Documentation to "My Case"

No. 08-794
____________________

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
_________________________

TIBOR GASPARIK,
............................................Petitioner,

v.

STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

............................................Respondent.
_________________________

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Second Circuit
_________________________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_________________________

TIBOR GASPARIK
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168

Petitioner Pro Se

CAROL FISCHER
Office of the Attorney General
Division of Appeals and Opinions
120 Broadway–25th Floor
New York, NY 10271
(212) 416-8014

Counsel for Respondent
____________________________

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

The District Court of the Eastern District of New York and the Appellate Court for the Second Circuit dismissed the Petitioner’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, invoking Respondent’s sovereign immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.


QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the stripping doctrine could be extended to state universities, or if it is possible to apply other legal means available, to make state universities accountable for constitutional violations of their employees’ civil rights, resulting from discrimination against conservatives in hiring, retention and promotion?

2. Whether states should be required to consent to being sued in cases involving constitutional violations in order to comply with the Fourteenth Amendment?


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
SUBJECT MATTER/JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
ARGUMENTS
REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Banks v. SUNY at Buffalo, No. CV 06-2392, 2007 WL 895505
Dube v. State University of New York, 900 F.2d 587 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
Fonseca v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 214, WDNY 1998)
Garcia v. SUNY Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98, 107 (2001)
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)
Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 S. Ct. 900 (1984)
Towers v. SUNY Stony Brook, No. CV 04-5243(FB), 2007 WL 1470152

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
First Amendment
Eleventh Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment

FEDERAL STATUTES
1 U.S.C. § 1
28 U.S.C. § 1254
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1985
42 U.S.C. § 1986
Title VII Civil Rights Act


SUBJECT MATTER AND JURISDICTION

(a) 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, 1 U.S.C. section 1 and 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985-6. The unlawful practices alleged below have been committed within the Eastern District of New York.
(b) This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1254.
(c) Petitioner commenced this action on 08/11/2005. Respondent served the answer on 09/09/2005. The case was dismissed from the District Court on 07/09/2007 (Appendix A). Notice of appeal was filed on 08/03/2007. The case was dismissed from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on 10/16/2008 (Appendix B).
(d) The supporting documentation has been posted under Links on Petitioner’s Web site:
http://suny-stonybrook.blogspot.com/ .


STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Petitioner was employed between April 1985 and January 2002 as Lab Manager and Research Associate Professor at the Department of Geosciences, Stony Brook University. He performed research at levels that could be rated among the best in the world by any standards of scholarly achievement. However, for most of his employment, he was subjected to hostile actions by his superiors, with the clear intention of making his work difficult and life miserable and thus to force him to leave employment. When these actions failed, the Petitioner was dismissed in January 2002 under the excuse that “the project has ended.” Yet despite being the most accomplished and most senior of all scientists participating in the project, he was the only one dismissed under this excuse.

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

It has become evident since 2003 that most universities and colleges in this country 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.

Petitioner has never tried to hide his conservative views, nor his record of voting for Republican candidates, but cannot name a single faculty member at the Department, or other university professor, who is not a liberal. Petitioner does not even have the option of pretending to be a liberal, because it is widely known among his peers in the scientific community that he is a refugee from communism. Petitioner believes his political orientation is the sole reason for the discrimination against him in hiring, retention and promotion, and for the acts of persecution against him.


ARGUMENTS

The lower courts dismissed the Petitioner’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, thus denying the Petitioner any venue to reach justice. Petitioner understands that states and their alter egos, state universities, have been held immune from prosecution by private individuals, for example, in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S. Ct. 900 (1984); Dube v. State University of New York, 900 F.2d 587,594 (2nd Cir. 1990), Garcia v. SUNY Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98, 107 (2001), Towers v. SUNY Stony Brook, No. CV 04-5243(FB), 2007 WL 1470152, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2007), and Banks v. SUNY at Buffalo, No. CV 06-2392, 2007 WL 895505, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. March 22, 2007).

Therefore, Petitioner respectfully asks this Court to reconsider this precedent and extend the stripping doctrine to state universities (Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

Although, the stripping doctrine has been strictly applicable to lawsuits that name a state official as a party, Petitioner believes that in this case, or in similar cases involving constitutional violations of civil rights by state universities, naming an individual as a party trivializes the issues under complaint, since individuals must follow due process and act on decisions approved by their colleagues and the institution, and thus have limited control over their actions. Petitioner named in this case all individuals responsible, including professor Donald H. Weidner, who signed the document authorizing the Petitioner’s dismissal, and would be the party named in a lawsuit in strict compliance with the stripping doctrine.

Petitioner also made every effort to appeal to all individuals that should be responsible for addressing Petitioner’s grievances at the Stony Brook University and should be held accountable for not doing so, including the president Dr. Shirley Strum Kenny. Therefore, the Petitioner believes that the stripping doctrine should be extended to institutions whose hiring policies violate the United States constitution. This is institutional discrimination, and the institutions should be held accountable.

The Supreme Court has long held that absent the state’s express waiver or consent or Congressional abrogation, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits brought against the state by its own citizens (Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), Fonseca v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 214, 231 W.D.N.Y.1998). However, the record shows that the State of New York initially consented to the lawsuit. Respondent defaulted in answering Petitioner’s complaint and agreed verbally to being sued in a concession made to the magistrate judge, Arlene R Lindsay, on October 16, 2005, to avoid the default. Therefore, the dismissals by the lower courts do not have any legal basis, but are just convenient excuses to dispose of an inconvenient case. Petitioner also believes that the State of New York is legally required to consent to being sued in this case in order to avoid violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Appellate Court for the Second Circuit also pointed out that the Petitioner’s case could not be considered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, because the Petitioner “failed to allege that he is a member of a class protected by the Act.” Petitioner cannot exclude the possibility that the age discrimination did not play a role, since he was dismissed when aged 51, and his application for an advertised position was rejected by the Respondent when aged 56. Petitioner believes that a fair trial is necessary to establish whether the alleged discrimination falls under the protected status.


REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED

Petitioner has concluded a review of most public institutions that should be responsible for addressing his grievances, and should be held accountable for not doing so. Petitioner has, so far, failed to find a single public official or institution that would be willing to address his complaint in a meaningful way, despite the fact that, since the Petitioner’s dismissal from his employment, the intellectual corruption of the academic establishment has become clearly visible. Petitioner also clearly demonstrated that the institutions of higher education do not have a functioning mechanism to address grievances, since he has 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.

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, Petitioner views himself 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, students in this country are forced to go through the same kind of ideological indoctrination as Petitioner did when he was their age, just to secure the minimum requirement for a decent job, a college diploma. As a result of the aforementioned discrimination and indoctrination, 87% of voters at the Stony Brook University voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 (Appendix C). This is on par with the election results commonly seen in communist countries.

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 the Petitioner’s application and from the Respondent’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.

Petitioner also believes that he is one of the victims of a nation-wide conspiracy by the liberal elite to take over the control of public institutions, referred to as social revolution from within. This is being accomplished by discrimination in hiring against American citizens who are conservative, suspected of being conservative, or prefer to remain apolitical, and by persecution and purges of those hired. After taking complete control of these institutions, rules, regulations, laws, merit and evidence are selectively used and applied to benefit only liberals. The long-term goal is to turn conservative citizens into an underclass by denying them education, equal protection under the law, and access to employment with decent wages.

The lower courts dismissed this case under the excuse that they lacked jurisdiction. Petitioner believes this Court has the jurisdiction to take the measures necessary to address his complaint in a meaningful way. 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 Petitioner’s footsteps.

If this Court does not take the necessary measures, it is possible that the next Republican president would not be able to appoint a conservative judge to the Supreme Court, because there would not be any qualified conservative judges to appoint: the education system would simply refuse to educate them. If this Court does not act, the Petitioner would have to conclude that the chances for a victim of political persecution to reach justice in this country would be the same as in any communist country: exactly none.

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, Petitioner prays this Court grants a Writ of Certiorari.


CONCLUSION

By the above-described actions, the lower courts denied the Petitioner:
1. Fair due process;
2. Impartiality;
3. Mediation;
4. Legal representation;
5. A day in court;
6. Justice.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully asks this Court to grant a Writ of Certiorari and, if so, would ask for judgment ordering the following:

1. To extend the stripping doctrine to state universities and colleges;
2. To reverse the summary judgments by the lower courts;
3. To remand this case for a fair and impartial trial before an unprejudiced jury;
4. To place the burden of proof on the Respondent;
5. To compel the Respondent to disclose the political orientation of its tenured faculty;
6. Any relief to the Petitioner that this Court finds proper and just.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________
Tibor Gasparik
Petitioner Pro Se, and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd, Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168

December 16, 2008


APPENDIX A: OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x
TIBOR GASPARIK,

...........................................Plaintiff,
........................................................OPINION & ORDER
-against-
..................................................CV 05-3817(SJF)(ARL)

STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

...........................................Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------x

FEUERSTEIN, J.

Before the Court is an application for the assignment of counsel and a general objection by plaintiff Tibor Gasparik (plaintiff) to a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay dated July 2, 2007 recommending that the motion of defendant Stony Brook University (defendant) for summary judgment be granted and the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons stated herein, the application for the appointment of counsel is denied, the Report and Recommendation is accepted in its entirety, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant and the complaint is dismissed.


1. Discussion

A. Appointment of Counsel

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides that a “court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Courts possess broad discretion to determine whether appointment of counsel for civil litigants is appropriate, “subject to the requirement that it be ‘guided by sound legal principle.’’’ Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.. 877 F.2d 170, 171-72 (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting Jenkins v. Chemical Bank, 721 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1983)).

When deciding whether to assign counsel to an indigent civil litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) the threshold inquiry is whether there is substance to the litigant’s position. Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001): see also Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986) (holding that the district judge should first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance). “[C]ounsel should not be appointed in a case where the merits of the indigent’s claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are therefore poor.” Carmona, 243 F.3d at 632.

If the Court finds that the plaintiff’s claim is of substance, it should next consider the following factors:

[T]he indigent’s ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder, the indigent’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues and any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.

Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61-62; see also Carmona, 243 F. 3d at 632 (holding that only after an initial finding that a claim is likely one of substance should the court consider secondary factors such as the factual and legal complexity of the case, the ability of the litigant to navigate the legal minefield unassisted, and any other reason why in the particular case appointment of counsel would more probably lead to a just resolution of the dispute). However, these factors are not exclusive and “[e]ach case must be decided on its own facts.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this stage of the litigation, since, inter alia, (1) plaintiff has not established that he is unable to afford counsel, merely indicating that he has “tried in vain to find a legal representative,” (Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation, dated July 5, 2007); and (2) plaintiff’s position does not appear to be one of substance. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application for the appointment of counsel is denied.


B. Standard of Review of Report and Recommendation

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits magistrate judges to conduct proceedings on dispositive pretrial matters without the consent of the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Any portion of a report and recommendation on dispositive matters, to which a timely objection has been made, is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The court, however, is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Whether or not proper objections have been filed, the district judge may, after review, accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

Since plaintiff is pro se and filed a general objection, I conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. Upon such review, plaintiff’s objection is overruled, the Report and Recommendation is accepted in its entirety, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant and the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED

/s/
___________________________
SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN
United States District Judge

Dated: July 9, 2007
Central Islip, New York

Copies to:

Tibor Gasparik, pro se
352 Plad Boulevard
Holtsville, New York 11742

Office of the New York State
Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway, Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788
Attn: Lori L. Pack, AAG



JUDGEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------x
TIBOR GASPARIK,
.........................................Plaintiff,
...................................................................................JUDGMENT
-against-
.................................................................CV 05-3817 (SJF)(ARL)

STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

..........................................Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------x

An Opinion and Order of Honorable Sandra J. Feuerstein United States District Judge, having been filed on July 9, 2007, adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay dated July 2, 2007, and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff take nothing of defendant; the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted; and that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated: Central Islip, New York
July 9, 2007

ROBERT C. HEINEMANN
Clerk of the Court

By: /s/ Lorraine Sapienza
Deputy Clerk


APPENDIX B: SUMMARY ORDER

EDNY (Central Islip)
05-cv-3817
Feuerstein (trj)
Lindsey (trj)

07-3398-cv
Gasparik v. Stony Brook University

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to summary orders filed after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by this court’s Local Rule 32.1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1. In a brief or other paper in which a litigant cites a summary order, in each paragraph in which a citation appears, at least one citation must either be to the Federal Appendix or be accompanied by the notation: “(summary order).” A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of that summary order together with the paper in which the summary order is cited on any party not represented by counsel unless the summary order is available in an electronic database which is publicly accessible without payment of fee (such as the database available at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/). If no copy is served by reason of the availability of the order on such a database, the citation must include reference to that database and the docket number of the case in which the order was entered. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the sixteenth day of October, two thousand and eight.

PRESENT:

JON O. NEWMAN,
ROGER J. MINER,
JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

Circuit Judges.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
TIBOR GASPARIK,

...........................................Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
........................................................................... No. 07-3398-cv

STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

...........................................Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT:
TIBOR GASPARIK, pro se.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE:
CAROL FISCHER, Assistant Solicitor
General, Of Counsel (Andrew M.
Cuomo, Attorney General, Barbara D.
Underwood, Solicitor General, Michael
S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, on the
brief), Office of the New York State
Attorney General, New York, NY.

Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sandra J. Feuerstein, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant’s appeal is DISMISSED.

Plaintiff-appellant Tibor Gasparik challenges a July 9, 2007 judgment of the District Court dismissing his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant-appellee Stony Brook University, a branch of the State University of New York (“SUNY”), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The District Court adopted the July 7, 2007 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, which found that Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity barred plaintiff’s suit against SUNY in federal court. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Hamm v. United States, 483 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2007). Construing plaintiff’s pleadings under “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Boykin v. KeyCorp., 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), we find that the District Court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because SUNY has not consented to be sued in a federal forum and so is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. See Dube v. State University of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir. 1990) (“For Eleventh Amendment purposes, SUNY is an integral part of the government of the State [of New York] and when it is sued the State is the real party.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original)). Even if we were to read plaintiff’s pro se pleadings as an effort to establish a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, dismissal would be appropriate, as plaintiff failed to allege that he is a member of a class protected by the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (listing protected classes).

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s appeal is DISMISSED.

FOR THE COURT,

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

By_____________________________


APPENDIX C: RESULTS FOR THE STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN 2008

2008 Election

Results for Stony Brook – President

STATE UNIVERSITY @ STONY BROOK, 222 STUDENT ACTIVITIES CENTER, STONY BROOK

Barack Obama (D) ...........................1,809............. 87%
John McCain (R) ..................................241............. 12%
Roger Calero (SW) ...................................1............... 0%
Gloria La Riva (PSL) ...............................1............... 0%
Cynthia McKinney (G) ...........................5................ 0%
Bob Barr (L) .............................................9............... 0%
Ralph Nader (I) ......................................12............... 1%

Source: http://longisland.newsday.com/elections/results2008.php?id=11794

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.