So here is a sample of the letter I have sent to the mayor, chancellor and other officials:
I am filing this complaint against two city employees, Kevin McCormack of the New York Department of Education and Dudley Thompson of the New York Corporation Counsel.
These men conspired to defraud me on or before June 4, 2003.
My former principal, Mr. McCormack took the witness stand and gave false testimony, presented fraudulent documents and admitted not knowing the first thing about being a principal.
The testimony was so absurd it is clear that it was never vetted by the Department of Education as required. He was a Supervising Principal and knew that all testimony had to be “cleared by headquarters” Back when he was a school principal he always told employees under him to go down to the General Counsel’s Office before even going for a deposition.
It is also clear that Mr. Thompson, never notified the Chancellor’s General Counsel, Michael Best. Mr. Best even stated that there was no testimony that day by anyone at the Department of Education; he knows Mr. Thompson and Mr. Thompson knows all testimony has to be okayed the DOE’s legal staff. In fact, Mr. Thompson always notifies him personally!
How could either Mr. Thompson or Mr. McCormack go ahead and skip over this vital step and think they could get away with it?
As I outline in my enclosed affidavit, they had to feel confident that they were free to keep this testimony secret, because they knew the other one was also keeping quiet. They relied on the other’s secrecy, and this constitutes a conspiracy.
I had also filed complaints about the judge in the case, who permitted this testimony among other missteps. A few months ago the Committee on Judicial Conduct looked into my allegations but found that my former attorneys did not want to criticize a sitting judge.
However, the Chief Investigator, Roger Schwarz, told me that what happened between the city’s attorney and that principal constituted a conspiracy. He told me to report it to the DA because the Statute of Limitations on Conspiracy to Commit Fraud is very long.
After repeated letters to the DA’s Office they finally referred me to your office.
Please know that besides the DA I have tried every route I could find to .bring this cover-up into the light of day.
Betsy Gotbaum cornered the Chancellor at a public event and told him about this principal’s bizarre testimony. Chancellor Klein personally promised me an investigation and he did his best to see that there was one. He sent off a stern letter to Michael Best, the General Counsel to the Chancellor, and asked why there had been no investigation of such outrageous behavior. He ordered him to start one.
Still nothing happened for several months. Finally a new attorney started working at the office, Ms.Courtney Jackson-Chasen. They dumped the case on her. She interviewed me at length on the telephone. I sent her piles of confidential medical records and psychological reports concerning my injury. She acquainted herself with the appropriate rules, regulations and the New York State Education Laws. Progress was being made at last!
However, once her superiors in the Chancellor’s General Counsel’s Office found out that Ms. Jackson-Chasen was starting to ask embarrassing questions Mr. Best quickly took the investigation away from her.
So, while I am asking your office to investigate these two individuals. You might also ask Mr. Best what made him shut down that investigation. You might also ask Richard Condon’s Office why no one was interested in investigating my allegations of corruption, but chose instead to forward them to people who do not investigate such matters.
The reason an investigation is important at this time is that if you can find the people who had these two men act in consort you will expose the systematic corruption in School District 75. It was set up as the “Chancellor’s District” to keep it free from the politics in community control. Instead people like Kevin McCormack get almost automatic promotions and are appointed to posts over better qualified candidates.
Kevin McCormack was totally inappropriate for the Manhattan Occupational Center. Several times I had to tell him not to ask teachers how retarded they thought a student was right in front of the students.
At the time I was assaulted I had already reported him for misappropriating funds meant for the students to refurbish his office. I was also pressing him about other missing money. I had complained about my assailant brutalizing his young students. I expect those complaints to go to right to the state.
Instead that teacher goes after me. He stalked me. Then he publicly harassed me. He even had his students yell insults at me. And the principal does nothing. Then this guy jumps me from behind, plummets me about the classroom, and the principal does nothing. Kevin McCormack has a pile of grievances from where he failed to report other assaults, why not this one?
This teacher is emboldened with what he got away with. After all he jumped me from behind and plummeted around the room before I could get to my feet, and the principal covered it up for him. Now this teacher, crazed by the use of illegal steroids, feels free to attack me again in front of students, this principal covers it up
I am left with Traumatic Brain Injury, tendons that have to be stapled back on my bones, fractured vertebrae and chronic pain for the rest of my life, it was a just a minor incident. No need to report anything. We sat around and laughed it off, he says in court! Kevin McCormack is rid of me and the questions I was asking, and ready for his next promotion.
The committee to choose a new principal for our school met with the administrators at the District 75 Office. They were told they had to select Mr. McCormack. They objected because he had never worked with a mentally retarded population. They were told that he was only going to be at the school a few years and then he’d be moving up to the a job at the district office and that would be good for the school!
For too long corrupt politicians, such as Mario Biaggi, have had their say in the running of District 75. I think it is time that the best qualified people get into the positions of power. The 21st Century is too late a time for Tammany Hall to be still running things in New York!
Here is a copy of the affidavit which accompanies each of these letters:
Affidavit
in support of the charges against
Kevin McCormack of the New York Department of Education
and
Dudley Thompson of the Corporation Counsel, City of New York
Copy of the signed and sworn document sent to your office May 3, 2009
On or before June 4,2003 Mr. Kevin McCormack entered into an agreement, either spoken or tacit, with Mr. Dudley Thompson to defraud the Supreme Court of New York State, the jury seated at this trial, and Mr. Lawrence Hayes.
Both knew that they were responsible to notify Mr. McCormack’s employer the New York Department of Education (DOE) of Mr. McCormack’s pending testimony, yet each failed to notify the New York Department of Education as required. This took some form of coordination.
Each had great experience in court appearances by employees of the Department of Education. Dudley Thompson had represented the DOE many times. Each and every time an employee was to testify he made sure that the DOE knew about the upcoming court date and that all these employees went down to the Chancellor’s General Counsel’s Office to have the testimony and the evidence to be presented vetted by the DOE’s lawyers.
When the Chancellor’s chief attorney, Mr. Michael Best, was told that Mr. McCormack had testified at this trial he was baffled. He checked the date: “There was no testimony by anyone at the DOE that day. Dudley Thompson always makes it a point to notify me personally beforehand. There was no testimony the date you gave me. There was no trial.”
Kevin McCormack definitely knew that he was required to notify the Chancellor’s General Counsel’s Office. He had testified in court many times and knew what was required. As principal he had sent many other employees under him down to the General Counsel’s Office before they were to testify.
When he testified Mr. McCormack was no longer a school principal; he had been appointed Supervising Principal. Expertise in all the regulations and routines a principal must know was a necessary job-requirement. It was his job to make sure that the new principals under his supervision new and followed such regulations and routines.
Each knew he had the responsibility to notify the General Counsel’s Office and did not. Each knew that the other was also required to notify that office. The DOE wanted to be sure everything went smoothly for each court appearance by every one of its employees.
The attorney representing the City could not risk not notifying the General Counsel’s Office if he were not absolutely sure the other person who was required to notify them had not done so.
The man representing the DOE also could not have risked his job by not notifying them he was to appear in court, unless he knew the other person who was required to notify them had not done so.
Thus, they worked in tandem. 1.
Why was such cooperation necessary? Both Mr. McCormack and Mr. Thompson knew that Kevin McCormack’s testimony would never pass examination by the General Counsel’s Office. It would get them both in trouble.
No one, for example, would ever authorize Kevin McCormack to state that he was not familiar with the Chancellor’s Regulations on how to report an assault in a school in 1996. After all, the chancellor, Raymond Cortines, had just been ousted in 1995 for not requiring all principals to strictly follow these rules and regulations.
Also, anyone at the DOE would know that copies of these regulations were regularly distributed and discussed at the meetings of principals and of teachers each year – for decades.
Further, given the excessive number of grievances brought against Mr. McCormack based for failing to report many other assaults as required by these regulations made it impossible to swear that he “was not familiar with them.”
Would anybody at the DOE let him present such bogus evidence such as a letter of reprimand he claimed to be from the official file of the Mr. Hayes’ assailant? That person was no longer in that school when the letter was written on June 11, 1996.. They would also have seen that it was never signed by the assailant and could not legally be placed in that official file without his signature.
Also they would have certainly asked Mr. McCormack why there were no witness statements. There were two assaults both in front of staff members and the second in front of a room of terrified emotionally disturbed young girls. A handwritten witness statement from each witness is required by law.
They would also stop him from presenting into evidence the letter he propertied to be an actual witness statement. It was typed by someone and signed by a Mr. Ayalew. But, it does not qualify as a witness statement. Mullah Ayalew is an Ethiopian immigrant who had little command of written language; he’d have difficulty even reading this statement let alone writing it.
Because of all the prior frauds pulled off by administrators over the years by creating phony “witness statements” and badgering staff into signing them, the law requires that witnesses in schools write out these statements in their own hands. No one at the DOE would even let Mr. McCormack bring such a bogus document near a courtroom.
Also, the people at the DOE would want the reports I wrote out after each attack. Where are they? Most never made it into the court!
Also, looking at the reports that did survive they would have to ask Kevin McCormack why these reports were never forwarded to the General Counsel’s Office. It would have led to an investigation of Kevin McCormack’s high-handed disregard for the duties of a principal, and would make it impossible to let him give such bizarre testimony and present such bogus evidence.
Thus, these two men conspired together. It is not necessary for people to formally agree for there to be an agreement, it can even be unspoken.
A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act. In this case it is alleged that there was a common unlawful agreement to defraud, by the use of false documents, withheld and/or destroyed documents, false claims, and perjured testimony by Mr. Kevin McCormack, then a Supervising Principal for School District 75, and Mr. Dudley Thompson, then an attorney for the New York City Corporation Council at the Civil Trial:Lawrence Hayes vs the NY City Department of Education June 2003.
This fraud was both:
1.) Intrinsic Fraud by the use of:
Intentionally false representation
False documents
Withheld and/or destroyed documents
False claims
Perjured testimony
Obstruction of Justice
In order to deceive the Court and the jury.
2.) Extrinsic Fraud in that the use of:
Intentionally false representation
False documents
Withheld and/or destroyed documents
False claims
Perjured testimony
Obstruction of Justice
To deny the plaintive, Lawrence Hayes, the right to a full and fair hearing.
After, Mr. Dudley Thompson had finished with Kevin McCormack’s fraudulent presentation to the court; the lawyers for Mr. Hayes began to press him for a quick settlement. They felt that in spite of it self-contradictions, inconsistency and questionable “evidence” Kevin McCormack had swayed the jury.
A poll of several jurors afterwards showed that he had indeed convinced them.
Mr. Hayes was awarded a small settlement only for injuries to his left shoulder, which had been repaired by surgery.
There was no consideration of his the other damages inflicted on Mr. Hayes. He had been pinned between two large, steel doors by his assailant who threw himself against them full force with drop-kicks
He had considerably more bodily injuries such as the two compression fractures to his spine from where his back was crushed by the handle of one of the doors, the broken cervical vertebrae that had to be fused , and the chronic pain and spasms that will need round-the-clock narcotic medication for the rest of his life.
Nor was there any consideration in determining damages of the severe Traumatic Brain Injuries Mr. Hayes received. by having his head smashed from both sides again and again at different angles.
The TBI has caused blurry double-double vision (double-diplopia) , depression, difficulty concentrating or thinking, difficulty finding words or understanding the speech of others (aphasia), difficulty swallowing (dysphagia). dizziness, headache, poor coordination of movement, lightheadedness. loss of balance, difficulty walking, loss of memory, muscle stiffness and/or spasms, sleep difficulties, vertigo, and Slowness in thinking, speaking, acting, or reading.
Mr. Hayes has had to endure the loss of many long friendships because of the difficult for others to deal with his getting lost or easily confused, feeling tired all of the time, having no energy or motivation; and mood changes (feeling sad or angry for no reason). He personally feels that the stress and strain of trying to be caregiver led to the premature demise of his domestic partner of 24 years.
1. Due to the secretive nature of a conspiracy, the government need not prove a formal agreement but can demonstrate its existence through circumstantial evidence or by inference from defendants' actions.
A conspiracy to commit an offence is an inchoate offence in the sense that it is complete without the doing of any act save the act of agreeing to commit the offence: R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268, 279.
Evidence of acts following the agreement may be the only available proof that the agreement was made, but it is the agreement and not the evidence of the acts that constitutes the offence: R v Gudgeon (1995) 133 ALR 379, 389.
All participants in a conspiracy are deemed responsible for each of the acts and declarations of the others, People v. Rastelli, 37 NY2d 240, 244 (1975); Martin, Capra and Rossi, New York Evidence Handbook Section 8.3.2.4 at 720 (2d ed)
A conspiracy consists of an agreement to commit an underlying crime , coupled with an overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy (Penal Law Section Section 105.15, 105.20),
NB:
The Supreme Court has described the gravity of the conspiracy offense: 2.
For two or more to confederate and combine together to commit or cause to be committed a breach of the criminal laws, is an offense of the gravest character, sometimes quite outweighing, in injury to the public, the mere commission of the contemplated crime.
It involves deliberate plotting to subvert the laws, educating and preparing the conspirators for further and habitual criminal practices. And it is characterized by secrecy, rendering it difficult of detection, requiring more time for its discovery, and adding to the importance of punishing it when discovered.
2. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 644 (1946) (quoting United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78. 88 (1915)).
See also Developments, supra note 6, at 924-25 Stating that because of "antisocial potentialities" of conspiracy and the likelihood that additional substantive offenses will result, the state has strong interest in stamping out conspiracy.
AFFIDAVIT
State of New York
County of New York
Personally came before me, the undersigned Notary, the within named
Lawrence P. Hayes, who is a resident of New York County, State of
New York, and makes his/her statement and General Affidavit upon oath and affirmation of belief and personal knowledge that the following matters, facts, and things set forth are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge:
