Friday, February 16, 2007


I just cannot give it up. There is actually quite a bit more to tell. I can still report quite a bit more before I actually have to go into any more details about the sexual harassment, specifically which person said what and when.

Some commenter to my original blog asked why did all these women want to have sex with me? The answer is that I do not believe that they did. [2-17-2007 I am no longer sure what the heck I believe about the motivations of these people.] Whether these women, and in some cases males, actually wanted to have sex with me is irrelevant to the issue of whether what they did constitutes sexual harassment.

I am going to be reposting my original blog, Judicial Malfeasance, as long as possible, on other free blog hosts. My objective, obviously, is to ensure the possibility that eventually when a web search is done for either of these law schools my story will come up. This is not going to end until the person that raped me has been arrested.


Anonymous said...

It's good to have you back...if you really are who you say you are. How do we know you're not some impostor (e.g., some douche-bag from who's just having some fun)?

Anyway, if you're the real deal, it's good to have you back.

- ECM's biggest fan

Anonymous said...

I noticed that person using the web address of a law firm with offices in New York and Houston has visited my site on a few occasions. I wrote to this law firm, via e-mail, informing them that I was interested in and did need legal counsel. They didn’t respond.

I suppose perhaps my spouse is correct and there are some injuries that, although the injuries were occasioned by legal wrong’s, are not compensable. I don’t understand it. When I am dwelling on this I get the idea that trying to compel a law school to answer for its actions is like trying to sue Bill Gates. In the case of Bill Gates he has enough money to buy enough lawyers to tie you up in court until you are dead and the case is moot. In the case of law schools they don’t even need the money because the people running the ‘show’ of the courts have an interest in protecting law schools.

My spouse states that I have to narrow down the wrong’s for which I am seeking compensation and present this in one succinct paragraph. Although the one incident I will relate does not encompass all the acts that caused, and still cause, me grief brought upon me by the actions of the two law schools I’ll give it a shot. Well, here goes.

I am not a lawyer. I was academically succeeding in law school. I was expelled. The reason for the expulsion was never stated. I presumed that the meeting and the expulsion was because I delivered a gerbil with an attached card addressed to Lawrence Moore, S.J., to the Pine Street CafĂ©.’ During the meeting I was offered either a disciplinary hearing or a medical discharge with a tuition refund. I chose the disciplinary hearing. I was denied this, straightforward. The specific response to my choice of disciplinary hearing was made by Doctor Vicki McNeil, in the presence of Doctor Flynn, and was “You can’t have it.” Doctor Vicki McNeil then stated that I was to be given a medical discharge with a tuition refund. This was an expulsion. There is no other way to see it as I was offered the choice between the medical discharge and a disciplinary hearing and I chose the disciplinary hearing.

My life has been ruined and the courts let them get away with this.