I hope that this time all those emails that I have sent will be given the appropriate regard. Hopefully, in this meeting, you will try to hold all the people involved accountable for their wrongdoings at the university. This includes Mr Pandya's extortion and illegal mental torture tactics used in the meeting that I was forced to attend with him. This also includes Stacey Ludwig Johnson's refusal to reply to my emails acknowledging any of the contents in them, as if, and yes I will say again, as if she does not know how to read or follow simple directions. There is nothing wrong with this statement. All of us know that a Phd can read and follow simple directions. The questions is: Why didn't she?  I honestly have hopes that all emails I have sent will reach the right people at the university and hopefully these people will sort through them and do what has not been done before with them: give each email the proper regard. What Mr Pandya did in the meeting that I was forced to attend, is considered some form of extortion and some form of mental torture and this is exactly the reason I have not let this case rest. He deliberately and maliciously held my registration and was trying to extort a confession out of me. He said "I will not release the hold on your registration until you confess to wrongdoing". I kept saying I did not do anything wrong and for about an hour an a half he kept going on with the mental torture. He knew exactly the anguish he was causing and I can hear his thoughts: "This guy needs this money from financial aid to pay basic items like food and shelter, and if I withhold his registration, he will not be able to get this money. For sure he has to confess to misconduct". That is extortion and it is also mental torture. Mr Pandya even followed up with an email and stated in that email with a reproach and something that sounded very much like "I see you got away with registering...good luck...." and quote exactly "I see that you still don't understand what you did wrong! good luck" If this is not enough to hopefully open the eyes of the university staff holding the meeting, eventually all of this will be brought into light in court. If that is what you mean by making a threat, then I am sorry, but I have to say it, it is a simple statement of intent. I have tried to find a resolution in an amicable manner, but it seems that this is not feasible. Since I have done nothing wrong in any case and I since I don't see a need to hold anything that has been said thus far a secret, I will post the entire situation with emails and all online for others to review, decide, condemn. If you consider that to be another issue for misconduct, wow, what can I say?

 

 I have mentioned in this email possible reasons why there is an additional meeting with a possible level 2 warning: I have also stated my evidence. If you want me to state my words to Ms Ludwig Johnson about her refusal to handle the emails appropriately then I will. The fact remains and will remain that she did handle the problem inappropriately. She responded to me with a very neutral email simple stating that the level 1 warning stands and totally missing the point of the entire situation. I am in my legal right to let her know that I disagree with the manner and that the regard she displayed to the problem was completely inappropriate and missing the point. I am also in my legal right to take the case to court if resolution is not found and that should not be taken an an item for which disciplinary action can be taken. I wish I can say I am sorry if I hurt her feelings but when someone shows so little regard to a problem, that person deserves at least that. I did not contact her asking her to remove the level 1 warning. I have the email to prove it. Ask her- Did xxxxx contact you to beg for you to remove the level 1 warning?  If she is truthful, and the email is there and not going to deviate, she will respond with a no. So she missed the point entirely and thus did not take care of the problem and showed very little regard and prudence that is not so very becoming of a Phd holder. There, I said it. Is that why you added new charges to the conduct? If that is the reason, then welcome. You must realize how ridiculous this concept is: you simply cannot suppressed your students from displaying disagreement. If you don't show the education level that your piece of paper hanging on that wall states you have, then someone like myself is bound to eventually let you know and there is nothing you can do about it. The university should feel ashamed for encouraging this type of suppression and downright misconduct.
 

 

Ms Webb, you already stated to me that you are just the communicator of the news, so please make sure that this email, along with all the other emails reach the meeting. 
 

 

Regards