Documentation to "My Case"

-

November 17, 2005

Lori L. Pack
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of the
State Of New York
300 Motor Parkway – Suite 205
Hauppauge, New York 11788

Re: Tibor Gasparik vs. Stony Brook University
CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)


Dear Ms. Pack:

Enclosed please find Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Action CV-05-03817.

Please notice that according to the ruling by the United States Magistrate Judge, Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, from October 12, 2005, you may serve the plaintiff with a reply on or before December 30, 2005.

Thank you for your kind attention on this matter.


Respectfully yours,



Tibor Gasparik, Pro Se
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, NY 11742
(631) 447-2168
____________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
……………………………………………………....................................…..CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,
………………………………………………….….......................................PLAINTIFF’S AFFIRMATION
-against-…………………………………………..................................….IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDAT’S
………………………………………………………......................................MOTION TO DISMISS
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- X

The Plaintiff, TIBOR GASPARIK, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:

1. I am the Plaintiff in this action, and I respectfully submit this affirmation in opposition to the motion to dismiss this action dated September 9, 2005, and made in the Amended Answer to the Plaintiff’s Complaint by the Attorney General of the State of New York, Eliot Spitzer, and by Lori L. Pack, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of the Defendant, STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY.

2. I have personal knowledge of facts which bear on this motion.

3. The motion to dismiss the action should be denied because of the following:

4. The Defendant summarily denied each and every allegation set forth in the paragraphs 7-34 of the Complaint without specifying the reasons for the denial. The Assistant Attorney General, Lori L. Pack, admitted in the paragraph 7 of her motion to vacate the default judgment, as entered on September 8, 2005, the following: “I filed an answer the day after I first saw the summons and complaint.” Cleary, she had no time to verify any of the allegations made in the Complaint and, therefore, had no factual basis on which to deny these allegations.

5. The first defense claims that the “Defendant’s actions were justified by legitimate, lawful reasons, Defendant acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds to believe that it was in compliance with applicable law.” The Plaintiff will prove that the Defendant did not act in good faith, engaged in hostile and unlawful behavior, and refused to admit and correct these wrongdoings.

6. In the second defense, the Defendant claims qualified immunity. If this is the immunity based on the Eleventh Amendment, it is not applicable, because the Plaintiff has been a naturalized citizen of the United States since 1988, and is a resident of the New York State.

7. The third defense claims that the Plaintiff is not a member of a “protected class.” By discriminating against conservative scholars in hiring, retention and promotion, the Defendant also discriminates against conservative women, conservative minorities, conservatives of all ethnic groups, and conservative old people.

8. As for the fourth defense, the Defendant is in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as clearly stated in the Complaint, specifically in violation of the Right of Association. By agreeing to represent the Defendant in this action, the State is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment: the State should be prosecuting, not defending the Defendant.

9. As for the fifth defense, as defined under 1 USC §1 and properly listed in the Complaint, a “person” includes not only individuals but also “corporations, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies.”

10. As for the sixth defense, I expect that the Court will decide if punitive damages are available against the Defendant.

11. As for the seventh defense, the Plaintiff is not aware of any evidence that any adverse actions taken by the Defendant were based on his work performance.

12. As for the eighth defense, the suit cannot be barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the New York State.

13. As for the ninth defense, the Plaintiff is not aware of any statutes of limitations on the civil rights actions.

14. The issue stated as the tenth defense has been resolved by the Court.


In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the motion to dismiss the action should be denied.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.

Dated: Holtsville, New York
November 17, 2005

_____________________________
Tibor Gasparik, Pro Se
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168

TO: Lori L. Pack
Office of the Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway
Suite 205
Hauppauge, NY 11788