Judith Penchansky's and SMCPD's Abuse of Power

In our previous blog article, "Violation of Jeff Higley's Civil Rights by SMCPD," we examined the violation of Santa Monica College student Jeff Higley's rights in SMC's Free Speech Area on campus. We provided shocking video footage of SMCPD Officer Michael Champagne's verbally threatening attack on Mr. Higley. Now, let's look more into the police misconduct of Officer Champagne, accompanied that day by SMCPD Officers Steve Hearn and Willie Malone. Here's a screenshot of the three officers in question:



On or about March 28, 2006, Champagne wrote a narrative in the SMCPD incident report regarding a call he had responded to involving Thomas J. Baker and myself (both SMC students) at the SMC Gaming Club (a.k.a., SMC Game Club). For a full background on the members of the SMC Gaming Club, please refer to our blog article entitled, SMC Gaming Club Exposed.

As a side note, this blog article included my two emails to Denya Hearn, SMC Assistant Dean of Student Life. Not only has Ms. Hearn not responded to any of evidence against Thomas J. Baker and the alleged written statements by Brian Puschell about throwing a "military coup" against the Associated Students in his SMC Gaming Club Yahoo! Group posting, but Hearn actually informed the Associated Students Board Meeting that I had never sent her the information she requested. The time I sent my information to her was well in advance of the meeting, and she was expecting it from me within this time frame. During this AS meeting, SMC Gaming Club Faculty Advisor Howard Stahl and SMC Gaming Club member, Kurt Peterson, were present for the purpose of seeking public funds from the school.

As mentioned in the May 8, 2006 blog article, Mr. Peterson stated in a very threatening voice to me the following or words to this force and effect:

Miss, why do I have an entire club that's willing to testify against YOU? Why do I have an entire club willing to try to get YOU?

Despite Peterson's threats to me, Assistant Dean of Judicial Affairs, Judith Penchansky, and Ms. Hearn have not bothered to discipline Peterson, who is a student and thus falls under the SMC Code of Student Conduct. Rather, Robert Adams who supervises both women has emailed me a suspension for two years based on the wrongful written allegations of Thomas J. Baker and the SMCPD incident report, falsified by Officer Champagne.

In Champagne's all too brief narrative, he does not include a single witness to the event, despite the fact that I know of at least two friendly witnesses who spoke to Officer Hearn. In Champagne's SMCPD narrative, he states the following in writing:

Officer Hearn and I, Officer Champagne, advised MANTTARI regarding disrupting a meeting and she left the room without further incident.

This statement is a complete and utter lie! At no relevant time during my length interrogation (in which I was detained and questioned for approximately 20 minutes in a locked room on campus by both officers), was I "advised" regarding "disrupting a meeting." In fact, no meeting had officially occurred that day. When I asked that the meeting be called to order, Thomas J. Baker had shouted to all of us present: "This isn’t a f--king open-air discussion for you to air your grievances and whatever personal matters you have. We don’t care about your problems." For using such profanity against me, why isn't the school disciplining Baker?

Of course nothing I said, including my complaint against Baker, was ever written down by either of the two officers. Additionally, despite my forced detainment and interrogation, at no time did SMCPD Officers Champagne, Hearn, or Malone (who suddenly appeared on the scene) advise me of my Miranda Rights as required by law. Even the FBI had stated that my civil rights were grossly violated. My interrogation had simply nothing to do with an issue of me being disruptive or not, it had to do with my seeking public records from SMC under the California Public Records Act. Not only did Officer Champagne ask me about this, but while I was still detained inside the room against my will, he informed Thomas J. Baker in front of other members of the Gaming Club the following: "She's got issues with Human Resources." Champagne even mentions that I was attempting to obtain public records. Hmmm....

The bulk of forced interrogation and imprisonment with Officer Champagne dealt with his questioning of the terrorist threat (to wit, the "military coup") against the Associated Students and the questionable transactions Baker was making through the club with his alleged online business. Neither Officer Champagne nor Officer Hearn asked me if I had been disruptive, if I had refused to leave the meeting, or if anyone felt concerned for his or alleged safety with me being there. These issues simply didn't enter our conversation.

In fact, Officer Hearn stated the following or words to this effect: "There's no crime. There's a misunderstanding. There's you and Tom going back and forth about you being in the club or not being in the club." This statement was substantiated by Officer Hearn, who assured me that he wasn't even going to bother writing a report. Hearn verified: "Right now this isn't a police matter." If this was not a police matter, no crime had in fact been committed, and the SMCPD did not intend to file a report, then why was a "disruptive student" charge made against me and why did Officer Champagne go so far as to make a deliberate and false statement and to refer to an attached fabricated report by Thomas J. Baker?

Officers Champagne and Hearn were both referring my recourse of grievance to SMC Campus Ombudsperson, Lucy Kluckhohn, who has since washed her hands of me without even a meeting. I was informed by Champagne to contact her "because you are being kept from being in the club and they intend to keep you out of the club." When I asked for clarification to the vague and ambiguous "they" who were denying me equal access to this club, Champagne confirmed: "That's your main guy here." I asked if this was "Tom" and Champagne confirmed that it was Thomas J. Baker who was denying me access to the club, despite the fact that I was a member and had received a written confirmation of my status via a response from the SMC Gaming Club Yahoo! Group via email.

Not only was I informed by Officer Champagne that it was in fact Baker who was solely responsible for denying me legitimate access to the SMC Gaming Club, a witness overheard Baker telling Champagne (while I was still locked in the room mind you): "We're going to kick her out and lock the door." Baker further lied to the campus police when he allegedly stated: "Yeah, she's not supposed to be here." Be where? On campus? At the Gaming Club? I was a legitimately enrolled student at Santa Monica College.

I wasn't told be anyone on March 24, 2006, or prior to this incident, that I could not attend the SMC Gaming Club. In fact, I was formally the president of this club when it was called the Academy Gaming Club. (See the blog article entitled, "A Brief History of the SMC Gaming Club."). As President, I had helped to foster a non-discriminatory policy to protect all members. Why was I now being discriminated against? Was this yet another example of police harassment in order to persuade me to drop my California Public Records Act lawsuit against Santa Monica Community College District, a suit I was forced to file for SMCCD's failure to comply with the law and produce vital records for the public's scrutiny?

This is not the first or last time Officer Michael Champagne has been used as Judith Penchansky's hand puppet to intimidate students she wishes to wrongly eradicate from the campus. As we've seen in the video footage, Champagne threatened SMC student Jeff Higley with arrest for his videotaping attempts. Given the fact that Champagne had violated my rights on March 24, 2006, and nothing has been done at SMC about this serious matter, shouldn't Mr. Higley as a concerned student capture some more police abuse on videotape? Not according to Judith Penchansky, who is now attempting to discipline him and not according to the SMC Corsair that already published that he was at fault, even prior to Mr. Higley receiving any notice by the school concerning the incident in question.

There's something else the SMC community should know in order to potentially protect itself from Judith Penchansky's wrongful disciplinary mill and the SMCPD's alleged misconduct. On or about June 6, 2004, Officer Champagne filed a SMCPD incident report against then SMC student, Giovanna Borgo-Carillo, of course forwarding this report to the campus "Disciplinarian" Judith Penchansky. Champagne curiously describes how Giovanna had been extremely disruptive in the SMC library. I find this interesting, as Baker has wrongly accused me of "threatened people inside the library" based on alleged hearsay. This was said to me when Baker forced me to go outside with him, effectively isolating me from my friends.

If Giovanna was in fact so disruptive as Champagne alleges, then why was she not arrested on the spot and charged with a crime out of the California Penal Code? Why was I not arrested and charged with a crime? Why was Jeff Higley not arrested and charged with a crime? Simply put: because we had done nothing wrong and, if actually arrested, SMC would be hard pressed to defend these lies in a real court of law. It is far easier to use the blanket "disruptive student" allegation that falls into SMC's Gestapo realm of injustice.

The SMCPD-Office of Judicial Affairs tag team of harassment has gone on for several years as is evident in the three distinct incidents against three SMC students. Giovanna was wrongfully suspended by Penchansky, of course on all kinds of trumped up charges, and in violation of her due process rights. I am appealing my rather informal and lengthy suspension. Jeff Higley is facing disciplinary measure, slated next in line for possible suspension... all for having conversations protected under the First Amendment, all for redressing complaints in the past against the school, and all for being vocal advocates of student rights.

Giovanna had not only complained in the past about possible abuses of the AET computer lab to Dean Katharine Muller, but she had filed a complaint against a faculty member, of course which SMC never followed through on. Mr. Higley had filed a complaint in the past against an SMCPD officer and I had both written and spoken to the school about AET Professor Jim Keeshen's March 1, 2006 hate speech against the disabled and threats to his students. Can you see a pattern here of gross injustice and violation of civil rights against SMC students who redress grievances? I can!

As I previously indicated, Judith Penchansky has used Officer Champagne as her hand puppet in the past to foster her culture of fear and intimidation on the SMC campus. In an email dated July 22, 2006, a month after the alleged library incident that Giovanna was charged with being "disruptive," Penchansky sent an email to Dean Katharine Muller, sent to others at SMC, but curiously not to Giovanna herself, although she's the subject of the email. In fact, she apparently didn't receive this email until months after her wrongful suspension from SMC.

In Penchansky's email she writes the following: "I just met with student Giovanna Borgo-Cartillo [sic] and I was assisted by Officer Champagne; it was a productive meeting." Productive according to whom? I'm sure with Penchansky's police force at her side (as she's threatened in writing to use against me in the past), Giovanna didn't have much choice but to cave in under such an intimidating and hostile educational environment.

Of course Penchansky chimes in to her cohorts in the email against Giovanna: "I sense this student is not fully aware of how abrasive and hostile she can become." I find this statement completely false, based on years of experience with Giovanna, in which she's been a very caring person, a very dedicated student to her animation studies (supported by faculty recommendations), and by the documentation showing how her various rights to due process have been violated. In this email, Penchansky can't even spell Giovanna's last name correctly. She has also misspelled both my last name [Mantarri] and Jim Keeshen's last name [Keeshan]. If she can't get these basic facts straight, then how could she get any others?

In fact, although she was suspended on or about March 28, 2005, Penchansky has not yet provided her with a reinstatement hearing, despite the fact that she should have been able to return to school last fall. What is the delay? What is the delay of providing all of us with student records and police incident reports? Why are all our respective rights being violated?

In an email to Judith Penchansky from Giovanna, dated February 27, 2006, Giovanna writes the following:

Judith,

I recently received a response from Kiersten Elliott stating that I should take the removal of the hold on my account up with you. I'm revisiting an old situation regarding the hearing you want to impose on me.

Since we last had contact, I have come to the conclusion that I should be reinstated without a reinstatement hearing as I have met all of the criteria for my reinstatement. As you told me, at the time we first met about the suspension, I would be "reinstated in the spring semester of 2005." [Editor's Note: I think Giovanna meant "fall semester 2005" not "spring"].

My experience with you is that you say one thing, do another, then deny what you said in the first place. You abuse your position of authority, then to cover yourself you bring in the police to enforce your abuse.

You're not only interrupting my education, but also discriminating against a disabled student, a victim of physical abuse from a faculty member. I have met the conditions of my reinstatement. That should be enough to reinstate me, unless you want to use my reinstatement hearing to deny me my right to pursue an education at SMC. Why else insist on a hearing.

It will cost me money I don't have to hire counsel to represent me in a hearing that I feel is not merited.

Your role as Student Disciplinarian is to resolve conflict, not create it. I have waited too long to continue my education at SMC's, Academy of Entertainment and Technology, and the only thing that keeps me from that is you. I have received e-mails from the the office of Administration asking me to enroll before this semester, or I'll have to apply for admission again.

Hopefully, we can come to some agreement about removing the hold on my account without having to pursue a lawsuit.

[personal contact information removed for privacy]

Looking forward to your response.

Giovanna Borgo-Carrillo

I think this email tells the history behind her experiences with Penchansky. Despite being wrongfully suspended, Penchansky never provided Giovanna with the SMC's professor's written statement against her nor was the SMCPD police report given to her. Allegedly this faculty member, Rory Barnett, a football coach, physically assaulted her while she was working out on campus in the SMC Fitness Center. She allegedly used profanity against him, protected as Mr. Higley has stated, by the First Amendment, as was the case of the SMC Corsair reporter who recently used profanity against SMCPD Officer Willie Malone who assaulted him on campus. For Giovanna's part in this, without a chance to see formal written charges against her by this coach or to question him or see the SMCPD report, she was suspended.

What did SMC do to "discipline" the coach who assaulted her? In a "confidential" letter dated March 24, 2005 by Sherri Lee-Lewis, Dean of Human Resources, stated that the District "determined that Mr. Barnett exercised poor judgment by placing his hands around your neck to lead you out of the Fitness Center, and that it was inappropriate." So, his "inappropriate" behavior led only to a written "reprimand" by Vice-President Dr. Robert Adams along with "a copy of the Santa Monica College Academic Senate Statement of Professional Ethics." That sounds pretty lenient of Robert Adams, considering that Giovanna was allegedly taken to the school nurse after her attack. Giovanna allegedly didn't even receive this report until after Penchansky suspended her.

I am curious why Giovanna received a formal written suspension letter by Judith Penchansky, yet I was only given a very short email by Robert Adams, sent by Penchansky's assistant Marilyn Goodrich? Somehow, I'm being given less consideration in my due process rights, although all three of us: Giovanna, Jeff, and myself have had our rights violated. Remember that last August, Penchansky attempted to discipline me based on false allegations that Professor Jim Keeshen had been blackmailed by her to make. According to Penchansky, he refused to attend this meeting to substantiate his claims.

Of course Penchansky wanted no contradictory testimony as this letter and the statements contained therein have been a very effective tool in the school's smear campaign against me. Combine that with Jim Keeshen's March 1, 2006 hate speech, and is it any wonder Thomas J. Baker would perhaps be paranoid about his safety? Or he just another tool in Penchansky's wrongful suspension arsenal? After all, both Penchansky and Baker have worked in tandem to circulate a petition against me, of which two known students have allegedly refused to sign.

As stated in our CPRA lawsuit, on or about August 20, 2005, I had asked for a copy of my student records from Penchansky, of which she denied me access. Here are the relevant excerpts from our CPRA lawsuit for reference:

53. On August 30, 2005, Plaintiff/Petitioner Des Manttari, accompanied by her attorney, Mr. Edward Y. Lee, met with Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky to inspect public records. On the SMC Student Intake Form, Plaintiff/Petitioner stated in writing that her “reason for visit” was “to obtain public records from SMC.” A true and correct copy of the “Santa Monica College Student Intake Form” with “Santa Monica College Release” form is attached hereto as “Exhibit 27” and made a part herein. When Plaintiff asked Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky if she had brought the public records for inspection, she replied, “I don't have those public records.” Plaintiff additionally asked Defendant, “Did you ask Mr. Keeshen to bring those records that I requested in writing?” Defendant responded, “I did not.”

54. On this same date, Plaintiff/Petitioner Des Manttari additionally asked Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky, “I was just wondering when can I get a copy of my disciplinary file?” Ms. Penchansky responded, “You can subpoena it. That file is not for you.” Plaintiff/Petitioner asked, “Even though it's my student file?” Defendant/Respondent stated, “Because that's private statements. There's other people's names in there that you don't have privy to.” Plaintiff/Petitioner also had asked Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky, “By the way, do think that I can have a copy of the envelope with the postage mark of the letter that Jim Keeshen allegedly gave you, dated I think it was July 5th?” Defendant/Respondent Penchansky answered, “Put your request in writing. I'll see if I can find it. I'm not going to give it to you right now.”

55. On this same date, in the presence of Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Edward Y. Lee, Plaintiff Petitioner Des Manttari asked Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky, “Why did you blackmail Jim to sign that [letter]?” Defendant/Respondent answered, “I'm not going to have that conversation with you right now.”

56. A few minutes later, Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky had the following conversation with Plaintiff/Petitioner Des Manttari in the presence of Plaintiff/Petitioner’s attorney as follows:

JUDITH PENCHANSKY: “All you need to do is answer me this. If you would like to meet with me alone and have me talk to you about the allegations and the reason why you are very close to being suspended from this college--”

DES MANTTARI: “Are you threatening me now with suspension?”

JUDITH PENCHANSKY: “I have written to you that if your behavior continues to disrupt the environment of this college, you will absolutely be suspended.”

DES MANTTARI: “Wait a minute, so you're already saying that I have gone ahead, without any investigation, okay, knowing you've blackmailed Mr. Keeshen to sign this, without any independent investigation, without dates or facts, you have now accused me of breaching student code of conduct, not allegedly, but breaching it?”

JUDITH PENCHANSKY: “Absolutely.”

57. On this same date, in the presence of Plaintiff/Petitioner’s attorney, Mr. Edward Y. Lee, Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky stated to Plaintiff/Petitioner Des Manttari, “You cannot disrupt the college environment.” Plaintiff/Petitioner inquired, “Do you have any facts to prove that I disrupted the college environment?” Defendant/Respondent failed to answer Plaintiff/Petitioner’s question nor did she provide Plaintiff/Petitioner with any facts at that time. To date, Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky has not complied with Plaintiffs/Petitioners requests for public records and continues to threaten Plaintiff/Petitioner Des Manttari with disciplinary proceedings and suspension from SMCCD despite the fact that Defendant/Respondent knows, or should have known, that the allegations against Plaintiff/Petitioner are false and created for the alleged malicious purpose of intimidating Plaintiff/Petitioner to abandon her request for public records. In fact, when Plaintiff/Petitioner asked Defendant/Respondent why Mr. Keeshen did not come to the meeting, Defendant/Respondent Judith Penchansky stated, “He has refused to come. He has chosen not to come.”

58. On August 31, 2005, around 4:00 p.m., Plaintiff/Respondent Des Manttari met Professor Jim Keeshen in the front parking lot of the AET campus. During this conversation, Mr. Keeshen made several comments to Ms. Manttari in regards to the recent blackmail threats, harassment, intimidation, and hostile environment now at school by the administrators and staff against them because of Plaintiffs/Petitioners request for public records

So, is it any wonder that SMCPD Officer Champagne stated to Thomas J. Baker on March 24, 2006 that I've "got issues with Human Resources" that pertain to public records? It all goes hand-in-hand and comes full circle. In fact, jumping on the wrongful suspension bandwagon, in my April 21, 2006 meeting with SMC's two legal representatives, Robert Sammis and Joshua Morrison, in which SMC student Dustin Curran was present, Sammis indicated that I was to remove the names of various individuals off my blog, of which he specifically mentioned "Judy" Penchansky and that I was to drop my CPRA case against the school as well as forgetting about any alleged claims for copyright infringement that I may have. If I were to comply with these unreasonable demands, and sacrifice my Constitutional rights in the process, both Sammis and the school would have no interest in suspending me. Of course before I was even given the courtesy of a decision, Penchansky bypassed the whole process with her instant suspension.

What does one faculty member, who will remain anonymous, think about all of this? This esteemed faculty member replied: "With you being suspended that should give you ammunition with your lawyers. I know that you will prevail. You've come too far and have to much experience to let these folks get the best of you. Des, continue to follow what you believe and your heart, because that what life is all about." Well said.

-- Des Manttari,
Editor-in-Chief,
Phoenix Genesis

(c) 2006: Phoenix Genesis/MBS LP

Feel free to link or print this; just include the SAVE SMC URL: http://savesmc.blogspot.com/

Technorati Tags: Santa Monica College, Academy of Entertainment and Technology, public schools, police misconduct, wrongful suspension, Judith Penchansky, Michael Champagne, Thomas J. Baker, lawsuit, SMCPD, News and politics, Jim Keeshen, California Public Records Act, Sherri Lee-Lewis, Human Resources, falsified police reports, harassment, discrimination, Miranda Rights, Robert Sammis, Robert Adams, Steve Hearn, campus police