03/25/08: Students have rights and protections under the FERPA, Family Educational Rights and Protections. Among these rights are: 1) the protection of your financial and medical information; and 2) the obligation of the college to give you a hearing concerning academic disputes—if the dispute is not resolved favorably, the inclusion of an explanatory letter by you with your records. These rights are "described" by the college in its policy handbook. However, you have 180 days from the date you should have known of any FERPA violations to file a complaint with FERPA. If you have a grievance and if you follow the college handbook grievance procedure, you will exceed the 180 days and FERPA will dismiss your complaint. The college knows this.

If you are concerned and if you are a Prescott College student, do not think you can get legal counsel locally—the college farms out its legal business. I spent months looking for an attorney who wasn't conflicted out, with no success. The college knows this too. (This practice is not unethical; but it fits a pattern, and it was the "punchline" on an episode of The Sopranos.)

Write to FERPA as soon as you suspect a violation. Trying to reconcile a complaint or following the college's policy handbook may result in your losing protections under FERPA. Write:

Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-5920

I was never offered a hearing by the college when I appealed the academic discrepancies in my transcript. Further, I asked for a meeting (I asked Dr. Garvey, President, I asked Mr. Michael Rooney, the college's attorney and an education law specialist, I asked Dr. Corey, CEO), but my requests were ignored or rebuffed. To exhaust my options, to wait politely for a response, meant that my FERPA complaint was dismissed on the basis of being untimely. Don't let that happen to you. File as soon as you suspect a violation.

"Institutions which violate the Act can be faced with a withdrawal of Federal Funding. This however has not occurred since the inception of the Act [1974]. Typically complaints are fielded then corrections made" American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO).

General Descriptions and additional links: US Dept. of Education, National Academic Advising Association, Wrightslaw, AACRAO.

04.16.08 I wrote Dr. Corey, COO, Prescott College, asking again for a meeting 04.08.08 and 04.14.08. He read the first letter 9 times, and forwarded it to Sacks Tierney twice. He read the second letter 3 times. He has not responded to me in any manner. However, my web stats show that following those two letters: 1) Sacks Tierney looked at these web pages; then 2) my web host provider, GoDaddy, started looking at them. Based on previous actions by the college and its attorneys this probably means that they are accusing me again of "malicious defamation," and trying to get these pages removed, without a court order. Sacks Tierney did this a year ago to ActiveHost, my previous webhost provider, falsely saying that there was pending legal action against me for defamation, defaming me concerning the nature of my complaints, and lying about the status of my complaints (Rooney & Armstrong). Unless this is a coincidence, Dr. Corey is responding to my sincere requests for a meeting by trying to have these pages removed, while bypassing the courts. These pages, or pages like them, have been on my site since the end of 2005 (see cached pages on Google), more than enough time to get a court order for their removal. Based on their letters and interviews with the college by the ASBPPSE, rather than resort to facts, they accuse me of claiming I was a spy and the people who might vouch for me are dead, they say that I am out of touch with reality, that I wrote nonexistent books, that I took nonexistent classes, which they were happy to bill me for: The Honor Conscience is essentially an unwritten commitment to act with honesty and integrity, and to treat others with respect.

When the Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb appeared at their ASBPPSE interview, they brought "thousands and thousands and thousand of pages" of coursework, contracts, evaluations, etc.; but the "vast bulk was reprints of my website" according to Mr. Rooney (he did not dispute the quantity). The Prescott College pages on my site totaled 85 (in big print) at the time, so I presume they had printed out the entirety of my site, which violated my copyright, and the copyright of others. I asked about these pages and for their return, but was ignored. Is this what they are doing now on this site without a court order? See my terms and conditions, written by Mr. Mark Goodman, esq. my attorney at the time. Although he gave me advice regarding a billing problem, when he found out that it was in regard to Prescott College he told me that he represented the college, and he ceased being my attorney. The college agreed to my terms and conditions, but violated them, and probably continues to. This is how the collegeinterprets their Honor Conscience:

From http://www.prescott.edu/student_services/conduct.html:

Honor Conscience

Community life and a successful experience at Prescott College depend on a commitment to a sense of responsibility for oneself and to other people. This commitment is shown through the Honor Conscience.

While rules must be observed, they do not convey the nature of one’s personal involvement in the community. The Honor Conscience is essentially an unwritten commitment to act with honesty and integrity, and to treat others with respect.

Prescott College has not decreed an exhaustive set of regulations since these may actually inhibit the development of self-discipline. Only the most necessary rules are made explicit (see below). While the objective is to implement this behavior code through voluntary acceptance, all members of the Prescott College community are expected to act according to the Honor Conscience.

Faculty, administration, employees, and students need to recognize their responsibility in being continuously available to lead and guide new students in matters pertaining to the Honor Conscience.

While we believe in allowing students to develop their own self-discipline, should a student fail in doing this and exhibit behavior(s) that display disrespect for others and for the Honor Code, the College may hold such students responsible for their behavior.

It is my documented experience that this Honor Conscience is by the College honor'd more in the breach than the observance.

If, as the college asserts, they are 100% correct, ethical, and correct, why not meet with me? Why not show me their evidence and put this matter to rest? Why spend what must be hundreds of thousands of dollars being deceitful and dishonest? Simple questions. Perhaps there is a simple answer.

Terril Shorb suggested to the ASBPPSE that maybe I was out to "scam" the college all along. Scam? I am an average guy, who worked very hard as a student—if I was going to do college coursework, I intended to learn the most I could—and my coursework was evaluated glowingly. In 2005, I had three simple complaints: I was wrongly billed despite explicit contracts for an approved curriculum; I received credit for three courses I did not take or need to take; my transcripts showed credit awards .25 to .50 what I was in fact awarded. In July, 2005, when I appealed to Dean Jeanine Canty, I wanted credit for the work I did; I did not want credit for what I did not do; and I wanted a refund for the erroneous billing: those were my "scam." Instead of reconciling this in a few minutes, instead of meeting with me about the academic discrepencies, I was threatened, lied to, and defamed.

I allege:

See Update for more detail and links. (Words in red will be linked to evidence.)

My original complaint filed with the ASBPPSE had ten sections of specific areas of complaint and eight sections that answered specific Complaint Committee questions, tried to clarify confusions raised by Dr. Paul Burkhardt in his address to the Committee, or anticipated college responses, which I could only guess at by state rule.

The following three sections 1. Billing, 2. Alterations, and 3. Discrepancies represent three of the ten sections. "Billing" shows that I was falsely billed for enrollment hours that the college alleged I had taken in breach of explicit contracts. "Alterations" shows altered documents that were used to show I had contracted for the additional hours. Discrepancies show a few of the discrepancies between my transcripts and what I had, in fact, done or been awarded.

Given the lies and defamations by the college, the falsehoods made by the college attorneys, I can only assume one of two things, my complaints show a willful and specific intention to harm me, or this represents how the college functions s

1. Billing

The College billed me for 6 extra enrollment credit hours (not for specific classes) despite signed contracts (detailed analysis)

1A. My faculty advisor Terril Shorb explained the extra billing this way ("10-unit" is the same thing as 10 enrollment credit hours, billed at $227 per hours):

1B. But this is my approved curriculum. It was approved by Terril Shorb. After he approved it, it was approved by the faculty committee. It was approved at "5 credits," that is 5 enrollment credit hours. The "Critical Issues and Applications" was a course "taught" by Terril Shorb, which included the approved curriculum: the curriculum was approved by Terril Shorb and the faculty committee, and as a required part of "Critical Issues and Applications" was included in it, which was reviewed, approved, and evaluated by Terril Shorb.

Two years later he said: "And so the ultimate curriculum that was approved was based on my own sense of what he had that we could work with that was relevant, conversations with my colleagues, we built that. So that's a reconfiguration of many of his, sometimes confused, documents [page 77, line 21, April 11, 2007] . . . Walton states in his complaint that that Terril Shorb approved my curriculum and that the faculty approved. He was speaking of his interim curriculums which were never approved by anybody. And have no no standing until the full faculty approves [page 27, line 2, April 13, 2007]"

The curriculum, below, was the approved curriculum. It was approved by Mr. Shorb and the faculty committee, and it is explicitly referred to in the approved contracts written August 25, 2004, and signed by Mr. Shorb. A student cannot draft a contract for a specific course or portfolio without that course or portfolio being approved; and that is the process: each student's curriculum is drafted with Core Faculty; once Core Faculty approves it, it is presented to the faculty committee. Following their approval contracts are drafted, approved, and signed.

Mr. Shorb and Dr. Paul Burkhardt lied to the ASBPPSE at their April interviews, or: if Mr. Shorb's assertion is presumed correct, then he instructed me to draft two contracts August 26 for a curriculum that he misrepresented as having been approved (I could not have written a contract for specific coursework, which Shorb signed, if the curriculum had been represented as approved); then he drafted a curriculum after my coursework was done, kept it secret from me and applied it to my coursework retroactively. If this is true, Mr. Shorb committed fraud. However:

Working with Terril Shorb from February 20, 2004, through mid-August, I drafted my curriculum. It had to satisfy both academic and enrollment requirements. The academic requirements meant doing coursework that met the criteria for two breadths (minors, lower division credits) and one competence (major, upper division work), and which incorporated fourteen classes that I had taken at Prescott College 1967-1969; "measured" in academic credit hours. The enrollment requirements meant keeping the enrollment credit hours—a billing unit that does not necessarily directly relate to the number of academic credit hours—between 18 and 24 for each term. During that time, following Mr. Shorb's instructions and advice, I made five drafts, each resembling the approved curriculum below. I could never get answers from Mr. Shorb as to how best to divide the fourteen prior credits into two comprehensive breadths, or even what my competence should be: it could have been music, creative writing, studio art (photography, digital art, etc.).

As the approved curriculum shows (there are two typos, the second LEP #2 should be #3 and the last LEP should be #4), I intended the second two LEPs to be part of a second term of coursework. The first term included, LEP 1, LEP 2, Critical Issues and Applications (not shown on this sheet), 5 enrollment credits, and the Practicum, for which I was asked to draw up a contract for the next meeting, September 14. Those four courses total 20 enrollment credit hours. That is what was approved and contracted for.

Also, I show a mentored class for statistics. If Mr. Shorb's assertions above are again presumed correct, then he and his colleagues removed the mentored class from my curriculum, and then said that I refused to do any mentored classes: this would be altering evidence to prove a lie, which would be another fraud.

The final draft was approved by Mr. Shorb August 9, 2004, and he had took it to the faculty committee for their approval. It was approved, and for our August 26 meeting, Mr. Shorb told me to draft contracts.

1C. Only when the curriculum was approved by Terril Shorb and by a faculty committee, did he ask me to draft the contracts, following his instructions. These contracts were approved and signed by him. They are for 5 enrollment credit hours each ("Credit hours 5") not for 10 each.

These contracts explicitly confirm my understandings of the College's policies and procedures as represented by Terril Shorb. Shorb's actions and words were consistent with these understandings until some time in March or April, 2005.

I was billed and had to pay $1362 after my coursework had been completed. My account was placed on hold by the business office until payment was made. At the advice of my attorney, Mark Goodman, esq., I paid under protest.

Mr. Shorb now (April 11, 2007, but no where between July 2005,when I first appealed, and the April 11 interview) claims of the approved curriculum (singular, dated August 26, 2004, the same day as Mr. Shorb received and later signed my contracts that explicitly referred to the approved curriculum) that I "was speaking of [my] interim curriculums [sic] which were never approved by anybody, and have no standing until faculty approval" (interview) However, "I [Mr. Shorb] reconfigured some of [the drafts]. We made a curriculum . . . that ultimately as submitted to the faculty and was approved." This could only have occurred after my coursework was completed in March, 2005. There was no other curriculum other than the one I have, which is included in my complaints (curriculum), which was approved by Mr. Shorb, which was listed as my approved curriculum in my "Critical Issues and Applications" binder, submitted to and approved by Mr. Shorb. Mr. Shorb lied to the ASBPPSE. If he is to be believed, then: 1) Mr. Shorb and his colleges drafted my curriculum after I had completed my coursework and after it was reviewed and evaluated. 2) it was drafted without my knowledge or approval (there are no documents supporting this, signed or unsigned, no emails, no notes, no letters, no meetings, in fact, there is no such curriculum in the college records); 3) it clearly breaches contracts signed by Mr. Shorb; 4) given the contracts and process that Mr. Shorb represented, this curriculum meets all the criteria of fraud; 5) it was drafted to justify what must be considered after three years of lies, intentional mistakes made by Mr. Shorb in my transcripts; 6) there was a suggestion in several ambiguous comments by Mr. Shorb, that this curriculum might have been in the box of "thousands and thousands and thousands of pages" brought to the interview, but this was either a lie (as Mr. Rooney's assertion suggests) or it was one of the documents given to Dr. Nixon but that Dr. Nixon lost, destroy, or concealed from the ASBPPSE, or it was taken away by Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb after the interview. Given 2 years of dealing with my complaints and that this "ultimate curriculum," is mentioned no where in any of the college responses (responses), let alone included in any of the college's attachments, but only orally in interviews--I can only conclude that Dr. Burkhardt and Mr. Shorb committed fraud.

The Board of Trustees is aware of my complaints and the college responses, so I assume this fraud meets with their approval and has their authority.

For two years the College has maintained that I contracted for 10 enrollment credit hours for each LEP. I was billed for the difference.

2. Alterations

Documents were altered by the College

When I met with ADP Dean Jeanine Canty on July 5, 2005, she said:

When I handed her the actual contracts, totaling 20 enrollment credit hours--5 for each LEP, 5 for the Practicum, and 5 for the CIA--she left the room and returned with these copies of the evaluation forms:

"Here are the evaluations for the courses. They show 10 enrollment hours."

2A.

2.B.

In his Paul Burkhardt gave this example of evaluations controlling billing: "When Mr. Mendelson registered for the required 3 credit Liberal Arts Seminar on 16 May 2005, he was allowed to add these units to the Summer 2004 term so as to avoid the increased tuition rate. When he completed the LAS course and submitted successful evaluations, he was billed for these additional 3 credits beyond the full time maximum ($681 12 August 2005)." [emphasis added]

I have the receipt. It is dated June 23, 2005, that is before the LAS weekend class. This deceit was made to show that the evaluations not the contracts control billing, as Ms. Canty asserted when she gave me altered documents.

3. Discrepancies

My transcripts show credits for classes I did not take and lower credits than I was awarded course by course

I appealed the discrepancies in my transcripts. The appeal was sent to Dean Jeanine Canty, ADP. Rather than look into the problem, she suggested that I "touch base" with Terril Shorb because she relied on Shorb for the award information. I wrote Terril Shorb asking about the discrepancies.

3.A.After his initial review, in August, he said there is little discrepancy, which by November became no discrepancy and "imagined" higher awards:

3.B. Here is the Dean's award for "Ecocriticism." It is one of three classes I did not take.

3.C. Here is Terril Shorb's evaluation and credit award for "Environmental Writing" (a single, 200 page chapter, submitted in one binder at one time):

3.D. However, according to Dean Canty, Terril Shorb made the Dean's Awards that she signed and submitted to the Registrar's Office. The 10 upper division credit hour awards are now 5:

Quality

The quality of my work was not an issue

Here are quotes from the evaluations written by Terril Shorb:

I have had the pleasure of reading and reviewing Walt's excellent and extensive body of literary analysis and written work. This included two main aspects: an understanding of literature from an academic perspective, and, the execution of literature itself.

He has great ability to effectively inform the reader about, say, environmental literature, in a away that illuminates the prospects and challenges of that form to educate readers about the human-environment relationship.

Walt then demonstrates his further understanding of the form by presenting extensive writing in that genre or form. Walt accomplished this dual perspective in areas of poetry, short fiction, the novel, script writing.

The cumulative effect of Walt's commentary on various craft elements of writing, as well as on aesthetics, and through his actual writing in the various forms and genres, demonstrates the breadth and depth of his understanding of how memorable writing is made an who we can describe it in useful, critical language.

I think you ought to finish the work and send it out again!

Storytelling--a very old human from--is the use of oral, _____, and gestures to create pictures in the listener's mind. Your form certainly does as well. Thanks for the glimpse.

By demonstrating how written expression across a small, contained space can convey greater pastures of meaning, Walt has shown an understanding of the potency of poetry in analysis and in fact.

Cumulatively, this represents a massive body of work far beyond the scope that students typically produce in a Creative Writing based degree.

Legal Definitions

Threat:
A menace of destruction or injury to the lives or property of those against whom it is made.
Sending threatening letters to persons for the purpose of extorting money, is said to, be a misdemeanor at common law. To be indictable, the threat must be of a nature calculated to overcome a firm and prudent man. The party who makes a threat may be held to bail for his good behaviour.

evidence. Menace.

[Menace - A threat; a declaration of an intention to cause evil to happen to another. (http://www.lectlaw.com)]

When menaces to do an injury to another have been made, the party making them may, in general, be held to bail to keep the peace; and, when followed by any inconvenience or loss, the injured party has a civil action against the wrong doer.

When a confession is obtained from a person accused of crime, in consequence of a threat, evidence of such confession cannot be received, because, being obtained by the torture of fear, it comes in so questionable a shape, that no credit ought to be given to it this is the general principle, but what amounts to a threat is not so easily defined. It is proper to observe, however, that the threat must be made by a person having authority over the prisoner, or by another in the presence of such authorized person, and not dissented from by the latter.

Threat, true - A statement which expresses an intent to injure the person of another and must be a serious threat as distinguished from mere idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner. (http://www.lectlaw.com)

Fraud:
Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or (3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that party from being cheated. The existence of fraud will cause a court to void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability. (http://www.duhaime.org)

Fraud, to defraud - The term 'fraud' is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. [Fraud may also include an omission or intentional failure to state material facts, knowledge of which would be necessary to make other statements not misleading.]

To make a 'misrepresentation' simply means to state as a fact something which is false or untrue. [To make a material 'omission' is to omit or withhold the statement of a fact, knowledge of which is necessary to make other statements not misleading.]

Thus, to constitute fraud, a misrepresentation must be false [or an omission must make other statements misleading], and it must be 'material' in the sense that it relates to a matter of some importance or significance rather than a minor or trivial detail.

To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation [or omission] must also relate to an 'existing fact.' Ordinarily, a promise to do something in the future does not relate to an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim for fraud unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Similarly, a mere expression of opinion does not relate to an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion.

To constitute fraud the misrepresentation [or omission] must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident; that is, that the person either knew or should have known of the falsity of the misrepresentation [or the false effect of the omission], or that he made the misrepresentation [or omission] in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity.

Finally to constitute fraud, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant intended for the Plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentation [and/or omission]; that the Plaintiff did in fact rely upon the misrepresentation [and/or omission]; and that the Plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the fraud.

In some cases [depending on the specifics of the case and the law] when it is shown that a Defendant made a material misrepresentation [and/or omission] with the intention that the Plaintiff rely upon it, then, under the law, the Plaintiff may rely upon the truth of the representation, even though its falsity could have been discovered had he made an investigation, unless he knows the representation to be false or its falsity is obvious to him.

In other cases, when it is shown that a Defendant made a material misrepresentation [and/or omission] with the intention that the Plaintiff rely upon it, the Plaintiff must prove that his reliance was justified. If, in the exercise of reasonable care for the protection of his own interests, the Plaintiff could have learned the truth of the matter by making a reasonable inquiry or investigation under the circumstances presented, but failed to do so, then it cannot be said that he 'justifiably' relied upon such misrepresentations [and/or omissions].

For injury or damage to be the result of fraud, it must be shown that, except for the fraud, the injury or damage would not have occurred.

The word 'material' means that the subject matter of the statement [or concealment] related to a fact or circumstance which would be important to the decision to be made as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial or unimportant detail. (e.g. re: insurance fraud - to be material, an assertion [or concealment] must relate to a fact or circumstance that would affect the liability of an insurer (if made during an investigation of the loss), or would affect the decision to issue the policy, or the amount of coverage or the premium (if made in the application for the policy).

Torts. Unlawfully, designedly and knowingly, to appropriate the property of another without criminal intent. For example:

1. Every appropriation of the right of property of another is not fraud. It must be unlawful; that is to say, such an appropriation as is not permitted by law. Property loaned may, during the time of the loan, be appropriated to the use of the borrower. This is not fraud, because it is permitted by law.
2. The appropriation must be not only unlawful, but it must be made with a knowledge that the property belongs to another and with a design to deprive him of the same. It is unlawful to take the property of another; but if it be done with a design of preserving it for the owners or if it be taken by mistake, it is not done designedly or knowingly and, therefore, does not come within the definition of fraud.
3. Every species of unlawful appropriation, not made with a criminal intent, enters into this definition, when designedly made, with a knowledge that the property is another's; therefore, such an appropriation, intended either for the use of another or for the benefit of the offender himself, is comprehended by the term.
4. Fraud, however immoral or illegal, is not in itself a crime or offence for want of a criminal intent. It only becomes such in the cases provided by law.

Contracts, Torts. Any trick or artifice employed by one person to induce another to fall into an error or to detain him in it, so that he may make an agreement contrary to his interest. The fraud may consist either, first, in the misrepresentation or, secondly, in the concealment of a material fact. Fraud, force and vexation, are odious in law. Fraud gives no action however, without damage and in matters of contract it is merely a defence; it cannot in any case constitute a new contract.

Fraud avoids a contract, ab initio, both at law and in equity, whether the object be to deceive the public, third persons or one party endeavor thereby to cheat the other.

The following is an enumeration of frauds for which equity will grant relief:
1. Fraud, dolus malus, may be actual, arising from facts and circumstances of imposition, which is the plainest case;
2. It may be apparent from the intrinsic nature and subject of the bargain itself; such as no man in his senses and not under delusion, would make on the one hand and such as no honest and fair man would accept on the other, which are inequitable and unconscientious bargains;
3. Fraud, which may be presumed from the circumstances and condition of the parties contracting;
4. Fraud, which may be collected and inferred in the consideration of a court of equity, from the nature and circumstances of the transaction, as being an imposition and deceit on other persons, not parties to the fraudulent agreement;
5. Fraud, in what are called catching bargains, with heirs, reversioners) or expectants on the life of the parents. This last seems to fall under one or more of the preceding divisions.

Frauds may be also divided into actual or positive and constructive frauds.

An actual or positive fraud is the intentional and successful employment of any cunning, deception or artifice used to circumvent, cheat or deceive another.

By constructive fraud is meant such a contract or act, which, though not originating in any actual evil design or contrivance to perpetrate a positive fraud or injury upon other persons, yet by its tendency to deceive or mislead them or to violate private or public confidence or to impair or injure the public interests, is deemed equally reprehensible with positive fraud and therefore is prohibited by law, as within the same reason and mischief as contracts and acts done malo animo. Constructive frauds are such as are either against public policy, in violation of some special confidence or trust or operate substantially as a fraud upon private right's, interests, duties or intentions of third persons; or unconscientiously compromit or injuriously affect the private interests, rights or duties of the parties themselves.

The civilians divide frauds into positive which consists in doing one's self or causing another to do such things as induce a belief of the truth of what does not exist, or negative, which consists in doing or dissimulating certain things in order to induce the opposite party into error or to retain him there. The intention to deceive, which is the characteristic of fraud, is here present.

Fraud is also divided into that which has induced the contract and incidental or accidental fraud. The former is that which has been the cause or determining motive of the contract, that without which the party defrauded would not have contracted, when the artifices practised by one of the parties have been such that it is evident that without them the other would not have contracted. Incidental or accidental fraud is that by which a person, otherwise determined to contract, is deceived on some accessories or incidents of the contract; for example, as to the quality of the object of the contract or its price so that he has made a bad bargain. Accidental fraud does not, according to the civilians, avoid the contract but simply subjects the party to damages. It is otherwise where the fraud has been the determining cause of the contract; in that case the contract is void. (http://www.lectlaw.com)

Forgery:
The act of criminally making or altering a written instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit; for example, signing another person's name to a check. To write payee's endorsement or signature on a check without the payee's permission or authority. The 'payee' of a check is the true owner or person to whom the check was payable.

Forgery at common law has been held to be 'the fraudulent making and alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right.' A more modern writer defined it as, 'a false making; a making malo animo, of any written instrument, for the purpose of fraud and deceit.'

This offence at common law can of the degree of a misdemeanor or felony. There are many kinds of forgery, especially subjected to punishment by statutes enacted by the national and state legislatures.

The subject will be considered with reference to:
1. The making or alteration requisite to constitute forgery.
2. The written instruments in respect of which forgery may be committed.
3. The fraud and deceit to the prejudice of another man's right.
4. The statory provisions under the laws of the United States, on the subject of forgery.

The making of a whole written instrument in the name of another with a fraudulent intent is undoubtedly a sufficient making but a fraudulent insertion, alteration or erasure, even of a letter, in any material part of the instrument, whereby a new operation is given to it, will amount to a forgery; and this, although it be afterwards executed by a person ignorant of the deceit.

The fraudulent application of a true signature to a false instrument for which it was not intended or vice versa, will also be a forgery. For example, it is forgery in an individual who is requested to draw a will for a sick person in a particular way, instead of doing so, to insert legacies of his own head and then procuring the signature of such sick person to be affixed to the paper without revealing to him the legacies thus fraudulently inserted.

It has even been intimated that a party who makes a copy of a receipt and adds to such copy material words not in the original and then offers it in evidence on the ground that the original has been lost, may be prosecuted for forgery.

It is a sufficient making where in the writing the party assumes the name and character of a person in existence. But the adoption of a false description and addition, where a false name is not assumed and there is no person answering the description, is not a forgery.

Making an instrument in a fictitious name or the name of a non-existing person, is equally a forgery as making it in the name of au existing person and although a man may make the instrument in his own name if he represent it as the instrument of another of the same name when in fact there is no such person, it will be a forgery in the name of a non-existing person but the correctness of this decision has been doubted.

Though in general, a party cannot be guilty of forgery by a mere non-feasance, yet if in drawing a will he should fraudulently omit a legacy which he had been directed to insert and by the omission of such bequest it would cause a material alteration in the limitation of a bequest to another; as where the omission of a devise of an estate for life to one, causes a devise of the same lands to another to pass a present estate which would otherwise have passed a remainder only, it would be a forgery.

It may be observed that the offence of forgery may be complete without a publication of the forged instrument.

With regard to the thing forged it may be observed that it has been holden to be forgery at common law fraudulently to falsify or falsely make records and other matters of a public nature a parish register a letter in the name of a magistrate, the governor of a gaol, directing the discharge of prisoner.

With regard to private writings it is forgery fraudulently to falsify or falsely to make a deed or will or any private document whereby another person may be prejudiced.

The intent must be to defraud another, but it is not requisite that any one should have been injured. It is sufficient that the instrument forged might have proved prejudicial. It has been holden that the jury ought to infer an intent to defraud the person who would have to pay the instrument if it were genuine, although from the manner of executing the forgery or from the person's ordinary caution, it would not be likely to impose upon him; and although the object was general to defraud whoever might take the instrument and the intention of the defrauding in particular, the person who would have to pay the instrument if genuine, did not enter into the contemplation of the prisoner.

Most states have passed laws making certain acts to be forgery and Congress has also enacted several on this subject.

The term forgery, is also applied to the making of false or counterfeit coin. (http://www.lectlaw.com)

Breach of Contract:
Breach - The violation of an obligation, engagement or duty; as a breach of covenant is the non-performance or violation of a covenant; the breach of a promise is non-performance of a promise; the breach of a duty is the refusal or neglect to execute an office or public trust, according to law.

Breaches of a contract are single or continuing breaches. The former are those which are committed at one single time. A continuing breach is one committed at different times as if a covenant to repair be broken at one time, and the same covenant be again broken, it is a continuing breach. When a covenant running with the land is assigned after a single breach the right of action for such breach does not pass to the assignee but if it be assigned after the commencement of a continuing breach, the right of action then vests in such assignee.

In general the remedy for breaches of contracts, or quasi contracts, is by a civil action.

Pleading. That part of the declaration in which the violation of the defendant's contract is stated.

It is usual in assumpsit to introduce the statement of the particular breach, with the allegation that the defendant, contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtilely to deceive and defraud the plaintiff, neglected and refused to perform, or performed the particular act contrary to the previous stipulation.

In debt, the breach or cause of action complained of must proceed only for the non-payment of money previously alleged to be payable; and such breach is nearly similar, whether the action be in debt on simple contract, specially, record or statute, and is usually of the following form: 'Yet the said defendant, although often requested so to do, hath not as yet paid the said sum of ____ dollars above demanded, nor any part thereof to the said plaintiff, but hath hitherto wholly neglected and refused so to do to the damage of the said plaintiff _________ dollars, and therefore he brings suit,' etc.

The breach must obviously be governed by the nature of the stipulation; it ought to be assigned in the words of the contract, either negatively or affirmatively, or in words which are co-extensive with its import and effect.

When the contract is in the disjunctive, as on a promise to deliver a horse by a particular day or pay a sum of money, the breach ought to be assigned that the defendant did not do the one act nor the other. (http://www.lectlaw.com)

Misrepresentation:
A false and material statement which induces a party to enter into a contract. This is a ground for recission of the contract. (http://www.duhaime.org)

Extortion
The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
(http://www.lectlaw.com)

Falsehood:
A willful act or declaration contrary to truth. It is committed either by the willful act of the party, by dissimulation, or by words. It's willful for example, when the owner of a thing sells it twice by different contracts to different individuals, unknown to them; for in this the seller must willfully declare the thing is his own when he knows that it is not so. It is committed by dissimulation when a creditor, having an understanding with his former debtor, sells the land of the latter although he has been paid the debt which was due to him.

Falsehood by word - perjury - is committed when a witness swears to what he knows not to be true.

It is a general rule that if a witness testifies falsely as to any material fact the whole of his testimony may be rejected, but still the jury may consider whether the wrong statement is of such character as to entitle the witness to be believed in other respects. (http://www.lectlaw.com)

Defamation:
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error. (http://dictionary.law.com)

An attack on the good reputation of a person, by slander or libel.(http://www.duhaime.org)

ASBPPSE, the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education. Filing a complaint with the ASBPPSE is the last step, by regulation, in the college's grievance policy. Because the college refused to meet with me or discuss any of the issues, when I had by policy exhausted all grievance procedures, I filed a original complaint in December 2005.

See ASBPPSE for more compete information and links to documents.

Under AZ Rule the complainant may not know what the responding institution says until the complaint has been dismissed or moved for hearing. I tried to anticipate what the college could have said in my complaint, but it never occurred to me that they would lie and defame me to the extent they did.

Complaints

See April 11 presentation, College Responses, May 9 part 00, May 9 part 01, May 9 part 02, May 9 part 03, May 9 part 04, May 9 part 05, May 9 part 06, May 9 part 07, May 9 part 08, May 9 part 09, May 9 part 10, November Complaint, June 29 Complaint 01, June 29 Complaint 02, June 29 Complaint 03, June 29 Complaint 04, June 29 Complaint 05, June 29 Complaint 06, June 29 Complaint 07, June 29 Complaint 08, June 29 Complaint 09, June 29 Complaint 10, June 29 Complaint 11, June 29 Complaint 12, June 29 Complaint 13, June 29 Complaint 14, June 29 Complaint 15, June 29 Complaint 16, June 29 Complaint 17, June 29 Complaint 18, a few web page examples.

www.officialprescottcollege.com

www.prescottcollegeedu.org

www.prescottcolleehome.com

www.prescottcollege.info

www.prescottedu.com

www.prescottcollege.us

www.prescottcollegesite.com

www.prescottcollege.net

www.prescottcollegeadp.com

www.prescottcollegeedu.net

www.prescottcollegerdp.com

www.prescottcollegetrustees.com

www.prescottcollegefaculty.com

© 1982-2008 Walton Mendelson. All rights reserved. Use of this Website constitutes acceptance of the Terms and Conditions

Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions| Pricing Policy | Site Map | Contact