new grant in 1990?
A. Well, I was an employee of the Research Foundation of a state university. That is the organization that officially employs you by using funding from these grants.
Q. Are you aware of where the source of your paycheck came from?
A. From the National Science Foundation.
Q. Did it indicate on your paycheck the source of the grant, which was funding your paycheck?
A. I’m not sure.
Q. At all times, were you aware of which grant was funding your employment?
A. Yes.
Q. When you changed your employment from working under one grant to another, was there certain paperwork that you had to fill out?
A. No.
Q. Was that all done by the university?
A. As long as there is new funding coming in, you don’t apply for a position.

Page 41.
Q. Okay. Did your rate of pay change when you were transferred from one grant to another?
A. The rate of pay is determined by university officials. You know, they have certain scales for salaries that depend on your position.
Q. Is it safe to say that there was no change in your title, your job duties or responsibilities, or your rate of pay, even though the source of your funding for your pay was changing?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened in 1990? You indicated that there was a new grant that was received. Could you explain that?
A. This was funding for a National Science and Technology Center.
Q. Is that a federal institution?
A. These were centers.
Q. National Science - - I’m sorry.
A. There were 25 centers across the country that were funded in a competitive process, and one of the centers was this Center for High Pressure Research.

Page 42.
Q. Where did this funding come from?
A. These centers were the initiative of the Reagan administration.
Q. They were federally funded?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was actually funded on the government level and the - - government level, is that what you said?
A. Well, this was supposed to be funding separate from the funds of the National Science Foundation.
Q. You used an expression before. I’m sorry, I want to back up. You used the expression National Science Foundation.
A. As I said, it was a separated government initiative that provided funding for 25 new centers.
Q. What was the term of this grant, if you know? Was it a grant?

Page 43.
A. The lifetime of these centers was 11 years.
Q. When you said lifetime of the centers, what does that mean? After 11 years what happens to them?
A. They ended.
Q. The funding dried up?
A. Yes, the funding ended.
Q. It was 11 years. Would you consider it, say, a grant or source of funding? How would you characterize it so I could refer to it correctly?
A. Well, you can call it a grant if you want to.
Q. Stony Brook was the recipient of one of those grants?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Who applied for that grant?
A. Okay. This center was comprised of three institutions, separate institutions. Stony Brook was one, Princeton University was second, and then there was the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Geophysical Lab.
Q. I’m sorry?

Page 44.
A. Geophysical Lab of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Those were the three institutions that received this.
Q. They made up one center of the 25 centers, those three institutions?
A. Yes. So the funding was divided then among the three institutions.
Q. Do you know who applied for this grant on behalf of Stony Brook? Who was involved in the application?
A. Right. Stony Brook was the key in this application.
Q. Do you know who at Stony Brook was specifically - -
A. Professor Weidner was the director and at Stony Brook, the director was Professor Weidner and Liebermann.
Q. Were you involved in the application for that grant?
A. No.
Q. Do you know when Stony Brook received notification that they were a successful recipient of that grant?
A. I don’t have the exact date.

Page 45.
Q. When Stony Brook did receive that money, were you transferred to work under that grant immediately or shortly thereafter?
A. Again, I wasn’t transferred. There was no change in the job. It was a funding that came from a different source.
Q. Are you aware that the source of the monies to pay you was changed immediately upon Stony Brook receiving this 11 year grant or shortly thereafter? Do you understand the question?
A. This is not information that I have because this was really done by Weidner and Liebermann. They know the details. I wasn’t a party in it.
Q. Do you believe your were working under this 11 year grant at some point?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first come to believe that, if you recall?
A. I can’t recall.
Q. At some point, somebody told you, you were working under this new grant, correct?

Page 46.
A. (No response.)
Q. How did you first become aware that you were working under this new grant?
A. Well, when it started, when the grant officially started.
Q. What made you believe that then?
A. Well, they knew they would receive the grant ahead of the time it started.
Q. Right.
A. I can’t tell you exactly the date, but I can tell you that it was an 11 year grant, which ended.
Q. It was a what?
A. Eleven year duration grant that ended in January 2002. So it must have started in January 1991.
Q. Were you involved in the work performed under this grant from its inception?
A. The proposal was based mostly on my success in research with the lab. That was the centerpiece of the whole grant. That is why we got it, because we had this unique facility that we demonstrated worked and produced results, and I was instrumental in making it work.
Q. You were not involved directly in the application for this grant; that was Weidner and Lieberman?

Page 47.
A. Yes. And, of course, then at Princeton, it was Professor Navrotsky and, at the Geophysical Lab, it was Professor Prewitt. There were four executive people that, I believe, are the four names listed on the grant.
Q. During the time period 1989 to 1991, did your title change?
A. I was promoted to research associate professor. That was in 1989.
Q. Did you continue in that title until January 2002?
A. Yes.
Q. At some time, did your job duties and responsibilities change?
A. No.
Q. From 1987 to January 2002, even with the inception of this 11 year grant?
A. Well, I started my job in ’85.
Q. Yes.
A. Pretty much from 1985 to 2002, I was in the same position as lab manager, and my academic position was associate professor. The lab ended in January 2002 and my paycheck. I’m still research associate professor.

Page 48.
Q. Explain to me what effect on this employment your 11-year grant had?
A. Provided secure funding.
Q. Did anything you did during the day at your job change? Did the essence of your job change at all?
A. No.
Q. Prior to the expiration of this 11 year grant, were there any applications made to extend the grant, to your knowledge?
A. Yes.
Q. Who made those applications?
A. Well, this was the effort to provide funding beyond the termination of this center.
Q. Okay.
A. And the new initiative is called Compres, C-O-M-P-R-E-S. Just one S.
Q. Could you explain what Compres means?
A. It has a Web site. I can’t tell you. It’s an acronym.
Q. Is it a federal agency?

Page 49.
A. It is funded by the National Science Foundation.
Q. What is the purpose of Compres?
A. Essentially, since the center officially ended, and all the centers ended after 11 years, there was a need to provide funding for the salaries of the people who were previously employed by the center. And then there was this money that was released.
Q. By who?
A. By the fact that the center ended.
Q. Who was the money released by?
A. Well, the funding really didn’t disappear because, eventually, what happened was that it was supposed to be new funding for the centers, but it never happened that way.
Q. New funding commencing in January 2002?
A. No, in January 1991, this was a government initiative that started the centers. And there was supposed to be new money for research. Only the way it turned out was, as it usually happens, that there was no new money. This is my understanding, I don’t know the details. You have to ask Weidner and Liebermann. The way it turned out was that the National Science Foundation had to pay for this center from its own funding. When the centers ended officially - -

Page 50.
Q. In January 2002?
A. In January 2002, the money was still there. Only it couldn’t be used for funding the center because it didn’t exist anymore.
Q. Okay.
A. One possibility that they had was to just basically put the money back into the pool of money that funds research for everybody.
Q. Okay.
A. But there was an opportunity also to just basically take this chunk of money and create a new institution. So the new institution was this Compres. That was done by negotiations between the executive staff of the center, at Stony Brook Liebermann and Weidner of course, Navrotsky - -
Q. When was Compres created?
A. Well, the negotiations started before - - obviously before the center ended. And it is my understanding that Compres officially started about six months after the old center ended.

Page 51.
Q. Where did the money to fund Compres come from?
A. It was just the money released by the fact that the old center was terminated.
Q. Did the money come from the National Science Foundation?
A. National Science Foundation, yes.
Q. Is Compres just something that was created by Stony Brook or is this something that was national, that all 25 centers were involved in?
A. It has nothing to do with the 25 centers. Absolutely, they all ended. And there were two waves of centers, so they ended, I guess, at different times. This has nothing to do with any of the other centers.
Q. Compres was created by Stony Brook in furtherance of Stony Brook’s attempt to continue the funding?
A. By negotiations between Stony Brook and the National Science Foundation.
Q. Do you know what happened to the other 24 centers?
A. They ended.

Page 52.
Q. Do you know what happened to the people that were working in those centers?
A. No.
Q. Were you involved in any efforts to fund this Compres?
A. No, because it was done on the executive level, so I had no opportunity to do anything.
Q. Do you know who on the executive level was involved with this from Stony Brook.
A. Yes, Liebermann and Weidner.
Q. Do you know if they were successful in securing funding to fund this Compres project?
A. Yes. Basically all of the money that was released from the center was then used to fund this Compres. In fact, it was just a reorganization.
Q. Was that under the limitations of a grant, the Compres money?
A. I don’t understand the question.
Q. Is Compres funded by a grant or did the National Science Foundation just give them money.
A. It’s an institution that was established and so this is funded - - well, I’m not sure because I have nothing to do with Compres. So I’m not sure exactly if they have to renew funding every year or if it is just funded in perpetuity. I don’t know. The president of Compres is now Professor Liebermann. He would know all the details.

Page 53.
Q. What is the purpose of Compres?
A. Well, it is not a research organization. It is promoting research. Promoting understanding of the importance of high-pressure research, forging ties among high-pressure communities in the whole world. And they have yearly workshops, meetings, stuff like that. It is more like a PR thing now instead of the center that preceded it, which was a research center.
Q. Do you know if Compres actually funds any research positions?
A. It has positions, it funds post docs, research assistants.
Q. It’s also a research organization in addition to a PR organization, correct?
A. It promotes research and it has funding too for research. Yes, I don’t know the details.
Q. I’m just asking your knowledge. If you don’t know, then that is fine.

Page 54.
A. I have not been involved with Compres, so I’m just telling you what I picked up along the way. Professor Liebermann is right now the president of Compres, so he could give you the final details.
Q. Do you know if any scientists are working right now under Compres doing research?
A. There is another research institution called Mineral Physics Institute.
Q. Say it again?
A. Mineral Physics Institute.
Q. Before we go on to that, is the answer to that question, you don’t know if there are any research scientists specifically getting their paychecks from funds under Compres?
A. I don’t think so. The scientists are really working in the Mineral Physics Institute, that is where they receive their funding.
Q. Who’s working under the Mineral Physics Institute, and how does that relate to Compres?
A. All the former scientists that were in the center.

Page 55.
Q. Which center?
A. The Center for High Pressure Research that ended. They were all then - - okay, let me tell you more about the Mineral Physics Institute, because it was established before the center.
Q. We were talking about the Mineral Physics Institute.
A. Okay. This was an organization that was set up at the university. In fact, it is on the university level and not on the departmental level, because it is under the provost.
Q. When you say the university, do you mean specifically Stony Brook University?
A. That is the organization that employed scientists who were also working for the center.

Page 56.
Q. Which center? Be more specific.
A. The Center for High Pressure Research. The center included three different institutions, so each institution, I suspect, had its own organization that officially employed the scientists. So at Stony Brook, it was the Mineral Physics Institute that was established even before the center started.
Q. How many scientists were employed that your are referring to that the organization, the Mineral Physics Institute, was set up to employ?
A. I was the first one. I believe I had the seniority, then it was Michael Vaughan, from those that are still there.
Q. I’m sorry. Those two people, were they all the scientists or was there more?
A. No, there were more. These were the first two, and then, as funding became available from the center, they expanded the scientific staff. They had more scientific positions, so the people that are still there are Jiuhua Chen - -

Page 57.
Q. I’m sorry.
A. Jiuhua Chen. The other one is Baosheng Li. Then there are some that left in the meantime.
Q. Let’s limit ourselves specifically to those who were previously employed under the 11 year grant.
A. Okay.
Q. How many scientists were working under that 11 year grant?
A. Another one was Jianzong Zhang.
Q. Who besides him was employed under this 11 year grant? Yourself, him and who else?
A. Mike Vaughan. I already mentioned four people.
Q. Okay. I have five people so far.
A. Including me?

Page 58.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. Then another one is Liping Wang that came later. He is still there.
Q. Was he employed under the 11 year grant?
A. Yes, later on. And there was somebody called Yanbin Wang. And there were others. You know, some of them came, they were employed for a while, and then left. And some of them were just post docs, so there was a large number of people.
Q. Who was employed at the time the 11 year grant was terminated, if you recall, beside yourself?
A. Okay, all those that I mentioned with the exception of Yanbin. Yanbin moved to Chicago quite a while ago. Did I mention five or six?
Q. Six.
A. I think Liping Wang is still there.
Q. There were six people?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Where is Michael Vaughan today?
A. He is still employed by the Mineral Physics Institute.
Q. What was his title?

Page 59.
A. Well, he is associate professor.
Q. Is he a research scientist?
A. Yes, research scientist. By the way, you can access the Web site where you can get the exact information because they are all listed there.
Q. When did Michael Vaughan begin working for the Mineral Physics Institute?
A. He was hired after I came. I think he was hired in 1989.
Q. When was the Mineral Physics Institute created?
A. It was created before the center, which was ’91, so I would say sometime in 1989, 1990. I’m not sure.
Q. When did Michael Vaughan, if you know, become employed by the Mineral Physics Institute?
A. I think he came before it was established, but I’m not sure.
Q. Do you know when he began working for the Mineral Physics Institute?

Page 60.
A. I think he was employed before the institute.
Q. My question is when did he become employed by the Mineral Physics Institute?
A. I don’t know exactly. I just don’t remember the dates exactly.
Q. Liping Wang, where is that person employed now?
A. I believe he is still employed by the Mineral Physics Institute.
Q. Do you recall when he began his employment with Mineral Physics Institute?
A. I don’t know. It was later on.
Q. Jiuhua Chen?
A. Jiuhua Chen.
Q. Where is Jiuhua Chen presently employed?
A. He is still there at the Mineral Physics Institute.
Q. Do you know when he became employed by the Mineral Physics Institute?
A. I don’t know exactly the date.
Q. Baosheng Li?
A. Baosheng Li.
Q. Yes.

Page 61.
A. He was a student at Stony Brook. And after he finished his studies, he was employed as a research assistant.
Q. For who, under what entity?
A. As part of the Mineral Physics Institute and the center.
Q. Do you recall when he became employed by the Mineral Physics Institute?
A. I don’t know exactly the year, but it is after he finished, after he graduated. So it was in the middle 90’s.
Q. Jianzong Zhang?
A. Jianzong Zhang, we called him Z, because nobody could remember his name. Again, let’s see if I could be more specific here. I believe he came perhaps in 1988. That is my guess, but I’m not sure. Again, this is information that can be easily found out from other sources than my memory.
Q. If the Mineral Physics Institute was created in 1989 and the 11 year grant wasn’t to end until 2002, why was this institute created 11 years prior to the expiration of that grant? Do I have the dates wrong?
A. It was established before the center started.

Page 62.
Q. Before it started. Okay.
A. But it was already established, I believe in the expectation that the center would be approved. Perhaps, but I’m not sure.
Q. During the 11 year grant of the center, were people employed by the Mineral Physics Institute?
A. They were all considered part of the center and the Mineral Physics Institute, okay.
Q. Okay. Do you know who funded their paychecks?
A. The funding that came with the center. Plus they might have been matching funds from the university. These matching funds were channeled through the Mineral Physics Institute, I believe, and there are still matching funds available.
Q. Since the expiration of the 11 year grant, do you know who’s funding the Mineral Physics Institute?
A. I believe it’s the Stony Brook University, but I’m not sure. Plus they are getting funding - - they just received some pork funding.
Q. What funding?
A. Pork funding from Schummer, one and a half million. But you have to ask your client. They know the details.

Page 63.
Q. The five people that we have spoken about, Vaughan, Chen, Baosheng Li, Zhang, Wang, are they still employed by the Stony Brook University?
A. With the exception of Zhang who left. He is now at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He basically took over my position in 2002; he was in that position for one year and then left for Los Alamos. And then they used Liping Wang to do the work that I did.
Q. What is the title of that position?
A. Lab manager.
Q. You said you were terminated in your position as lab manager in January 2002; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How were you informed of that termination and who informed you?
A. I was informed in September 2001 that my position would be terminated by Professors Weidner and Liebermann. Their signatures are on the letter that informed me.
Q. Did you receive a letter?

Page 64.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive that letter at your house?
A. Probably not. Probably I received it in school, I believe.
Q. Did you have an office in September of 2001?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was that office?
A. The same office. I always had the same office.
Q. Do you recall the sum and substance of that letter?
A. Again, I’ll provide the letter. The substance was that my position would end with the end of the center in January 2002.
Q. Was there an explanation given as to why you would be terminated?
A. The official explanation was that the project has ended.
Q. Were there any alternatives given to you by the university?
A. No. At that time, there were not. They had an opening before that of a faculty position.

Page 65.
Q. When did they have this opening?
A. Well, the faculty position, the person who was eventually hired in this faculty position, his official starting date was 2002. That is what is on the Web site. They could have used that position to hire me, if they wanted to.
Q. This position was open in faculty, was this a teaching position?
A. Yes.
Q. It required teaching how many classes a semester?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Was it a full-time teaching position?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it a research position?
A. No, teaching position.
Q. Prior to that time, you had no teaching experience?
A. I had the same experience as everybody else that would be hired in that position, which is that you served as a teaching assistant. That is your training for a teaching position.
Q. Who was hired for this full-time position?

Page 66.
A. His name is Phillips, Brian Phillips.
Q. Is he still employed by Stony Brook?
A. Yes.
Q. Had he been previously employed by Stony Brook prior to getting that teaching position?
A. He was not employed by Stony Brook before he received that position.
Q. Do you know where he came from?
A. I believe from Los Angeles. UCLA, maybe.
Q. Did he have prior teaching experience?
A. He did research, so he had the same teaching experience as I would have, which is as a graduate student. He would be involved in teaching as a teaching assistant.
Q. How do you know this?
A. Because everybody who becomes a graduate student is expected to serve as a teaching assistant. That is where the money comes from, for this, that is a requirement.
Q. Did you apply for that job as the faculty position?

Page 67.
A. No. I was discouraged from applying.
Q. Who discouraged you from applying?
A. At the time when I could have applied, there was a meeting I had with Liebermann and Weidner.
And in that meeting that took place in February 2000 - -
Q. That was two years before the project was to end?
A. Yes. And the purpose of the meeting was to, as they put it, to inform all scientists employed by the center to look for other positions because the center would end.
Q. Who was present at that meeting?
A. Myself, Professor Weidner and Professor Liebermann.
Q. Did they meet with all the scientists individually?

Page 68.
A. That was my understanding, but obviously I don’t know if they actually did that.
Q. Was there anybody else present at this meeting?
A. No.
Q. Where did this meeting take place?
A. I do not recall exactly the place.
Q. It was at Stony Brook?
A. Yes, at the department. I don’t recall exactly the room.
Q. Do you recall precisely what Liebermann said to you, or Weidner?
A. As I told you, they told me that the purpose of the meeting was to inform all scientists employed by the center to look for other positions because the center was ending.
Q. Did they ask you to convey this message to anybody else?
A. No. And what is important in this case is that Weidner said, because there was a position for which I could apply, faculty position. He said, “You could apply, but they don’t want you.”

Page 69.
Q. They don’t want you?
A. By “they,” he meant the faculty.
Q. They meaning who? I’m sorry.
A. The faculty, the department.
Q. Specifically, who?
A. He referred to the whole faculty.
Q. Did they give you a reason why?
A. No. He just said this. So this is what I considered to be discouraged.
Q. Weidner said that to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Liebermann have any comments with respect to that remark?
A. Not at that time. But later on, he said - -
Q. We will get to that, okay.
A. Okay.
Q. Did anything else happen at that meeting?

Page 70.
A. I don’t recall exactly anything else. These are the things that I remember were the important part of the meeting.
Q. Did you ask Weidner why the faculty wouldn’t want you?
A. No.
Q. Weren’t you curious?
A. No, because at the time I knew that they didn’t want me. Because there were these incidents that were meant to, basically, push me out. But at that time I believed that I would not be the only one dismissed, because I had the seniority. And I knew that there were attempts to secure funding for the replacement of the center, because there were already negotiations going on. So it was clear to me that if these negotiations failed, then we would all lose our jobs.
Q. When you say all, you are referring to you and the six other people?
A. Yes. That was my understanding. In the worst case, we would all lose our jobs. And I believed that, because I had the seniority, I would be the last to be dismissed.

Page 71.
Q. Did anybody ever tell you that you would be the last one to be dismissed?
A. No. But I had the seniority.
Q. When you say you had the seniority, what do you mean by that?
A. I was the first one to be hired in a research position. There was no precedent at the department before that. They never had a research position at the department. I was the first one, and I was instrumental in, in fact, securing funding, eventually, because of my success, for the positions of all scientists that came after me. So they all owe me, they could thank me for them being employed, because the funding eventually came because I was successful in my work.
Q. Did they ever tell you that they owed you continued employment or is that just your feeling?
A. That is my feeling, yes. It’s just the fact that I was the first one and I was successful in my work and that is why they had the grants renewed and eventually they received the center.
Q. Did anything else of substance happen at that meeting with Liebermann and Weidner in February of 2002?

Page 72.
A. No.
Q. Did you have any other meetings with respect to your termination, other than that meeting?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any other discussions with Liebermann and/or Weidner with respect to your termination?
A. The next important event was when I appealed to the department.
Q. Could you explain what you mean by that? Did you file a formal appeal?
A. When I was hired, Liebermann, Weidner and Prewitt, those were the three people that hired me, promised me - - well, they promised me equality, that I would be treated as equal to all faculty members.
Q. Liebermann, Weidner and who?
A. Prewitt. Those were the three people that hired me.
Q. They promised you equality?
A. And they promised me that my position would become permanent.

Page 73.
Q. Was that an oral promise or did they make that in writing?
A. It was an oral promise.
Q. When was that promise made to you?
A. The interview for that position was in December 1984.
Q. What do you consider to be permanent?
A. Permanent means tenure, eventually means tenure, tenured position. Well, it doesn’t have to be if they don’t dismiss me before my retirement. But the permanent position refers to tenured position. If they said permanent that, I believed, meant that eventually they would hire me in a tenured position.
Q. As a faculty position?
A. Yes, because I was a faculty member. I was the only faculty member from all other scientists because at the time when I was hired, there was no other organization, no other entity, only the department. So when I was hired in 1985, I became a faculty member and a research assistant professor.
Q. Did you ever apply for a tenured position during the time from 1985 until 2002?
A. No.

Page 74.
Q. Were there ever any opportunities for you to apply?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you not apply for those positions?
A. I wasn’t personally encouraged to apply, which is one thing. The other thing was that I had the research position, and nobody indicated to me that they would want me to switch from this position to a teaching position. And I personally preferred to do research, and if there was no reason for me to change, then I just didn’t think it was necessary. But eventually I planned on applying when the time would come. When there would be danger that the money would run out, that the funding for my position would run out. This was something I had been preparing myself for, a teaching position, pretty much all the time, by doing research that would allow them to justify hiring me in a faculty position.
Q. Did you ever volunteer to teach any classes prior to your termination in 2002?

Page 75.
A. No, I didn’t volunteer.
Q. Did you ever do anything to gain any teaching experience prior to your termination in 2002?
A. Again, there were some lectures I gave.
Q. How many lectures?
A. When I was asked, I just - -
Q. Approximately how many lectures did you give?
A. I think it’s two.
Q. Two lectures?
A. Yes.
Q. Throughout the time 1985 to 2002?
A. I’m not sure if you can actually teach unless you commit yourself to a full course.
Q. Did you ever apply for a job as an adjunct professor?
A. I didn’t have to. Adjunct professors are from outside. I was an insider. I had a faculty position. And in my position of the lab manager, in fact, I was instructing people and I was advising people. I served on exams, prelims that they had.

Page 76.
Q. Prelims?
A. Yes, for students that want to become accepted to a program in getting PhD. In the PhD program, they have to write proposals, defend them and they have to go through these prelims, which is the exams to find out if they would be qualified to become PhD students. So I served on several of those. I served on when they defended the PhDs. Once I participated in the hiring process, only once, and they never invited me again.
Q. Why not, if you know?
A. I don’t.
Q. Do you know who’s responsible for hiring the faculty position that was open in August of 2002?
A. No. I don’t remember exactly who was on the search committee or who was heading the search committee, because I was discouraged from applying. And that was the time I should have applied. That was the last opportunity. I believe that they made a commitment to me and that was the last opportunity. It turned out to be the last opportunity to fulfill that commitment, and instead of encouraging me to apply, they discouraged me to apply.
Q. Other than telling you they don’t want you, what, if anything, did they do to discourage you from applying for this faculty position?

Page 77.
A. All these incidents that started, I believe, in 1987, but I have written records of the thing that started in 1988. In January of 1988.
Q. Is it your testimony that beginning in 1988, there was a continuous campaign to discourage you from obtaining a full-time faculty position at Stony Brook?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was this? Who was behind this campaign?
A. Most of these incidents were initiated by Professor Liebermann.
Q. We are going to go over all these incidents. It’s best to do it chronologically. Let’s start with - - you say it started in 1988; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Starting in 1988, I want you to detail each and every incident that occurred, including the witnesses thereto that you believe institute alleged acts of discrimination against you.

Page 78.
A. This, as I found out later, when I tried to find answers to these incidents, this can be described as bullying in the workplace.
Q. What is it?
A. Bullying in the workplace. This is the kind of activities, if they are initiated by one person or a group of people, they are identified as bullying in the workplace.
Q. You don’t have to characterize them. I just want you to explain them and who was there and what happened.
A. The basis of these incidents that were initiated by, in most cases, Professor Liebermann, was to create a conflict.
Q. I want you to specifically describe these incidents.

Page 79.
A. In 1987, that was the year when I was able to make the lab work, we started doing research, producing publishable results. One of the roles of the center was to invite outside users. The first person that started working at the center was Professor Herzberg. When I defended my thesis, he was on my committee. So I knew him for a long time before that and he was a good friend - - he is still is a good friend of mine, I believe. We invited him because he had a prior experience working in a high-pressure lab like ours. So he was highly qualified and could have been helpful having him working in the lab.
Q. Was he an employee of the lab?
A. He eventually became an adjunct professor.
Q. A what professor?
A. Adjunct.
Q. Adjunct, okay.
A. So he started working in 1987 using the procedures that I had developed, and I had a very nice,

Page 80.
very productive cooperation with him. And I had a paper with him eventually that came out from that. He spent quite a time doing very useful research, and that research continued later through his cooperation with Jianzong Zhang. So during this time, among other things, he was telling us about his problems with another professor. His name is David Walker.
Q. Okay.
A. I don’t know the details because I never really - - I don’t really.
Q. I’m trying to get the discriminatory acts against you.
A. Okay, yes. He basically warned us that this person - -
Q. Who warned you, Professor Herzberg?
A. Yes, that this person, David Walker, is a bully, a very bad guy.
Q. Okay.
A. So in 1988, in January 1988, Professor Liebermann invited David Walker to work in the lab.

Page 81.
Q. Um hmm.
A. So he came to the lab with his student and it was a very nice visit. The way I saw it, it was a very nice visit. He wanted to make something we couldn’t do at that time, to make a compound called perovskite that needs very high pressures to produce. And at that time, we were just not yet able to do that. But he insisted and said “I’m wasting my time if I don’t make perovskite.” And I told him we couldn’t make it. He wanted me to push the pressure over the limit that I was comfortable to go. And, because I was responsible for the lab, I refused to do that.
Q. Okay.
A. Because of that, he wrote a nasty letter to Liebermann (1, 2).
Q. What did this letter say?
A. That I didn’t cooperate.
Q. Okay.
A. Well, basically, the complaint was that I told him to go home, which was taken out of context because, in fact, he put the words in my mouth. He said if we can’t make perovskite, we could just as

Page 82.
well go home. And then I replied “Well, you can just as well go home, because you wouldn’t be able to make it.” He took that out of context and he said that I told him to just go home. But I can provide the letter. You will get all the documentation.
Q. Is it your contention that that was a discriminatory act towards you by Stony Brook University?
A. No, no, no. It was just one of the incidents of bullying. Basically, I believe now that Professor Liebermann invited a known bully to create a conflict. That is my claim. He knew he was a bully because of what Professor Herzberg told us. We knew he was a bully, and he invited him to the lab to work with me, I believe, because he wanted to create a conflict.
Q. Why would Liebermann want to create a conflict?
A. Because he wanted me to go away.
Q. Why?
A. Well, eventually, I believe, because they didn’t want to hire me.
Q. This started in 1987?
A. Yes.

Page 83.
Q. This started before you were placed on the 11 year project?
A. Yes.
Q. Why would Liebermann have placed you on the 11 year project if he wanted to get rid of you?
A. Well, they didn’t really have to change anything. I was just continuing in my position, so they didn’t rehire me or anything like that, but they wanted me to leave on my own.
Q. Why?
A. Well, I didn’t know at the time, so, you know, let’s leave that open because I didn’t know. But I connected the dots eventually, and I believe that, because by that time they already knew I was not a liberal, they just didn’t want me there anymore.
Q. When do you believe that Liebermann, Weidner and Prewitt discovered that you were a liberal?
A. Okay. At the time in ’87, Prewitt was not there anymore because he became the director of the Geophysical Lab in Washington, okay. So all this started after he left. These are just, in this case, Liebermann and Weidner. They are primarily responsible for this.

Page 84.
Q. After that incident in 1988, when is the next time, the next incident which occurred that you believed to be discriminatory towards yourself?
A. So from 1988 to 1992, this continued. I was pretty much persecuted by this outside bully.
Q. Who?
A. This David Walker.
Q. How were you persecuted by him?
A. He looked for excuses to wreck my reputation. He wrote four nasty letters over this period of time (1, 2, 3, 4).
Q. What was the sum and substance of those letters?
A. Basically, to say bad things about me.
Q. Like what?
A. I’ll give you the letters and you can read them. I’m not going to talk about it because I don’t remember exactly and you will able to read everything. The last letter was sent to Weidner in January 1992 (1, 2). So this was the kind of process that went on for several years.
Q. I’m sorry. Did you ever speak to Liebermann and Weidner with respect to this perceived persecution by David Walker?

Page 85.
A. Oh, they know everything about it, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. But there was no indication that they were not supporting me. So there was no indication that what he did damaged me in any way.
Q. There is no indication by you?
A. By them. I mean I don’t believe that is in the record, that they would say that, because of this incident, we have a problem with this.
Q. To the best of your knowledge, these four letters that were written by David Walker had no effect on your employment or the perception of you by Liebermann and Weidner?
A. Again, they did not convey to me any displeasure based on this incident. Again, if it had any effect and they didn’t tell me about it, I cannot know that.
Q. Okay.
A. Anyway, so the last letter was mailed in January 1992.
Q. Um hmm.

Page 86.
A. And then about a week later, started the next incident.
Q. That was in January 1992?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened then. I’m sorry. Who were these letters written to by David Walker before we go on?
A. Some of them were written to me, some of them - - I think one was written to Liebermann, one was written to Weidner and I received a complimentary copy. I received all the letters, but they were not all addressed to me. But you will get the letters.
Q. Okay.
A. About a week after that letter was mailed, in fact when the fourth letter came, I decided I was not going to play this game anymore. So I refused to open it for ten years because I decided I was not going to read these letters anymore. But that was the last letter from him; there were no other letters. That was the end of it. So the week after that started the next incident, which was initiated by Professor Liebermann.
Q. Was that in January 1992?

Page 87.
A. Yes. And that was, he permanently placed his secretary that smoked in an office next to me. So what happened was that my office always filled with smoke when she smoked. This was preceded by three years when she used that office on a temporary basis, because Professor Liebermann was an editor for the Journal of Geophysical Research, and she helped him doing his duties as the editor. So she spent maybe a day a week in that office, where she smoked. And so I complained several times to him that the smoke was getting into my office, to limit her from smoking. I don’t have any documentation from that time period. This was just, you know, it wasn’t very serious because she wasn’t there all the time, but it was a problem. So what happened in January 1992 was that he placed the secretary now permanently in that office. I came one day and she smoked there, the office was full of smoke and the door was open. And so I asked her why was she smoking, and she replied that it was now her

Page 88.
office and, according to the university regulations, she was entitled to smoke in her office. At the time, the university was trying to adopt these halfway measures trying to accommodate smokers and non-smokers, trying to kind of limit the damage of the secondhand smoke by appealing to the smokers to be reasonable. These half measures never worked. That is why, eventually, smoking was completely banned. At the time, it was these half measures that were causing problems. The university regulations banned smoking in the building, but people were able to smoke in their own offices, those were the half measures. Since she was now transferred permanently to this office next to me, she felt entitled to smoke. And again, the problem was that these were like half offices that were originally one office that had a wall built in the middle, and the smoke pretty much just drifted through the holes in the wall to my office. So I come after working in the lab, which is outside the building, come to my office, open the door and it’s filled with smoke, because smoke could get in, but it could not go out, because the door was closed. It was really a very bad situation.

Page 89.
Q. Did you complain to Liebermann about this?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened?
A. There is a series of letters concerning the incident (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Q. Was that an empty office that she moved into?
A. Again, she used that office temporarily for three years, when she was helping Liebermann, when he was the editor.
Q. Were there any other available open offices at that time?
A. She had another office next to his office and he didn’t mind secondhand smoke, so she could stay in her office.
Q. Was the new office bigger?
A. It was about the same size.
Q. Were there any other open or available offices?
A. I have no idea. But he refused to remove her.

Page 90.
Q. Did he give you a reason for refusing to remove her?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the reason?
A. He said that he made investments. When she was using that office in previous three years, that he made investments in that office, meaning getting the phone line and the computer cable in. So he said, because of these investments, he wanted her to use the office.
Q. Did she stay in that office?
A. Yes. I was exposed to that secondhand smoke for about five years. And then the university issued regulations, which banned smoking in the whole building. So at that point, she was not allowed to smoke there and she moved somewhere else.
Q. It’s your opinion that this was discrimination directed at you?
A. That was just another incident trying to make my life miserable and make me go away, because they didn’t want to fire me.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, I would have to speculate. Do you want me to speculate?

Page 91.
Q. Yes. If you were not a tenured professor, you were not civil service, you did not have an employee contract, you had no guaranteed continued employment, why didn’t they fire you?
A. They could have dismissed me any time they wanted.
Q. Why not?
A. They had some scruples and they knew the reason why they wanted to dismiss me. They preferred, for their own consciousness, if I had left, because then they could say it was not their fault. We didn’t fire him. He left on his own. That is one thing. The other thing is they made a commitment to me that they would hire me in a permanent position, and then they didn’t want to do that. They didn’t want to break their word. I would offer these two reasons. But the bottom line is they wanted me to go away, and they wanted me to just decide to go away, which would be a constructive dismissal.
Q. Why did they want you to go away?
A. Again, for the same reason I identified eventually, because they realized that I was not a liberal.

Page 92.
Q. Did they indicate at that time that their motives were based upon you being a liberal?
A. No, that never comes up, never. This is just something - - don’t even expect anything like that because they are smart. If they want to discriminate based on your political views, they are not going to say it. So there was nothing like that.
Q. Subsequent to the smoking incident of the secretary, what happened?
A. Let me just say that eventually I wrote a letter to the Office of Human Resources, okay (1, 2, 3).
Q. Um hmm.
A. In response, I received two phone calls. The first phone call was that they were sending somebody to investigate.
Q. When did you send the letter to human resources?

Page 93.
A. After I used up all other options. I had an exchange of letters with Professor Liebermann where he said basically that he was not going to remove her from the office. Then I responded that I would write to the Office of Human Resources if he doesn’t agree with that, and he said to go ahead and write. So I wrote to the Office of Human Resources, complained to the university as anybody has the right to do in such situation.
Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. This exchange happened in January and in February.
Q. Of which year?
A. Of ’91. Again, I have all the letters.
Q. January 1992 was the day you indicated that he moved her. This happened the same month that you wrote to human resources?
A. No, no, no. Okay, this went on through February and March, okay. When she moved in, Professor Liebermann was in Europe.
Q. Okay.
A. So there was about a week until he came back when I started to write him a letter, telling him basically that there was a problem.
Q. What month was that?

Page 94.
A. It might have started in February. But again, I’ll give you the documentation so you will get the exact information. I believe that the written record is from February 1st, perhaps, through March. We exchanged several letters and then basically we came to an impasse on that. And then I wrote to the university, to the Office of Human Resources, filed a complaint and, in response, I received two phone calls. The first phone call said that they were sending somebody to investigate. And then the second phone call that the person looked and didn’t find anything. And that was it. That was when I realized that the university was not going to help me, and that was the end of it. So, eventually, I ended up living there for five years in the smoke environment. That pretty much concludes this incident.
Q. What is the next incident?
A. At the same time, okay, at that time, you know, I went through the process of looking for answers.

Page 95.
Q. Answers to what?
A. Why they were doing it.
Q. Why he put the secretary next to you?
A. Well, not just that. This was a series of incidents.
Q. You have two incidents so far, the David Walker scenario and the smoking secretary scenario?
A. Right, okay.
Q. Other than that, what happened next?
A. In the letters later on I wrote that there was a time when, because of this problem with smoking, if they fired me at that time I would have filed a complaint, so they kind of gave up in this effort to force me directly to leave. Instead, they started attacking people around me that were closely associated with me.
Q. When did that start?
A. The first incident was when they tried to dismiss a machinist.
Q. Who did that and when did it happen?

Page 96.
A. This was Professor Hanson. He was the chair of the department at that time. The machinist was up to, you know, after the initial time when he was hired past, the department had to decide whether they would keep him permanently.
Q. Keep who permanently?
A. This machinist.
Q. What was the machinist’s name?
A. Herb. Herb Schay.
Q. When did this happen?
A. That was right after the smoking incident.
Q. Right after the beginning of the smoking incident in 1992?
A. Well, the whole process started the year before because they sent letters asking people to contribute to their decision whether they should keep him or not.
Q. Who, the machinist?
A. Yes.
Q. When did the letter happen?
A. That was in 1991. That was the beginning of the process.

Page 97.
Q. Who sent this letter?
A. Professor Hanson.
Q. Sent a letter to who?
A. This was a letter that was sent to people who could provide credentials, who had worked with this machinist before and could comment on his performance.
Q. That happened in 1991?
A. Yes.
Q. How were you related to this incident?
A. I was one of those that received a letter asking to comment on his performance.
Q. How many other people received this letter?
A. I don’t know.
Q. How did you know Herb Schay?
A. He worked with me very closely in the lab and he was extremely helpful. So, you know, he was one of the people who really helped me a lot and he was very willing to help me. So I didn’t think much at that time about this request. I just gave him a very good evaluation. But it turned out they also received apparently some bad evaluations because they essentially decided to fire him. And that is when I wrote the letter (1, 2, 3) telling them that this is insane, such a good worker, he is so useful, so helpful to me. I don’t understand why this is going on.

Page 98.
Q. You sent two letters regarding Herb Schay, one before his termination and one after you found out about his termination?
A. He wasn’t terminated.
Q. Okay.
A. But he would have been fired if I didn’t write that letter. I saved his job with that letter. They just wanted to get rid of him.
Q. Who is they?
A. The department.
Q. Professor Hanson?
A. Well, officially, the department that employs them makes the decision. Hanson was the chair of the department at that time and he was in charge of the process.
Q. So you saved Herb Schay’s job?
A. Yes.
Q. So the department deferred to your request not to fire Herb Schay?

Page 99.
A. Yes.
Q. How is that discriminatory towards you?
A. It’s not discriminatory towards me. What I’m saying is because they could not attack me directly anymore because of the smoking incident, they decided to attack people who worked closely with me.
Q. You saved his job?
A. I did save his job, yes. But it was very iffy and, after that, he was not very helpful to me.
Q. Who?
A. Herb Schay. I don’t know what kind of promise they got from him, but even despite the fact that I saved his job, he was no longer that helpful to me. After that, I had a few good years. I believe what they tried to do with this incident was to make me go before the center got into full speed. They didn’t want me to be in the center and they failed in that respect, because I didn’t go. So they laid low for a while.
Q. How long?
A. Until ’97, I believe.
Q. There were no incidents between 1990 and 1997 that you can recall?

Page 100.
A. That would be between 1992 and 1997, but I have to check my records. I plan on submitting as part of the interrogatories a complete line, because I’m talking from my memory and I just can’t remember everything.
Q. That is fine.
A. I have records that you can have as well, where I put this down in writing. What happened in 1997 - -
Q. Before we start there, during the time period from 1992 to 1997, did you receive pay increases?
A. I don’t remember exactly. There were some increases. There were also long periods of time when I didn’t receive any increases. I can provide records from Social Security that list all my salaries, if you want.
Q. What is the next incident that occurred, which you consider discrimination toward you?
A. Well, these are incidents that made my work difficult.

Page 101.
Q. I’m going to ask you to detail each and every one.
A. At that time, I wouldn’t call it discrimination because I didn’t know the real reason. But I knew there were things going on behind my back that I could not understand. On the one hand, I was doing my duties. I did excellent research, just fabulous. On the other hand, there were these incidents that happened behind my back, and I couldn’t understand why this was going on.
Q. I’m going to ask you to continue to go over each one of these incidents.
A. Yes. Please do so.
Q. After 1997?
A. Well, what happened in 1997 is that they again hired somebody from outside, I believe.
Q. Who is they?
A. Well, the motivator was Professor Liebermann. It’s sometimes hard to tell how much Professor Weidner was involved, but these were my two bosses. They knew everything that was going on. In most cases, it was Professor Liebermann, the cause of these incidents, behind these incidents.

Page 102.
Q. This specific incident, you said they hired somebody. Who is they?
A. When I say they, I’m talking about Liebermann and Weidner. But, again, I cannot exclude the department, other people at the department. But these were the ones that were in charge of making me leave.
Q. In 1997, who did Liebermann and Weidner hire?
A. What happened was that until then, I was pretty successful in getting my personal grants, getting funded. It wasn’t much. I never had two grants. I had one grant. But I did very good research and it was fine that they funded me because there was no problem there whatsoever. In 1997, the National Science Foundation invited Professor Navrotsky to serve on the panel. This is the panel that decides on funding. Professor Navrotsky was one of the executives. She was one of the executives of the center. As I mentioned before, Liebermann and Weidner were the executives for Stony Brook, Navrotsky was the executive for the Princeton group, and Prewitt was the executive for the Geophysical Lab.

Page 103.
Q. Dr. Navrotsky had previously been the executive from where?
A. Of the center.
Q. When you say center, what are you referring to?
A. The Center for High Pressure Research.
Q. The center at Stony Brook?
A. Again, this is three institutions.
Q. Then she was thereafter appointed to serve on the panel for the National Science Institute?
A. National Science Foundation.
Q. When was she appointed, 1997?
A. After she became a member of the panel, I had three proposals rejected in a row.
Q. Okay.
A. On one side, you have, in fact, a person who should be favorable to my proposals. Instead, I believe she is responsible for these proposals to be rejected.

Page 104.
Q. Why would she be in favor of your proposals?
A. Because I was a member of the center and she was an executive. I mean, I was working for the center.
Q. Was she acting on behalf of the National Science Foundation when she approved or disapproved grants?
A. Yes.
Q. What specifically do you believe moved Dr. Navrotsky to deny your grant applications?
A. I believe that, since they tried to make me leave and they failed, and they had this problem with the smoking incident that could have resulted in a lawsuit if they tried to push harder or even fire me, they again asked another outsider. I mean, the first outsider was Professor Walker. In this case, it was Professor Navrotsky to help them make my life difficult.
Q. Upon what do you base this assumption?
A. Again, because I didn’t have any problems with my proposals being funded before.
Q. Is that the only reason that you base your assumption, that she denied your three grant applications?

Page 105.
A. And the fact that those grants were denied.
Q. Did anybody ever tell you why your three grants were denied?
A. The usual responses. You get the reviews of your proposals and then you get the decision by the panel. So all this information is available.
Q. Other than the fact that Dr. Navrotsky denied three of your grant applications in a row - -
A. She was part of the panel that denied those three.
Q. How many other people were on the panel?
A. Maybe 12. I don’t know for sure about that number. But she was the person who was very qualified in evaluating my grants. So you have people with different backgrounds on panels, but if somebody of her stature speaks against you, that is it.
Q. Would it have benefited Stony Brook University to have your grants approved?

Page 106.
A. Of course, absolutely.
Q. Why would Liebermann and Weidner specifically act in ways that are in contrast to the ways of the best interest of the university?
A. Because they wanted me to leave. Exactly, that is a good question. Because they wanted me to go away.
Q. At the expense of costing the university grants, is that your belief?
A. They didn’t care about any of that. They just wanted me to go. And this is despite the fact that I was doing my work, lab research, absolutely fabulous stuff. All of that stuff was later summarized in a book. I published a book, and it’s a very original contribution to science. I was doing an excellent job in keeping the lab going, and so it just didn’t make sense at all. That is the whole problem, that it just didn’t make sense.
Q. Did you pursue this with anybody, the issue that your grants got denied?
A. There is not much you can do.
Q. Did you speak to Dr. Navrotsky about that?

Page 107.
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. It’s not just something you do.
Q. Did you speak to Dr. Liebermann or Weidner about it?
A. Well, they knew - - they probably knew my grants were denied.
Q. Did you speak to them about that?
A. That it was Navrotsky who was responsible?
Q. About the denial of your grants, generally.
A. I can’t specifically think about any particular discussion, but it is - - you know, this is your own thing. I might have mentioned it, that they were denied. They definitely knew, because it was the center that had to make up for the loss of funding eventually. So it wasn’t like I had to stop research. It was just a slap in the face.
Q. The denial of these three grants that you applied for through the National Science Foundation, caused the university to have to make up the loss of those funds through other sources?

Page 108.
A. Yes, pretty much.
Q. So it would have been to the advantage of Stony Brook University to have these grants all approved?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Is it your testimony that Liebermann and Weidner were acting against the best interest of the university?
A. Yes.
Q. Solely in an attempt to get you to leave?
A. That was the highest priority. I mean they were willing to sacrifice anything to make me leave.
Q. Why didn’t they just fire you?
A. I just told you. Because, for one thing, they have scruples. They didn’t want to do it themselves. They preferred if I made the decision, if I left on my own. Just to say, “I’m not going to put up with this, I’m going.” That would be the best solution for them because then they could say it was not their fault, “we didn’t do anything.”
Q. You don’t think they felt bad if they were sacrificing the best interest of the university in order to further their attempts to get rid of you?

Page 109.
A. In the case of Professor Liebermann, he is somebody who’s a dedicated liberal. He is committed to the cause.
Q. What cause? What cause?
A. He is a committed liberal.
Q. What does that mean?
A. That is the highest thing to have. He wanted to create a department that would have people, like-minded people around, and I wasn’t like-minded.
Q. What is like-minded?
A. People who think the way that he does.
Q. How does he think?
A. Well, it’s the whole way of the approach to life, the philosophy, the way you do research. For example, the way you teach, promote liberal causes, for example. You know, the liberal causes, the concern for environment.
Q. The what?

Page 110.
A. Concern for the environment, climate change. These are liberal causes. They don’t want people that - - and in general, they prefer people who support consensus, that support community. They don’t want people that go against the consensus, against the community. They don’t want individuals; the fact that I was very successful personally is not something that they value. They value what they call community research. Cooperation, cooperation is now a big thing. They want you to work with as many people as possible. Research right now is no longer the highest priority. What is the highest priority right now is social interaction. Now research is just a background. It is the necessary minimum. They value now the exchange of information, for example. You see it in an explosion of various meetings, workshops.
Q. Is it your testimony that way of thinking did not comport with their way of thinking with respect to this community way of thinking? Is that correct?
A. Well, you try to do your best, but they want more. They want you to be active in promoting these liberal causes.
Q. When you say these liberal causes, specifically how do you define that?
A. It is what is valued now, is that you get engaged actively in the political process.

Page 111.
Q. I’m asking you to define what you consider to be their liberal values that you did not conform to?
A. The community has the priority to individual. You are expected to sacrifice for the community, and this is the scientific community.
Q. That is one. What is another one?
A. You always, in this case, produce research that supports the consensus, what the community prefers, identifies as their priorities, the liberal causes. You are supposed to produce results that would support those causes.
Q. That is two.
A. You have ideology that is more important than science. Once you accept that the political process, the ideology, is more important than the science or research, the research becomes fraud because you are just doing the research that supports what you are expected to support even if you are compromising your integrity in this case.
Q. That is your definition of liberalism?
A. That is the manifestation of liberalism in science right now.
Q. This case is based upon your interpretation that your way of thinking did not conform with the reviews with respect to scientific research at the university, correct?

Page 112.
A. I’m first a scientist.
Q. Could you answer that question?
A. They could have thought because they - - you know.
Q. Can you answer that question?
A. Tell me - - what is the question? (Whereupon, the above-referred-to question was read back by the reporter.)
Q. In other words, were the views toward - -
A. I’m talking in this case about the department.
Q. I’m sorry, make it the department then. In other words, is this case about the views towards scientific research of the department that you were employed with at Stony Brook and your own?
A. There were differences, that is true, based on this - - that would support my interpretation, yes.
Q. Is that the basis for this lawsuit?
A. The basis for this lawsuit is what I believe is the real cause behind all these incidents, which is that they don’t want to hire anybody that is not thinking the way they do, which in this case is conservative scientists.

Page 113.
Q. What is conservative scientists?
A. Let me just say - -
Q. I need a definition of conservative scientist?
A. Let me just say that since I have been in research and in this community for an extended period of time, there was an enormous change in the science.
Q. I’m just trying to understand how it is that you feel you are discriminated against because your way of thinking is different from the department’s way of thinking. That is why I’m asking you to define what you call conservative and liberal. Because I’m trying to understand why it is that you feel you are discriminated against because your thinking is different from theirs. What do you consider conservative thinking of the department that you do not fit into?
A. My conservative thinking.
Q. Your conservative thinking? I’m sorry.

Page 114.
A. In research, because it is a manifestation of these differences in philosophy and research. What I value is efficiency, productivity, good use of finances. In the case of this liberal approach to research, what is valued is community-based research, interaction among people.
Q. You do not agree with that philosophy?
A. It is compromising your integrity because you are now forced to do research the way that the scientific community right now prefers to do research.
Q. You do not agree with that philosophy then that is held by the department?
A. I think it’s a form of fraud. You are using ideology to direct you how you do your research. It’s no longer objective. Let me give an example.
Q. No. I think I understand what you are saying. I just needed that to understand your testimony.
A. I want to give you an example, okay?
Q. Okay.

Page 115.
A. What is the difference between my efficiency and productivity as opposed to the preference for community-based research, even if it means a waste of resources. Let’s say if you do an experiment, for example, that includes 100 steps, and you are already committed, you want it to work. You do all those hundred steps right, because if you don’t do them right, the experiment doesn’t work. So it’s a complete waste.
Q. Explain that difference between that way of thinking and the department’s way of thinking that you feel is different from yours.
A. It’s not the department, it’s the individuals in the department. In this case, let’s say Liebermann and Weidner. The way they prefer to do research is that they would divide this task of doing an experiment among a number of people, each responsible for a number of steps.
Q. Is it your testimony - -
A. What they do is they complete the task and then it turns out that the experiment doesn’t work. What then happens is that the people, who are really in charge of the project, go through these steps, but then they make their own assembly on the side. Because of that, the experiment works. So we end up with a process that is wasting resources for the appearance that it is a community-based research.

Page 116.
Q. It’s your position that that is a liberal way of doing research and you disagree with that, correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Is the basis for this lawsuit the fact that you disagree with that, what you just described as a liberal way of doing research?
A. The basis of the lawsuit is - - in hiring conservative scientists, they just don’t exist anymore. This never comes up in any hiring process because I never received an invitation for an interview. They make this choice before they decide whom to interview. They know everybody in the community. It’s not like they are getting people they never heard about before. They are getting letters of recommendation and they interact with these people, even before they invite them for an interview. So they already know whom to invite, who’s liberal or who’s not a liberal.
Q. Why would they hire you to begin with?
A. Why did they hire me?

Page 117.
Q. Yes.
A. Because they needed me. None of them, neither Liebermann nor Weidner, could do any experiments. They didn’t have the experience.
(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
(Time noted: 1:06 p.m.)

Page 118.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Page 119.
INDEX TO REQUESTS
Letters containing the denial of the two grants on 4/1/03 and 4/1/04 – page 35.

Page 120.
CERTIFICATION

Page 121.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
Plaintiff,
-against-
STONY BROOK UNVERSITY,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------X
February 28, 2006
10:08 a.m.
300 Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, New York

CONTINUED EXAMINATION OF TIBOR GASPARIK, the Plaintiff herein, taken by the Defendant pursuant to Notice, and held at the above-mentioned time and place before a Notary Public in and for the State of New York.

Page 122.
CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MS. PACK:
(Whereupon, the summons and complaint was marked, Defendant’s Exhibit A, for identification, as of this date by the reporter.)
Q. Mr. Gasparik, this is a continuation of the deposition that we started a couple of weeks ago, and it’s just going to be a continuation of the same. I’m going to try not to repeat any of the questions so we don’t have to cover the same ground twice, okay. It’s been a couple of weeks. I don’t remember exactly what we talked about, but I have a pretty good recollection. I just got a copy of the deposition transcript yesterday. Let’s start with the summons and complaint. I have had this marked as Defendant’s Exhibit A. Do you recognize that document? You can take a look at the whole document if you want.
A. This is the summons and complaint. Yes, that is my complaint.
Q. When you say this is your complaint, what do you mean by that?

Page 123.
A. I wrote it.
Q. Is this the summons and complaint that you used to commence this action against the State University of New York?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you draft this complaint yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you file this complaint with the court yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you consult with an attorney before you drafted this complaint?
A. No.
Q. Where did you get the framework in order to create this complaint?
A. It was based on a complaint that was filed in a civil case by Paul Dashefsky.
Q. Who is Paul Dashefsky?
A. I consulted him before I filed the complaint because I didn’t know how to proceed in this case, and he in fact advised me to file as pro se.

Page 124.
Q. Is Paul Dashefsky an attorney?
A. Yes.
Q. Where does he practice?
A. Smithtown.
Q. Do you know why he told you to file pro se as opposed to with an attorney?
A. Because I told him I didn’t have resources to hire an attorney.
Q. So he gave you a copy of a complaint to use as a basis?
A. No. I asked for a copy from the pro se clerk.
Q. Have you spoken to Mr. Dashefsky since that time?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Dashefsky review the complaint for you after you drafted it?
A. No.
Q. Did you type up this complaint yourself?
A. Yes.

Page 125.
Q. On your computer at home?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature on page five of the complaint?
A. Yes.
Q. I’m going to go through this complaint. You can use the copy that is in front of you. I’m going to ask you some questions relating to the allegations that are complained of in this complaint. Starting on page two of the complaint, Paragraph 7, is it correct when I say he, you are referring to yourself, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Starting in Paragraph 7 it says, “He always received the highest evaluations and performed research at the levels that could be rated among the best in the world by any standards of scholarly achievement?”
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain what evaluation specifically you are referring to?
A. These are, for example, applications for grants. I had five National Science Foundation grants.
Q. Were those grants in your name?

Page 126.
A. Yes. Then, I gave talks at national and international meetings, over 100 talks. When you submit a grant, you get reviews. These were highly positive reviews.
Q. From who?
A. From reviewers. These are anonymous reviewers.
Q. Were they from people associated with the defendant?
A. No. This is nationwide. National Science Foundation is a federal agency that funds research, and it uses reviewers from the whole world.
Q. Number seven where it refers to received highest evaluations, are you referring to strictly people outside State University of New York Stony Brook?
A. I had positive responses from my colleagues as well, but not that many.
Q. When you say responses, what do you mean by that?
A. They were not very forthcoming with any positive responses because they didn’t want me there, so they didn’t want to encourage me.

Page 127.
Q. The highest evaluations that you are referring to in Paragraph 7 are from people outside of the University of Stony Brook?
A. Yes.
Q. In Paragraph 8 you indicate “He was subject to a series of hostile actions by his superiors, employees of the University, with the clear intention of making his work difficult and his life miserable and thus forcing him to leave his employment.” The last time we talked about an incident with respect to the secretary smoking in the office next to you. What other hostile incidents? You have a series of hostile action with you supervisor. I would like you to reiterate each one of those hostile actions with the exception of the smoking issue.
A. I have written down this account and I submitted it to you as part of the interrogatories, and it’s also posted on my Web site. So I would just refer you to that written account because I just did it since the last time we talked together, so I would know exactly what to claim if you asked me about these hostile actions.

Page 128.
Q. Do you have a copy of that with you today?
A. Well, I mailed them to you.
Q. I’m unsure of what you are referring to.
A. The response to the interrogatories.
Q. In the interrogatories you referred only to your blog.
A. I submitted documents, and on the Exhibit A is the complete account of my persecution. So the 50 points there, and I would just like to refer to this.
Q. Sure.
A. Because I can’t remember.
Q. You can refer to that. I’m still going to ask you questions about it because I need you to explain it to me. Based on the totality explained in Exhibit A, it’s still not clear what hostile action you are talking about. Exhibit A only refers to a series of incidents, some of them just facts - - some of them cannot be objectively construed as hostile action. I want to go through them.
MS. PACK: Let’s mark that as Exhibit B. (Whereupon, the Account of my Persecution document was marked, Defendant’s Exhibit A, for identification, as of this date, by the reporter.)

Page 129.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, I am asking you to take a copy of what has been marked as Defendant’s Exhibit B and tell me if that is the exhibit you are referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. Eleven pages of typewritten document that was provided to this office pursuant to a demand for discovery?
A. This is the document.
Q. In these 11 pages, there are 50 paragraphs separately numbered, and I want to go through these because some of them don’t specifically refer to a hostile action. For instance, the first paragraph, could you read the first paragraph, please? You can read it to yourself. You don’t have to read it out loud.
A. I don’t have to read it. This is a narrative of the whole story; not all numbered paragraphs refer to hostile actions.

Page 130.
Q. Okay. Let’s go through and tell me which paragraphs refer to specific hostile actions. Maybe it will be easier that way.
A. Number four. That is the first time I realized there was something wrong.
Q. Do you consider the incidents that are described in Paragraph 4 a hostile action by your supervisor?
A. Yes, because when I came to Stony Brook to work with those three people, I was viewed as a partner, and they, as soon as Professor Prewitt left, stopped treating me as a partner.
Q. Do you consider that a hostile action?
A. Yes.
Q. The next paragraph that you consider hostile?
A. No, that is just a statement of - -
Q. You go through it and tell me each paragraph.
A. Of my understanding right now what happened. It is clear to me in retrospect that they decided to get rid of me, as I stated in Paragraph 5. Of course, at that time it wasn’t obvious to me.

Page 131.
Q. You consider that to be a hostile action, Paragraph 5?
A. It’s like an introduction to the hostile actions that follow.
Q. Okay.
A. Number six, that was a hostile action.
Q. Okay.
A. What they did was, since I had the highest seniority, if they wanted to fire a person with high seniority, they would use a trick. They have two ways of employing people in research, as a Research Foundation employee, that is one way, one line of hiring people. And then they can request state lines, which by themselves do not carry any money. But they can transfer the funds to the state and fund the same positions through the state. So if they have, for example, somebody on the research line they want to get rid of, they can transfer, as happened in my case, transfer everybody who came after me to state lines and leave me on the research line in the lowest seniority position.
Q. That is what you describe in Paragraph 6?

Page 132.
A. Yes. That is when I realized what they were doing.
Q. You consider that to be a hostile action by your supervisor?
A. It was a premeditated action in preparation for my dismissal in the future, and that was to me obvious at that time. Only I couldn’t do anything about it because they have done it before - - by the time I realized what was going on, I was already alone on that research line, and everybody else was already on the state line.
Q. Starting at the next paragraph, Paragraph 7?
A. Okay. So since we had this center and this was a community property, we were expected to invite people from outside. David Walker was known to us to be a bully.
Q. Who is us?
A. I’m talking now about me, Liebermann and Weidner as the people who were essentially in charge of the whole enterprise, research and operation of the facility, of the high-pressure lab. And the way we knew about the fact that he was a bully was because a friend of mine, a colleague who was the first one who started working in the lab from outside, Professor Herzberg, had a very bad experience with him.

Page 133.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, perhaps this will be a lot easier if you explain to me exactly what it is, what actions you believe are illegal. What actions do you believe rather than just pointing to a blog and giving a reiteration of years of what you consider an uncivil work environment? Perhaps, it will be a lot quicker if you would explain to me how exactly you believe that the defendant broke the law in this case and discriminated against you in an illegal manner.
A. Well, the fact that I was dismissed.
Q. When were you dismissed?
A. In January 31, 2002.
Q. What happened in January 31 of 2002 that made you be dismissed?
A. Well, the reason for the dismissal was that they claimed it was the end of the project.
Q. Was it the end of the project?
A. Yes, but it was the end of the project for everybody who was on the project, but I was the only one dismissed. I was targeted from all these years before with the intention eventually to get rid of me when they could, and they used this as an excuse to get rid of me.

Page 134.
Q. When did this alleged persecution begin?
A. Well, in 1987, as I stated under Paragraph 4. I realized that they were not cooperating with me.
Q. Is it your contention that for 15 years the State University of New York - -
A. The employees of the state.
Q. The employees of the State University of New York were involved in a - -
A. In a series of hostile actions.
Q. But specifically these hostile actions that you have talked about. So far, the only one we have been really able to discuss is this smoking incident with the secretary?
A. Yes.
Q. What other specific instances of hostile environment are you prepared to adduce at trial to show that the State University of New York discriminated against you in an illegal manner?

Page 135.
A. If you take each of these hostile actions separately, you can explain it as not being a hostile action. It’s the series of hostile actions, these constant attacks on me with these activities, which were not initiated by me. Most of them were initiated by Liebermann. That is the definition of mobbing as I refer to later on. It is a series of hostile actions. Each by itself is minor, but it is the combined effect of all these hostile actions that constantly cause you mental anguish.
Q. Did you ever see a psychiatrist or psychologist or any mental health provider with respect to the emotional distress you allege in the complaint?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Why not?
A. I’m used to dealing with my problems myself.
Q. In Paragraph 34 of the complaint you asked for an award of $300,000 for compensating you for the loss of income, future income, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment and emotional injury. Can you tell me how you calculate that $300,000?
A. Well, it is mostly for the loss of wages.

Page 136.
Q. How much of that is attributable to mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment and emotional anguish?
A. I didn’t include any money for that.
Q. You are not making any claim for emotional distress?
A. I could, but how am I going to prove it? I didn’t plan on going to court when I had this mental anguish. I just tried to figure out a way to solve my problems.
Q. What kind of mental anguish are you referring to?
A. Well, if you are unemployed and you know that your are blacklisted, that you cannot really find a job. Any job, no matter what, because they are foul-mouthing you and trashing your reputation behind your back. This is not very good for your mental health.
Q. What effort have you made to secure employment since January 31, 2002?
A. I submitted a list of places I applied with the documentation. That list was prepared since I was collecting unemployment benefits and I had a review by a caseworker.

Page 137.
Q. How long did you collect unemployment benefits?
A. I think it was like ten months. I’m not sure.
Q. Did you work at all during that time?
A. No. I tried to find a job. I was applying.
Q. How many places did you look for employment?
A. About 50.
Q. What types of places were those?
A. I was applying to universities, to positions for which I was best qualified. That was a very bad time to find employment anywhere on Long Island because of very high unemployment. No new jobs. So in any case, that was because I just didn’t have any other options anyway.
Q. Did you get any interviews during the time - -
A. No.
Q. - - January 31, 2002 to present?
A. Oh, well now that I am certified as a teacher, I had two interviews.
Q. Where?

Page 138.
A. Well, I had an opportunity to work as a substitute, as a leave of replacement teacher at the Ralph Reed Middle School in Central Islip. I was supposed to work there until May this year, but then they decided to hire somebody else.
Q. Do you know why they decided to hire somebody else?
A. I finished my degree in teaching in May and at the time, the person who is in charge of submitting applications to Albany for certificates was supposed to give me a letter stating that I fulfilled all requirements.
Q. Somebody in Albany was supposed to give you a letter?
A. Well, it was an assistant dean at the School of Professional Development in Stony Brook. His name is Marvin Glockner and he was supposed to give me a letter stating that I fulfilled all requirements. But he refused to give me that letter.
Q. Why? Did you fulfill all the requirements?

Page 139.
A. I did, yes. Well, it wasn’t obvious, because I could never get any clear statement from him what was wrong. But eventually he was not satisfied with the documents that I had, that I submitted, that testified to completion of my undergraduate studies in Czechoslovakia.
Q. Were you given that reason in writing, that the documentation of your undergraduate studies was insufficient?
A. I have lots of e-mails that I communicated with him and with people connected with him. I just couldn’t get anything from him, so I was talking to people, basically the educators that I went back to school, to get these teacher certificates. So we had this coordinator called Linda Padwa, then I tried to get help from another professor who was born in Czechoslovakia who knew the language and was able to translate. Because the problem was that my documents were in Slovak and - -
Q. Is that another language?
A. Yes, and I translated them to English. So they had the English translation, but they were not happy that I translated it, so I thought that was the problem. So I tried to get help from this Professor Zachar because she knew Slovak - - well, she knew Czech, but it’s close enough. First she agreed to do that, but then she retracted and said she wouldn’t do it. This was going back and forth.

Page 140.
Q. Is it your contention that this failure to give a letter somehow is related to the claims contained in this - -
A. Yes, that was my understanding at that time, yes.
Q. How is that your understanding?
A. Because I had this intractable problem. I just couldn’t understand what they wanted, and they wouldn’t clarify it for me, so at that time, I was convinced that they were delaying it on purpose. I mean, it was so intractable that I gave up hope that I would ever satisfy those requirements.
Q. Is it your testimony that this letter from Marvin Glockner is somehow related to your issues with the Department of Geology at Stony Brook?
A. There is a possibility. That is what I was - -
Q. Do you have any proof of that?
A. How can you get a proof like this? These people do not leave any trail. They communicate. It’s a conspiracy.

Page 141.
Q. Who is involved in this conspiracy?
A. If there is one, in case that Glockner was doing it on purpose, then it’s his connection to Hanson. Hanson is in charge of the Master of Arts in Teaching program in Earth Sciences at the department. If there is a connection, it’s through Hanson.
Q. What is that connection?
A. That I was blacklisted, that I was identified as a conservative professor.
Q. You understand you have the burden of proof here. What is your proof that you were blacklisted?
A. There is - - since I cannot find a job. I am the best in the world, the best. I should not have any problems finding a job anywhere. The universities should be fighting for me. Instead, I’m not getting any responses, any interviews.
Q. Is it your contention that you cannot find a job here today because the university has blacklisted you?
A. Yes.
Q. You have only applied for jobs at educational institutions, correct?

Page 142.
A. Yes.
Q. Institutions of higher education or the public school system or both?
A. Both.
Q. Is it your testimony that the public school system in Long Island is part of this conspiracy?
A. Yes.
Q. Which school districts, specifically?
A. This is now going on in the whole educational system. They finished higher education. Higher education has been taken over by liberals completely. It’s done, finished. That task was done. Now they are going after the secondary and elementary educational system. They are now replacing all the old people that some of are conservative. They are all being replaced by liberal students, new liberal teachers.
Q. This conspiracy is now spreading to the public school system?
A. Yes. All the old teachers who retired are being replaced by liberals because they are all selected by universities, these students.

Page 143.
Q. You are talking about public school systems on Long Island?
A. Yes, yes - - no, I’m talking about in the whole country. It is happening in the whole country.
Q. Why didn’t you name any of these other defendants in your lawsuit, the public school system?
A. It’s too much. I cannot handle all this. I’m focusing now on higher education because that is where is my interest, but I have the same problem with getting a teaching position. I am now a certified teacher and I can’t find a position.
Q. Are you going to commence a lawsuit against the public school system in New York?
A. No, it’s very hard. How am I going to prove it? It’s not possible to prove it.
Q. Is it your testimony that the National Science Foundation is part of this conspiracy?
A. Absolutely. I don’t believe they have a single conservative on their staff. They are all liberals. Not a single one, including the director of the National Science Foundation that was appointed by the President. He did not respond. I send him two letters. He didn’t respond.
Q. He is part of the President’s cabinet?

Page 144.
A. No, it’s not a cabinet position. He is the director of the NSF. He was appointed by the President. The President doesn’t have a choice. He doesn’t have any qualified conservative people.
Q. Is president Bush involved in this conspiracy?
A. He has too many things to do. He is trying to be a bipartisan president. He cannot just appoint conservatives everywhere. And in the case like this, these positions that he can appoint, he has no choice. I mean, there are no longer any conservative professors anymore that are qualified enough, that have the record that would allow him to pick them and appoint them.
Q. The National Science Foundation is a federal agency?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any other federal agencies that are involved in this conspiracy?
A. Well, I don’t know. I don’t have any experience with any other. But I would expect that all funding agencies, the NASA probably, are mostly also taken over by liberals by now. I don’t know. It’s nationwide and it’s all pretty much taken over.

Page 145.
Q. You base this primarily on the fact that these people did not respond to your letters of complaint from the NSF?
A. There are also policies introduced by the NSF. They have two ways of evaluating proposals.
Q. What?
A. Two criteria, the merit criterion and the other one, the non-merit criterion. They make the first cut based on merit, and then they pick the proposals they want to fund using this non-merit criterion. All these programs that are under education label are really social programs. I described that in my letters. If you want to read my letters, it’s all there. It’s much easier for me to express myself in written form. I’m not going to repeat something that is available to you. All you have to do is read the documents I provided to you, and it’s also on my Web site.
Q. I understand. I look at this from a legal perspective.
A. Yes.
Q. You have just produced a bunch of information, which does not rise to the level of hostile environment, and I am just trying to ask you specifically what instances you are alleging in this complaint that the defendant, the State University of New York, did against you, which were illegal?

Page 146.
A. After I was dismissed.
Q. Okay.
A. I went to the university administration.
Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. I wrote letters to the Provost and the President. I asked them to initiate disciplinary hearings against the senior professors in the department.
Q. For what?
A. For this persecution.
Q. What persecution?
A. That I described here (indicating). All these incidents that I described.
Q. What was the determination of the administration at Stony Brook?
A. Well, they essentially refused. They stonewalled. They refused to do the hearings.
Q. Do you know why?
A. Well, they wrote that they didn’t find anything. That they didn’t find any evidence that there is a reason for initiating disciplinary hearings.

Page 147.
Q. You disagree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe that the administration of Stony Brook University is part of this conspiracy against you?
A. Yes because they refused to look at it.
Q. Anybody who does not agree with your thoughts on the discrimination in the geology department is part of the conspiracy against you; is that correct?
A. They cannot refuse to do something if they don’t investigate first. How could they decide that there is no justification to what I’m complaining about if they don’t investigate.
Q. What makes you believe they did not do an investigation?

Page 148.
A. I asked you for documents resulting from that investigation. What you gave me were copies of my own documents. There is nothing new there. There is nothing that resulted from the investigation. You didn’t give me any documents from that. They don’t exist. How could they do an investigation if there are no documents? They didn’t do anything. They just stonewalled me. They just responded that there was nothing. How can they know if they don’t investigate. Why don’t they ask me. Nobody invited me to tell what was wrong. I’m telling you now what was wrong. I didn’t get anything like that in Stony Brook. Nobody cared. Nobody asked me anything. They just stonewalled. At least now you are listening to me, okay. Finally somebody is listening to me. You are the first person, first person who listens to me. Nobody else. All these years, four years I’m trying to find somebody to listen to me. I couldn’t find a single person to listen to me. You are the first person who is listening to me. Why are you listening to me? Because you have to.
Q. Exactly. Don’t think that my listening to you in any way supports your arguments or I am agreeing with your arguments in any way. We are here on a deposition and I am just trying to get the facts, extract the facts and try to understand how it is you are going to prove your case.

Page 149.
A. If they listened to me, if they tried to do something and, after let’s say if they had disciplinary hearings request with some professors that would listen to me, listen to both sides and then decide, and if they decided against me, okay, fine, but that didn’t happen.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, in your complaint on page 17, you indicate that you posted, at the end of June 2005, a Web site summarizing your persecution, and the University and the department retaliated, in violation of the First Amendment, by taking your name off the list of faculty members posted on the departmental Web site, and ordered you to vacate your office at the department - - paragraph seventeen. Did anybody at the department specifically speak to you about your Web site?
A. I talked to the chair Professor Teng-fong.
Q. When did you speak to him?
A. It was in July. Well, the dates are on the Web site and the documentation. I don’t know exactly the date. I think it was July 12.

Page 150.
Q. Of 2005?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you approach him or did he approach you?
A. In fact, he approached me and he asked me to come to the department, that he had something to discuss, and then when I went to the department, and I noticed immediately that somebody went through my stuff in my office.
Q. As of January 31, 2002, you were no longer employed by the university, correct?
A. But I still had my academic position. I’m still a research associate professor.
Q. But you are not getting paid by Stony Brook?
A. No.
Q. Why is it that you still continued to have an office there?
A. Because I still have the academic position. I don’t have anymore. They took it away from me. I had it still in July. They are required to provide me an office, a desk and a shelf unit. That is the minimum they have to provide.
Q. Under what policy?

Page 151.
A. Since I still had my academic position there. I theoretically should be able to survive by getting research funding, but not since NSF has now been taken over by liberals. I can’t get research funding no matter how good are my proposals.
Q. Under what university policy or regulation do you believe you are entitled to an office subsequent to January 31, 2002?
A. It constitutes an academic position.
Q. Who told you that?
A. I was listed as a faculty member until July of last year.
Q. How many classes did you teach between January 31, 2002, and July of 2005?
A. I couldn’t do anything in the department. It is not up to me. If they asked me to teach, I would have taught.
Q. Did you ever teach any classes?
A. I was a research professor.
Q. So the answer is no, you never taught any classes?
A. Not any formal classes, no. I was never listed because you have to be appointed in a teaching position.

Page 152.
Q. What happened when you spoke to the chair in July of 2005?
A. Well, he told me that since I posted my Web site, the higher-ups were not happy about it, and so that was the justification why they removed my name from the list of the faculty members from the department’s Web site.
Q. Was there anybody else at this meeting?
A. No, just the two of us.
Q. Where did the meeting take place?
A. In his office of the chair in the department.
Q. You have continued to maintain this Web site since then?
A. Yes.
Q. What efforts of employment have you made since then?
A. I’m applying for teaching positions at middle and high schools. I’m a certified teacher in earth science and general science 7 to 12, and I taught as student teacher until May, when I fulfilled all the requirements, and then I taught until the end of the year in the Ralph Reed Middle School in Central Islip. I finished the class because the old teacher left.

Page 153.
Q. Why didn’t Central Islip hire you as a full-time position?
A. Because I didn’t have the letter.
Q. Do you have the letter now?
A. Well, now I’m certified.
Q. How long have you been certified?
A. Well, I received the certification in December.
Q. December of 2005?
A. Yes, and it is dated retroactively to September 2005. Since then I have been applying. In fact, I had a short teaching period in October and November because they needed somebody to teach earth science since the teacher was on a jury duty. So that is how I was able to make a few dollars, but that lasted only about two months, and every time I have this kind of position, they never call back.
Q. They, meaning the public school system?
A. Well, the school where I was teaching. It almost looks like once they find out that - - I don’t know what they do, the administration of the school. They obviously collect letters of recommendation, stuff like that, and then they never call back.

Page 154.
Q. Is it your contention that it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, for you to be hired in the public school system in Long Island as a result of the defendant sabotaging your efforts?
A. It’s a possibility, but I really don’t know. I can’t prove it, but I’m sure that this takeover by the liberal establishment of the public education is going on. It is just happening. There is no question about it.
Q. Be that as it may, this specific case is about Stony Brook, and that is what I’m concerned about here?
A. That is why I’m not really pushing that part of the complaint about the public system, because I just cannot prove it. The fact is, that I received a certification, and I cannot really tell if I would have received the certification if I didn’t file the complaint.
Q. The complaint meaning the complaint that commenced this lawsuit?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe that you filing the complaint mentioning the lawsuit has had some effect on you being able to find full-time employment?

Page 155.
A. No, certification.
Q. Certification?
A. Yes. Because at that time when I filed the complaint, it just looked so hopeless, because the demand on the proof that they asked was just so high that I didn’t think I would be able to satisfy those demands.
Q. The demands was that you have - -
A. Prove.
Q. - - proof of your undergraduate education?
A. Yes.
Q. That is an unreasonable demand?
A. It’s just the level of the proof, because I had the documentation, I had the originals. I could have shown them, but they didn’t want to look at it. They didn’t want to accept it. I just didn’t know how to do it.
Q. In paragraph 19 of your complaint it says the most recent hostile actions by the university also make it doubtful that the plaintiff will become certified and find a permanent position as a secondary school teacher.

Page 156.
A. I am certified now. It looked like I wouldn’t be able to get certified because it was hopeless. It’s quite possible they certified me because I complained. I complained but I don’t believe I’ll be able to get a permanent position. That is just not possible.
Q. And the reason for that is what?
A. As I said, I’m blacklisted.
Q. By whom?
A. By the university, the department. The whole educational establishment. I am flagged as a conservative. That is it. There is no way I can ever be accepted at any university or public school. Maybe in some private school, perhaps, but not in a public school. I don’t believe that will happen. It’s just not going to happen. They might use me from time to time to teach as a substitute teacher for a while, but they will never call me back.
Q. It’s your belief that that is solely because of this alleged blacklisting, not because of your abilities?

Page 157.
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. Other than the department chair, did anybody at Stony Brook ever speak to you about your Web site?
A. No.
Q. Were you ever told to take down the Web site?
A. No.
Q. Have you tried to get any jobs outside of the educational field in the last four years?
A. No.
MS. PACK: This wasn’t marked. Mark this Exhibit C. (Whereupon, Plaintiff’s response to interrogatories was marked, Defendant’s Exhibit C, for identification, as of this date, by the reporter.)
Q. In your response to interrogatories that has been marked as Defendant’s Exhibit C, Page 2, Paragraph 2, the question was, identify each and every employee or agent - - I’m sorry. Can you identify this document?
A. Yes. This is my response to interrogatories.

Page 158.
Q. Did you prepare this document?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your signature on the last page of the document?
A. Yes, that is my signature.
Q. On question two, identify each and every employee or agent of the defendant who witnessed or participated in the incidents alleged in the complaint. You have a list of several people in your answer. I just want you to briefly go through them and identify, which incident that they witnessed starting with James Broyles.
A. That will take a while.
Q. Okay.
A. James Broyles was the director of laboratories. He left Stony Brook, maybe, in 2001. I don’t remember exactly. In the case of James Broyles, he was the person to whom I wrote, complained about the slow down in parts made by the machine shop. The machine shop stopped cooperating in terms of satisfying the orders for the high-pressure lab in terms of manufacturing parts as compared to their prior performance. It was obvious something was wrong. They were just not working to their abilities, so I wrote letters (1, 2) to Broyles about the slow down and he was supposed to take care of it, but nothing happened (1, 2, 3). So I think that was done on purpose to obstruct my work and my research.

Page 159.
Q. Was that the only thing that James Broyles was a witness to or participated in?
A. I believe that that is the only thing I mentioned in my account.
Q. Okay. The next person in the account, Jiuhua?
A. Jiuhua Chen is a scientist. He is a witness because he was there. He is a potential witness, but he wasn’t involved in anything personally.
Q. What was he a witness to?
A. In terms of being around all the time.
Q. Did he specifically witness any hostile acts towards you?
A. I can’t really tell, but I don’t have anything. I just mentioned him since you asked for witnesses. He could be a potential witness. As for example why the machine shop was not performing, he could tell what his demands, his requests for parts were and if they were satisfied.

Page 160.
Q. Okay.
A. Whether he observed the same problems that I did or whether he was treated differently, so he is a witness. Daniel Davis, he is a professor. He didn’t participate in my persecution, but he is involved as all other professors in terms of being indifferent, because, for example, when I asked the department to fulfill its commitment to the permanent employment that they made to me when I was hired, they responded that I didn’t apply. He could have, if he really would want to encourage me to apply, he would have told me. Let’s say, hey, this is the last opportunity. Why don’t you apply for this position? Not a single faculty member encouraged me in any way.
Q. Is it your understanding that the administration has to encourage you to apply for a job?

Page 161.
A. If they want me, why not. If they want me. They have to decide. If they really wanted me to stay, they would encourage me. When the chair wrote, you had the opportunity to apply, but you didn’t. You chose not to apply. That is the words that he selected. I chose not to apply. If after all this hostile behavior, all this discouragement, they expect me to apply, then they say it was my choice not to apply. That is ridiculous. So Daniel Davis is just a professor. I mean, he knew like all tenured professors about the situation, the fact that I was targeted and he didn’t do anything. So that is the only thing, but he wasn’t directly involved. Gilbert Hanson, he was involved in the attempt to dismiss one of the machinists that was helpful to me, Herbert Schay. So I had to really struggle to retain the machinist, because he was extremely helpful to me. That was his involvement, and he didn’t have any involvement after that, but he is the most senior professor. He is pretty much responsible for the whole department, and he is way beyond his retirement, so they are keeping him there for a reason. I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t know about everything.

Page 162.
Q. Mr. Tibor, are any of the people who are included in your answer to question number two, were they specific witnesses to hostile actions taken against you as alleged in the complaint?
A. Well, the fact that they tried to dismiss one of the machinists that was very helpful to me, that I call a hostile action, yes. There are people that suffered because of me. There was a machinist that was forced into early retirement. I saw him after that working in Home Depot, checking receipts.
Q. Mr. Gasparik, what was the basis of your claim here? Because after five hours, I still don’t quite understand the basis of your claim.
A. Persecution. Violation of my civil rights. Making me work under the conditions of constant mental anguish. The fact that I made tremendous contributions to the department and to the advancement of science, and they were just silent. I haven’t heard anything positive. All these years, no encouragement, nothing. That is my complaint. That is a violation of my civil rights. Nobody should be expected to be submitted to this kind of treatment, especially not at a university. My life was a nightmare for the last 20 years. That is my complaint. Is that not enough?

Page 163.
Q. It’s actually not under the law.
A. That is why this kind of stuff is going on at all universities, because nobody is paying attention. Nobody has been able to stop these people.
Q. Do you have anything else to add that you haven’t said already?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Go ahead.
A. I don’t agree with you that this is not against the law.
Q. That is not up to you or me to determine.
A. The First Amendment. The political patronage is forbidden under the First Amendment.
Q. Okay.
A. They have no right to discriminate in hiring, promotion and retention because a person votes for Bush, for example.
Q. That is an issue - -
A. No, not a public university.
Q. That is an issue for the court to decide. Do you have any other facts or things to provide before we close this deposition?

Page 164.
A. I submitted all the documents. I have all the e-mails, all the stuff. That is all the documentation. Those are the facts. Of course, you can interpret them any way you wish, but this is not something - - and it is the totality, not just one thing, not just one of these 50. It’s all of them. It’s a series of incidents that are the problem. Not one incident. You can pick any incident and say there is no justification in that. It is all the incidents. That I was under constant pressure, I had no rights. They could have dismissed me any time. There was no security in my position. I was doing my best. You cannot pay for the kind of work that I have done. You cannot because it is not possible to get another person like me. Nobody can do this kind of work the way I do it.
Q. Why did it take them so long to dismiss you if what you are saying is true? Why would it take Stony Brook 20 years?

Page 165.
A. They wanted me to go on my own. They wanted to be able to claim that I chose to leave, because that is how they explain why there are no longer any conservative professors? They say, well, they chose to go to better paying jobs. So here I’m making an example of the kind of choices I had. I always had the choice to leave, and just because I chose to stay, I was exposed to all this persecution. Okay, so you tell me why don’t I just go away, get a better paying job. Okay, but then they would have achieved their goal. They would have driven me out because I was a conservative professor, and they would have succeeded. That is why they don’t have anybody left, because they succeeded in using the kind of methods that they had applied to me. That is why there are no conservative professors. They have driven them out by making their lives miserable.
Q. Okay.
MS. PACK: I have no more questions. Thank you. You are going to get a copy of the transcript when it’s completed.
(Time noted: 11:10 a.m.)

Page 166.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I, TIBOR GASPARIK, hereby certify that I have read the transcript of my testimony taken under oath in my deposition of February 28, 2006; that the transcript is true, complete record of my testimony, and that the answers on the record as given to me are true and correct.
TIBOR GASPARIK

Signed and subscribed to before me this ____ day of _________, 2006.
(Notary Public, State of New York)

Page 167.
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Summons and complaint – page 4;
11-page Account of my persecution document – page 10;
Plaintiff’s response to interrogatories, 7 pages – page 39.