Santa Monica College Suspension Fraud

Now, despite repeated requests for a formal written letter of suspension as well as supporting documents and answers to my questions, Judith Penchansky has not bothered to respond to me. Since Penchansky is the designated campus "Disciplinarian" at Santa Monica College, operating her wrongful suspension mill out of the Office of Judicial Affairs and under the direction of Vice President of Student Affairs, Robert Adams, she is the person who is the designated point person in this sordid suspension affair.

As I've previously alleged on this blog, the entire suspension efforts by SMC has been undertaken to rid themselves of me because of my lawsuit for public records under the California Public Records Act, my potential claims for copyright infringement, as well as for my First Amendment Constitutionally protected right to publish information pertaining to the college and its administration and various individuals on my blog. See the previous article: SMC's Smear Campaign and Extortion.

What I did get in response from SMC opened my mind to do a little in-depth analysis that ultimately led to some shocking proof that SMC's entire suspension scenario is fraudulent and done for the purpose of extortion. The item that began the wheels in motion for me was an email I received today from Judith Penchansky's assistant, Marilyn Goodrich. Here's a screenshot of her entire email response:




Notice that Marilyn states that the suspension letter (which I never received and which Penchansky refuses to provide) was allegedly mailed to my P.O. Box on May 24, 2006. Was this a coincidence that this was allegedly mailed on May 24th, my birthday? More likely, it's just another instance of Penchansky's perfectly timed harassment. She also allegedly mailed her disciplinary letter to SMC student Jeff Higley as well on that same date. Remember that in her first meeting she insisted I attend with Jim Keeshen (who was my sole witness, not my prime accuser as he is now) occurred on May 6, 2005, Holocaust Remembrance Day (and I was denied on that same date AET computer lab access to work on my Holocaust project).

Well, I have a fantastic memory and May 24th is a date I would not forget. So, I whipped up Marilyn's May 23, 2006 email to me in which the suspension notice was attached. Here's a screenshot:



Oh, now the suspension letter was allegedly sent on May 23, 2006, the day before (which is equally harassing as this is my mother's birthday). So, I would not forget that date either. So, was the suspension letter mailed on May 23rd or May 24th? Since I never received it, and SMC refuses to disclose it, I doubt it was ever sent. Penchansky and Robert Sammis have denied me so many of my due process rights, why should they comply with the law now?

If in fact the notice was mailed on May 24, 2006, this is important because I would have not received it until May 26, 2006, and would have had until May 29, 2006 to file a Notice of Intent to Appeal Suspension. I would not have filed a notice on May 25, 2006. Thus, I would not now be forced to file my appeal by Penchansky's June 2, 2006 deadline. I would have had until June 6, 2006. But of course SMC doesn't want me prepared for my appeal hearing. I have already been found guilty.

So, now I got really curious about the attached "ManttariSuspension.doc" attached to Marilyn's May 23, 2006 email. So, I decided to examine the author of this Microsoft Word masterpiece and other pertinent data by opening up the document's properties feature. Here's the first screenshot I made:



Notice there's not much there. The "title" is the "May 23, 2006" date. The "author" is "Santa Monica College." Oh, but there's a button on the bottom right called "Advanced." So, I gave it a go and clicked on it and the following information came up as is shown in this screenshot in subsection entitled "origin":



Okay, see a few disturbing things here? The suspension document was created by "Santa Monica College" on May 23, 2006 at 3:05 p.m., less than an hour before Marilyn emailed it to me as an attachment. Now it was saved at 3:26 p.m. and sent at 3:52 pm and someone at SMC printed it out. So, if it was printed out, it was obviously in my STUDENT FILES. So, why wasn't it given to Steve Drury when he requested all the documents in my student files on May 25th?

The most glaring thing that stands out is that this is REVISION NUMBER 2. Now, why would this document that someone was supposedly just typing out from a hard copy letter (which again, I have never received) need a second revision? Was it that Penchansky wished to add that new May 8, 2006 allegation of "disruption" that was thrown in at the last minute (of course which I have received nothing explaining or elaborating it?) Hmm.... Did Robert Adams even write any of this or did Penchansky, wishing to blame someone else for her obvious fraud, just slap his name on it?

This new little "disruption" gem states the following: "You disrupted the AET lab on May 8, 2006, demanding that the lab tech remove a student who was using the lab, claiming that he was not entitled to use the lab." Notice that there are absolutely no names mentioned, no description of the "disruption," no time, no witnesses, and no formal complaint. It's just a summary that was thrown into the emailed suspension notice to add a little spice to the mix.

Oh, and what two relevant events happened on May 8, 2006 that would justify Penchansky trumping up this last minute fraudulent charge on that date? Well, on that same day, I emailed Penchansky the following in relevant part: "I am in receipt of your request to meet with me by this Friday, May 12, 2006, and wish to advise you that I am retaining new counsel and am requesting a two-week continuance to prepare for the meeting."

You can read the entire email in my blog article, "Ongoing Suspension Threats By Judith Penchansky." Oh, I also emailed Deyna Hearn that day with the information she requested about the SMC Gaming Club. You can read it all (complete with screenshots) in my blog article, "SMC Gaming Club Exposed." So, wasn't it convenient that I allegedly disrupted the AET computer lab (my, an entire year goes by, and suddenly I disrupted it again?) like clockwork with my two redress of grievances, of course which Deyna Hearn even denied receiving to Stahl, Peterson, and the AS Board)? If I were willingly trying to provide information to Ms. Hearn to clear my reputation, would I now do something to stain it? I doubt it. And how much energy could I have left to disrupt anything after writing all these time consuming and emotionally exhausting emails that afternoon?

What other Constitutionally protected activities match the dates of these alleged "disruptions" to the learning environment? We'll take a peak with a nice timeline of events with an analysis soon. I think you will find the truth quite shocking.

-- 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, vocational schools, suspension, fraud, Judith Penchansky, Deyna Hearn, Robert Adams, due process, News and politics, SMC Gaming Club, harassment