Documentation to "My Case"

US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Docket #: 07-3398-cv
Nsuit: 3440 CIVIL RIGHTS-Other

Gasparik v. Stony Brook University Filed 8/7/07

Appeal from: EDNY (CENTRAL ISLIP)

Case type information:
Civil
Private
None

Lower court information:
District: 05-cv-3817
Trial Judge: Sandra J. Feuerstein
Mag Judge:
Date Filed: 08/11/05
Date order/judgement: 7/9/2007
Date NOA filed: 8/3/2007.

Fee status: Paid
Panel Assignment:
Panel: JON RJM JAC 500 Pearl
Date of decision: 10/16/08
Prior cases: NONE
Current cases: NONE

Official Caption 1/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Docket No. [s] : 07-3398-cv

Tibor Gasparik,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Stony Brook University,
Defendant-Appellee.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorized Abbreviated Caption 2/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket No. [s] : 07-3398-cv
Gasparik v. Stony Brook University
------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------
1/ Fed. R. App. P. Rule 12 [a] and 32 [a].
2/ For use on correspondence and motions only.

Stony Brook University, Defendant-Appellee
Carol Fischer Esq.
[ LD n ]
U. S. Attorney Generals Office,
State University of New York
120 Broadway
New York, NY, 10007
212-416-8014

Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff-Appellant
n/a
352 Plad Blvd.
Holtsville, NY 11742
631-447-2168

8/7/07 Copy of notice of appeal and district court docket entries on behalf of APPELLANT Tibor Gasparik, filed. [Entry date Aug 13 2007] [AC]

8/7/07 Copy of district court judgement RECEIVED. [Entry date Aug 13 2007] [AC]

8/7/07 Index in lieu of Record on Appeals Electronically Filed (Original documents remain in the originating court). [Entry date Aug 13 2007] [AC]

8/13/07 Instructional Forms sent to Pro Se litigant. [Entry Date Aug 13 2007] [AC]

8/21/07 Letter received from Carol Fischer stating she is the attorney for the defendant-appellees. [Entry date Aug 27 2007] [AC]

8/22/07 Notice of appeal acknowledgment letter from Tibor Gasparik received. [Entry date Dec 19 2007] [JM]

8/23/07 Scheduling order #1 filed. Appellant’s brief due 9/24/2007. Appellee’s brief due 10/22/2007. Appellee’s brief due 10/22/2007. Ready week 12/3/2007. [Entry date Aug 23 2007] [AC]

8/23/07 Notice to counsel and pro se re: scheduling order #1 dated 08/23/07. [Entry date Aug 23 2007] [AC]

8/23/07 Notice of appeal acknowledgment letter from Carol Fischer received. [Entry date Aug 28 2007] [CI]

9/18/07 APPELLANT Tibor Gasparik, brief FILED with proof of service. [Entry date Sep 21 2007] [JM]

9/18/07 APPELLANT Tibor Gasparik, appendix filed w/pfs. [Entry date Sept 21 2007] [JM]

9/18/07 Notice of appearance form on behalf of Tibor Gasparik, filed. (Orig in acco, copy to Calendar and Admissions Dept.). [Entry date Sep 21 2007] [JM]

9/18/07 Letter received re: “Appellant’s Submission of Briefs and Appendices.” [Entry date Sep 21 2007] [JM]

9/21/07 Letter received from Appellant re: Needs notification of Receipt of Briefs and Appendices. [Entry date Sep 26 2007] [JM]

10/22/07 Appellee Stony Brook University motion extended time to file briefs, filed with proof of service. [Entry date Oct 25 2007] [JM]

10/25/07 Scheduling order #2 filed. Appellees brief due 11/21/2007. Ready week 1/3/2008. [Entry date Oct 25 2007] [JM]

10/25/07 Notice to counsel and Pro Se re: Scheduling Order #2. [Entry date Oct 25 2007] [JM]

10/25/07 Notice to counsel and Pro Se re: Granted Appellee’s Motion for Extension of time to file brief. [Entry date Oct 25 2007] [JM]

10/25/07 Order FILED GRANTING motion extended time by Appellee Stony Brook University, endorsed on motion dated 10/22/2007. Extended Appellee’s brief due is 11/21/2007. Extended ready week is 1/3/2008. [Entry date Oct 25 2007] [JM]

11/5/07 Argument Requested – Local Rule 34 Acknowledgment Returned by APPELLANT Tibor Gasparik. [Some parties seek oral argument] [Entry date Nov 5 2007] [AV]

11/21/07 Appellee Stony Brook University motion extended time from November 21, 2007, to December 20, 2007, filed with proof of service. [Entry date Nov 26 2007] [JM]

12/3/07 Notice to counsel/pro se re: Motion Order dated 12/3/07. [Entry date Dec 3 2007] [DH]

12/3/07 Order FILED GRANTING motion extended time by Appellee Stony Brook University, endorsed on motion dated 11/21/2007. Extended Appellees brief due is 12/20/2007. Extended Ready week is 2/4/2008. Endorsed for the Court by JP, Motions Staff Attorney. [Entry date Dec 3 2007] [DH]

12/10/07 Letter received from Pro Se Appellant re: Objection to Appellee’s Motion for Extension of time. [Entry date Dec 18 2007] [JM]

12/17/07 Letters received dated 12/07/07 and 12/15/07 from Appellant re: Objection to Appellee’s motion for extension of time filed 11/21/07 etc. [Entry date Dec 19 2007] [JM]

12/20/07 APPELLEE Stony Brook University, brief filed with proof of service. [Entry date Dec 26 2007] [JM]

5/12/08 Notice of appeal acknowledgment letter from Carol Fischer received. [Entry date May 12 2008] [JM]

7/21/08 Proposed for argument the week of 10/6/08 [Entry date Jul 21 2008] [SC]

8/1/08 Set for argument on 10/7/08 at 10:00am. [Entry date Aug 1 2008] [DC]

8/4/08 Calendar argument notice mailed to attorneys/parties. [Entry date Aug 4 2008] [LY]

10/7/08 Case heard before NEWMAN, MINER, CABRANES, C. JJ. CD. Date 10/07/08. [Entry date Oct 7 2008] [LY]

10/16/08 Judgment filed “UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the defendant’s appeal is DISMISSED.” by detailed order of the court without opinion filed. (JAC) [Entry date Oct 16 2008] [JM]

10/16/08 Notice to counsel and Pro Se re: Summary Order dated 10/16/08. [Entry date Oct 16 2008] [JM]

11/25/08 Judgement MANDATE ISSUED CLOSED [Entry date Nov 25 2008]

11/25/08 Notice to counsel and Pro Se re: Mandated 11/25/08. [Entry date Nov 25 2008]

December 7, 2007


Hon. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
Clerk of the Court
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
40 Foley Square – 18th Floor
New York, NY 10007

Re: Tibor Gasparik v. Stony Brook University
Docket No. 07-3398-cv


Dear Ms. Wolfe:

I am Tibor Gasparik, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se in the above captioned case.
The purpose of this letter motion is to file an objection against extending the time for filing Appellee’s brief beyond December 20, 2007. The Defendant-Appellee has a long record of stonewalling Plaintiff’s actions and does not appear to act in good faith in answering Plaintiff’s appeal.

Thank you for your kind attention to this motion.


Very Truly Yours,



­­­­ _________________________
Tibor Gasparik
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se, and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168

cc.: Carol Fischer

-
US COURT OF APPEALS, 2ND CIRCUIT
-----------------------------------------------------
Tibor Gasparik,
Plaintiff-Appellant
...................................................................................................... Argument
v.
...................................................................................................... 07-cv-03398
Stony Brook University,
Defendant-Appellee
-----------------------------------------------------

I am Plaintiff pro se, Tibor Gasparik, and this is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief brought pursuant to the Right to Free Speech and Freedom of Association under the First Amendment.

I was employed between 1985 and 2002 as Research Associate Professor at the Department of Geosciences, Stony Brook University. I performed research at levels that could be rated among the best in the world by any standards of scholarly achievement. The results were published in 70 peer-reviewed articles and summarized in this book (Phase Diagrams for Geoscientists, Springer-Verlag 2003). However, for most of my employment, I was subjected to hostile actions by my superiors, with the clear intention of making my work difficult and life miserable, and thus to force me to leave employment. When these actions failed, I was dismissed in January 2002 under the excuse that “the project has ended.” Yet, despite being the most senior and accomplished scientist among all scientists participating in the project, I was the only one dismissed under this excuse, while four scientists from communist China continued their employment without interruption.

For many years, I searched in vain for an explanation for the startling discrepancy between my superior performance and accomplishments as a scientist and the indifferent to hostile behavior by my colleagues. Several of my colleagues devoted extraordinary amounts of time and effort to a single goal: to force me to leave my employment.

Since 2003, it has become evident that most universities and colleges in the United States discriminate against conservatives in hiring, retention and promotion. This fact is based on surveys, voter registration records, voting records and political donations, which show that conservative scholars all but disappeared from the academic community. Instead, as exposed in this book (David Horowitz: The Professors, Regnery 2006), many professors universities apparently prefer to hire are communists or communist sympathizers, people who hate this country, while often have only minimal scholarly accomplishments. I have never tried to hide my conservative views nor my record of voting for Republican candidates, but cannot name a single faculty member who is not a liberal. I do not even have the option of pretending to be a liberal because it is widely known among my peers in the scientific community that I am a refugee from communism. I believe that my political orientation is the sole reason for the discrimination against me in hiring, retention and promotion, and for the acts of persecution against me.

I have also clearly demonstrated that the institutions of higher education do not have a functioning mechanism to address grievances, since I have searched for 20 years to find one and found only stonewalling: no one wants to see, no one wants to hear, no one wants to speak, no one wants to know. This is the first time I was given a hearing to present my case.

As someone who experienced the full brunt of communist education from kindergarten through college, and lived for over 20 years among the liberals in the Academia, I am highly qualified to testify that the higher education in this country has become a copy of a communist education system. Under communism, every educator must be a communist in good standing, there are no exceptions; in this country, every educator must be a liberal in good standing, no exceptions. Because of this, my two sons had to go through the same kind of ideological indoctrination as I did when I was their age, just to secure the minimum requirement for a decent job, a college diploma.

It is unacceptable that the State of New York, or any other state, is required to defend discrimination, and uses taxpayers’ money to do so. As is evident from the recent rejection of my application and from the defendant’s lack of interest in mediation, the higher education is totally committed to continue in this discrimination even after being fully exposed, and is unwilling and unable to change from within. Only outside intervention could lead to a meaningful reform that is essential to restore checks and balances, ethical and scholarly standards, honesty and credibility. The universities must disclose the political make-up of their tenured faculty, must recognize that the absence of conservatives among their faculties is a problem, and take proactive measures to assure that the political orientation of tenured professors is more representative of the American society.

The lower Court dismissed this case under the excuse that it lacked jurisdiction. I believe the Court understood that the measures necessary to address this complaint in a meaningful way could affect the whole SUNY system. This Court has such jurisdiction and could take such measures. This could also be the last opportunity for the judicial system to address this form of discrimination and corruption; there is no one coming in my footsteps. No democratic society can tolerate secret, extra-judicial authorities that have virtually unlimited and unrestricted power, and the higher education in this country has become such authority. Wherefore, I pray this Court rules in my favor.

Presented on October 7, 2008, at the US Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY.