SMC's Smear Campaign and Extortion

SMC Assistant Dean of Judicial Affairs, Judith Penchansky, working in tandem with Vice-President of Planning and Development Robert Sammis and a number of alleged conspirators including Academy of Entertainment and Technology Dean Katharine Muller have worked tirelessly to turn me away from any and all civil rights, intellectual property rights, and student rights I may possess at Santa Monica College. Let's go through some of those again.

First, during Holocaust Remembrance Day on May 6, 2005, Penchansky dragged me into a meeting with Katharine Muller and AET Professor Jim Keeshen, under the guise of "disciplining" me for using the AET computer lab, of which I was entitled to use pursuant to the fact that I was an enrolled student and teaching assistant to Professor Keeshen. At this time, I was denied computer lab privileges to finish my Holocaust teaching project in my ET 42 Game Development class, taught by Professor Jeannie Novak.

During this kangaroo session, I had been forewarned about Penchansky's less than ethical behavior. But when Jim Keeshen turned to me and stated that he was being blackmailed to write a false statement that I had a gun and threatened to kill two staff members, Stu Seldon and Tim Ryan, I was shocked. Keeshen informed me, in front of Muller and Penchansky, that if he did not write this false statement, he would lose his job. Of course both Keeshen and I were under tremendous stress and strain at this point, as Keeshen's father was dying of cancer and only had a few weeks to live. (His father did in fact die on May 20, 2005 -- of course Penchansky celebrated this tragic event by causing her assistant Marilyn Goodrich to email me a notice of suspension on behalf of Robert Adams -- more evidence of her perfectly timed harassment of Keeshen and me).

To say the least, both Penchansky and Muller were a little upset by Keeshen's disclosure. Keeshen had stated that both women needed to "fuel the fire" against me; and this was the perfect plan they had engineered to discredit me. Keeshen and I had a nice lengthy lunch meeting afterwards, of course off campus, where we discussed our plan. He indicated that he would consult his attorney. Of course he documented their blackmail for both of us and we had subsequent conversations about it. To respect the terrible stress and strain Keeshen was under with his father, I left school on my own accord on or about May 10, 2006.

Now, if these rumors that I had a gun (which I did not then and do not now) and threatened to kill these two staff members (one of which I consider a friend) were true, then SMC would have been obligated to rush into action and immediately file a written complaint, a police report, conduct a thorough investigation, and in most likelihood immediately expel me from school to protect the lives and safety of those involved. SMC didn't do a single one of these things. Why? Because they simply were not true: I had done nothing wrong.

Then, months down the road, when I began my written requests for Santa Monica College's public records under the California Public Records Act and alleged copyright infringement by SMC that had occurred subsequent to this May 6, 2005 meeting, out magically comes Jim Keeshen's falsified statement, of course extremely vague, informal, and conveniently backdated to July 5, 2005. In fact, in Keeshen's written statement, he provides no precise date I allegedly made this "death threat" statement. Of course during this time I had requested public records in SMC's custody from Judith Penchansky that pertained to Jim Keeshen. During this same period of time, Penchansky flooded me with a barrage of fabricated allegations that I was "disruptive." Why such a long delay from the May 6, 2005 meeting to July 5, 2005, almost two months down the road and then not serve me notice of this blackmailed letter until late August, when SMC needed to manufacture a little "evidence" against me to scare me away from their public records? Did Stu Seldon feel threatened by me? Had I ever made a threat to Stu Seldon? The answer is "no" to both of these questions.

On or about March 29, 2006, around 12:30 p.m., I met with SMC staff member Stuart “Stu” Seldon. At this time, Mr. Seldon asked me to speak to him. Mr. Seldon led me into his office in the AET computer lab. During this conversation, Mr. Seldon and I discussed the events of April 20, 2005 (the date SMCPD Office Kessler was used to deny me computer lab access) and March 24, 2006 (the date of the SMCPD involvement with the Gaming Club). Mr. Seldon indicated that on April 20, 2005, he did not want to call the campus police on me for using the AET computer lab, but he had to do what he was told as he has a family to support.

Mr. Seldon and I additionally discussed the alleged death threat rumors that we had both heard that I allegedly had a gun and wished to kill Mr. Seldon. This was written by Professor Jim Keeshen and Thomas J. Baker also stated this on March 24, 2006 to the SMC Gaming Club, including myself. Mr. Seldon stated that he first heard this rumor by Professor Jim Keeshen and is informed that Professor Keeshen was the one who fabricated this false allegation against me. He stated to me that Professor Keeshen was very specific and detailed in his description to him, alleging that I had bought a gun during the L.A. riots. I indicated to Mr. Seldon that we had been friends for many years, that I had never threatened his life, and that I have never bought a gun. Mr. Seldon indicated (or words to that effect):

I think there’s a big part of Jim [Keeshen] that’s full of bullshit. I do.

Not only did Keeshen allegedly tell Seldon to "be careful" of me, he also made this "be careful" statement to Lindsay Berkovitz during the ET18 Storyboarding course she was enrolled in with him. SMC student Mario Alarcon, another friend of mine, had stated that Keeshen was making his life hard in the ET 19A class he and Gabriel Quinteroz were enrolled in because of me. Since Thomas J. Baker also stated Keeshen's allegations as facts in front of all my friends during the March 24, 2006 Game Club meeting, it is safe to assume Keeshen went on a massive smear campaign to scare any potential witnesses I may have to defend myself against all his false allegations and to isolate me from my friends. I am informed and believe and thereon allege that this smear campaign was organized and executed by Judith Penchansky.

Wanting to give new life to these old and false rumors, Jim Keeshen delivered an official "announcement" to his ET 18 Storyboarding class on March 1, 2006 about how my disability is a "mental disease" which causes me to be a "problem" and "destructive." In delivering his hate speech against the disabled (of which Stu Seldon's son ironically fell into this category), and his threats to come after his students and to have them kicked out of the school, he hid behind school policy. Of course, Robert Sammis later denied any liability on behalf of the school in his April 21, 2006 meeting with Dustin Curran and myself. As previously quoted on this blog, Sammis said the following to us, or words to that effect:

Jim was speaking on his own behalf. He was not articulating any position on behalf of the college. It's not something we would condone... Official in his mind. And school policy in his own mind. That's not our policy. He was speaking completely on his own. He had no authority to represent the college. And quite honestly, if he were ever to be sued for that, we would not defend him. We would not be liable for it. He was on his own when he said those things.

Despite Sammis' comments, nothing has been done to "discipline" Professor Keeshen. On the contrary, the rumors (as rumors tend to do) have grown and expanded into a culture of fear and intimidation at SMC. Thomas J. Baker sure used enough of Keeshen's hate speech and alleged death threats in his falsified statement to SMCPD. Suddenly, I was mentally ill, on medication for a mental illness, I had been arrested at SMC, I had a gun, I would kill people, I threatened people at AET, I threatened people in the library... the list goes on. This is very disturbing from an SMC fellow student I remember only meeting and speaking to once in my life, during my first attempt to participate in the SMC Gaming Club on March 24, 2006.

Baker was not the only student who had heard these well circulated and convincing rumors against me. On May 4, 2006, during the Associated Students Finance Committee, SMC student Kurt Peterson made similar statements to me. Here's the highlights of some of our conversation, of which he initiated when he brought me into the hallway, away from the ears of Dustin Curran, Denya Hearn, and the AS Board, and others.

Peterson stated that he had read my blog because someone had printed it out for him. I wonder who went out of his or her way to do that and to what end? He stated to both Margaret Wick and I the following: "Do you guys even like video games?" When I explained my rather extensive involvement, Peterson questioned:

Then why are you being expelled from this school?

Now, this was news to me, as I hadn't received any suspension or expulsion. I questioned Peterson regarding this false statement. He responded confrontationally:

Aren't you? Aren't you undergoing a huge lawsuit with the school?

Notice how these three key events (suspension, my SAVE SMC blog, and litigation under the California Public Records Act) tend to go hand-in-hand in everyone's mind. Clearly, this is the real reason I am being suspended.

Peterson asked me if I've ever been arrested before. I informed him that I had not been arrested on the SMC campus, had not been handcuffed, nor booked with any crime under the California Penal Code. Of course this rumor is very effective to discredit me with my friends and any new friends I might meet on campus or fellow students at large. But according to Peterson, who I have only spoken to this one time in my life, and who did not attend the March 24, 2006 Game Club meeting to the best of my recollection, stated that I had no friends at the SMC Gaming Club. "No one there claims to be your friend."

I find that hard to believe since I know several people who are still my friends. In fact, Ricardo Galindo recently confirmed that both he and Gabriel Quinteroz refused to sign the petition against me allegedly manufactured and circulated by Penchansky and Baker precisely because they consider me their friend, and I have considered them friends. Wasn't Jim Keeshen perhaps my best friend for over a year before Judith Penchansky and Katharine Muller got their hands on him? How could a student such as myself, who never had a problem at SMC for two years prior, and who has and is repeatedly marketed on SMC's literature and website, suddenly be so "disruptive" to the campus environment?

Peterson went on with his contentions that everyone at the Game Club was "unanimously" against me, a statement Baker has also made, of which we all know if patently false. He claims that the reason no one is my friend is the following vague response of which he did not elaborate: "Not after everything you've done." What had I done that was so terrible? I tried to help Jim Keeshen save his father's life by doing cancer research and seeking medical advice, I worked tirelessly for little or no pay as his teaching assistant for over a year in three of his classes, I helped the students, I resurrected the Academy Gaming Club, I worked hard on my Holocaust project to bring Holocaust awareness to SMC, I exercised my rights to public records, and I wrote about important issues pertaining to SMC on my blog to bring this awareness to other students. I guess all these things warrant suspension in Judith Penchansky's mind.

Peterson made clear the following to me as he shouted:

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? They are saying YOU are wrong.

It's very important that Peterson used the first person "I have" rather than "we have" or "they have" in regards to all these people who are allegedly out to get me. Since he was a new member of the SMC Gaming Club, why is he now in charge of this entire club by his first person statements? Does this issue with Thomas J. Baker have anything to really do with the campus organization or with Baker's own self-serving interests in his website, The Game Review? A simple screenshot I made today shows the roll call of alleged staff writers employed by Thomas J. Baker and Mario Alarcon:



Notice that Peterson's new inclusion in the SMC Gaming Club, and his efforts to obtain public funds for the club, suddenly elevated him to the position as a staff writer for Baker, although he's only allegedly written one extremely short article to date on the site. Notice all the other names of "staff writers" who are also SMC Game Club members: Thomas J. Baker, Mario Alarcon, Brian Puschell (and his sister Crystal), Gabriel Quinteroz, Ricardo Galindo, Cesar Portillo, Dung Trinh, John Klauschie, Kurt Peterson, etc.

Andres Reyes was enrolled in Professor Jim Keeshen's ET 18 Storyboarding course this semester, allegedly present when Keeshen made his March 1, 2006 hate speech against the disabled and made his threats against his students. Galindo and Quinteroz were enrolled in ET19 A, taught by Professor Steve Brown, when Keeshen suddenly appeared out of the blue and took over the class from Brown, without explanation. Do you see a connection here between all of this with Keeshen and his defamatory statements and the current hysteria permeating my existence?

At one time, Galindo, Quinteroz, Alarcon, and Keeshen himself were all staff writers for my online video game new media website, Phoenix Genesis, attending the E3 Expo in downtown Los Angeles. Baker and Alarcon's site supposedly is a news media site devoted to video game news coverage. This is clearly more a tortuous interference with business relations to gain an economic advantage on Baker's behalf for himself than it is whether or not I did not warrant inclusion into the SMC Gaming Club for whatever fabricated and thinly veiled reason Baker may have provided to the SMCPD on March 24, 2006.

Additionally, Peterson admitted that the SMC Gaming Club was being held in essence as a secret organization; in violation of SMC's own policies governing inclusion and prohibiting harassment and discrimination (especially against the disabled). Peterson stated the following or words to that effect:

Then why would they keep you out of their meetings?

Why would they hide their meetings from you?

Of course when I inquired about this, Peterson decided that he had admitted too much and quickly ended the conversation. Who could be feeding Peterson all these lies? Perhaps we should backtrack to a conversation I had with the SMC Gaming Club Faculty Advisor, Howard A. Stahl, during the SMC Faculty March and Rally, of which we both participated in on April 25, 2006.


Kurt Peterson (left) and Howard A. Stahl represent the SMC Game Club during the May 8, 2006 SMC Associated Students Board Meeting, denying any allegations of wrongdoing and painting a picture of fun and games for all.

Stahl, like Peterson, admitted to reading my SAVE SMC blog and even stated: "Some of your points are valid." He confirmed that AET is a "problem." However, my First Amendment Free Speech on my blog and in my correspondence to the school's various public servants also seemed to terrify Professor Stahl as be stated to me:

It is not appropriate. Do you know any other students like yourself

who are writing letters to the school and have meetings with

Robert Sammis and hire attorneys and all the things you've done?

Stahl shortly thereafter added:

Well, there's a petition that the disciplinarian has which has

the names of I think almost every single member of the club.

Really? I find this surprising since I know that according to Galindo, that he and Quinteroz never signed it. Additionally, Lindsay Berkovitz and Dustin Curran have never seen this petition. Margaret Wick, another club member, even wrote a statement to Penchansky in my support. Of course Penchansky has repeatedly withheld any and all statements one way or other from me. Stahl went on to add a great amount of revealing information about the suspension that was being manufactured against me along with some enlightenment on SMC's true motives:

Ask me the last time I ever had a student who had a meeting with the attorney from the school or even knew his name and the answer is never. So I mean you know like in the big grand scheme of things, obviously what you do, or how you do it, or why you're doing it bothers a great number of people. Not just me, but countless, countless other people. Do you realize the amount of effort and to what gain? ... To what end is all of this effort?

Actually in reality there are a great number of people who are concerned in your participation in a great number of things. And so it's just not true. I mean like for students that are not doing the things you are doing, you could probably participate in the club.

There are a great number of people who are actively working to try to have you suspended.... They're trying to suspend you because of a lot of things you have done.

Stahl admitted to reading the SMC Gaming Club Yahoo! Group. However, Stahl admitted that he really wasn't very involved in the club, rarely attended meetings, and he didn't even know who the president of the club was this semester. He became very defensive: "Yeah, so? I don't remember. Why do I have to remember?" As to who the vice-president of the club was, he stated: "Honestly, I don't know." Notice that the "because of a lot of things you have done" statement by Stahl matches the "not after everything you've done" statement by Peterson.

Again, what was this dire crime warranting suspension? Seeking public records, writing letters to the school, and writing on my SAVE SMC Blog about my experience; all Constitutionally protected activities that should be encouraged in a public school dedicated to academic inquiry. However, Stahl had these final words about my blog:

But I have read your blog... It's amazing the

things you've found out. It's downright amazing.

Well, now we've added Howard Stahl's own admissions to the SAVE SMC Blog as "downright amazing" things I have found out about SMC's true motives in suspending me in violation of my due process rights, civil rights, and student rights. But it gets even better than this. Let's look at these well-organized and coordinated efforts of Robert Sammis, Joshua Morrison, and Judith Penchansky to have me suspended if I did not submit to their wishes to remove the very things in their life that I have done "wrong" in their eyes.

As I mentioned previously, Dustin Curran and I attended a meeting on April 21, 2006 with SMC legal counsel Robert Sammis and Joshua Morrison. To refresh your memory about the relationship between these two individuals, see the previous blog entitled "A Little Bit of Nepotism Goes a Long Way." Now, keep in mind that this meeting occurred prior to both the SMC Faculty March with Howard Stahl and the AS Board Meeting with Deyna Hearns and Kurt Peterson. Could their vehement comments have anything to do with Robert Sammis?

Without going into each and every detail of our meeting with these two attorneys, I will point out the highlights that substantiate the allegations that my immediate suspension (via email notice only) is directly related to my failure to adhere to the extortionist demands of Sammis and Morrison to drop my claims for copyright infringement, dismiss my California Public Records Act lawsuit with prejudice, and to take down my SAVE SMC blog.

As mentioned previously, Sammis stated that he, nor to college, defends Jim Keeshen for what he said to his class on March 1, 2006. [see Sammis' quote earlier in this article]. In fact, although Sammis was concerned about individuals I wrote about on my blog, he didn't seem very concerned about anything I've said thus far about Jim Keeshen. He did state the following or words to that effect:

Think of all the time you've occupied on Jim. Is he worth

it? No, he's not worth it. No, he's not worth my time either.

Sammis also complained that Keeshen "makes a lot of money in this vortex." I remarked to Sammis that Jim Keeshen had previously referred to Santa Monica College as a "vortex" that was sucking both he and I under. Besides, Robert Sammis, Katharine Muller, and Judith Penchansky make equally, if not more money in this "vortex" than Keeshen.

As Jim and I discussed on or about August 31, 2005, Keeshen felt that he was "the sacrificial lamb" for SMC's "axe" and that the school would pit us against each other; then out goes Des, out goes Jim. As Keeshen stated:

Everybody here hates my guts now. Everybody in administration

hates my guts. Everybody thinks that I have caused all of this.

Jim Keeshen also added: "I'm telling you as a friend, the actions that you have done have really put me in a bad position here. And I know that's not your intention." Even after he was forced to write the death threat letter per Penchansky's alleged blackmail, Keeshen still considered me a friend. Now, if I had really made any threats to anyone on the SMC campus, Keeshen wouldn't have continued to secretly support me against the SMC administration. "I still consider you my friend. But you got me in trouble now." The trouble I had caused him? Merely my request for public records from the school. Remember, this was prior to filing a lawsuit under the CPRA. Why would the school administration be so angry with both Keeshen and I and would go to such lengths to try to remove both of us unless there was something being hidden in those records?

Keeshen had confided in me a long time ago that he felt they would target me to get to him. Now, Sammis seemed to confirm this, by essentially alleging that me and my SAVE SMC blog were the roadblocks to firing Jim Keeshen. Since the school administration felt justified in using Jim Keeshen and turning him against me, one can sympathize with Keeshen's statement on August 31, 2005:

I'll leave on my own terms when I want to leave. Right

now I'm just using them so that I can finish my film.

Sammis stated that he had what he needed to fire Keeshen. However, he first needed to get me to either adhere to his terms of removing the blog or rid himself of me through Penchansky's wrongful suspension. Here's Sammis' commentary about his sticky situation with Keeshen:

It doesn't need to involve you. In fact it's counterproductive for us when you involve yourself. It gives him somewhat of a defense. He tries to take things off himself by saying that you created it. So you think you're helping us, in fact it's making it more difficult for me to deal with issues with Jim the more you're involved. That's why I have an interest of coming to an agreement.

And what precisely was Sammis' agreement of "ratcheting down this conflict" he repeated like a legal mantra? Here are a few excerpts from his comments he directed at me in the presence of Josh Morrison and Dustin Curran.

The reaction you're going to get from most administrators in any institution is you're a student. We'll take care of that. You're a student. Your blog reflects some of that kind of 'I know better how to run this organization than they do.' It does. That's an element of what you have in there.

We come up with an agreement of how we're going to relate to one and other in the future in terms on conduct on behalf of the college and your conduct, which would include us asking you to remove some information from your blog that we think is defamatory or not fair to individuals. I don't care what you say about the college or its programs. I do have a concern about what you say about individuals at times.

I find it interesting that a six figure salaried senior administrator and designated attorney of the school such as Robert Sammis doesn't care about what I say about Santa Monica Community College. That's pretty disturbing. Of course all these solutions offered by Sammis "allows you to get back to getting educated." Was this a veiled threat? It sure sounded like one. So here Sammis now moves to his closing sales pitch about removing certain people off my blog:

You can help a lot by taking individuals off of the blog. I don't care if you criticize the policy of the college or criticize what the Academy [of Entertainment and Technology] is doing academically. There's a whole list of people on there.... but the usuals. Obviously people like Katharine [Muller] in the picture and things about Judy [Penchansky]... We don't get to pick and choose. We need to ratchet down the conflict by doing these things. I don't care if you criticize how the disciplinary process is done here.

Again, notice that although Jim Keeshen would be the number one person to remove from the SAVE SMC blog as the greatest amount of information has been written about him, Sammis didn't even mention him. The only two people he mentioned by name were AET Dean Katharine Muller and Assistant Dean of Judicial Affairs Judith Penchansky, the same two individuals who started this costly and emotionally exhausting legal battle in the first place by dragging Jim Keeshen and I into that mock disciplinary circus on May 6, 2005. Hmm... Again, does this relate to Penchansky's wrongful suspension?

Of course I stood by my First Amendment rights to publish what I have written thus far, especially pertaining to Judith Penchansky and her blackmail of Jim Keeshen. Sammis responded: "Jim lied to you." I believe Jim Keeshen more than I believe Robert Sammis, especially since Keeshen at least had the courage to tell me about Penchansky's blackmail and to admit to me that he had infringed on my copyrights; and he volunteered both bits of vital information to me on his own accord and free will. So, how did Sammis respond to my refusal to remove Penchansky from my blog? He indicated flat out that I would be sued for "defamation" and that he couldn't "control that." He claimed:

There are companies who believe that you have unfairly put them in false light on your blog. I'm not going to tell you who they are. They have contacted us. These folks are talking with attorneys. They are not going to sit by. For you, there is an interest in bringing resolution to this.

This sounded like another veiled extortion attempt to coerce me to remove my blog or face legal action. Even Morrison's good cop, bad cop response confirmed this suspicion: "So that you can take your classes..." In other words, if I didn't comply, I would be prohibited from taking classes, as Penchansky has now done in her instant email suspension on behalf of Robert Adams. Hmm...

Sammis added: "As a good faith gesture for us, too, that we would want you to take individuals off of your webpage that are college people." When I mentioned that I have approximately a thousand pages between my SAVE SMC blog and website, the room went dead silent for a very long time. Sammis at one point admitted that he hadn't even read most of my blog. I found that interesting since he was so upset about it. But, as he admitted, "We're not taking about accuracy or inaccuracy..." only about my removal and not posting anything in the "future."

Well what about my fight to SAVE SMC? Sammis stated that I didn't have to be "the police officer" and that "People will take up that battle and deal with it. You don't need to be the one who does it." Well, other than SMC student Jeff Higley on his blog, The Siege Online, no one else has so far taken up the call to adventure that Sammis heralds. Perhaps because Higley is now being targeted for the next in line with suspension by Penchansky. You only have to take a brief minute of your time to glance through his wealth of information about SMC's questionable practices to see why. The SAVE SMC blog is very tame compared to the power of The Siege, even if one compares titles. Oh, but Sammis complained about the "SAVE SMC" title as well. I find it very appropriate.

When I inquired of Sammis and Morrison what we were going to do about the copyright dispute (remember, I was summoned to this meeting under the guise of a good faith "settlement negotiation" in lieu of "suspension" by Penchansky mind you), Sammis quickly remarked: "You're gonna forget about it." That quickly, that matter-of-factly: just forget about my rights. When I asked about my rights, Sammis did promise me: "Anything you developed with Jim Keeshen will not be used by the college." Since they've already stolen it again after a written assurance by Morrison last year, I would not hold my breath that they would keep their word this time. However, Keeshen has not been able to teach the History of Animation course since the last copyright infringement.

Now, here's the punch line to all of this "settlement negotiation" with Sammis. I state flat out: "I want the suspension thing dropped." I wanted to see what Sammis would say. Of course he confirmed my suspicions that the suspension was directly related to the legal and First Amendment blogging issues when he immediately shot back the following:

If we can work out an agreement where there is an understanding of how people are going to conduct themselves, then I have no interest in moving forward with the suspension. The college has no interest. The purpose of the suspension is to get people to conform to certain conduct.

When I stated that, "no one is suspending Jim Keeshen," Sammis shot back: "You don't know that." Well, there it is. Before I received a single legitimate good faith written settlement deal points memorandum from Morrison, as promised, Penchansky lunged right in with her suspension. How is removing me from SMC conforming to certain conduct? Well, Morrison after this meeting indicated I could "simply drop my lawsuit" or words to that effect when he spoke on the phone regarding why Penchansky was moving forward with suspension when Morrison had promised me a draft settlement document.

Ask yourself this: If my conduct was so "disruptive" to the learning environment as Penchansky claims, then how could Sammis and SMC's administrative guardians justify my presence on the campus? If I was such a threat to everyone's personal safety as Baker painted me out to be and could potentially cause bodily injury or death to someone at SMC, how could a broad waiver of liability as Morrison suggested I agree to in writing protect the academic community?

It simply couldn't. I have not been, currently am not, and will not be a threat to anyone in the future. The only real threat I pose is in these simple words I type in the comfort of my home on this computer screen for the world to read or reject according to its whim. To date, none of these SMC individuals (who are all public figures in a public school who are discussed in their roles involving public issues such as public policy and public records) Sammis is so concerned about have stepped forward to refute a single word written on my SAVE SMC blog and website. Nor have any of these individuals been able to refute a single word SMC student Jeff Higley has written on his blog. Nor have they been able to dispute our rather shocking video footage.

The only question I have is how did Jim Keeshen and I allowed the school to turn us against each other when we spent over a year working together in harmony at SMC's Academy of Entertainment and Technology in addition to working on his various animation projects through his private company, Jim Keeshen Productions? Furthermore, how is removing both of us from SMC's educational equation going to solve a single problem both I and Jeff Higley have raised in our respective weblogs over the last year? It will actually make matters worse as there will be no student advocates left who have the courage to question anything at SMC.

Of course another solution proposed by Sammis was as follows: "We can get rid of the gaming club. That might be the easiest element here. We could disband it." However, it was I who actually defended the club, if run properly, as it was important to the school. Regardless, Sammis denies ever suggesting disbanding the club.

Notice that Sammis didn't offer a single suggestion or opportunity for the SMC community to work together in harmony to improve the overall academic environment. It was all about who and what he could rid himself of, similar to the "moral cleansing" performed in Nazi Germany during the reign of Hitler. The entire sequence of events in SMC's harassment and retaliation against us followed a strikingly similar cookie-cutter approach as the Third Reich: segregation, supremacy of one class of people over another, denial of attending public events, denial of access to certain facilities, denial of the right to attend classes, a well-propagandized smear campaign, seizure of property rights, the culture of fear and intimidation by association, and finally, the use of police brutality, citations of minor infractions with heavy penalties, and the "final solution" with "special handling" of shipping one off the motherland (in this case, the SMC campus via wrongful suspension).

The fact that I was working on an important project on Holocaust awareness only adds insult to this moral and civil injury. It is apparent that Santa Monica College, although a public institution of higher learning, has no real interest in "education." Clearly, nothing I can say or do will sway SMC to stop its wrongful suspension against me nor will it stop SMC from firing Professor Keeshen. The wheels are set in motion and the only thing left is for Judith Penchansky to manufacture more "evidence" against both of us and to keep any and all witnesses, students, staff, and faculty thoroughly intimidated, coerced, and concealed. Now can you understand why Penchansky has been so reluctant to produce my SMC student records or SMC's public records?

Stahl was correct in that a smear campaign of this magnitude takes a lot of coordinated effort (not to mention wasteful spending of our public funds) to accomplish, especially when it involves police misconduct against more than one helpless student and a tremendous amount of shuffling of responsibility and manufacturing of falsified evidence. To help our readers to keep track of the Who's Who of this strategic alliance, I've made a handy SMC Organizational Chart:



Robert Sammis seems to forget something very important regarding our academic community: it is only as healthy and strong and honest and viable as its individuals. If one single person in the Organizational Chart above had the moral courage and tenacity to simply stand by our educational institution's missions and goals and to defend (rather than infringe) on our rights, it might have made a world of difference to all of us. I only pray that you, dear readers, will be able to set the example so needed at SMC and to support both Jeff Higley and myself.

As Jim Keeshen always said to me: "From your lips, to God's ears."

-- 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, bloggers rights, wrongful suspension, Judith Penchansky, Jim Keeshen, Thomas J. Baker, lawsuit, SMCPD, News and politics, smear campaign, California Public Records Act, Katharine Muller, Joshua Morrison, extortion, harassment, discrimination, blackmail, Robert Sammis, Howard Stahl, hate speech, Kurt Peterson