Charges Against David Pakter Dismissed

Breaking News: For Immediate Release

Charges Against David Pakter Dismissed



After A 6 Year "David Versus Goliath" Contest,

A New York State Impartial Trial Arbitrator

Has Dismissed the Absurd NY State Education Dept. Charges Made Against A Former NYC "Teacher of the Year"

A Major Victory for Every Teacher in America




_________________________________________________________________________________


David Pakter, A NYC Whistle-blower, Decorated by Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for "Exceptional Achievement" in Education, has fought for years to be vindicated of the Retaliatory, knowingly bogus Charges brought against him after he wrote a letter to Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, on Oct. 2, 2003, alerting him to serious Federal Civil Rights Violations in New York City Schools.

_________________________________________________________________________

In a crushing blow to New York City's Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, who had sought for years to have Mr. Pakter fired, the Hearing Officer dismissed such preposterous charges against the Educator of Medical Illustration as the charge he had brought a plant to school, allegedly without getting official permission and awarding fashion watches to high achieving students, something Pakter had been doing for three decades.

He was also charged with giving a gift to a school aide and showing the film, "El Mariachi" by Robert Rodriguez, an Internationally known Director, to one of his High School classes. The film has been the recipient of a multitude of Cinematic Awards around the world and launched the career of Robert Rodriguez.

The charge that Mr. Pakter stopped reporting to a small, windowless, so-called "Rubber Room" after years of being ordered reassigned to such punitive assignments, where Teachers just sit all day, was not considered in today's verdict.

Mr. Pakter was a Lead Plaintiff in a Federal Lawsuit to shut down these teacher "Gulags" which New York City has announced will cease to exist after this school year ends.

These so-called "reassignment centers" were widely seen as a means to punish Teachers as well as instill fear in those who spoke out and reported wrongdoing as well as corruption and unethical behavior within the 23 Billion dollar NYC schools system.

The charge that Mr. Pakter had allegedly tried to influence a Dept of Education employee to furnish him with a printout of his personal work history on an expedited basis was also not considered in today's decision.
______________________________________________________________


For the past several months the NYC Dept of Education had been attempting to pressure Mr. Pakter to resign by offering to drop all the absurd and contrived charges made against the Award winning Educator- all of which offers were rejected by Mr. Pakter who insisted on a verdict regarding the pending charges alleged against him.

Mr. Pakter has brought Federal Lawsuits against the New York City Dept of Education seeking tens of millions of dollars in Damages.

At one point the City attempted to remove Mr. Pakter from his position for a year claiming he was not Medically "fit for duty", by having Dept of Education doctors intentionally suppress and alter their own Test Results reflecting Mr. Pakter's stellar results of fitness.



That decision was challenged by Mr. Pakter and he eventually was awarded a year of back pay plus interest. Most of the City doctors who were responsible for knowingly Railroading Mr. Pakter have all since left the the NYC Dept of Education Medical Office including the Medical Director who personally signed the letter that falsely claimed Pakter was not "fit for Duty". One year later that same Medical Director recanted that knowingly false and erroneous conclusion in a signed statement.

On March 21, 2010 The NEW YORK POST printed a story that included the statement that Mr. Pakter had been removed from the NYC schools system for quote "sexual misconduct"- a knowingly false statement since the paper had previously written about Pakter in another article about NYC Teachers in March of 2007.



The newspaper attempted to retract the false and Libelous statement one week later on March 28, 2010 by publishing a "Correction" Notice in a later Edition that included the words that the newspaper had, quote:



"incorrectly stated the allegations against David Pakter. The Dept of Education only alleges that he was insubordinate. Pakter claims he brought in a plant and offered watches as honor-roll incentives".

_______________________________________________________________

Mr. Pakter has already filed a $ 10,000,000 (Ten Million) NOTICE OF CLAIM against the NEW YORK POST newspaper as well as the NYC Dept of Education for the publication of false, libelous, defamatory, slanderous statements".



Both the NEW YORK POST newspaper as well as the NYC Dept of Education have been served with papers to appear in NY State Supreme Court on June 16, at 80 Centre Street, Manhattan, Room 328, at 9:30 A.M. before State Supreme Court Judge, the Hon. Cynthia Kern.
____________________________________________________________


The David Pakter Charges


Please note my response to each charge appears in CAPITAL LETTERS.

_______________________________________________

OFFICIAL NYC DEPT OF EDUCATION CHARGES AGAINST DAVID PAKTER

SPECIFICATIONS

( Important Note: Virtually all of the following charges, (except the charges relating to attendance at the small windowless Rubber Room located in Harlem), were shown and proven at Trial to be either outright lies or distortions of fact to such an extreme degree as to make the charges little more than knowing falsehoods.)

NOTE ALL MY RESPONSES & COMMENTS ARE IN UPPER CASE/CAPS

_____________________________________________

Below is a Verbatim Copy of ALL NYC DOE Charges against David Pakter

DAVID PAKTER (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") is a tenured teacher, under File # 407530, Social Security # XXX-XX-XXXX, formerly assigned to The High School of Fashion Industries in Manhattan. During the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent engaged in misconduct and was neglectful of his duties as follows:

In Particular:

SPECIFICATION 1: In or about October and/or November of 2006, Respondent promoted his and /or his family's watch business during school hours. DISMISSED



I INFORMED STUDENTS (AS I HAVE FOR 3 DECADES) THAT ANYONE WITH A 90% AVERAGE WOULD EARN A WATCH DESIGNED BY PAKTER

___________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 2: In or about October and/or November of 2006, Respondent gave watches as gifts to students during school hours. DISMISSED

YES, YES AND YES- LIKE JOEL KLEIN GIVING OUT CELL PHONES

______________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 3: In or about October and/or November of 2006, Respondent gave a watch to School Aide during school hours. DISMISSED

ABSOLUTELY YES- I GAVE A WATCH TO A SCHOOL AIDE DURING MY LUNCH BREAK

ISN'T THAT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR DO I NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE NYC DOE EVEN TO GIVE SOMEONE A GIFT.

The official New York City Ethics Charter states I violated no Rule or Regulation but I was charged despite that fact.

____________________________________________


SPECIFICATION 4: In or about October and/or November of 2006, during class time, Respondent:

(a) Talked about his and/or his family's watch business.

DISMISSED

(b) Provided the watch website address.

DISMISSED

(c) Showed students a book and/or a brochure and/or a catalog of watches.

DISMISSED

(d) Said words to the effect that he would give a watch to any student who achieved a gradepoint average of 90% or better.

DISMISSED

(e) Showed two watches to students.

DISMISSED

(f) Talked about his personal life.

DISMISSED

(g) Said words to the effect that he was fired from The High School of Art and Design for being a whistleblower.

DISMISSED

I STRONGLY ENCOURAGED STUDENTS TO STRIVE TO GET ON HONOR ROLL AND PROMISED THEM FASHION ACCESSORIES AS AN INCENTIVE AS I HAVE DONE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS TO THE DELIGHT AND DEEP APPRECIATION OF COUNTLESS NYC DOE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS.



ALL ABOVE FALL WITHIN MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS RE FREE SPEECH.

______________________________________________

(h) Showed the class an "R" rated movie.

DISMISSED

FILM WAS R-RATED EXACTLY FOR THE SAME REASONS AS "SCHINDLER'S LIST", "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN", "THE PIANIST", ETC ETC ARE, R-RATED AS WELL AS THE DOZENS OF AWARD WINNING FILMS I HAVE SHOWN TO CLASSES FOR 37 YEARS WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF PEERS AND COUNTLESS NYC DOE PRINCIPALS I SERVED WITH DISTINCTION WHO RESPECTED MY GOOD JUDGEMENT TO SCREEN FILMS THAT CONTAINED STRONG LIFE LESSONS.

IMPORTANT NOTE: THE ABOVE ABSURD CHARGE ALSO BRINGS UP POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS PERTAINING TO CENSORSHIP. ALSO TARGETTING TEACHERS BY ACCUSING THEM OF SHOWING A FILM IS AN OLD AND TIRED TACTIC OF THE NYC DOE.



THUS SUBCHARGE (h) VIOLATES AND GIVES RISE TO AT LEAST TWO CLEARLY SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS CHARGE WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE CITY

_____________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 5: In or about November of 2006, Respondent had two trees delivered to the school despite being previously told by Assistant Principal Giovanni Raschilla to wait until he discussed the matter with Principal Hilda Nieto. DISMISSED

THE ABOVE TOTALLY AND INTENTIONALLY DISTORTS FACTS

- I HAND CARRIED TWO SMALL ARTIFICIAL PLANTS IN WICKER BASKETS TO SCHOOL ON MY LUNCH HOUR WHICH I PLACED OUTSIDE DOORS TO THE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM WHERE EVERYONE AGREED THEY LOOKED TOTALLY GREAT AND VASTLY IMPROVED THE AMBIANCE OF THE SCHOOL LOBBY.

VERY INTERESTINGLY NO WHERE IN RICHARD CONDON'S SPECIALLY PREPARED SCI REPORT PREPARED FOR CHANCELLOR JOEL KLEIN IS IT MENTIONED THAT ON THE SAME DAY I PLACED THE TWO PLANTS OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM I ALSO HAND DELIVERED A LARGE BEAUTIFUL SILK PLANT, ALSO IN A WICKER BASKET TO PRINCIPAL HILDA NIETO'S OFFICE AND GAVE THE PLANT TO HER SECRETARY, MS. TUCKER REQUESTING SHE GIVE THE GIFT TO THE PRINCIPAL TO DECORATE HER OFFICE.

THE PLANT GIVEN TO THE PRINCIPAL WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE SCI REPORT AND I WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH GIVING PRINCIPAL HILDA NIETO A SILK PLANT BUT I WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING A GIFT TO A MINIMUM WAGE SCHOOL AIDE.



NIETO NEVER THANKED ME, VERBALLY OR IN WRITING BECAUSE SHE KNEW THAT IT WOULD PREVENT ANY PLANT CHARGES FROM BEING MADE AGAINST ME.

ALSO THE SCI REPORT TO KLEIN DID NOT MENTION THAT I BOUGHT AND HAND DELIVERED MYSELF, SEVERAL PLANTS IN BASKETS TO THE MAIN SCHOOL OFFICE WHERE I HAD TO SIT ALL DAY WHEN I WAS NOT COVERING CLASSES AS AN ATR SUBSTITUTE TEACHER.

ON THE DAY I WAS REMOVED, THE PLANTS I HAD PERSONALLY PURCHASED, PAID FOR AND PERSONALLY DELIVERED AND INSTALLED AT THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN THE SCHOOL WERE STILL THERE EXACTLY WHERE I HAD PERSONALLY PLACED THEM



NOTE THAT THE PLANT GIFTS TO THE PRINCIPAL'S PRIVATE OFFICE AND ALSO TO HER MAIN SCHOOL OFFICE ON A DIFFERENT FLOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING, WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE 3020-a SPECIFICATIONS.



THINK ABOUT HOW EVIL AND MACHIAVELLIAN THAT MAKES THESE PEOPLE AND THE NYC DEPT OF EDUCATION IN GENERAL.



BUT IN ANY EVENT ISN'T IT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE TREATED IN THE SAME FASHION AS ANY OTHER TEACHER IN NYC WHO DECIDES TO DECORATE HIS/HER CLASSROOM AND/OR SCHOOL.

IN SHORT WE ADDRESS HERE THE CONCEPT OF EQUAL TREATMENT AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION



SHOULD SOME TEACHERS BE ALLOWED TO BRING A PLANT TO SCHOOL AND NOT OTHERS?

NOTE: THE WEEK I WAS REMOVED I WAS ABLE TO GET GIOVANNI RASCHILLA, MY A.P. ON TAPE ADMITTING TO UFT CHAPTER LEADER JACK SANCHEZ THAT HE, RASCHILLA, KNEW THE WHOLE PLANT BUSINESS WAS ILLEGAL AND THAT HE WOULD REMOVE THE PLANT LETTERS FROM MY FILE IMMEDIATELY AS UFT SANCHEZ DEMANDED.

________________________________________

SPECIFICATION 6: Respondent's actions caused widespread negative publicity and notoriety to the High School of Fashion Industries and the New York City Department of Education in general when his unprofessional behavior was referenced in the UFT Newspaper.

THIS IS THE FAMOUS CHARGE THAT RANDI WEINGARTEN ORDERED NYSUT TO WRITE A PROTEST TO CHANCELLOR JOEL KLEIN ON OCTOBER 24, 2007 TO WHICH KLEIN NEVER RESPONDED BUT WHICH THE NYC DEPT OF EDUCATION LATER WITHDREW RATHER THAN BE FORCED TO FIGHT THE UFT IN COURT OVER A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE.

WITHDRAWN



SPECIFICATION 7: During the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent was absent ninety-eight (98) times from work. (Rubber Room)

SPECIFICATION 8: During the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent worked a partial day fifteen (15) times. (Rubber Room)

HARLEM RUBBER ROOM WAS A VERY SMALL ROOM ON 125TH STREET, WITH NO WINDOWS, NO IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE DRINKING WATER, BARE WALLS UNTIL I TRIED TO HANG A FEW PICTURES AND WAS ORDERED NOT TO DO SO AND THE MUSEUM PRINTS REMOVED.

AND WORST OF ALL THIS SMALL ROOM CONVEYED TO THE PEOPLE HOUSED THERE A SENSE OF CLAUSTROPHOBIA AND INCARCERATION

A UFT HIRED AIR SPECIALIST, HIRED BY UFT SPECIAL REP-KLAUS BORNEMANN, USING SOPHISTICATED AIR TESTING EQUIPMENT WROTE IN HIS AIR QUALITY REPORT THAT THE CEILING VENTILATORS AT TIMES WERE BLOWING AIR OF SUBSTANDARD AIR QUALITY INTO THE ROOM.



THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION AND IS THE REASON I STOPPED REPORTING TO THE SMALL WINDOWLESS RUBBER ROOM IN HARLEM.

________________________________________



Please Note: The fact that the DOE would certainly deny that any, or all of these charges do not violate any of my Constitutional and/or First Amendment rights, (which is to be totally expected), does not make such an assertion and/or position true. It is only by challenging established customs and perceptions of what does and does not violate the Laws of the Land, that "old" laws are struck down, and new Laws and new legal precedents- established.



David Pakter

_____________________________________________
Posted by A Teacher In The Bronx at 5:04 PM
Reactions:
Labels: 3020a, David Pakter
1 Strong Opinions:

Anonymous said...
Rubber plants and watches? The kids that win city track meets get gold watches. Who the heck cares? Should we charge the track coaches? This is a completely bad faith operation. This is the most ridiculous 3020a I have heard of and it is so ridiculous DOE is probably afraid to drop it knowing that is tantamount to admitting they never should have charged David in the first place. Nothing about his teaching and nothing about misconduct.