+- DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth (https://www.dltruth.com)
+-- Forum: DL Hall of Shame: Individuals (https://www.dltruth.com/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: George Gollin (https://www.dltruth.com/forum-18.html)
+--- Thread: Dolphin Floundering (/thread-863.html)
Pages:
1
2
Dolphin Floundering - Armando Ramos - 06-24-2010
Dr. Jerroll Dolphin has filed a substitution of attorney in his federal action against Gollin and U of Illinois, replacing Thaddeus Culpepper as plaintiffs' attorney with himself pro se.
In a related document he asserts lack of communication by Culpepper. This phenomenon often occurs in tandem with lack of payment by the client, although there is no specific indication that is the situation here.
This is a very bad sign for future success of his action. As typically happens, well-heeled parties try to deny their less affluent opponents their day in court by filing motion after motion until somebody runs out of money.
Not surprisingly, motions to dismiss by ECFMG, FAIER, U of I, Oregon and Gollin are all pending. Ultimately we might expect them to be granted, not because they have any merit, but because the plaintiff isn't likely to be opposing them effectively.
This is a shame because the clone spin on this then will be how the evil diploma mill failed to prove its case, rather than just another instance of people with money and political power steam-rolling those without it.
RE: Dolphin Floundering - RespectableGent - 06-24-2010
I don't believe that a substitution of lawyers is grounds for dismissal.
However if monetary damages were caused to the school by American actors, he still has a case.
I would have preferred it if Dr. Dolphin sued George Gollin personally and the University of Illinois directly, but involving Liberia in the lawsuit may have been necessary to demonstrate to the court that SLSOM was indeed accredited under Liberian law and was persecuted and bullied with the help and support of American parties.
On what grounds are the motions to dismiss?
RE: Dolphin Floundering - Armando Ramos - 06-25-2010
RespectableGent Wrote:I don't believe that a substitution of lawyers is grounds for dismissal.
Your are correct RGent, just a substitution is not in itself grounds for dismissal. But, as in this case, if the party acts as his own attorney and is not a trained attorney himself he is going to have a lot of trouble with the intricacies of litigation, such as preparing and filing acceptable paperwork. From the docket it looks like Dolphin already has had one filing rejected. Even real attorneys have trouble with this stuff, as the docket also shows other parties' attorneys failed to comply with local rules too.
But even if he manages to get his paperwork filed he still has to be able to muster legal arguments in opposition to those presented in the motion. Again, as a non-lawyer he is really going to be up against it. He may have a perfectly solid case and get run out on a technicality, such as failing to timely oppose a motion. The system is set up to make lawyers rich, not to allow poor people to obtain justice.
RespectableGent Wrote:On what grounds are the motions to dismiss?
Gollin's motion asserts sovereign immunity issues. As a general rule you can't sue an "arm of the state" (which U of I claims to be) in federal court, unless the state consents or waives the immunity, or some other law or statute permits it. For example, civil rights actions under the 14th Amendment are permitted against states. I have no idea what the Illinois claims statutes provide, but apparently no claim was filed so it isn't likely the state has consented on that basis.
Here's a good discussion about the various exceptions: http://www.nls.org/conf2002/suing_the_state.htm
The presumption was that Culpepper might have researched this before filing the action, but now it's starting to look like maybe not.
So Dolphin is not out automatically, but he needs to cook up something to show he's within some exception or he will be. For example, suing Gollin individually for conduct outside the scope of his state university employment. Remember the famous Robin Kaler statement that the uni does not support Gollin's activities outside his discipline.
Gollin also makes the usual allegations about the content of the pleadings. If a complaint is short they will claim it is "perfunctory and conclusory." If, as in this case, it goes into a lot of detail they will argue it is "prolix and rambling." It's not unusual for an attorney to need a couple of shots at getting his pleadings in order to satisfy a judge, but it's tough without a lawyer. At some point the judge is going to decide he has done enough to avoid being reversed for abuse of discretion and will call it off.
Federal judges tend to be pretty quick on the kill switch, so Dolphin needs to find competent legal help pronto. Unfortunately the legal profession is not like the medical profession. There is no legal "emergency room" where they have to take you even if you don't have any money.
RE: Dolphin Floundering - Geoff Vankirk - 06-26-2010
RespectableGent Wrote:I don't believe that a substitution of lawyers is grounds for dismissal.
However if monetary damages were caused to the school by American actors, he still has a case.
I would have preferred it if Dr. Dolphin sued George Gollin personally and the University of Illinois directly, but involving Liberia in the lawsuit may have been necessary to demonstrate to the court that SLSOM was indeed accredited under Liberian law and was persecuted and bullied with the help and support of American parties.
On what grounds are the motions to dismiss?
If all else fails, Dolphin can always go to UIUC with a bat and talk with Gollin.
Of course we're not inciting violence. Maybe the faculty softball team needs an extra player?
Also check out Dolphin's signature. Doesn't it look like a Spanish rúbrica?
RE: Dolphin Floundering - Armando Ramos - 07-11-2010
For those keeping score at home, the latest maneuvers in the pending federal case against Gollin:
06/29/2010
Judge Klausner orders Dolphin's Request to Extend Time stricken as improperly filed. "Plaintiff Dolphin has counsel of record and may not file as pro se. Plaintiff may motion the Court to substitute himself, pro se, in place of his present attorney. Corporations must be represented by counsel."
06/30/2010
Judge Klausner advises that the motions to dismiss by defendants U of I and Oregon noticed for hearing on July 6, 2010, have been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. "The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings."
07/02/2010
Judge Klausner issued OSC regarding subject matter jurisdiction. "The Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to clarify the basis for this Courts subject matter jurisdiction. The Complaint asserts jurisdiction under a 1939 treaty between the United States and Liberia, which provides Liberian nationals and corporations access to United States courts. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, U.S.-Liber., art. I, XVII, Aug. 8, 1938, 54 Stat. 1739. Since 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under... the treaties of the United States, Plaintiffs allege that the aforementioned Friendship Treaty creates the jurisdictional basis for their case. Plaintiffs are hereby given seven (7) Court days from the date this Order is entered on the docket to clarify the basis for this Courts subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs seek federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court orders Plaintiffs to assert the substantial question(s) of federal law at issue. If Plaintiffs seek diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court orders Plaintiffs to assert both the amount in controversy and the citizenship of all parties to the suit."
07/02/2010
Plaintiff files opposition to U of I's motion to dismiss.
07/07/2010
Plaintiff files Second Request to Substitute attorney Jerroll Dolphin in place of attorney Thaddeus J. Culpepper.
Dolphin's opposition to the U of I's motion to dismiss contains some interesting statements about the sordid activities of defendant Gollin and his playmates. Unfortunately it's too large to attach. Here are some highlights:
Quote:SLSOM's complaint does not assert that Gollin relied on information from the Liberian government. It asserts that Gollin relied on false information from Internet articles about SLSOM to compile the false information he posted about SLSOM on the Internet and elsewhere. SLSOM in its lawsuit and complaint has displayed all the official, legal, and judicial governmental information authorizing SLSOM's existence and accreditation in Liberia.
Furthermore, SLSOM asserts that Gollin knew that SLSOM had obtained a default certificate and an order to restore its accreditation and status from the Liberia Supreme Court in 2005, and further Gollin knew that SLSOM had also obtained a default certificate in its civil court "Damages for Wrong" lawsuit against the Republic of Liberia in 2006. ...
7. Conspiracy to Commit Civil Rights Violations. Since 2003, Professor George Gollin, "Professor of Physics, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana", and Alan Contreras, Director of the Oregon ODA, have conspired against SLSOM by placing SLSOM on the ODA's "diploma mill" list without due cause and without due process of law. [citation omitted] On or about October and November of 2009, Professor George Gollin and Dr. Brad Schwartz (both of the University of Illinois), and Alan Contreras (State of Oregon, Office of Degree Authorization) all conspired to violate the civil rights of Dr. Jerroll Dolphin and the owners of SLSOM, by sending defaming documents and letter [sic] to the Republic of Ghana in an effort to deprive the plaintiffs of their civil rights. ...
9. Internet Stalking. Professor Gollin in the 91-page document that he sent to the Ghana National Accreditation Board surely demonstrates the crime of Internet Stalking.
10. The Federal Courts have already ruled that the Oregon Student Assistance Commission, Office of Degree Authorization has committed Civil Rights violations on a previous occasions. [sic] Melinda Benton v Oregon Student Assistance Commission, Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, and Alan Contreras, 421 F.3d 901, 2005 U. S. App. Lexis 18301.
A. Deprivation of Due Process
Professor Gollin has more than 800 defamatory postings online against the plaintiffs. In all of his postings, he uses "Professor of Physics, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana". In 2003 the University of Illinois told Dr. Gollin to stop posting his list of "Diploma Mills" to avoid potential lawsuits (FAC $$ 179(p), 195(p)). The University of Illinois has negligently violated the civil rights of Dr. Dolphin and the owners of SLSOM by permitting the use of its authority and power by its employees to commit grivious [sic] infringement of rights of the plaintiffs by law.
The "diploma mill" list that the University of Illinois ordered Dr. Gollin to remove from the University's website in 2003 was moved to the Oregon's Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) website. The ODA's website states that the authority and definitions of "diploma mills" and "fraudulent schools" in [sic] contained on the University of Illinois website. The ODA's "diploma mill" list, authored by Dr. Gollin, is referenced as the source of unapproved colleges and universities by the states of Texas, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, North Dakota, and numerous other states and foreign countries.
In some states such as Oregon and Texas, it is a crime to use diplomas from the schools on the "diploma mill" list and the graduate may face prosecution. The use of this list, produced by Dr. Gollin and supported by the University of Illinois, improperly sanctions the schools, their students and graduates without due process of the law. [citations omitted] Consequently, the schools, their students and graduates are denied
* rights to education [citation omitted]
* right to employment and opportunity,
* pursuit of happiness,
* due process [citations omitted]
* equal protection [citation omitted]
* and rights to assemble
The schools on the "diploma mill" list, their students and graduates are subject
* Harassment
* Prosecution to felony or misdemeanor charges
* Fines or imprisonment
All the above violations of [sic] are done without due process of law.
The use of the "diploma mill" list, authored by Professor Gollin and endorsed and supported by the University of Illinois, Oregon, Texas, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, North Dakota and other violates the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, Bill of Rights, of Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the United States Constitution to which the 14th amendment authorizes the jurisdiction of violations of these protected rights be in the federal courts.
RE: Dolphin Floundering - Armando Ramos - 07-11-2010
Quote:On or about October and November of 2009, Professor George Gollin and Dr. Brad Schwartz (both of the University of Illinois), and Alan Contreras (State of Oregon, Office of Degree Authorization) all conspired to violate the civil rights of Dr. Jerroll Dolphin and the owners of SLSOM, by sending defaming documents and letter [sic] to the Republic of Ghana in an effort to deprive the plaintiffs of their civil rights. ...
A little more about Bradford S. Schwartz, the newest member of Gollin's League of Extraordinary Dumbasses.
![[Image: schwartz_bradford.jpg]](http://img.medscape.com/news/schwartz_bradford.jpg)
![[Image: Brad-Schwartz.jpg]](http://www.med.illinois.edu/administration/DeansOffice/images/Brad-Schwartz.jpg)
![[Image: schwartz_brad_04.jpg?1202315446]](http://mcb.illinois.edu/faculty_research/images/headshots/schwartz_brad_04.jpg?1202315446)
Dr. BS Schwartz
BOWTIE! Need I say more?
Quote:B.A. 1974 Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaignhttp://mcb.illinois.edu/faculty/profile/1007
M.D. 1977 Rush University
Postdoc. 1979-1981 The Scripps Research Inst
http://www.med.illinois.edu/administration/DeansOffice/
Bradford S. Schwartz 2009 salary $355,526. Wow! The taxpayers of Illinois think this dork is worth more than Gollin and Loots combined. They must feel great about how he is helping Gollin get them sued for hundreds of millions.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/databases/salaries/university-of-illinois?name=schwartz
George D. Gollin 2009 salary $101,900
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/databases/salaries/university-of-illinois?name=gollin
Melanie J. Loots 2009 salary $166,842
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/databases/salaries/university-of-illinois?name=loots
Below is the letter Dr. Double Dumbass BS Schwartz wrote to the Ghana NAB, attached as Exhibit E to the plaintiff's opposition. Reads at lot like something Dumbass Gollin cooked up and got Schwartz to sign. Seems to display that characteristic inaccuracy, lack of research, and obnoxious condescension that we associate with The Sphincter.
Sign something for you, Gollin? Sure why not? What me worry? Hee hee, it's not like people in Ghana can read or hire lawyers...
Quote:University of Illinois College of Medicine
Office of the Regional Dean
at Urbana-Champaign
190 Medical Sciences Building, MC-714
505 South Mathews Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801-3618
November 16, 2009
Mr. Kwame Dattey
National Accreditation Board (NAB)
No. 6 Bamako Street, East Legon
P.O. Box CT 3256
Accra
GHANA
Dear Mr. Dattey:
As the Dean of a medical school that recruits from the most accomplished graduates of non-U.S. medical schools into its residency, I have concerns about the impending accreditation decision for what purports to be the St. Luke School of Medicine. I have had the opportunity to review data in the public domain about this alleged school, and about individuals who claimed to have earned a medical degree from it. There is no evidence whatsoever that this alleged school really exists, or that there are adequate facilities for the most rudimentary components of a medical curriculum. In fact, all evidence says that only a small empty unimproved room is at the location advertised for the St. Luke's School of Medicine.
Understanding that high quality is not absolutely dependent upon physical structures, I took the opportunity to review the publicly available records of individuals who claim to have graduated from this alleged school for evidence of a bona fide education. There are records of twelve individuals who claim to have degrees from St. Luke's. None of those people are [sic] licensed to practice medicine, and at least two have been incarcerated for practicing medicine without a license.
I bring this to your attention because accreditation or approval of the alleged St. Luke School of Medicine by officials in Ghana would make medical schools in the United States worry about the quality of any medical school in Ghana. As a result, such approval of St. Luke would put the graduates of legitimate medical schools in your country at a distinct disadvantage when attempting to gain advanced medical training.
Hence, by denying accreditation to St. Luke School of Medicine you will protect the reputations of legitimate medical school graduates from Ghana. Moreover, by denying St. Luke any hint of legitimacy you will protect innocent patients from abuse at the hands of potential pseudo-graduates.
The entity that passes itself off as the St. Luke School of Medicine has never been a legitimate educator of medical practitioners, and I urge you to make the owners of this entity own up to their dishonesty.
Sincerely,
Brad S. Schwartz, M.D.
Dean
Professor of Biochemistry and Medicine
RE: Dolphin Floundering - Armando Ramos - 07-11-2010
BS Schwartz Wrote:There are records of twelve individuals who claim to have degrees from St. Luke's. None of those people are [sic] licensed to practice medicine...
Compare the BS from BS Schwartz to the allegations in SLSOM's original complaint:
Quote:During the first eight years of SLSOM's existence, 1998 through 2006, SLSOM graduated 36 doctors. This represents an average of 4.5 doctors a year. This does not fit the definition of a "diploma mill". ...
SLSOM's worldwide medical licensing examination pass rate of 88% is exceptional. If the scores from medical students forced to transfer to other medical schools due to the IMED removal and subsequent fallout were included in this calculation, SLSOM's worldwide medical licensing examination pass rate would rise to 96%.
What sort of "research" did BS Schwartz perform before he inked onto Gollin's screed? I bet the answer is none. Oops, only off by 300%. Close enough for Gollin-style research. You taxpayers don't expect him to do any actual work for that $355,526 do you? Hey BS, be like Gollin and round up 15 helpers to do all the work next time, and see if you can keep the margin of error under 200%.
RE: Dolphin Floundering - Winston Smith - 07-11-2010
Armando Ramos Wrote:A little more about Bradford S. Schwartz, the newest member of Gollin's League of Extraordinary Dumbasses.
Looks like Schwartz is Gollin's kind of guy--not just a complete racist, but a diabolical, manipulative asshole. Schwartz tried to railroad a Puerto Rican kid out of the MD program because he had the bad taste to exercise his free speech rights to comment on the institutional racism that permeates U of I.
Quote:Ray Morales is currently a Ph.D./M.D. student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Since arriving on this campus, Ray worked within existing organizational structures to make positive changes for all students - especially those interested in Urban Medicine, serving lower-economic populations with medical access, and confronting institutional forms of racism at local and national levels. In addition, Ray is an active fighter to create challenging and creative learning environments for marginalized students within the sciences.http://www.iresist.org/ray.html
On April 2, 2007 Ray's Ph.D. advisor (Dr. Scott K. Silverman, scott@scs.uiuc.edu, (217) 244-4489) dropped him from his supervision and permanently removed Ray from his laboratory for making a statement in January stating he would (paraphrased) "tear down the University's bigoted practices and policies which directly exclude and repress students of color".
The Dean of the College of Medicine, Bradford S Schwartz, has also sabotaged Ray's ability to maintain his status as a Ph.D. student. Dean Schwartz has apparently counciled possible advisors from accepting Ray Morales as an advisee. Without an advisor, Ray can not stay within the Ph.D. program and will lose his external scholarships which require him to be enrolled in a joint Ph.D./MD program.
Ray is an outstanding scholar with a high GPA. He was also presented the Humanitarian of the Year Award at the Fourth Annual Celebration of Black and Latinos in Medicine sponsored by the Urban Health Program and SNMA on April 18, 2006.
Morales illustrates the general attitude toward Hispanics on the U of I campus by describing a racist party held by a Jewish fraternity:
Quote:TACOS & TEQUILA party occurs where a jewish fraternity and predominantly white sorority dress up as stereotypical Mexican such as pregnant women in white beaters, vatos, farmers and gardeners. They take pictures and post them FACEBOOK. The community rallied in outrage.https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/morales4/www/DOWNLOADS/OnlinePacket.pdf (page 6)
Quote:January 08 Professor answers questions in medical class. Turns to one African American female student and asks if she still has a question. She indicates that she changed her mind. The professor exclaims, “Now there’s a woman for you!” and the whole class laughs. The professor apologizes and acknowledges mistake in class, but the whole class was comfortable with this rhetoric as indicated by their responses.(page 7)
After someone "spray painted" the words "Save the Chief" (deposed sports mascot Chief Illiniwek) and "Chime Trustee" (Chime Asonye, student trustee candidate) on the sidewalk near the medical building, police then investigated another similar incident:
Quote:On 03/8/07 Investigator Ghent and I, Investigator Murphy, interviewed Raymond Morales in reference to this report. During our conversation with Morales we discovered it was spray chalk and not spray paint. Per the University of Illinois student Code and policies (Article 2 General Policies and Regulations, part 5 Use of University Premises and Facilities, S 2-506 Requirements and Limitations) the use of chalk is an acceptable practice when writing on the side walk.(page 40)
As we were talking with Morales we discussed his involvement in writing on the side walks. He admitted to writing "KKK EST. 1906 AT UIUC" and indicated that he would not stop writing it on the sidewalk. He also seemed upset over the fact that the Medical College had his writing removed off their sidewalk but they did not remove any one else's writings. Morales explained to us his disenchantment and disgust over what he deems as the Medical College failure to work with him over issues dealing with minority students.
The KKK must be a lot more open-minded than they used to be. Apparently they have the Schwartz/Silverman/Gollin Chapter at UIUC. Ray Morales might have gotten better treatment by just changing his name to MurRay Moralestein.
RE: Dolphin Floundering - ham - 07-12-2010
Apparently certain people don't like the taste of their own medicine...had it been dr. Swinestein or mr. Shamboim screaming against racism on campus. you bet it'd be a crime to contradict him, forget about harassing him...can you hear rep. Turdberg (D) and Sen. Ira 'Minuteman' Clownitz ® urging to legislate against hate...now...immediately...
RE: Dolphin Floundering - Armando Ramos - 07-30-2010
Armando Ramos Wrote:Federal judges tend to be pretty quick on the kill switch, so Dolphin needs to find competent legal help pronto.
Not to break my arm patting myself on the back, but you could see this coming down Main Street.
As mentioned above, Judge Klausner issued an OSC on July 2 regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Dolphin failed to respond adequately, so the Judge dismissed the case July 29.
His lawyer of record filed no response. What Dolphin tried to file was rejected and didn't cut the mustard in any event, according to the court. As we expected, without competent legal representation the plaintiff got sunk at the first hoop.
In the OSC (attached below) the judge seemed to be trying to help Dolphin out a bit, at least pointing him to the jurisdiction statutes and essentially telling him what the right answer was, if he would only say it. But not being a lawyer he either didn't get it or didn't know what to say.
This was not in any way a resolution on the merits. If Dolphin can get his act together he can come around again for another try.
Given what we already know about certain defendants and their history of dissolute conduct, this looks like a winnable case if Dolphin can get his ducks in line. The dumbasses chortling on other stations continue to demonstrate their ignorance. Let's hope Dolphin finds better representation next time so he will get his day in court. Then we will see who laughs last.
And let's face it, if it's not Dolphin, there are bound to be others. The defendants should hope that all that happens is they get sued again. As Geoff suggested above, some people have more faith in softball practice than they do in the legal system. When you make a hobby out of screwing people over you really can't be too surprised when the victims decide to improvise their own remedies.