JSK Independent Legal Services

Summary

Apart from for-profit endeavors, my legal investigation firm focuses its pro bono activities on employment law, with some consultations in property and criminal law; see document file, Curriculum Vitae, and correspondences attached herewith; general and litigation related investigation; further, legal research and writing; trial preparation.

My professional experience includes over 20 years university mathematics research and teaching, with 19 years as a regular faculty member and teaching/research assistant employment prior: University of North Carolina (Charlotte campus, academic year 1990/91), University of San Francisco (USF, a Catholic, Jesuit university), Princeton University School of Engineering (academic year 1998/99); including, 18 years at USF, tenure-track Assistant Professor from 1991-1997, and tenured Associate Professor of Mathematics USF, 1997-2009, with a one year sabbatical at Princeton University; also Associate Editor of the scientific journal, Advances and Applications in Statistics, 2002-2009. As an academic, I used the traditional pronunciation of my Chinese last name (older Wade-Giles, United Kingdom, system of transliteration), "gow;" which modern Pin-Yin system of transliteration would be spelled, Gao. This pronunciation appears in the trial transcript of Kao v. USF, court proceedings January - May 2012 (including, a mandatory—immediately prior formal procedures—settlement conference, and hearings corresponding to, motions in limine and voir dire; also including, a hearing for a motion for new trail and to vacate judgment or decree, the latter by attorney Christopher W. Katzenbach); which transcript of these proceedings before the selected jury taking place during February 2012, is published in its entirety on this website; see link Post-Trial Documents in section, infra, labeled as follows (and also with link thereto): Reference Documents & Court Summary.

My legal experience includes pursuit and assistance in litigation: Kao v. USF; complaint filed 1999; trial completed 2012; published decision and precedent, California Court of Appeals for the First District 2014; which surprising decision greatly undermines rights of employees under the California, Fair Employment and Housing Act. This novel legal precedent in the state of California; see as prior federal counter-example, Scott v. Napolitano, United States District Court for the Southern District of California (2010); allows employers to conduct a "comprehensive fitness for duty exam" (FFDE) with a doctor, chosen as well as paid by the employer, and requiring comprehensive release: medical (encompassing all available psychotherapy notes), legal, financial, educational, work, family and social history; to include (specified via mandatory "consent form") laboratory testing, as well as psychological testing absent meaningfully articulated limits corresponding, and unabridged waiver of right to access—thus challenge—the doctor's diagnostic assessments and evaluations (i.e., resulting psychiatric report, or separately, records correlative); prompted by undisclosed persons, undated, vague allegations, and subjective perceptions therewith. Kao v. USF (2014), appears nationally in journal articles and legal textbooks. This precedent directly impacts employees in California, a state having a population of nearly 40 million—decennial (2020) census population published at 39,538,223—see Perma.cc link, https://perma.cc/QPL2-AZJQ (Note: discussion of Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab's internet archival service Perma.cc follows in multiple sections on this webpage infra.); which based on data retrieved from calendar year 2022 was greater than the population of the nation of Canada—census based population estimate for the fourth quarter of 2021 published at 38,526,760—see Perma.cc link, https://perma.cc/DLQ8-82HD (sources: US Census Bureau, Census.gov; and Statistics Canada, Statcan.gc.ca; April/May 2022). (The following annotations, within parentheses herewith, were composed July 24, 2023, relying on the source, US Census Bureau, in particular: Census.gov/popclock/world/tw, Census.gov/popclock/world/ks, and Census.gov/popclock/world/sp. As an additional frame of reference, in relation to scale, a reader of this website might consider the July 1, 2023, population of the Republic of China - Taiwan - approximately 23.6 million; furthermore a reader might consider the July 1, 2023, population of the Republic of Korea - South Korea - approximately 52.0 million; and also, a reader might consider the July 1, 2023, population of Spain - approximately 47.2 million.)

Regarding, I had the honor of working closely with Christopher Katzenbach—son of Nicholas Katzenbach, US Attorney General serving theadministration of President Lyndon Johnson, see the landmark civil rights case, Katzenbach v. McClung, United States Supreme Court (1964)—JD Yale University; Kerry Stoebner, JD Stanford University; Kimberly Hancock, JD UC Berkeley; and Conor Mack, JD UC College of the Law (formerly UC Hastings).

My firm's not-for-profit activities include on-going political/legislative action for which were originally retained: attorney Melvin Honowitz, JD Golden Gate University; also nationally, arguably internationally—from work in Australia on behalf of actor Russell Crowe—renowned private investigator and concurrently California attorney, Jack Palladino (who tragically passed away shortly after his retirement during a robbery in San Francisco, 2021), JD UC Berkeley. For the status of such endeavors sponsored by our firm see section below labeled, Representation and Political Action, and further link, Website Statistics; for progress as of January 2015. This section includes the bona fides of Messrs. Honowitz and Palladino.

It is my opinion that the precedent set in Kao v. USF (2014) is adverse to the ambitions of the disability rights movement generally; and that the apposite decision particularly in relation to the category of perceived disability for employees and treatment thereof vis-a-vis the California, Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which subsumes disability protections provided for by the federal, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), is anomalous as apparently obverse to the plain text apprehension of that authority, both case law and regulatory code, most directly relied upon by the Appellate Court. See discussions in sections labeled, California Appellate Court Decision (2014) and The Interactive Process under California's FEHA and the ADA, infra; and in connection, further, the probation herewith:

• Legal Analysis.

Disclaimer: we work with and for attorneys (our staff do not include attorneys) and, by California law, we are not permitted to offer legal advice directly. Information on this website should not be construed as legal advice—please consult personally with an attorney as necessary.

Similarly, we use the term legal investigator to encompass activities that are within scope of professional investigators, on a legal assistant basis, and that further, do not require a California private investigator's license. No one on our staff holds the latter.

Note: as of January 2023, with the extension of equity management projects abroad (see Curriculum Vitae), and partially in response to the retirement of an important attorney colleague in 2022, JSK Independent Legal Services, intends to shift focus to not-for-profit projects related to our political action aspirations, towards which aim we have been gravitating during the prior several years. Parties interested in reciprocation of time/endeavor/experiences in furtherance of our political action goals are invited to write John S. Kao—see section labeled, Resume and Contact Information, infra.

Return to Top of Webpage

• NALS The Association for Legal Support Professionals—legal professional organization ("legal assistant/paralegal" using definition adopted by the American Bar Association).

Return to Top of Webpage

Experience as a Juris Doctor Candidate

Fall 2016 I enrolled at Lincoln Law School of San Jose, CA; Juris Doctor Candidate (JD). In this capacity, I was elected representative to the SBA, Student Bar Association (one of two, for class 1L). My qualifications: Bachelor's of Science Degree, Mathematics, awarded at age 17, University of Utah, honors Magna Cum Laude (GPA 3.90), tuition fully paid by US state scholarship; Doctor of Philosophy Degree, awarded at age 23, Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics—administered through the Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, tuition and stipend fully paid by US federal scholarship and grant (National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research); Law School Admission Test (LSAT) 155. Withdrawal as Student in Good Standing was granted, upon completion of one semester, due to the passing of a close relative and corresponding estate matters, with note that original travel itinerary abroad was preempted as a result of an unanticipated and protracted legal dispute in Japan which was not definitively concluded until 2018.

Concerning formal legal education, I am deeply thankful for training received during the academic year 2016-17 from Professor Patrick Kelly and Judge Daniel Nishigaya (then, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge, Criminal Division, formerly Supervising Deputy District Attorney; also served as a professor of law, Santa Clara University School of Law; who team taught Criminal Law at Lincoln Law School of San Jose. On their December 2016 mid-year Criminal Law evaluation, I finished top in our class of 20 with a score of 90%, corresponding to the only grade of A- awarded on the mid-year examination that semester (one examination the sole criteria for assessment in this course up to the date of Withdrawal). My essay was included as a "best answer" for study for the subsequent class 1L, see correspondence following: Essay Correspondence. Their dedication and exposition demonstrated to me the impact excellence in the practice of criminal law has upon society writ large. Professor Kelly and Judge Nishigaya gave our class exceptional and unique exposition in this area of litigation by relating personal, experiences and principles, of trial practice (defense and prosecution respectively), complementing legal theory found in textbooks.

Concomitant to potential political action endeavors in the state capital, property management considerations led me to consider relocating to Sacramento. l applied to the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific; with receipt letters of recommendations for continuing education from Mr. Jon B. Eisenberg (retired as of 2022), then of Horvitz & Levy LLP—for copy of his letter of recommendation, see attachment to Curriculum Vitae wherein reference to political action initiatives as represented in this website; also Professor Patrick Kelly, Lincoln Law School of San Jose. Mr. Eisenberg was principal author of the legal reference monograph, The Rutter Group's California Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs; and, as attorney, won vital human rights decisions on behalf of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, Cuba. See from 2017, Law Firm Publication—Horvitz & Levy; also see the website screen capture of the California Lawyers Association 2019 announcement honoring Mr. Eisenberg's career achievement published at calawyers.org/litigation/congratulations-to-the-2019-appellate-lawyer-hall-of-fame-recipient-jon-eisenberg, CLA Appellate Lawyer Hall of Fame Award. Further, as to specific contribution in appellate law, see Eisenberg Article, published February 2014 in, The New York Times.

Fall 2017, I enrolled as Candidate for the degree of Juris Doctor at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law (Part-Time Program for students with concurrent full-time professional obligations); Part-Time Program then nationally ranked 34th by US News and World Report; see Law School Rankings 2017; awarded Pacific Law Scholarship—first year tuition (approximately 50%) deferment in the amount of $19,812 renewable each subsequent of four years conditioned on class ranking above median measured at the end of academic year; declared emphasis under application—appellate law.

Application for Withdrawal as Student in Good Standing upon completion of fall semester was approved, January 2018, by Jennifer Carr, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, McGeorge School of Law, for fulfillment of professional obligations and planned extended sojourn in Japan (anticipated reenrollment evaluated by Dean Carr as reasonable during personal conference prior to withdrawal); procedure standard at this law school, applying to1L and 2L part-time students (Leave of Absence alternate policy available only for 3L and 4L part-time students) for requisite absence pursuant to California Bar Association, "seat time," classroom attendance requirement of, at that time, 270 hours over four years, for JD Candidates matriculated at fixed-facility law schools (effectively prohibited by two week absence in a single semester), for any reason: personal injury/illness, family emergency, or professional exigency (as mine). Continuing education was originally pending completion of equity management project, Japan; and further, approval from Office of JD Admissions; for policy statements therewith see correspondences with Dean Carr and Tracy Simmons, Assistant Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid from spring 2018: Correspondences. Notwithstanding, subsequent events including extension of equity management projects and the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, in January 2020, warranted delay of continuing education and reevaluation of plans to change residence from the San Francisco Bay Area.

I am most honored to be readmitted to Lincoln Law School of San Jose (LLSJ) beginning January 2022, as JD Candidate in this institution's novel and innovative hybrid-online program which accommodates my obligations for the direct personal care of a vulnerable family member with disability in relation to the ubiquity of Covid-19. Reference: attachments to Curriculum Vitae, supra.

Voluntary Withdrawal taken, January 18, 2023, for purely personal reasons which at the age of 55 I feel at liberty to consider, in accordance to the wishes of my mother, approximate of age 93, and in connection with sentimental endeavors requiring extended sojourn in Japan (for details see file link, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Documents, following), as student in Good Academic Standing with GPA of 4.00 (on a scale with maximum possible value 4.33), with option of guaranteed reenrollment Fall 2023, or by reapplication and readmission (subject to approval of the LLSJ Admissions Committee) thereafter. Correspondence from Office of Registrar, LLSJ, dated January 18, 2023 (included in file link, following), indicates graduation possible upon reenrollment as late at Fall 2024: Lincoln Law School of San Jose Documents.

Curriculum at Lincoln Law School of San Jose which I have had assimilation, January 2022 - January 2023, include the following.

• Introduction to Law; taught by Dean Laura Palazzolo, also, Dean of Lincoln Law School of San Jose; JD Lincoln Law School of San Jose; 1 unit completed; grade, Pass (of Pass/Fail); numeric score, 99%.

• Personal Property; taught by Professor William Purdy; also of the Law Office of Simmons & Purdy; JD Stanford Law School; 2 units completed; grade, A- (grade point 4.00); numeric score, 90%.

• Agency; taught by Professor Nick Forooghi; also of the Santa Clara Law Group; JD Lincoln Law School of San Jose; also, serving as professor of law (in relation to law for medical professionals), Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry, University of the Pacific; 2 units completed; grade, Pass (of Pass/Fail); numeric score, 100%.

• Criminal Law; taught by Judge Daniel Nishigaya; also, sole Supervising Judge for the Criminal Division (with 35 Judges in total), the largest division in the Santa Clara Superior Court System, Santa Clara County, CA—with Courthouses in: San Jose, Palo Alto and Morgan Hill, and three separate Departments in downtown San Jose, the latter incorporating substance abuse counseling; also, served as law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law; also, served as Supervising Deputy District Attorney, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office (see Nichi Bei Weekly, periodical representing news for and about the Japanese American community, original article from calendar year 2010, as preserved on the Internet Archive, as of calendar year 2021: Judge Nishigaya Article); JD Santa Clara University School of Law; 3 units assimilated towards 6 units required for completion; grade, Incomplete; my personal calculation of performance herewith, on the informal basis of the syllabus for Fall 2022 and numeric scores finalized as of my date of Voluntary Withdrawal with the unfinalized component, Post-Class Essay assignments, entirely unincorporated since these would be highly unlikely to change letter grade, neither negatively nor positively though the numeric score might improve slightly, due to express policy of permitted multiple revisions to increase scores of these assignments, A- (for which no credit was received, as the 3 units for Spring 2023 were not completed, but would theoretically correspond to contribution towards academic year, coursework Fall 2022—by Syllabus at ratio 30/100—in accord grade point 4.00); numeric score, 90%. Remark: I confess I put the most commitment into this course Fall 2022 (due in part to my interest in appellate law which seems to me a prominent and important feature, particularly, of the U.S. system of criminal justice), perhaps at the expense of my other classes, and also perhaps unfairly to my other professors, that Fall semester who also demonstrated, in my humble opinion, dedication and excellence, in the teaching of law; I suppose I had in mind some compensation herewith during the latter half of the academic year, i.e., Spring semester 2023, by application of additional effort and time.

• Tort Law (team taught by two professors, both concurrently in classroom); Professor Andrea Justo; also of the law firm Hoover ◆ Krepelka, LLP; also President of the Santa Clara County Trial Lawyers Association; JD Lincoln Law School of San Jose; Professor Shannon Smyth-Mendoza; also Deputy General Counsel, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (for information about the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, see following: California Transit Association Information Website—SCVTA); JD Santa Clara University School of Law; 3 units assimilated towards 6 units required for completion; grade, Incomplete; my personal calculation of performance herewith, on the informal basis of the syllabus for Fall 2022 and numeric scores finalized as of my date of Voluntary Withdrawal with unfinalized component, Post-Class Essay assignments, entirely unincorporated since these would be highly unlikely to change letter grade, neither negatively nor positively though the numeric score might improve slightly, due to express policy of permitted multiple revisions to increase scores of these assignments, C+ (for which no credit was received, as the 3 units for Spring 2023 were not completed, but would theoretically correspond to contribution towards academic year, coursework Fall 2022—by Syllabus at ratio 40/100—in accord grade point 2.67); numeric score, 76%.

• Contract Law; taught by Professor Jai Dadlani; also, In-House Legal Counsel, Zscaler, Inc. (for information about Zscaler, Inc., see following, from calendar year 2022: Zscaler Press Release); JD Lincoln Law School of San Jose; 3 units assimilated towards 6 units required for completion; grade, Incomplete; my personal calculation of performance herewith, on the informal basis of the syllabus for Fall 2022 and numeric scores finalized as of my date of Voluntary Withdrawal with unfinalized component, Post-Class Essay assignments, entirely unincorporated since these would be highly unlikely to change letter grade, neither negatively nor positively though the numeric score might improve slightly, due to express policy of permitted multiple revisions to increase scores of these assignments, B (for which no credit was received, as the 3 units for Spring 2023 were not completed, but would theoretically correspond to contribution towards academic year, coursework Fall 2022—by Syllabus at ratio 40/100—in accord grade point 3.67); numeric score, 83%.

• Legal Skills 101; taught in several week segments by three faculty separately; Professor Laura Palazzolo, also Dean, Lincoln Law School of San Jose; JD Lincoln Law School of San Jose; Professor Kirsten Fish, also of the law firm of Needham Kepner & Fish LLP; JD Santa Clara University School of Law; Professor Steven Dick; also, District Attorney, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office; JD Loyola Law School; 0 units assimilated towards 0 units required for completion; grade, Incomplete; my personal calculation of performance herewith, on the informal basis of the syllabus for Fall 2022 and numeric scores finalized as of my date of Voluntary Withdrawal, A- (for which no credit was received, as the 0 units for Spring 2023 were not completed, but would theoretically correspond to contribution towards academic year, coursework Fall 2022—by Syllabus at ratio 50/100—in accord grade point 4.00); numeric score, 91%.

In the section on this webpage labeled, Lifetime Campus Ban, infra, referencing USF's action to prohibit me from entering its campus in 2009, notwithstanding it is generally open for the public, even to the extent I would be unable to—enter a US Postal Service Office, as I recall, which was located on campus as of 2009, though it closed thereafter, or vote at the regular polling station located during some public elections on USF campus as of the writing of this paragraph, February 2023 (see for instance the following Perma.cc record, in connection with the November 8, 2022, election conducted in San Francisco, California, and search thereon, "Koret Center - Gymnasium": https://perma.cc/FZS8-9K89)—there is a discussion of a USF School of Law alumni, Ms. Brown. Further, in the section on this webpage labeled, Forensic Evidence, infra, referencing a faculty member in the USF Department of Mathematics (title, Associate Professor, as of January 21, 2023), Dr. Stephen Yeung. That the relevant information, in connection with Ms. Brown and USF's Public Interest Law Foundation, Public Interest Excellence Awards, and also my trial testimony asserting that Dr. Stephen Yeung's earned PhD degree of 1999 is in Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (in contra Mathematics, see section labeled, Forensic Evidence, infra) was published on this webpage as of April 19, 2022, see Perma.cc links following. (For general discussion of the Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab's web archival service Perma.cc, and similarly, the Internet Archive and its historical project, see sections on this webpage labeled, Lifetime Campus Ban, and Forensic Evidence, infra.)

• https://perma.cc/E4KF-GZZ3 (A reader may also visit the live webpage corresponding to this Internet Archive record by copying and pasting the following URL to one's browser address bar for purpose of verification, or selecting the link corresponding to label following—http://web.archive.org/web/20220419025208/https://www.jskindependentlegal.com), and

• https://perma.cc/TJ5H-C7E8; for latter, see option "Show record details," toggle at upper left of webpage to identify the source—Internet Archive—as well as date, April 19, 2022. (This file may take one minute or more to load to a browser, due to its size, and the file server of Perma.cc. Alternatively, a reader may also visit the live webpage corresponding to this Internet Archive record by copying and pasting the following URL to one's browser address bar for purpose of verification, or selecting the link corresponding to label following—http://web.archive.org/web/20220419025247/https://www.jskindependentlegal.com/Degree_Evidence1.pdf. Similarly, see http://web.archive.org/web/20220419025315/www.jskindependentlegal.com/Degree_Evidence2.pdf, http://web.archive.org/web/20220419025247/www.jskindependentlegal.com/Degree_Evidence3.pdf, and http://web.archive.org/web/20220419025329/https://www.jskindependentlegal.com/Degree_Evidence4.pdf. (These latter four Internet Archive records have also been archived by JSK Independent Legal Services with Perma.cc and corresponding link records are available upon special request—see contact information infra.)

• Degree Evidence 1

I also believe it is relevant that I was enrolled and taking classes continuously, including summer term, at Lincoln Law School of San Jose for the nine months between April 2022 and Voluntary Withdrawal in January 2023 (with classes for Criminal Law, Tort Law and Contract Law, each scheduled, throughout Fall semester 2022, on campus once per week for a class of approximately three hours—although the actual seat time might be reduced at a particular professor's discretion, or a particular class held online due to health concerns of a professor—in downtown San Jose, CA, and attended by myself in-person with professors and the majority of the other of approximately 23 students, in category 1L or 1E, to mean first-year enrollment at LLSJ, present in the classroom, although a few of the originally enrolled students may have withdrawn early Fall semester, 2022), and the matter of this webpage was not raised to me, neither by faculty nor administrators, during this period, and moreover, thereafter continuing to the date of the latest revision of this current section of www.JSKIndependentLegal.com, labeled, "Experience as a Juris Doctor Candidate," August 9, 2023, with this consideration (in my opinion) relevant regarding publication of informal preliminary course performance calculations for enrolled classes Fall 2022 (prior to Voluntary Withdrawal January 2023) which I feel there are no reasonable grounds to dispute, especially as I have as of August 9, 2023, received no indication that my Voluntary Withdrawal was accepted by faculty and administrators at LLSJ on any but the best of possible terms—published hereon, as per supra, January 28, 2023 (for verification, see archival link: https://perma.cc/W2T2-58F2); and further, the essential content of www.JSKIndependentLegal.com was unchanged, absent consideration of the following: relatively minor editorial revisions drawing greater attention to the file, link, Degree Evidence 1 (published approximately August 2022), accession of the following file, Degree Evidence 5, for objective of elaboration on file, link, Degree Evidence 1, in section labeled, Forensic Evidence infra (published January 28, 2023), further, accession of content of file, link, Degree Evidence 2, in section labeled Forensic Evidence infra, for purpose of providing context to the first three pages thereof which addition's material content had been published on www.JSKIndependentLegal.com since calendar year 2015 as portions of either, the trial transcript for Kao v. USF, or document, Addendum with Complaint (accession to file, link, Degree Evidence 2, published June 6, 2023), also acknowledgment that the material content of this current section of www.JSKIndependentLegal.com, labeled, "Experience as a Juris Doctor Candidate," was appended fairly extensively from its form in April 2022, labeled then, "Juris Doctor Candidate," to reflect coursework completed or assimilated since that date (published January 28, 2023).

• Degree Evidence 5

• Degree Evidence 2

[I believe the following note on file, Degree Evidence 5, is warranted. On page 13 thereof, is alink with label, "MATH: 2016-17 Self Study," and it corresponds to the URL, "https://myusf.usfca.edu/sites/default/files/users/msashabi/Redacted-MathStats_Self_Study_17.pdf," and was archived with Perma.cc, April 2023: https://perma.cc/9TJN-DS9G; toggle option, "Show record details," on upper left of the archival record. It is identical in content as to pages 14 - 22 of file Degree Evidence 5, with the document represented therein, which corresponds to the URL, "https://myusf.usfca.edu/sites/default/files/MathStats_Self_Study_0.pdf." The latter claim can be verified by the reader by comparison; see https://perma.cc/P746-UG8W. That the latter was published on myusf.usfca.edu in January 2023 can be verified by toggle of option, "Show record details," on the upper left of the archival record. In my opinion, these two USF documents differ only in minor respects, with changes on pages 29 - 32 herewith, and they were both published contemporaneously at the date of the writing of this parenthetical section, April 2023; see https://perma.cc/37BF-PDUQ and toggle option, "Show record details," on upper left of the archival record. My reason for using the latter version, as opposed to the "redacted" version, is that I originally found it using the search feature on myusf.usfca.edu as documented in section on this webpage labeled, Education, infra; and this in my opinion, in principle, can be authenticated by the following: https://perma.cc/R4X9-E5VW, or alternatively, either https://perma.cc/A7ZD-3DQH or https://perma.cc/2V4A-NAUB—which lattermost, in relation to first page of search feature result from myusfca.usfca.edu has in my opinion apparently changed since March 2022, as represented by screenshot link labeled, "USF Website Search Mathematics Program Review," in section on this webpage labeled, Education, infra, in juxtaposition to the lattermost Perma.cc archive record in this parenthetical section generated April 22, 2023 (compare, Perma.cc archival record generated March 21, 2022, as follows https://perma.cc/7SAQ-LQCE). Separately note: the document titled, "REPORT OF THE WSCUC TEAM For Reaffirmation of Accreditation To: The University of San Francisco Campus Visit October 7-10, 2018," corresponding to URL

• https://myusf.usfca.edu/sites/default/files/documents/OAAS/WSCUC%20Team%20Report/Team%20Report/USF_Review_Team_Report_2018.pdf

• Program review policies, plans, and results are also available on the "My USF" page, along with student learning outcomes, and assessment information for each academic program, updated on an annual basis. The University program review policy requires that reviews take place every 5-8 years, and the current cycles and review results are available online. In general, data on program goals and student learning are fully represented and accessible, while an emphasis on applying learning assessment to action is still evolving in a number of cases.

• Retention and graduation rates are publicly available on the "My USF" web page, and fully disaggregated in the Institutional Report.

In my opinion it is a reasonable inference (based on the protocols for the composition of document entitled, "Self-Study and Preliminary Development Plan, Mathematics Department, University of San Francisco, April 7, 2004," as represented in part on page 24 of file, Degree Evidence 5, whereby, to my best recollection, the department in meetings of the full-time faculty discussed and effectively voted on the content thereof—although a formal vote of approval may not have been recorded in department minutes, because of unanimity of approval from full-time faculty after revisions were incorporated therein), that the content of document entitled, "Self Study Academic Program Review, Spring 2017, Mathematics and Statistics Department, University of San Francisco February 21, 20I7," (as represented on pages 14 - 22, of file, Degree Evidence 5) was the collective responsibility of the full-time faculty of the Mathematics and Statistics Department of USF, which full-time faculty list as represented on page 16, of file, Degree Evidence 5, includes: Dr. Devlin, Dr. Needham, Dr. Yeung and Dr. Zeitz; and whose latter names appear in the California Appellate Court opinion and precedent, Kao v. USF (2014).

The corresponding PDF file above, Degree Evidence 5, has been subject to OCR (Object Character Recognition) with software, Adobe Acrobat, so that text—in particular, URLs to Perma.cc records—may be copied and pasted into an address bar of an internet browser by a reader of this webpage for authentication. To me, the content of file, "Degree Evidence 5," in consolidation with file, "Degree Evidence 1," makes the calendar year 2016 seem of some significance. Note that file, Degree Evidence 5, was updated, February 2023, basically to the effect (some errors in the object character recognition feature of the original January 23 PDF file were also corrected though the essential content of these first 25 pages were not changed): additional pages were added to the original with one page explanation thereof on page 26.

I remark that when I matriculated in the PhD Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics at Princeton University in 1985, my thesis advisor, Professor Erhan Cinlar had concurrently been appointed a Professor of Civil Engineering, having been hired after a tenure at Northwestern University in the Department of Industrial Engineering—my understanding then was that, he was during my studies at Princeton, an associated faculty with the Department of Mathematics, but did not have title of a professor of mathematics per se—nevertheless, he was assigned to me as official advisor for my degree herewith. I would not represent myself as having a PhD in Civil Engineering, even though I taught the course, "Fundamentals of Engineering Statistics," during a sabbatical year 1998-99 at Princeton in the then, Department of Civil Engineering and Operations Research (see link, Curriculum Vitae, supra), at which time Dr. Cinlar served as Chair thereof. For information about Dr. Erhan Cinlar, see link: Dr. Erhan Cinlar, Norman J. Sollenberger Professor of Engineering, Princeton University (Emeritus as of 2015)—File 1, and, Dr. Cinlar—File 2. As a PhD student, my first and second year preliminary examinations, the content of my doctoral thesis, published 1991 by UMI (ProQuest LLC), as well as my final public oral ("dissertation defense") of the latter, had to comply with the standards of the Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics, Princeton, irrespective of the title held by my doctoral thesis advisor at the time.

I further remark that the link, "Primary Web Page" on page 1 (which is a screenshot of the Cornell University webpage, https://math.cornell.edu/steven-strogatz, archived with Perma.cc) of file Degree Evidence 5 as per supra, is to the website: stevenstrogatz.com; thus, it appears to me from my modest knowledge of agency law as relevant herewith, that for all intents and purposes, the information on the latter website as represented in file Degree Evidence 5 (in particular page 3, which is a screenshot of a portion of webpage, stevenstrogatz.com/teaching, taken January 2023) is attributable to Cornell University, because Dr. Strogatz is an employee, therefore an agent, for whom it is within the scope of his apparent authority to publish information, as of January 2023, about his former PhD students regarding their work while under his implicit supervision (as their doctoral thesis advisor) at Cornell. Moreover, in my opinion, under this theory of agency law, the interpretation of page 3 of file Degree Evidence 5, and similarly, the interpretation of Dr. Strogatz's Primary Webpage, stevenstrogatz.com, currently and as preserved on the Internet Archive, approximately 270 times, beginning summer 2009 and continuing to the date of the writing of this paragraph, February/March 2023—see following links https://perma.cc/CHA9-KU93, https://perma.cc/CNZ2-QAJG, https://perma.cc/5YZN-M5JF, https://perma.cc/A5T6-MJM7, https://perma.cc/9UCW-LYXJ, https://perma.cc/Q8VM-LLZL (in my opinion, relevant in regards the link labeled, "M.K. Stephen Yeung," on the webpage record immediately preceding), and https://perma.cc/KSR3-R6HR (toggle option, "Show record details," in upper left of webpage to verify the archival source)—should be in consolidation with the Cornell University webpage, https://math.cornell.edu/graduate-program-history, archived with Perma.cc, January 2023:

• https://perma.cc/QR5A-Z9AC;

• The Charter creating Cornell University was signed by the Governor of New York in 1865 and the University opened in 1868. | This page gives the complete chronological list, per decade (except for the first period of twelve years), of the people who earned a doctorate in mathematics at Cornell from the opening in 1868 to 1939 included. One hundred doctorates were awarded by the department during this period including twenty one awarded to women.The title of the doctorate and the name of the advisor are given as well as minimal information on the later career of the individual.

• http://web.archive.org/web/20190330144403/https://math.cornell.edu/graduate-program-history

A reader may find it of note that the Cornell University, Department of Mathematics, Graduate Program History, webpage publication, was revised between January 2023 as per supra, and March 2023. In particular, the text above on https://math.cornell.edu/graduate-program-history, as of March 27, 2023 has been changed in introductory statements to:

• The Charter creating Cornell University was signed by the Governor of New York in 1865 and the University opened in 1868. | This page gives the complete chronological list, per decade (except for the first period of twelve years), of the people who earned a doctorate in mathematics at Cornell from the opening in 1868 to 2009 included. One hundred doctorates were awarded by the department during this period including twenty one awarded to women. The title of the doctorate and the name of the advisor are given as well as minimal information on the later career of the individual. | For a list of people who have earned doctorates in 2010 and later, visit this page.

The revisions described immediately supra may be found at the following links, archived with Perma.cc, March 27, 2023:

• https://perma.cc/X45K-YBSE (archive of https://math.cornell.edu/graduate-program-history);

• https://perma.cc/4G6C-ZK54 (archive of https://math.cornell.edu/dissertations).

In this context, it is my opinion, that a reader would find the following relevant in coordination with the first page of Dr. Steven Strogatz's published C.V. from calendar year 2022, as found on page 18 of file Degree Evidence 1, supra, absent further elaboration, beyond the observations: according to the C.V. hereto referenced, Dr. Strogatz has been a faculty member of the Cornell University, Department of Mathematics, from 2009 to the date of writing of this paragraph March 2023 though he was not so during calendar year 1999 (the year Dr. Yeung purportedly earned his doctorate from Cornell University), but rather Dr. Strogatz's faculty appointment at Cornell was limited at that time (and more specifically from calendar years 1994 - 2004) to the Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, and in my opinion, apparently at Cornell University there may be a distinction between a doctoral thesis "supervisor" and a doctoral thesis "advisor" whereas at Princeton University where I earned a doctorate from the Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics the terms thesis "advisor" and thesis "supervisor" were synonymous for a PhD candidate. (Note: at Princeton University when I earned my doctorate in 1991, there existed no opportunity to pursue a graduate minor, accompanying a PhD, as available at Cornell University. The latter is, in my opinion: unusual for doctoral programs across disciplines generally, and it is a somewhat singular feature of Cornell.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20190330144445/https://math.cornell.edu/faculty (Internet Archive record from March 2019 of Cornell University, Department of Mathematics, Faculty)

• https://perma.cc/8393-3PA7 (Perma.cc archive from March 2023 of https://math.cornell.edu/faculty, Cornell University, Department of Mathematics, Faculty)

Note that the trial transcript for Kao v. USF was published in its entirety on this website (see section on this webpage labeled, Reference Documents & Court Summary, and link: Post-Trial Documents), www.JSKIndependentLegal.com, as of February 2015. This website, www.JSKIndependentLegal.com, was referred to explicitly in my application essay to Lincoln Law School of San Jose, originally in 2016, also in my application essay to the McGeorge School of Law, University of Pacific in 2017, and also in my application essay for reenrollment to Lincoln Law School of San Jose in December 2021; in my opinion, it was further referenced implicitly in my letter of recommendation for law school from Mr. Jon B. Eisenberg, Esq., see link Curriculum Vitae supra, for the letter (an attachment included in file link) as provided to the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, and its specific language. A reader hereof can make the assessment whether the latter inference is reasonable. For further evidence in this regard, see the following Internet Archive—web.archive.org—records. (A reader may visit the live webpage corresponding to any particular Internet Archive record by copying and pasting the URL to one's browser address bar for purpose of verification, or selecting the link corresponding.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20150208035201/http://www.jskindependentlegal.com

• http://web.archive.org/web/20160402182839/http://jskindependentlegal.com/CaseFiles/PostTrial.html

• http://web.archive.org/web/20161225094158/http://jskindependentlegal.com/CaseFiles/KaoVsUSFTrialTranscript.pdf

• http://web.archive.org/web/20161225094747/http://jskindependentlegal.com/CaseFiles/AddendumWithComplaint.pdf

• Christopher W. Katzenbach, JD Yale Law School;
• Kerry R. Stoebner, JD Stanford Law School;
• Conor D. Mack, JD UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings);

• Christopher W. Katzenbach, JD Yale Law School;
• Kerry R. Stoebner, JD Stanford Law School;
• Conor D. Mack, JD UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings);
• Kimberly A. Hancock, JD University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall);

(Please note the following. In early July, 2023, I learned from a California attorney through exchange of correspondences in connection to his request for assistance related to the political action initiatives of www.JSKIndependentLegal.com, that Mr. Katzenbach had passed away, though as of the writing of this paragraph, July 15, 2023, I have found online no official obituary, yet published. I am deeply saddened by this news, which I verified with the California State Bar Association website. Mr. Katzenbach's profound positive impact on my life in aspects both legal and educational is too great to for me to articulate with any eloquence. I am certain many of his other former clients would express the same.)

Of relevance to authentication herewith, are the following archival links with Perma.cc, from the online services of The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, with URL for internet portal: sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-services, and redirect upon selection, "Case Query," to a webpage on webapps.sftc.org.

• SF Superior Court Online Services Portal

• Register of Actions: JOHN S. KAO VS. UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al, Case # CGC09489576

• 2012-09-21; APPELLANT'S AMENDED NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY PLAINTIFF KAO, JOHN S. (page 1 of Register of Actions, supra)

• 2009-06-17; WRONGFUL DISCHARGE, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF KAO, JOHN S. AS TO DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ... (page 28 of Register of Actions, supra)

• Race, national origin and gender discrimination in the hiring and assignments of faculty in the USF Mathematics Department, including: ... Hiring a male professor with non-complying education and degree requirements in preference to a female candidate who met the advertised educational and degree requirements.

At date of the writing of this paragraph, February 2023, to the best of my knowledge, and in my opinion, since the official trial transcript for Kao v. USF (2014) has been a matter of public record and evaluated by the California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, pursuant to California Civil (Appellate) Procedure, any reader of this website may, it seems to me in principle as of this date, may contact one or more of the Court Reporters so identified and obtain a copy of this official trial transcript for themselves upon tender of appropriate processing fee as I did for the official trial transcripts of the California cases: Bough v. Menlo College—trial proceedings 2008 with settlement reached prior to hearing of appeal filed by defendant, Menlo College—and People v. Youshock (2018)—trial proceedings 2011 with portion of entire official trial transcript ordered from Court Reporters for the proceedings held April 4 and April 5, which were relevant to me in regards the testimony of Dr. James Missett—both obtained by myself in calendar year 2011 immediately prior to trial proceedings Kao v. USF which jury proceedings began February 7, 2012, at the direction of my attorney Mr. Katzenbach, and in conjunction with my acting as his legal assistant for our case as discussed on this webpage in section labeled Legal Research, Investigation, and Education, infra. In particular, the companies (Court Reporters' employers) Holly Moose & Associates and Wheeler & Hallford, Inc., as of the writing of this paragraph, February 2023, appear to have the following active websites: hollymoose.com and whreporters.com; although the street (and mailing) addresses seem to have changed and the name of the latter company as listed on its website is currently, Wheeler & Hallford Court Reporters; that these are the same companies is in my opinion well substantiated by records of the company websites found on the Internet Archive. I note that since calendar year 2012, I have relied on the PDF file version of the official trial transcript for Kao v. USF (which is published on this website) as transmitted to me via email by Mr. Steven Raby of the Katzenbach Law Offices, during the month of September 2012, whose signature appears on the last page of the third document file directly supra; and I have read this transcript many times as well as discussed at considerable length with others while acting as Mr. Katzenbach's legal assistant in relation to the appeal of our case which did not conclude until calendar year 2014. This identical PDF file document was also read in its entirety, during calendar year 2015, at my specific request and concomitant expense, by my attorneys retained expressly for the purpose of the political/legislative action initiatives of JSK Independent Legal Services: Mr. Melvin Honowitz of the law firm, Honowitz & Associates, and Mr. Jack Palladino (concurrently licensed as both attorney and private investigator) of the private investigation firm, Palladino & Sutherland.

Current, as of February 2023, street (and mailing) addresses of the above Court Reporters' companies as published on corresponding websites are:

• Holly Moose & Associates
• 47815 Via Opera
• La Quinta, CA 92253

• Wheeler & Hallford Court Reporters
• 3135 Clayton Rd., Suite 209
• Concord, CA 94159

• Contact Info Webpage for Holly Moose & Associates from calendar year 2013;

• Main Webpage for Wheeler & Hallford, Inc., which includes contact information, from calendar year 2013.

In this respect, a reader may find the following Perma.cc links, archived March 27, 2023, of significance (toggle option "Show record details" in upper left of webpages to view source URLs): https://perma.cc/CQ35-8THX, and https://perma.cc/SH3K-XRVK (for the latter, toggle option, "Show record details," in the upper left of webpage.

ANNOTATION

The following archival records were added to this section, August 9, 2023, and in my opinion, a reader of this website may find these relevant to the general discussion proffered herewith:

• Dr. Steven Strogatz (from July 7, 2023): https://perma.cc/7ESB-XTZ4 (MAIN webpage from Stevenstrogatz.com, which in turn is a link labeled, "Primary Web Page" from the Cornell University webpage, https://math.cornell.edu/steven-strogatz, archived, July 26, 2023, as follows—https://perma.cc/6YFF-E5XL), https://perma.cc/M6GD-5JLS ("About" webpage link from Stevenstrogatz.com"), https://perma.cc/4XSH-WZ4A ("Teaching" webpage link from Stevenstrogatz.com), https://perma.cc/AXR3-9A5L ("CV" webpage link from Stevenstrogatz.com);

• Dr. Stephen Yeung (from July 7, 2023): https://perma.cc/5BJ5-VB3Q, https://perma.cc/EC85-76U5;

• Cornell University, Department of Mathematics, Graduate Program History, 1868-2009 (from July 7, 2023): https://perma.cc/MKV9-LN6F;

• Internet Archive Records (selection)—USF Executive Officers and Human Resources Staff, 2001-2007:


• https://perma.cc/VN25-SRHU,


• https://perma.cc/DDG6-F9XB,


• https://perma.cc/F65X-2NLF,


• https://perma.cc/65NL-LN4S,


• https://perma.cc/DV75-S7QM,


• https://perma.cc/EQ4V-LFZH;

• USF ancillary website records, tracking file Math_Self_Study_2011.pdf as published on myusf.usfca.edu, and archived with Perma.cc, March 21, 2022, and thereafter, April 18 - July 24, 2023:


• https://perma.cc/7SAQ-LQCE (Hover cursor over, or select, the first record in search results for reference to file, Math_Self_Study_2011.pdf.),


• https://perma.cc/2V4A-NAUB,


• https://perma.cc/T44C-J48U,


• https://perma.cc/LMW7-92UK,


• https://perma.cc/TBD6-RAE6,


• https://perma.cc/2LSF-BPER (This record of file, Math_Self_Study_2011.pdf, corresponds to an archival date of July 7, 2023.),


• https://perma.cc/7E3V-9Y5F (File, Math_Self_Study_2011.pdf, as represented in this link has been archived by JSK Independent Legal Services with Perma.cc, but the latter record reference is not provided as it is duplicative of the direct record, perma.cc/2LSF-BPER, supra.),


• https://perma.cc/49F3-D787, (File, Math_Self_Study_2011.pdf, as represented in this link has been archived by JSK Independent Legal Services with Perma.cc, but the latter record reference is not provided as it is duplicative of the direct record, perma.cc/2LSF-BPER, supra.),


• https://perma.cc/EG67-CGQP (This link to file, Math_Self_Study_2011.pdf, is duplicative of record, Perma.cc/2LSF-BPER, supra. It is included due to its archival date of April 18, 2023, as distinguishable from the archival date for perma.cc/2LSF-BPER, and in my opinion, may serve to establish for a reader the stability of the file as published on myusf.usfca.edu.),


• https://perma.cc/A8P7-S595 (This is an archival link to https://myusf.usfca.edu/assessment/academic-program-reviews/arts-and-sciences, dated April 16, 2023. Select drop-down menu labeled, "Mathematics & Statistics - BS."),


• https://perma.cc/6X29-EVLS (This is an archival link to https://myusf.usfca.edu/assessment/academic-program-reviews/arts-and-sciences, dated July 24, 2023. Select drop-down menu labeled, "Mathematics & Statistics - BS.");

• Internet Archive Records (selection, articulated by archival year)—"Teaching" webpage link from Stevenstrogatz.com:


• https://perma.cc/CHA9-KU93 (2009),


• https://perma.cc/WYL5-J48Q (2010),


• https://perma.cc/VX9F-TNLZ (2011),


• https://perma.cc/X5J2-GBC2, (2012),


• https://perma.cc/5XXY-GV2U, (2013),


• https://perma.cc/NT7P-N82B, (2014),


• https://perma.cc/C7YU-9BGF, (2015),


• https://perma.cc/7MHN-EUNW, (2016),


• https://perma.cc/6NN6-8NBD, (2017),


• https://perma.cc/RXB6-TRSE, (2018),


• https://perma.cc/2ZLD-C6HC, (2019),


• https://perma.cc/226X-PZ5C, (2020),


• https://perma.cc/M6D7-JN5H, (2021),


• https://perma.cc/53TV-ZCP6, (2022);

• California attorney, Mr. Michael J. Vartain of the law firm, Vartain Law Group, which following archival links from July 24, 2023, may in my opinion, be relevant to a reader of www.JSKIndependentLegal.com, in relation to the discussions in sections of this webpage herewith, labeled, "Counter-Lawsuit," and, "Lifetime Campus Ban," respectively—for latter, in particular, the last paragraph thereof:


• https://perma.cc/W3GC-VGWB,


• https://perma.cc/C9PA-FLFP,


• https://perma.cc/Q6QH-7A8W (Note: in my opinion, a reader may find relevant herewith, the involvement of Dr. James Missett in a lawsuit with defendant, University of San Francisco, the latter represented in part by Mr. Michael J. Vartain of the law firm, Vartain Law Group, in calendar year 2005—see third page of file which archive was created from the online records of the San Francisco Superior Court. I further note the address 1187 University Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025, as found in this file, was the location where according to my electronic copy transmitted to me via email by the law firm, Katzenbach and Khtikian, of the official transcript corresponding thereto, Dr. Missett's deposition was taken by Mr. Christopher W. Katzenbach, with myself present, and Mr. Michael J. Vartain, representing defendant USF, also present, pre-trial for Kao v. USF—which deposition occurred, September 9, 2010, before reporter, Ms. Danielle Miske, CSR License No. 9545, on behalf of the court reporter company, Holly Moose & Associates.),


• https://perma.cc/6WZ7-LQJA,


• https://perma.cc/5TYX-G4JS,


• https://perma.cc/6XKB-SNN2;



• Dr. James R. Missett:


• Screenshots from California, Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) - License Status for psychologists/psychiatrists involved in trial proceedings Kao v. USF from August 1, 2023 (Note license number for Dr. Missett, page 2 of file, and disciplinary action whereby Dr. Missett's physician's license was surrendered by stipulation calendar year 2015 in connection to a consumer complaint filed with the MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, May 2013, with complainant represented by: Ms. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Ms. Jane Z. Simon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Mr. Lawrence A. Mercer, Deputy Attorney General.): DCA Licenses—Psycholgists/Psychistrists Named at Trial Proceedings, Kao v. USF (2014),


• Perma.cc archive of the Department of Consumer Affairs licensing records of Dr. Missett generated July 30, 2023—reference menu toggles labeled, "ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS," and respectively, "DECISION" (Note: Dr. Missett passed away in calendar year 2019—see obituary Perma.cc archive link, perma.cc/X7SL-9BEG): https://perma.cc/2C6U-ETSF,


• Perma.cc archive of the MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA complaint resolution for Dr. Missett generated July 30, 2023, and which surrender of medical license was effective June 2, 2015—see first page of file (Note the text on last two pages of file, pages 8 - 9, thereof—Amended Accusation Case No.03-2013-233315 which reads as follows, "On or about May 28, 2013, the Board received a consumer complaint that Respondent appeared to have significant memory deficits when testifying as an expert. The complaint stated that, after two court-appointed psychiatrists opined that a criminal defendant was insane at the time that he committed a crime, Respondent was retained by the prosecution to perform a psychiatric assessment of the defendant. At the trial, Respondent testified that based on his assessment the defendant was acting under the influence of Adderall, an amphetamine, but was aware of the nature of his crime and aware that the act was morally wrong. The complaint alleged that Respondent was unable to support his opinions with competent medical evidence while testifying and appeared to be confused and/or mentally impaired while testifying. ... The Board's investigator obtained transcripts of Respondent's testimony and Respondent was interviewed. Respondent acknowledged that, after testifying as an expert in the case discussed in the consumer complaint, he became aware of cognitive problems and difficulties with his memory, which he believed impaired him in his ability to testify in that case and, further, impaired his ability to continue in the practice or medicine. Respondent advised that he planned to close his office and to retire from the practice of medicine for this reason, which he subsequently did." Emphases mine.): https://perma.cc/YWK7-VJKD,


• Perma.cc archive generated July 30, 2023, of a news article, which in my opinion, appears to regard the criminal case referred to supra: https://perma.cc/B74R-FBD4,


• Trial transcript excerpt from trial proceedings for Kao v. USF, which establishes that Dr. Missett testified in this trial herewith on February 22, 2012, and further that Dr. Missett testified that he began began practicing medicine within the state of California, stating at trial specifically, "... from '70 through '71 I was an intern and then from 1974 on. [further in response to Question from attorney, Mr. Vartain, 'Where, since 1974, have you practiced medicine 10 within the State of California?'] ... My office -- well, initially for four years I was a resident and chief resident in psychiatry at Stanford University Hospital. And starting in 1978, I opened an office in Menlo Park, and I'm in the same building now as I was 34 years ago." This is consistent with the medical licensing record as archived supra, perma.cc/2C6U-ETSF, that identifies a graduation year from medical school, 1970, and an Issuance Date for a California medical license of August 5, 1974. This is also consistent with the Perma.cc archival link generated August 4, 2023, perma.cc/SN5W-KJEG, which identifies an office corresponding to a James R. Misset, MD, as "1187 University Dr, Menlo Park, CA 94025," and further that this office had been closed as of the archival date. The criminal trial, expert witness testimony, which generated the complaint that ultimately led to Dr. Missett surrendering his California Medical License, appears to me, based on the news article supra, to have taken place on or about, May 21, 2013, which would have been approximately 15 months thereafter (See also, the testimony of Dr. Missett as quoted on this webpage, in relation to the California criminal case, People v. Youshock, in section labeled, "Counter-Lawsuit," infra. Also note that Dr. Missett's involvment in the California civil case, Blough v. Menlo College," was discussed explicitly in trial testimony for Kao v. USF, see pages 776 - 776, of the trial transcript for the latter, available, via link in section labeled, "Reference Documents & Court Summary," and specifically link further labeled, "Post-Trial Documents," infra.): Trial Transcript Excerpt, Dr. James Missett,


• Perma.cc archive generated July 30, 2023, containing record of proceedings before the MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, regarding a disciplinary hearing before Administrative Law Judge David L. Benjamin, in Oakland, California, concerning one Dr. Joaquin Antonio Barahona (DCA license record archived at Perma.cc link—perma.cc/2EWJ-B3TG) in which a psychiatrist by the name of, Dr. James R. Missett, apparently testified as an expert witness, September 2013, having performed a medical evaluation of the accused physician in Case No. 03-2011-212519, on June 10, 2013 (See in particular the second, seventh, and eighth pages of file, whereon latter is stated, "On June 10, 2013, respondent saw Dr. Missett for evaluation, at the request of his attorney. Dr. Missett met with respondent twice, interviewed him, and administered various psychological tests. He prepared a written report dated August 5, 2013, as well as two letters dated July 10 and August 7, 2013. Dr. Missett also testified at hearing."): https://perma.cc/3AJG-4TUR,


• Perma.cc archival links generated August 1, 2023, containing records of appeal for the criminal case People v. Wenke (2016), whereby the California Appellate Court for the First District summarized as follows (see pages 1 - 2 of second file), "Defendant [Laura Jean Wenke] was charged by information with: (1) attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)); (2) assault with a knife (id., § 245, subd. (a)(1)); (3) assault with a stun gun or taser (id., § 244.5, subd. (b)); and (4) infliction of corporal injury (id., As Randall shares defendant's last name, we refer to him by his first name. We mean no disrespect in doing so. § 273.5, subd. (a)). The information also contained enhancement allegations for personal infliction of great bodily injury, infliction of great bodily injury involving domestic violence, use of a knife as a deadly weapon, and serious and violent strike offenses. Defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. On June 3, 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of all charges and found true all the alleged enhancements. On June 11, 2014, the jury found appellant was sane when she committed the offenses. Defendant was sentenced to 11 years to life." (Emphases mine.) Furthermore, the California Appellate Court for the First District wrote (see pages 7 - 8 of second file), "The jury also heard from several mental health experts during the sanity phase of the trial. Testifying for defendant, Dr. Jeffrey Kline stated defendant 'fell into a dissociative state sometime prior to the offense, it was occurring during the offense, she was not aware of it, she popped out of it afterwards. This impaired her sense of reality and she was not capable of understanding the nature, quality or wrongfulness of her actions during the offense.' Dr. James Missett testified defendant suffered from psychosis and recurrent mental and emotional problems for months prior to the crime, and thus was 'vulnerable to the medications and to their effect on her and at the time of the incident on September the 15th . . . she was insane.' Dr. French once again testified on behalf of the prosecution." (Emphases mine. In my opinion, it is apparent from the Court of Appeals decision in this criminal case, that the so named, Dr. James Missett, was legally permitted to perform a mental examination of Ms. Wenke to formulate his expert testimony so proffered hereto. It is also my opinion that it is relevant in this context that this criminal trial took place at the San Mateo County Superior Court in California—see first page of second file): https://perma.cc/T4H8-YXFK and https://perma.cc/N2FN-98WN (Note: further information about the pre-trial and trial level litigation in this case was available at the date of this writing, August 9, 2023 at the Online Services of The Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo—https://www.sanmateocourt.org/online_services—which archives trial proceedings in greater detail than that of The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco—https://sf.courts.ca.gov/online-services—however, whereas the latter, may be in turn archived with Perma.cc, the features of the former do not permit similar archival, due to the features therewith. For this reason, JSK Independent Legal Services created the following file comprised of three pages of screenshots of the case record accessed via www.sanmateocourt.org/online_services, followed by a print to PDF format file of the case record as found, August 6, 2023. I note the text on the 197th and 198th page of file, labeled pages 194 - 195 of the print to PDF portion of file, indicates that Dr. Missett provided court testimony on May 29, 2014, and further, the trial proceeding record states, "THE COURT FINDS THE WITNESS TO BE AN EXPERT IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY," see link following: People v Wenke - San Mateo Superior Court Records with Front Matter.),


• Perma.cc archival links generated August 6, 2023, containing records of appeal for the civil case Shook et al. v. LaFarre (2016), whereby the California Appellate Court for the First District indicated (see page three of second file), "After extensive discovery, a jury trial commenced March 18, 2014. Over 30 witnesses were ultimately called ..." (Emphases mine.) Furthermore, the California Appellate Court for the First District wrote (see page seven of second file), "Dr. James Missett provided expert medical testimony on behalf of LaFarre that, in August 2012, there was no indication in the medical records he reviewed that Cook would subjugate his will to that of someone else. Dr. Missett further testified Cook was capable of making his own decisions as late as March 11, 2013, when he declined a feeding tube and requested hospice care. Dr. Missett provided no opinion as to whether Cook 'possessed testamentary capacity to make the amendment.'" (Emphasis mine. It is my opinion that it is relevant in this context that this civil trial took place at the San Mateo County Superior Court in California—see first page of second file): https://perma.cc/Y8VE-QNMT and https://perma.cc/LCK4-F3CL (Note: further information about the pre-trial and trial level litigation in this case was available at the date of this writing, August 9, 2023 at the Online Services of The Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo—https://www.sanmateocourt.org/online_services—which archives trial proceedings in greater detail than that of The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco—https://sf.courts.ca.gov/online-services—however, whereas the latter, may be in turn archived with Perma.cc, the features of the former do not permit similar archival, due to the features therewith. For this reason, JSK Independent Legal Services created the following file comprised of three pages of screenshots of the case record accessed via www.sanmateocourt.org/online_services, followed by a print to PDF format file of the case record as found, August 6, 2023. I note the text on the 130th page of file, labeled page 127 of the print to PDF portion of file, indicates that Dr. Missett provided court testimony on April 8, 2014, and further, the trial proceeding record states, "THE COURT FINDS THE WITNESS TO BE AN EXPERT IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY," see link following: Shook et al v. LaFarre - San Mateo Superior Court Records with Front Matter.),


• File of screenshots generated August 1, 2023, of DCA License searches performed through the internet portal https://search.dca.ca.gov (Due to the nature of the portal, and the URL created by application of the search engine, it was not possible to archive the results with Perma.cc. The first page of the file is a screenshot of the result of searching the entire DCA database, within the Google Chrome internet browser, under name, "James Missett," for licenses, not limited to medicine/psychology, but also including, and further not limited to those issued by: Medical Board Of California; Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists; Board For Registered Nursing; Board Of Security And Investigative Services; Bureau Of Vocational Nursing And Psychiatric Technicians. This first page of the file indicates only one license was registered in the database of DCA for an individual with name, "James Missett," which specific license record is archived with Perma.cc, supra—perma.cc/2C6U-ETSF. The second page of the file is a Microsoft Edge internet browser, "Web Capture," of this same search result page. The third page of the file is a screen shot for the Google Chrome internet browser search result for "James Missett," limited to licenses for category, "Physician's and Sugeon's." The fourth page of the file is a screen shot for the Google Chrome internet browser search result for "James Missett," limited to licenses for category, "Psychologists," and verifies that were no results herewith. These categories are visible by the checked boxes under rubric, "SEARCH FILTERS," at the left side of the screen.): California Department of Consumer Affairs License Search—"James Missett",


• In connection with the general discussion herewith, it is my opinion that the following files which are comprised of screenshots of internet database searches for medical license records, from all 50 US states also the District of Columbia, generated August 3, 2023, for a "James Missett, MD," which PDF format file has been subject to object character recognition—OCR—so as to render it text searchable, is relevant (Note: due to the size of the record, it has been articulated into two files for the convenience of a reader of this webpage. Further note, the record indicates no license for a James Missett, MD, extant August 2023, in official state medical license databases, other than that for California as per supra, for this record, in its entirety.): Medical License Records—August 2023 A and Medical License Records—August 2023 B;

• University of San Francisco—USF (This is a Wikipedia record. While in my opinion, Wikipedia is not normally a formal source of information, it is also my opinion and general understanding, that institutions of higher education may review such records for accuracy because they serve a marketing purpose; furthermore, it is my opinion and general understanding that emendations are made accordingly by Wikipedia, though possibly with some exceptions.): https://perma.cc/H3Q2-3RZ2;

• Cornell University (This is a Wikipedia record. While in my opinion, Wikipedia is not normally a formal source of information, it is also my opinion and general understanding, that institutions of higher education may review such records for accuracy because they serve a marketing purpose; furthermore, it is my opinion and general understanding that emendations are made accordingly by Wikipedia, though possibly with some exceptions.): https://perma.cc/79GX-FZBV;

• Princeton University Department of Mathematics, see in particular, section on this website record labeled, "Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics" (This is a Wikipedia record. While in my opinion, Wikipedia is not normally a formal source of information, it is also my opinion and general understanding, that institutions of higher education may review such records for accuracy because they serve a marketing purpose; furthermore, it is my opinion and general understanding that emendations are made accordingly by Wikipedia, though possibly with some exceptions.): https://perma.cc/Q2C5-P9NL.

CONCLUSION

Apart from an emphasis in appellate law, my interests include: immigration and disability (perceived or otherwise) law; reflecting a passion and commitment to the principle of equity as basis of sound, wherefore lasting, legal culture in the US.

Return to Top of Webpage

Born August 30, 1967 in Salt Lake City, Utah, of Chinese and Japanese ancestry, I attended the University of Utah graduating Magna Cum Laude at the age of 17. Admitted to the Department of Mathematics, Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics at Princeton University (PACM—administered through the Department of Mathematics), I earned a PhD from PACM in 1991 (Doctorate in Applied and Computational Mathematics), concurrently completing a one year postdoctoral fellowship program by the age of 23.

My graduate school research and teaching was fully supported by the National Science Foundation (fellowship) and the Office of Naval Research (grant). The Princeton Mathematics Department was ranked 1st as to scholarly quality and educational effectiveness among doctoral programs for mathematics in the US by the National Research Council from the year prior to my admission at Princeton University, 1985, and for more than a decade thereafter—reference Notices of the American Mathematical Society, December 1995, pg. 1535 - 1542.

I taught at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (as a postdoctoral fellow) in the 1990/91 academic year. I began as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at USF fall 1991.

It is of note, from a legal as well as personal professional perspective that USF has the unique—amongst Jesuit universities, also attractive for prospective professors—arrangement that tenured and tenure track faculty employment are governed via contract negotiated through the USF Faculty Association; teachers' union affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers; in turn, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Operations; AFL-CIO.

My research until 2009 explored two fields: birth and death processes on stochastic flows (BDFPs) and stochastic vibrational control. This work is outlined in the subsequent section, and with descriptions taken directly from the USF mathematics department program report to an external review committee (2004) as published on the official University of San Francisco website, myusf.usfca.edu, with as front matter the website screen capture to authenticate the file source, most recently downloaded February 2022, here find document excerpt containing of biographical information of faculty: USF Mathematics Program Review 2004 (Excerpt). To verify the source, see screen capture as follows: USF Website Search Mathematics Program Review. For authentication of the webpages as represented in these files, see Perma.cc links: https://perma.cc/AE7S-MZNP and respectively, https://perma.cc/7SAQ-LQCE. The website archival service Perma.cc is discussed on this webpage in sections labeled Lifetime Campus Ban, and Forensic Evidence, infra.

Return to Top of Webpage

Since they were first identified in my PhD dissertation, Birth and Death on a Flow: A Study of a Random Particle System and Its Statistical Equilibrium, published UMI (ProQuest LLC) 1991, BDFPs have proven fertile ground for scientific inquiry (see for example, M. Phelan, "Asymptotic likelihood estimation from birth and death on a flow," The Annals of Statistics (1996); also, J.S. Kao and E. Cinlar, "Spectral expansion of the occupation measure for birth and death on a flow," Stochastic Processes and Their Applications (1998). BDFPs represent a first step in the application of modern results from the theory of stochastic flows of homeomorphisms to the classical problem of turbulent transport by fluids. This research was funded jointly by the United States agencies: the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The latter application: detection and elimination of hostile explosive devices (naval mines) in oceanic flow; also, pollution control in oceanic turbulence, ONR grant 1989-1991 (see BDFP publications and acknowledgements therewith).

Vibrational control refers to the stabilization of unstable mechanical (physically realizable) systems by introduction of vibrations. This technique has been used, for instance, to stabilize beam trajectories in particle accelerators (alternating-gradient focusing). In "Principle of vibrational control: theory and applications," IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control (1980), Dr. S.M. Meerkov posed the following, "Is it possible to stabilize the system using not regular but random 'vibrations'?... The answer to this question is not found, although it was discussed in many publications..." Together with Dr. Volker Wihstutz, the problem was solved fourteen years later—answered in the affirmative (see J.S. Kao and V. Wihstutz, "Stabilization of companion form systems by mean zero noise," Stochastic Processes and Their Applications (1994). Our subsequent paper, "Characterization of stochastic processes which stabilize linear companion form systems," Stochastic Processes and Their Applications (2000) provided necessary and sufficient conditions for a broad class of stochastic processes (diffusion noise) to stabilize linear companion form systems (the simplest example being the inverted pendulum). Scientists at Universitat Hannover, Germany, were later able to experimentally verify our characterization—stabilizing an inverted pendulum with random, vertical line, vibration of its pivot.

For reference to these research activities, see link of screenshots from USF's official website, labeled, "USF Mathematics Program Review 2004," supra.

Return to Top of Webpage

Again, from the USF mathematics department program report to external review committee (2004): With respect to other commissions on behalf of USF (service and teaching), Stanley Nel, Dean, Colleges of Arts and Sciences, wrote on Dr. Kao's annual performance report, Academic Career Prospectus (dated May 8, 2003), "For the next 2-3 years, focus on completion of monograph. Maintain current level of service. I judge your teaching to be truly outstanding." For reference to this in relation to USF mathematics teaching, see link of screenshots from USF's official website, labeled, "USF Mathematics Program Review 2004," supra.

Pursuant to these endeavors, I served as Visiting Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Princeton University academic year 1998/99 (for narrative summary of student evaluations of teaching for "Fundamentals of Engineering Statistics", see link Curriculum Vitae, supra.

I also served as Associate Editor for the journal, Advances and Applications in Statistics, 2002-2009.

Return to Top of Webpage

Although employed as a university mathematics teacher/researcher for over 20 years (and tenured Associate Professor at USF 1997-2009), I became interested in law through experiences in civil litigation, Kao v. The University of San Francisco. This dispute arose in the context of discrimination and harassment I encountered personally; see link Post-Trial Documents below for details.

In 2006 (represented by attorney, Christopher W. Katzenbach) and again in 2007 (represented also by attorney, Kimberly A. Hancock), I filed a total of two complaints with the USF Office of Human Resources (HR); see, in particular, link Post-Trial Documents, cover letter to HR Complaint 2007. The first Complaint was 485 pages long, the second, Addendum, was 41 pages long, which to the lay-person may seem excessive, and articles published nationally about the decision, Kao v. USF (2014), make an issue of this.

However, in this matter I paid three consultants (at rate, adjusted for inflation, in today's dollars, of approximately $300/hour) to prepare these HR documents as I had no experience of how to compose or file such. Composition of complaint from documentary evidence to final form with appendix required months of part-time labor to perform properly according to consultant specifications. This fundamental fact (complaint prepared in collaboration with legal specialists, see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript) was made explicit in the cover letter of these complaints, and also orally to HR; those specialists known to USF, then, were, attorneys Katzenbach and Hancock.

To the extent the California Appellate Court suggested that the very length of this complaint was a contributing factor in justifying a psychiatric FFDE, I am somewhat surprised the State Bar Association did not mandate same from Mr. Katzenbach and Ms. Hancock as condition for their continuing practice of law as of 2014. Satirically.

Subsequent to a meeting with, Ms. Elsie Tamayo, Lead Affirmative Action Officer USF in academic year 2005/06, I was advised in writing to, "include all relevant documentary evidence," as part of any HR Complaint (paraphrasing slightly). To this end, both complaints were thoroughly reviewed by paid consultants including two attorneys: Mr. Katzenbach and Ms. Hancock. These consultants advised that submission of such two complaints would serve as protection against retaliation in relation to employment at USF irrespective of the outcome of any formal investigation forthwith. I resubmitted all documentary evidence in connection to a union grievance I filed and won against Professor (then Associate Dean of Sciences) Tristan Needham in December 2000 (see Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript), concluded 2001. The vast majority of this file had been misplaced by the university sometime between 2001-2005, notwithstanding that I submitted copies to: my personnel file in the Dean's Office of Arts and Sciences, also the USF Faculty Association (teachers union), and also the Provost's Office (see Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript). Furthermore, as USF Human Resources Anti-discrimination Policies (Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Disability Status, political stance on union representation, etc.), Affirmative Action Policies, and most significantly Complaint Procedures, thereby, changed dramatically from the year of my first appointment 1991 and 2006, and again in 2007. These alterations meant submission of each copy as evidence. Email chains were necessary evidence to demonstrate discriminatory motive and behavior, such are lengthy in hard-copy form. In addition, I meant to demonstrate the comparative weakness of USF Affirmative Action Policy implementation, and for this purpose, I performed a statistical study using documented national averages as control. "Including all relevant documents" required submission of studies by organizations such as the National Research Council and the American Mathematical Society. The final Complaint was composed in as concise and comprehensive fashion possible while including all relevant documentary evidence.

In comparison, the trial transcript for Kao v. USF (see link within Post-Trial Documents) is approximately 3,000 pages long and does not include any of the documentary evidence submitted as a separate file to the jury and which was, over 1,000 pages. The trial transcript represents, essentially, what attorneys on both sides wanted to present to the jury with statements from witnesses called to testify. In the United States civil court system, such a "complaint" is considered of reasonable length for a case of this importance and scope. Together, then, the official public court record, i.e. "complaint and response," totals well over 4,000 pages.

The HR complaints alleged personal discrimination and harassment, primarily by Mathematics Professor Tristan Needham (PhD, Oxford University, United Kingdom), against whom I filed and won a union grievance in December 2001 (at which time he was concurrently Associate Dean of Sciences and my direct supervisor). I further alleged that the university's hiring, advancement, and rewards system for faculty in the Colleges of Arts and Sciences was contrary to university-wide diversity promotion procedures and mission; primarily as a result of policies set by Dean of Arts and Sciences, concurrently Mathematics Professor, Stanley Nel (PhD, University of Cape Town, South Africa, degree awarded in 1980); together with Tristan Needham (see above). It is relevant from the standpoint of United States Federal Employment Law and California State Employment Law that both of these men are Caucasian. I applied a background in statistics as part of two formal reports.

I testified that the university refused to investigate both of these complaints in the manner guaranteed by USF HR protocols—citing protocols published fall 2005 and also revised protocols published 2007; see link lawsuit complaint filed to the San Francisco Superior Court as follows, Court Complaint; for details, see section, Addendum (filed with USF Human Resources in summer 2007) of document, Addendum with Complaint, link Post-Trial Documents under heading Reference Documents & Court Summary infra; in conjunction with evidence submitted to the court, see trial transcript, pages 356-360, also via link Post-Trial Documents. In particular find discussion in those pages of the trial transcript, the so described "two-page response," to Addendum with Complaint referenced in the California Appellate—Court Summary, page 2. Singular consideration might be made to the summer 2006 appointment of a specific Caucasian male faculty member in the Department of Computer Science to the position, Director, Dual Degree in Teacher Preparation (DDTP) Program, with no candidate solicitation for others, including ethnic minority and female faculty, possibly better qualified; a position for which I was explicitly unable, and thus did not, apply. The DDTP Program was jointly administered by the USF College of Arts and Sciences together with the USF School of Education.

In a meeting June 18, 2008, at the end of the academic year, I was informed several colleagues complained about my conduct spring semester with the first incident occurring in January 2008. I was provided no details—identities of complainants, dates or locations of incidents—which would enable me to respond meaningfully or supply witness testimony in my defense (see Appellate Court trial summary, link, Court Summary, in section labeled Reference Documents & Court Summary, infra, for "description of behaviors" provided to me and my attorneys June 2008). I testified that this procedure, again, violated USF HR protocols, citing revised protocols published fall 2007. In meetings of administrators together with my two attorneys, I denied the brief description provided of my conduct, asserted no intentional misconduct, and raised the issue of possible retaliatory motive. The university refused to supply any additional details. At trial, I gave testimony consistent with the fundamental assertion—no one told me they were bothered by anything I had done during the semester, spring 2008, when the behaviors purportedly occurred, and no one asked me to simply "please stop," or "please act differently" in relation "concerning behavior" proximately; compare testimonies of Ms. Christine Liu and Dr. Tristan Needham; see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript. The meeting June 18 with HR was the first time I or my attorneys were made aware of "concerns," and was conducted weeks after the last incident of "concerning behavior" allegedly transpired, and two weeks after the latter had been formally reported to the administration (see discussion in section labeled Forensic Evidence, infra).

I was formally instructed by the Dean of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences (acting principal for the university) to take a "comprehensive mental fitness for duty exam" (FFDE) with a psychiatrist retained and paid by the university. I had to release all medical records. The exam included a complete background assessment/review: medical, legal, financial, educational and work history, family and social history. The doctor mandated: mental status examinations, psychological testing, laboratory testing, and diagnostic assessment. I had to waive any rights to receive the doctor's diagnostic assessment and evaluation (i.e., resulting psychiatric report, or separately, records correlative) which was to be generated by the exam; see link Court Summary infra, also Petition for Review. I objected specifically to the release of all medical records citing the California Medical Information Act.

Return to Top of Webpage

After a half-year of negotiations during which I was on unpaid leave and paying attorneys fees for representation forthwith, I was (in my assertion at lawsuit, wrongfully) terminated (modern employment law nomenclature, "discharged") for refusing to take the "comprehensive FFDE" on the terms demanded by USF and asserting my privacy rights under the California, Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).

In addition to termination of my employment, the university would not provide names of faculty or administrators from whom I could safely request, either directly or through my attorneys, letters of recommendation for purposes of future employment without possible negative legal consequences to myself or recommending faculty and staff. The request for names of such individuals was made formally on my behalf, by my attorney, Mr. Christopher Katzenbach, since I did not feel comfortable contacting the university personally in this regard with a lawsuit pending and given the nature of my discharge. This was alluded to in my trial testimony, but a full answer was precluded by attorney for USF, Mr. Michael Vartain (see Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript pg. 718). Irrespective, the lifetime campus ban imposed upon discharge (for an otherwise open campus, see discussion in section labeled Lifetime Campus Ban, directly below), which as a potential employee I would have a duty to disclose to a potential employer in relation to my employment history at USF (the latter being besides the opinion of others, my understanding of the legal duties of an agent/employee from my personal law school education) itself, was evaluated by a consultant, also a nationally recognized scholar on the subject of issues related to violence, Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum (Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine & Law, at Columbia University—see link Curriculum Vitae, for further details in relation to Dr. Appelbaum's full academic title at the date of my consultation), as prohibitive, in connection with pursuit of continued employment as a university or college mathematics professor at another institution of higher education.

Return to Top of Webpage

Furthermore, the university banned me from ever again setting foot on USF campus, notwithstanding that local registered sex offenders are freely permitted to enter USF campus; reference, Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, testimony of Daniel Lawson, Senior Director, USF Department of Public Safety.

It is of note that, a former prostitute, and casualty of terrible abuse; successfully graduated from the USF School of Law, and subsequently passed the California Bar Examination to become a lawyer in San Francisco (see the New York Times Bestseller and in my opinion an important autobiography, A Piece of Cake: A Memoir, written by Cupcake Brown (given name unconventional, but actual name; with which she registered as attorney with the California Bar Association). I recall reading about her graduation in the USF student newspaper, The Foghorn, in 2001; prior to the publication of her monograph February 2006. I also recall being moved by her life story as described in that 2001 article, in particular the fact that the USF School of Law gave her a chance in spite of her past. I surmise she is still allowed to enter USF campus freely notwithstanding the subsequent 2006 public admission in her autobiographical monograph: an extensive history of illegal activities—violent crimes including, by her description, voluntarily and absent any element of self-defense, firing a gun during the commission of a drive-by-shooting as a minor (fourteen years of age) whereby a victim was permanently paralyzed from the waist down, though the specific person responsible therewith was undetermined, while a member of a "Crips" street gang. See Chapter 17, A Piece of Cake: A Memoir, New York, Broadway Books an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., 2006; with regards to which she writes, E-book version pg. 148 - 149:

• There were four of them on the porch. I saw the red ember from what looked like a joint and the familiar shape of a 40-ounce. It didn't occur to me that they were just like us, living mirror images of our own lives. Dob's car was so quiet as it cruised up, and they were so busy smoking and drinking that they never saw us coming—till it was too late. | As we got closer, Fly and I rolled down our windows just in time for the slobs to see the barrels. | "Duck, Blood!" one of them screamed. | Everything happened in a flash. | "Gangstas!" Fly yelled as he let off the .410. | "Ca-r-i-ps!" I shouted as I shot my .38. | The kick was stronger than I remembered. Besides, I wasn't that big. The kick threw me back into Bones who was sitting up behind me, not wanting to miss any of the fun. | "Blast, cuzzz! Blast!" he ordered, grabbing my shoulders and shoving me back up to the window. | And I did. I blasted two more shots as the car sped off. One of the bullets struck the porch light, turning everything black so that I could no longer see who was still standing or what was happening on the porch. Just shoot in their direction, I told myself. I didn't want to stop shooting till Fly did. I tried to get off a third shot but the jerk from Dob's speeding off threw me back into Bones again. | As we pulled off laughing and hoo-banging, I didn't have a care about what I'd just done. I didn't have a worry as to who might have been hurt. If anyone had any doubt before, it was gone now. I was more than down. I was down.

• We later learned that no one was killed from our hoo-ride, though we did hit three of them: two seriously. One was paralyzed from the waist down and would be in a wheelchair for life. Everyone wanted to take credit for his injury. I swore it was one of my bullets. I was hungry to have been the trigger person and didn't think twice about the consequences. | But Fly swore it was the pellets from his gauge. Even though no one was killed, I stilled earned respect by doing the drive-by. It was the start of developing a reputation.

At trial, the consulting psychiatric expert for USF retained contemporaneous to events 2008 - 2009, Dr. James Missett, testified he did not remember specifically advising the university to impose a campus ban pending the FFDE; nor did he testify in reference to any recollection of recommendation on his part to perpetuate the ban after my employment had been terminated; see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, in particular, pg. 2160 - 2161.

Only in response to my attorneys filing of a retaliation-discrimination lawsuit with the San Francisco Superior Court did USF file a counter-lawsuit (cross-complaint) in November 2009, requesting active SFPD participation in preventing me from entering USF campus, notwithstanding the undisputed evidence that I never set foot on USF campus (nor threatened to set foot on USF campus) after being asked to leave one-and-a-half years prior, June 2008, and also after November 2009, subsequently; see direct quote from attorney Michael J. Vartain, defendant's closing arguments, see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, pg. 2831 - 2832.

It is significant that SFPD participation was not an element of the first counter-lawsuit (cross-complaint), filed by USF, August 11, 2009; in sequel to my retaliation/discrimination lawsuit, filed June 17, 2009. The first cross-complaint; which sought only an official injunction confirming USF's right to ban me from campus unless I pass precisely same fitness for duty exam mandated as a condition of employment (which would not at this stage even restore employment); was removed by the court, for insufficient legal rationale, following a successful "motion to strike" filed by attorneys Christopher Katzenbach and Kimberly Hancock on my behalf; see online records of the San Francisco Superior Court, case number CGC-09-489576.

It is further notable that USF holds (often renting campus facilities to outside organizations and covering its own costs therewith) many events: professional (e.g. Law School Admission Test, LSAT, testing center), cultural, community (e.g. regional mathematics competitions for high school students with parent and teacher chaperones), civic (e.g. San Francisco voter polling station), entertainment and sporting (e.g. USF men's baseball, USF men's and women's basketball, also USF men's and women's soccer, et al., games with admission fees charged), etc., to which the general public is invited absent any requirement of background check or formal school affiliation. In reference to the latter, see the following website records archived with Perma.cc of webpages from usfdons.com: Perma.cc—usfdons.com/index.aspx, November 22, 2022; and Perma.cc—usfdons.com, USF Ticketing Policy and Procedures, November 22, 2022 (original webpage) and further, Perma.cc—usfdons.com, USF Ticketing Policy and Procedures, August 6, 2022 (redirected webpage). Note, for the first two latter records, the links are for Screen View mode of the webpage, because the Standard View Mode displays in a nonrepresentative fashion - possibly because USF appears to contract portions of the display such as "Ticketing Policy and Procedures" to a third party vender, s3.amazonaws.com, which latter corresponds to the third record. To verify, for the second link in this series, select Standard View Mode, and single click option "View Full Screen"; this authenticates the redirect to the USF site published on s3.amazonaws.com, which corresponds to the last and third link of the series.

The stigma of being prohibited from such functions founded on others' fears for a disability of depression; itself temporary in nature, going into remission for years at a time during which no treatment is warranted; has been discomfiting with expansive injurious ramifications, see for example section labeled Threats Received, infra. However, I draw inspiration from the historical record of Japanese Americans, to which community I belong, and many for whom due to unjust and prejudicial confinement within internment camps, by Executive Order, during World War II, based on others' fears, endured acute damages; eventually to find some measure of redress, and concomitant vindication, through political and legislative action.

To me, it is relevant that from 2020, a date salient with respect to file link, Degree Evidence 1, found in section on this webpage labeled Forensic Evidence, infra, the University of San Francisco has been involved in a number of, in my opinion substantial, legal disputes, the subjective significance of which can be ascertained and evaluated by a reader, from press articles accessible via online search engines as well as the online records of those California state and U.S. federal, civil courts, with jurisdiction over the municipality of San Francisco. In one instance, an allegation was made, by USF's President, that a former employee successfully effected entry into an area of campus at a time which he, the former assistant men's baseball coach, "...had no business being on the field with our [USF's] athletes, with our coaches." (The latter quotation is from an article published, March 16, 2022, on the news website kqed.org. KQED is a public service media corporation affiliated with the Pubic Broadcasting Service - PBS. The article so quoted from, in turn explicitly references, providing a link thereto, an article specifically concerning USF sports published, September 30, 2021, on the website si.com, the online platform for the national periodical, Sports Illustrated.) Remark: single-click of the adjacent highlighted text will redirect focus on this webpage to the file link, "Degree Evidence 1" under rubric Forensic Evidence, infra.

In this regard the following articles and press releases as recorded on the Internet Archive may be of significance to a reader. These records have, in turn, been archived with Perma.cc (links available from JSK Independent Legal Services upon special request, see contact information on this webpage infra). The URLs were taken from the Internet Archive, so that there could be no credible assertion of copyright infringement hereby. (A reader may visit the live webpage corresponding to any particular Internet Archive record by copying and pasting the URL to one's browser address bar for purpose of verification, or selecting the link corresponding.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20200528043133/https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/university-san-francisco-agrees-pay-over-25m-alleged-false-claims-its-administration

• http://web.archive.org/web/20220312084152/https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/33481316/ex-san-francisco-dons-baseball-players-sue-former-coaches-nino-giarratano-troy-nakamura-others-alleged-behavior

• http://web.archive.org/web/20220314054031/https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/33494294/university-san-francisco-fires-baseball-coach-nino-giarratano-lawsuit

• http://web.archive.org/web/20220316191824/https://www.kqed.org/news/11908220/usf-president-says-school-didnt-tolerate-coaches-alleged-sexual-misconduct-players-attorney-says-thats-exactly-what-it-did

• http://web.archive.org/web/20211014144344/https://www.si.com/college/2021/09/30/usf-mens-soccer-sexual-assault-and-harassment-reckoning-daily-cover

• http://web.archive.org/web/20220702203735/https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/usf-basketball-lawsuit-17234663.php

• http://web.archive.org/web/20230106020405/https://www.courthousenews.com/baseball-players-dodge-dismissal-in-discrimination-suit-against-usf-coaches

• http://web.archive.org/web/20230217143911/https://www.feganscott.com/cases/usf-ncaa-abuse

In this regard, a reader may find the following Perma.cc links relevant, in connection to a 2021, bench trial, class action judgment against defendant USF in an amount exceeding $3,000,000.00 including plaintiffs' attorneys fees. USF is represented in this lawsuit by the Vartain Law Group, and in particular, in part, by attorney Mr. Michael J. Vartain. As of the writing of this paragraph, February 2023, the lawsuit judgment is under appeal by defendant USF. See following: https://perma.cc/4DUT-QZSJ, https://perma.cc/7KT6-HS5T, https://perma.cc/N9PE-JAK8, https://perma.cc/E79C-24FU, and https://perma.cc/8QGG-32X7.

Return to Top of Webpage

USF's second cross-complaint filed November 13, 2009, requested active involvement of SFPD, and included new allegations of actions by myself allegedly occurring after discharge, and which went entirely unsubstantiated by evidence produced at trial 2012 (see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript). Also, the second cross-complaint removed the possibility of lifting the ban should I successfully pass the fitness-for-duty exam originally mandated while I was employed (see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript).

This second cross-complaint survived the subsequent "motion to strike" filed by my attorneys; however, it was later dismissed with prejudice (legal meaning—that university is prohibited from filing for this injunction requesting SFPD assistance) by USF, itself, after the jury trial concluded: perhaps, because there was insufficient evidence at trial to support the charges in the second cross-complaint to justify the request for SFPD involvement—see information contained in paragraph directly below. Nonetheless, the defamatory second-cross complaint remains published online for public access indefinitely, and the final court outcome thereto may be unapparent to the untrained reader; see online records of the San Francisco Superior Court, sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-services, case number CGC-09-489576.

The second counter lawsuit (second cross-complaint), completely unlike the first cross-complaint, referenced the possibility of work-place violence, school-violence and domestic terrorism, including mention that USF retained consulting psychiatrist, former United States Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) "criminal profile instructor" and "violence expert," Dr. James Missett; the frequency and regularity of classes, allegedly, taught by Dr. Missett to FBI agents were not made available to Mr. Christopher Katzenbach notwithstanding a written request to the Federal Government under the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA (further, deposition testimony and trial testimony did not reflect this information) due to the personal privacy rights of Dr. Missett. Dr. Missett was apparently retained by USF in 2008. His name was known to neither myself nor my attorneys until well into calendar year 2009, after my discharge and initiation of discovery proceedings in connection with litigation; see trial transcript, direct quotes from attorneys—plaintiff's closing arguments and defendant's closing arguments. For example of Dr. Missett's other work, see the case of Alexander Youshock tried in California—San Mateo County Superior, Criminal Court, described following (herewith, in particular, as to fourth file following, pg. 336 - 337): Youshock Trial Article 1; Youshock Sentencing Article; Youshock Trial Transcript for April 4, 2011; Youshock Trial Transcript for April 5, 2011. (Note: as indicated in the front matter of the third file link prior, "Youshock Trial Transcript for April 4, 2011," there were two different court reporters on duty as to April 5, which corresponds to a different font format as to transcript for April 5 beginning on pg. 260. The two days of testimony from these two files contrast the expert testimony of four evaluators of defendant, Alexander Youshock: Dr. Pablo Stewart—psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey Kline—psychologist, Dr. Jeffrey Gould—psychiatrist, and Dr. James Missett—psychiatrist.)

As to the background of Dr. Missett in the criminal case, People v. Youshock, the following appears on pages 262 - 263, in file link labeled, "Youshock Trial Transcript for April 5, 2011," supra (direct examination of Dr. Missett, Q. indicates question by attorney, Ms. Guidot, and A. indicates response by Dr. Missett).

• Q. AFTERNOON, DOCTOR MISSETT.
• A. AFTERNOON.
• Q. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
• A. PSYCHIATRIST.
• Q. CAN YOU TELL US HOW LONG YOU HAVE BEEN A PRACTICING PSYCHIATRIST?
• A. SINCE 1974.
• Q. LET'S START WITH YOUR EDUCATION. WHEN AND WHERE DID YOU EARN YOUR BACHELOR'S DEGREE?
• A. THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IN 1963, AND THEN A MASTER'S DEGREE IN 1964.
• Q. FROM THE SAME INSTITUTION?
• A. YES.
• Q. YOUR BACHELOR'S AND MASTER'S WERE BOTH IN PHILOSOPHY?
• A. YES.
• Q. AND AFTER THAT DID YOU THEN GO ON TO EARN ANOTHER DEGREE?
• A. YES.
• Q. AND WHAT WAS THE NEXT DEGREE YOU EARNED?
• A. NEXT ONE I EARNED WAS WHEN I GRADUATED FROM MEDICAL SCHOOL IN 1970.
• Q. AND FROM WHERE DID YOU GRADUATE FROM MEDICAL SCHOOL?
• A. YALE UNIVERSITY.
• Q. AT THE SAME TIME WERE YOU WORKING ON A PH.D.?
• A. AFTER I LEFT CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY I WENT TO SAINT JOHNS UNIVERSITY, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE INSTITUTE, IN NEW YORK CITY, AND I WAS THERE FOR TWO YEARS AS A TEACHING FELLOW, AND THAT'S WHEN I STARTED MEDICAL SCHOOL. SO I WROTE THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION DURING MEDICAL SCHOOL AND WHEN I WAS IN THE SERVICE.
• Q. AND WHERE -- WHEN AND WHERE DID YOU SERVE IN THE SERVICE?
• A. INITIALLY, IT WAS IN NEW HAVEN. I WAS COMMISSIONED AS A FIRST YEAR MEDICAL STUDENT IN THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, SO ALL MY VACATIONS AND ALL MY FREE TIME I WENT ON ACTIVE DUTY, BUT THEN I HAD A THREE-YEAR ACTIVE DUTY REQUIREMENT WHEN I FINISHED EVERYTHING, AND SO FROM 1971 THROUGH 1974 I WAS FULL TIME.
• Q. THEN, DID YOU ALSO THEN EARN A MASTER'S IN PUBLIC HEALTH, AN M.PH?
• A. IT IS A MASTER'S IN PUBLIC HEALTH. THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE SENT ME TO RUN A RESEARCH PROJECT AT JOHNS HOPKINS FROM 1973 THROUGH 1974, AND DURING THE COURSE OF RUNNING THAT PROJECT I WENT TO THE CLASSES THAT QUALIFIED ME FOR A MASTER'S IN PUBLIC HEALTH.
• Q. WHERE DID YOU DO YOUR INTERNSHIP FOR YOUR MEDICAL DEGREE?
• A. AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE.
• Q. WAS THAT IN GENERALIZED MEDICINE AT THAT TIME?
• A. YES.
• Q. THEN, YOU DID A RESIDENCY WHERE?
• A. AT STANFORD. AGAIN, FROM 1974 THROUGH 1978.
• Q. DURING YOUR RESIDENCY DID YOU SPECIALIZE IN PSYCHIATRY?
• A. YES.

According to the trial testimony of Ms. Peugh-Wade (Associate Vice President of Human Resources), the first consultation with Dr. Missett by USF administrators occurred May 20, 2008; and Dr. Reynolds was retained at a later date upon identification as a potential FFD Examiner by Dr. Missett (see trial transcript, respectively, pg. 1545 and pg. 1546; also see invoices of Dr. Missett and Dr. Reynolds to USF within file Forensic Evidence, link infra). The Vartain Law Group had been retained by USF, in connection with my employment, at latest, as of the year of my discharge in 2009, see online records of the San Francisco Superior Court, sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-services, in connection with the case, Kao v. USF, case number CGC-09-489576. These online records reflect that USF retained the Vartain Law Group for the personal injury/property damage case, S L vs. S R et al, case number CGC-06-456164, and for which USF was a codefendant, at latest, as of January 22, 2007. Further, these online records reflect, USF retained the Vartain Law Group for the employment law case, Evans vs. USF et al, involving USF's former men's basketball coach, Mr. Jessie Evans, case number CGC-08-473864, at latest, as of June 4, 2008; and, Mr. Michael Vartain was personally named a codefendant in this matter which was settled five days prior to the scheduled commencement of jury trial proceedings. As to this case, the original court complaint filed April 3, 2008, describes Mr. Vartain as follows:

• Defendant MICHAEL VARTAIN is an attorney retained by USF to represent it in connection with plaintiff's contractual disputes with USF. Defendant Vartain maintains his principal place of business within the City and County of San Francisco.

Reference to Virginia Tech and related terrorism were striking components of the second cross-complaint filed by USF and subsequently published online. The second cross-complaint remains online for posterity at the San Francisco Superior Court website, accessible at no cost to anyone anywhere in the world with internet access; see online records of the San Francisco Superior Court; also, consider the direct quote from USF's lead attorney Michael J. Vartain, in his closing arguments, referring to the filing of the cross-complaint which publicly associates me with terrorism (see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, pg. 2831),

• "He [Dr. John Kao] filed the lawsuit first. He put this whole thing in the public record..."

Notwithstanding the fact USF felt compelled to forbear in regards this court injunction, I remain banned for life from ever entering USF campus as direct consequence of failing to comprehensively waive my rights to medical privacy; see legal disquisition following. This fact has been published nationally in human resources journals, also employment law blogs, as Kao v. USF (2014) is State of California legal precedent.

Return to Top of Webpage

In the years 2009 to present, in sequel to the publications described supra, and also employment law blogs—published promotionally by legal firms specializing in representation of employers—which, many which, in my opinion, unreasonably and in discriminatory fashion, misrepresent the case Kao v. University of San Francisco (2014), as described by the Appellate Court, or for that matter the trial transcript, that can be found for example at calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com, in a blog piece which I object to especially as I perceive it to be strikingly inconsistent with other such online commentary, by Stefanie K. Vaudreuil (JD Whittier Law School), writing as an attorney of the firm, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore: LCW; I have been subject to consistent negative social impact thereby, including quite credible threats of violence (corroborating information, and details, available upon special request—see contact information below), from individuals not directly connected to USF, but directly influenced by the publications thereto; having never received threats of this category prior to 2009.

Return to Top of Webpage

Mr. Katzenbach and Ms. Hancock filed our lawsuit in 2009 with the San Francisco Superior Court alleging whistleblower retaliation and wrongful discharge. Conor D. Mack replaced Ms. Hancock in 2011 after she moved on from the firm, Katzenbach & Khitikian. USF was represented by Michael J. Vartain and Linda K. Adler, Vartain Law Group. The trial was conducted January - May 2012 (including, a mandatory—immediately prior formal procedures—settlement conference, and hearings corresponding to, motions in limine and voir dire; also including, a hearing for a motion for new trail and to vacate judgment or decree, the latter by attorney Christopher W. Katzenbach).

As relevant to trial proceedings, Kao v. USF, my psychiatrist 2003-2012, Dr. Lenore Terr had diagnosed my condition as episodic major depression, first appearing in 2002, that goes into remission for years at a time. During remission periods, no antidepressant medication is warranted. In court at trial, I testified that some of the reports from 2008 may have been a result of medication I took for depression in 2008.

My condition was further diagnosed as a direct consequence of childhood trauma (post-traumatic stress syndrome as a victim of violence). I testified at trial for Kao v. USF, proceedings 2012, that the medication I took in 2008 caused tremors in my arms and legs which affected my coordination, which latter was confirmed by the testimony of my prescribing psychiatrist, Dr. Lenore Terr, who also inferred that this may have affected my coordination (see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, testimony of Dr. Terr, also see link Court Summary—both in section labeled Reference Documents and Court Summary, infra). I further testified that: I am not currently taking any medication for depression; also, Dr. Terr's testimony was consistent with the assertion that I was fit for duty in 2008 and throughout to trial 2012 (see trial transcript, testimony of Dr. Terr). My position is that I may have raised my voice in debate while others were also speaking loudly or accidentally stumbled because of poor coordination, but I had no intention to harass anyone, on principal, even more so because I had my own harassment/discrimination complaint against other faculty pending with Human Resources at the time (see trial transcript, pg. 432 - 442). Some allegations such as unusual facial expressions may have been in connection to physical discomfort (related to medication side effects), or alternatively, attempts to avoid notice of side effects by others—having a stiff countenance as to body generally, also in particular, eyes and face. Such are not normally described as "staring/glaring" or "highly contorted facial expressions"; notwithstanding, witness testimony at trial is consistent with this interpretation (see discussion on this webpage in section labeled Forensic Evidence, infra, with transcript citations). Further, I testified to nervous laughter as a Japanese cultural trait, and occasionally using word repetition as a form of mild sarcasm in response to poor etiquette (see trial transcript, pg. 560 - 561, for specific example of the latter; which ordinarily and, in context, would be considered prosaic). Had anyone brought concerning "behaviors" to my attention, I would have done my utmost to prevent misinterpretations.

In relation to my objective job functions that semester, I entered into evidence my official USF teaching evaluations for that spring in which I scored above the department, university and national average in all six categories (one of the six in the national 99th percentile, and of the remaining five, two were in the national 95th percentile); further noting that grades awarded for these classes and examination content were thoroughly vetted by the university and the mathematics department. Notwithstanding, the jury found for the university.

In my opinion USF was greatly aided at trial by unrelenting references to the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre (modern criminological classification, "spree killing") and the 2009 Fort Hood Massacre (modern criminological classification, "domestic terrorism") among others; the tenuous relationship in Kao v. USF being, for the former a school, and the latter a work-place.

Return to Top of Webpage

Christopher W. Katzenbach filed an appeal to the California Appellate Court in 2012 with hearings conducted 2014. The presiding judges decided the university acted within the scope of the current California, Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) regulations, which encompasses Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) restrictions on fitness for duty examinations. The judges concluded that the interactive process under California's FEHA did not apply because my attorneys failed to declare workplace related disabilities in 2008—nor sought "reasonable disability accommodations for such;" see Court Summary.

I note that conditions such as poor eyesight absent corrective lenses or contacts; below average hearing (which might lead one to stand closer to others and speak louder than others); and tremors along with concomitant coordination deficits caused by medication for major depression affecting legs (possibly causing occasional stumbling) and hands or arms (contributing to shaking, for which I may have "closed my hands" to avoid, thus resulting in perceptions of "clenched fists," and for which further may have caused slight mishandling of objects such as papers passed down or across a long conference table) can be regarded as related to "disabilities;" under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; but declaring such is only rational if connected to specific incidents in which workplace standards have not been met, and accordingly, can be accompanied with suggestions of specific reasonable accommodations. It is salient that several alleged behaviors relied upon by the university such as a witness testimony (Dr. Needham) of "throwing papers" at a department meeting (with the search committee for a new faculty position) February 6, 2008, which three individuals (Ms. Liu, Dr. Wells and Dr. Zeitz) testified differently (the former two noting I may have "distributed" such papers, which would have been down or across a long conference table, and Dr. Zeitz testifying explicitly that he didn't think I threw papers at the February 6, 2008, meeting; see trial transcript, pg. 1074, pg. 1170, and pg. 1932, respectively), and a witness testimony (Dr. Needham) of "foam at mouth" at this meeting which two individuals (Dr. Wells and Dr. Zeitz) explicitly testified they did not notice and could have been slight excess of saliva caused by medication I was taking for depression (see trial transcript, pg. 1170 and pg. 1932); "shaking with anger" at this meeting which could have been tremors caused by medication; a witness testimony (Dr. Zeitz) of "ranting" which "made no sense," in relation to expression of my opinion during the same department meeting that a tenure-track faculty job opening should have been advertised in professional journals, including possibly online issues thereof, in compliance with official university diversity protocols, instead of the opening being merely listed only in online databases, and that failure to do so by the search committee was significant, see trial transcript pg. 1889 - 1902 (note that Dr. Zeitz and Dr. Needham were both on the search committee for this position), and to which another mathematics faculty, Dr. Wells, testified he did not recall behaviors on my part at this meeting of February 6, 2008, which he considered inappropriate in any way, see trial transcript pg. 1164; and appositely, "screaming"—which purportedly occurred, in instance, at the same department meeting February 6, 2008—and for which two individuals, who did not testify to "yelling" nor "screaming," thereto, further testified that they were never interviewed by Human Resources in spring 2008 nor later, as to the meeting of February 6 (see Post-Trial Documents; trial transcript, testimonies of Ms. Liu and Dr. Wells: pg. 1080 - 1081 and pg. 1180 - 1181, respectively); were never conveyed to myself nor my attorneys prior to discharge and discovery during the lawsuit proceedings. (This latter is manifest, with regards to the information communicated to me and my attorneys prior to discharge, in the explicit sense of the case description by the Appellate Court in its official published opinion, see Court Summary.) See also, the testimony of Ms. Liu quoted directly on this webpage in section labeled Forensic Evidence, infra, with trial transcript citations; and note that it is consistent with that of Dr. Wells as described herewith. As to the testimony of Dr. Wells, I note that on cross-examination, counsel for USF (Mr. Vartain) raised the issue that contrary to his specific, immediately prior, court testimony that he attended the February 6 meeting (see trial transcript pg. 1163 - 1164), during his pre-trial deposition Dr. Wells had stated he would not have been at this meeting because the day of the week was not provided for by his USF parking pass; however, on reply to redirect examination (by my counsel, Mr. Mack), Dr. Wells stated he was at the search committee meeting with the mathematics department where I expressed concerns as to how the faculty job position was advertised. In particular Dr. Wells testified (see trial transcript pg.1179), "I remember John being concerned about the way a search was advertised. I asked you [Mr. Mack] which search it was. I do recall being involved. I wrote the Associate Dean Brandon Brown a strong letter in support of Cornelia Van Cott. So I know that I was invested in her -- in the search that resulted in her being hired." (For the relevant portion, herewith, of Dr. Well's cross-examination, redirect examination, and recross-examination, see trial transcript, pg. 1175 - 1181; the issue was not reraised by counsel for USF, Mr. Vartain, on recross-examination.) At such meetings of the search committee with the mathematics department (which by established department protocol occurred after finalist candidates have been selected and visited campus for purpose of giving one research and one teaching presentation—all mathematics faculty are invited to attend), faculty not on the search committee proper, as in 2008, myself and Dr. Wells (see trial transcript pg. 1177), were given an opportunity to rank potential candidates for final decision as to appointment and offer rationale corresponding. Documents admitted into evidence at trial (specifically those found in link under Post-Trial Documents, Addendum with Complaint) supported that I raised no such objection to a failure to advertise a job position in a professional journal (since such advertisements had been placed in compliance with university protocols) as to the prior two searches occurring in 2006 and 2004, respectively, and that these were the only searches conducted by the mathematics department after the appointment of Dr. Zeitz which occurred in Spring 1992. (See, for instance, the last page of Addendum with Complaint, labeled SD 369, with SD an abbreviation for, "Source Documents," which are the minutes of the meeting of the search committee and the mathematics department spring 2006.) Note that no minutes of the meeting of February 6, 2008, were taken by the program assistant, as per usual practice; which the mathematics department program assistant, Ms. Liu, testified was from the direction of Dr. Zeitz to, in her expression at trial, "desist," therewith (see trial transcript pg. 1074). I testified at trial that at the meeting of February 6, 2008: I proposed extending the search a few months to allow an advertisement in a professional journal be published so as to be in compliance with university-wide diversity protocols and to solicit further candidates which might include some who were both female and a member of an underrepresented ethnic minority group (see trial transcript, pg. 709 -714). A viable option for a professional journal in this regard would have been The Chronicle of Higher Education, which according to its website Chronicle.com as recorded on the Internet Archive, was published in print form, in 2008, weekly except for the last two weeks in August and the last two weeks in December (a total of 49 issues per year). The Internet Archive record has been archived, in turn, through Perma.cc, see URL, https://perma.cc/N4C9-ML9L (View Mode set—Screenshot, as Perma.cc archives of older Internet Archive records may not allow for inspection utilizing Standard View Mode). For discussion of the Internet Archive and Perma.cc, see section labeled Forensic Evidence, infra.

USF's failure to interact vis-a-vis communicating even minimally reasonable specifics as to alleged poor job performance is evident from the Appellate Court decision/summary taken on its own; which to express in legal terms, "within the four corners," of this individual document. One may conclude that such dereliction implicitly and severely restricts employee access to the interactive process as provided for by California's FEHA. In this respect, it is relevant that medical privacy is a fundamental principle within the disability rights movement, which seeks to address disability discrimination broadly; and the legal precedent established, thus, substantially erodes legal protections herewith.

Evidence at trial showed I informed the Dean of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, Jennifer Turpin (Dean of Arts and Sciences 2003-2010, Provost and Academic Vice President as of 2010 continuing until leaving this administrative position early 2015; shortly after publication of this website in January 2015), as late as academic year 2006/07 that I was taking medication for depression (this was noted in her handwritten notes which were in turn submitted to the Offices of General Counsel and Human Resources). Similar facts were conveyed formally (HR Complaint filed August 2007, and subsequent meeting with HR Officers early spring 2008), directly to USF Human Resources and hence to the Office of General Counsel with expressed representation from attorneys, Mr. Katzenbach and Ms. Hancock; see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript. From June 2008 to my termination February 2009, my attorneys saw no cause to reiterate this, as I was not requesting California FEHA disability accommodation, and the description of alleged unprofessional "behaviors" were too vague to warrant such request for specific "reasonable accommodations"; see link Court Summary, infra, for description of "behaviors" provided to me and my attorneys June 2008. It is of note that a declaration of disability itself runs the risk of contributing to the "business necessity standard" permitting a FFDE. This creates a legal labyrinth for employees and their attorneys; since, then, a first disclosure or examination may give as in lay expression, "probable cause," for further demands by the employer for disclosures and examinations. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11069, in particular, subd. (d)(5)(C). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11069 can be found in full from link, Legal Analysis, supra.) Note that as to the medical documentation to be submitted to the the employer by an employee's health care provider in connection with a declaration of disability, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11069, subd. (d)(5)(C)1. provides:

• Documentation is insufficient if it does not specify the existence of a FEHA disability and explain the need for reasonable accommodation. Where relevant, such an explanation should include a description of the applicant's or employee's functional limitation(s) to perform the essential job functions.

The implications are clearer in the case an employee has no disability to claim. Such an individual perceived as psychiatrically unfit for duty would simply have to submit to a comprehensive FFDE on the basis of practically no substantive information about accusations against her/him, and without knowledge of the information transmitted to the psychiatrist. The FFDE could require the employee to disclose extensive personal data ordinarily considered protected in the context of employment and provide all manner of records (medical, financial, employment, legal, etc.; as the perception of evasiveness or malingering can impact the results of the test and the permitted scope of inquiry is vast unless limited by the interactive process) to substantiate the veracity of answers to the psychiatrist. Examples demonstrate that passing or failing such an exam can turn on the slimmest of margins; see as one, link News and Case Law, in section labeled Recent News and Case Law, infra: Giusto v. City of San Mateo Personnel Board (2008).

Return to Top of Webpage

The interactive process requires a "good-faith exchange of information" leading to a tailored, as opposed to comprehensive, fitness for duty examination with a limited release of medical information. If a determination of job-related disability is made, the interactive process again requires a good faith exchange of information to find reasonable accommodations under FEHA and ADA. As part of this process medical and psychological examinations are permitted, but must be tailored and limited in scope. This mandates limits on the kinds of information the examiner can obtain from the employee and medical records thereto.

The Appellate Court decision means that in California, perception of disability (regarded as disabled) is not sufficient to require employers utilize the interactive process in circumstances where reasonable job accommodations are not requested as they are not warranted, or not feasible given the vagueness of information provided to the employee (ordinarily, declaration of a disability is accompanied by a request for accommodations, and can contribute to the "business necessity standard" permitting an FFDE in the first place). Astonishingly, this absence of employment protection applies both to the requirement for a "good-faith exchange of information" and "tailored, limited, medical examination". Not only may an employer, similarly situated as USF in this case, withhold details of incidents prompting a psychiatric exam; the employer may withhold the specific diagnostic details of the results of the examination itself (i.e., resulting psychiatric report, or separately, records correlative); also, the "information about the employee" transmitted to the psychiatrist by the employer and upon which these results are based—this "information" may extend well beyond the scope of any vague description of "behaviors" or other perceived "poor performance" provided to the employee as was the case in Kao v. USF See section, Forensic Evidence, infra; link therein, and inventory of documents provided to Dr. Norman Reynolds by USF, documents labeled USF 2794 - 2795. Also, see Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, pg. 1397 - 1398, whereby testimony is given by Ms. Peugh-Wade as to documents sent to Dr. Reynolds prior to the date scheduled for the FFDE, consistent with this inventory. (Note: documents USF 2794 - 2795 were not offered as evidence at trial, deferring rather to the testimony of Ms. Peugh-Wade for purpose of providing sufficient information to the court as to communications with Dr Reynolds and information provided thereby.)

The exam may require a comprehensive release of all medical records including psychotherapy notes and may include an array of tests, such as for possible substance abuse. Further, challenging a result of, unfit for duty and no accommodation possible, may be virtually intractable as the interactive process would not apply (to qualify as disabled under ADA/FEHA and have access to the interactive process, an individual must be able to perform job functions with accommodation) and the employer is under no obligation to permit access to the evidentiary, evaluative and diagnostic basis (i.e., resulting psychiatric report, or separately, records correlative), for the psychiatrist's conclusion. Employees in such a position are particularly vulnerable to false positives, which, in a variety of physical (narcotics use, etc.) and psychological (personality, etc.) testing, cannot be avoided, even applying the most advanced available scientific procedures. There is no professionally recognized standard for secondary testing to "validate" conclusions from an initial FFDE. As counter-example to the contrapositive, consider, Giusto v. City of San Mateo Personnel Board (2008), see link News and Case, in section labeled Recent News and Case Law infra, and in particular, footnotes therewith, which identify the sequence of court decisions.

Originally unpublished and not precedent, in response to a petition by USF 2014 (attorney on appeal Kathryn J. Burke, Vartain Law Group), the decision was published making this type of comprehensive FFDE with no interactive process (unless the employee declares a FEHA/ADA workplace disability, requests job accommodations that might limit opportunities for advancement) standard law in the state of California once an employer establishes "job-relatedness and business necessity" for a FFDE. The job-relatedness/business necessity standard under ADA as set by federal courts favors employer business concerns over employee rights to due process and anti-discrimination protections. The standard may be satisfied when employee behavior is perceived to be objectionable irrespective of concrete job performance; see for example, the federal appellate court decision Owusu-Ansah v. The Coca-Cola Company (2013), see link News and Case Law, in section labeled Recent News and Case Law, infra (in this case, unlike Kao v. USF (2014), the company conducted a tailored, limited, FFDE).

Mr. Katzenbach filed a petition to the California Supreme Court in 2014, which declined review.

The final results of this state civil litigation generated substantial interest among employment lawyers representing United States corporations. Aside from becoming law in California, the precedent may be influential in federal courts and in other states. A number of articles have been published about the case in employment law periodicals based on the Court Summary of trial. See for example, Dean and Provost, February 2015 (excerpt with full citation): Journal Article Excerpt. (Note: on this website, to adhere to principles of "fair use," I post printed versions of full articles only in the instance these have also been archived in such form on the Internet Archive, which serves as indication of online availability, free to the public. Such are also brief, comprising generally several pages—in cases of large font—at most.)

We believe the Appellate precedent set by the court in Kao v. The University of San Francisco (2014), will have far-reaching negative impact on employees in the state of California until such decision is reversed (either through direct legislation or future judicial rulings, federal or state). The court's opinion hereto permits paid agents of employers (fitness for duty examiners, either psychologists or psychiatrists) complete access to medical records, among other information, of people perceived to be disabled though not genuinely disabled in the sense of the ADA and California's FEHA, including psychotherapy notes. Notes of this kind are routinely taken as part of proper psychological treatment. They may contain information of a sensitive nature not only about the patient but also family, spouses and friends. In the event a FFDE diagnosis is challenged in court this information may become part of the permanent public record and accessible to anyone—affecting employment opportunities and creating social stigma. This ruling creates a powerful disincentive for individuals experiencing psychological difficulties, personal problems, substance abuse issues, etc., to seek proper medical treatment. Currently there exists no mandatory regulation of Fitness For Duty Examinations in the United States beyond a limited body of case law. There is no, particular, required certification process for psychological Fitness for Duty examiners (beyond being a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist), or general government oversight. Court decisions suggest that employees subject to improper diagnosis, are limited, in relation to potential medical malpractice claims against the Fitness for Duty examiner, since in particular, it appears that a legal "physician-patient" relationship is not inherently established by the examination alone. See mandatory "consent form," attached to document, Court Summary for Kao v. USF (2014), link in section labeled Reference Documents & Court Summary, infra; also see from link, News and Case Law, under section labeled, Recent News and Case law, infra: Blough v. Menlo College (trial proceedings 2008, settled prior to hearing of appeal), Records of the San Mateo Superior Court, pg. 54, and the court's pretrial finding in relation Evidence Code Section 1158, which reads as follows, "...THERE IS NO PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP WHEN A DOCTOR IS HIRED TO PERFORM AN EXAMINATION FOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATED, OR INSURANCE RELATED, PURPOSES." (The court opinion appears in all capital letters in the Records of the Court cited, and quoted herein accordingly.) Lawsuits against a physician for "medical malpractice," in the ordinary sense, presupposes such a relationship, which in turn holds the physician to the duty to perform in accordance with a commensurate, "standard of care."

Return to Top of Webpage

Under the legal principles established by the California Appellate Court in Kao v. The University of San Francisco (2014), unless an employee declares a workplace disability, request job accommodations thereto, said employee is not entitled to the interactive process under ADA/FEHA, which process requires a "good-faith exchange of information" between employer and employee. In particular, the California Court in Kao v. USF, vetted as legal under FEHA and CMIA, a corporate human resources process in which details of complaints about an employee were withheld so as to allow no opportunity to produce evidence and contrary witness testimony as defense. Furthermore, the employee must waive privacy rights to medical, financial, employment, and legal history. The opportunity to access the diagnostic assessments and evaluations of the examiner and its basis (i.e., resulting psychiatric report, or separately, records correlative) must be waived which limits any challenge to the results. The exam may include laboratory and psychological tests absent reasonable protections against false positives, since the specific details of the psychiatric report/records are rendered inaccessible via waiver. (The latter inference is subject to the premise that individual test results would be contained in the psychiatric report/records. For an example in which substance abuse was diagnosed by the FFD examiner, see the case, Blough v. Menlo College, trial proceedings conducted 2008 and settled prior to the hearing of appeal, described supra in section labeled Counter-Lawsuit. In this case, the trial transcript, (found under link, News and Case Law, in section labeled Recent News and Case Law, infra; also direct link following: Blough v. Menlo College Trial Transcript), reflects no reference to a consent form waiving employee right of access to the FFD examiner's diagnostic assessments and evaluations, and such details were provided in trial testimony by the examiner, Dr. James Missett. For testimony implying the absence of such a mandatory waiver, see trial transcript: pg. 805 - 806, 813 - 814, 960 - 962, and 1009 - 1011. For testimony from Dr. Missett of his diagnostic conclusion that plaintiff, Ms. Marcine Blough, was a Vicodin abuser and the bases for this assessment, see trial transcript: pg. 1022 - 1032.)

This "privilege of employer" to administer a FFDE apparently preempts any union (for my instance the USF Faculty Association—membership of American Federation of Teachers; and further of, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO) contractual obligation to proceed against an employee pursuant to just cause provisions requiring timely notice of specific incidents of poor performance with opportunity to correct (i.e. progressive discipline and due process): if the employer can contend a medical condition may (through reliance on a medical "expert" receiving substantial fees for an opinion) be a factor in an employee's purported underperformance and fears of retaliation asserted; further, absent expert opinion that providing information in support of due process would result in direct threat (see Appellate Court Summary as to latter). In this regard, see excerpt from the relevant University of San Francisco Faculty Association Collective Bargaining agreement (with front matter—webpage screen capture to identify source as the USF official website, myusf.usfca.edu), page labeled 110, last page of file, USFFA Collective Bargaining Agreement 2008 - 2013 Excerpt; also, the time relevant American Association of University Professor Standards in relation "tenure" and the understanding thereof for termination and discipline of faculty, AAUP: Tenured Faculty. To verify the source of former, see screen capture as follows: USF Website Search Collective Bargaining Agreement. Note that Mr. James Cawood's testimony that withholding information was reasonable was obtained by USF years after the fact. Further he testified that the university could have safely provided more specific information. The expert consulted contemporaneously, Dr. James Missett, did not testify he advised that withholding specifics—to the extent due process in the ordinary human resources sense is precluded—was warranted. Assistant Vice-President Martha Peugh-Wade did not testify she was relying on any expert opinion of Dr. Missett when she declined to provide more specific information at request of Mr. Katzenbach. Dr. Missett did not testify that the only reasonable option for evaluating safety, based on information available to him, was a "comprehensive fitness for duty exam" requiring release: medical, legal, financial, educational, work, family and social history; including psychological and laboratory testing; and mandatory waiver of right to access—thus challenge—the doctor's diagnostic assessments and evaluations (i.e., resulting psychiatric report, or separately, records correlative). See Appellate Court Summary; also, Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, testimonies of Mr. Cawood, Dr. Missett and Ms. Peugh-Wade. In particular, see statements of Dr. Missett pg. 2166 and pg. 2218. In relation to the subject matter of this paragraph, the a reader may find the information contained in the following file relevant:

• James S. Cawood.

The Appellate precedent set here (which in my opinion is erroneous law) greatly undermines long-fought-for collective bargaining protections (as reified by collective bargaining agreement/contract), on which employees invest years of financial commitment (union dues) and good faith participation (union service) with the expectation of reliance thereupon. This, further, notwithstanding decades of personal dedication in the form of education/training and excellent job performance; all of which can evaporate with no warning in a few months time under this decision. See for example, direct quote from USF lead attorney, Michael J. Vartain in his closing arguments (link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, pg. 2832):

• "We hope he is, 'cause he [Dr. John Kao] worked for us for 17 years and he did an excellent job ..."

Return to Top of Webpage

One wonders what proportion of fitness for duty psychological/psychiatric examiners, who would have unlimited access to psychotherapy notes, considered appropriate by an institution such as USF and for whom the examinee is denied any oversight or influence as to choice under this legal paradigm, share the same position and bias (sexual orientation) as Roy Moore; former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, 2017 Republican party candidate for United States Senate; as reported in the article, "Roy Moore: Gay marriage ruling 'even worse' than 1857 pro-slavery decision;" referring to the US Supreme Court finding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)—that African American people were, in both theory and practice; personal property; as published in the periodical, The Hill, October 24, 2017; see Moore Article.

Another example, in this genre is the case of law student, Jason Tecza, who filed suit against the USF School of Law for violation of privacy in regards disability accommodations—removed from state to federal court. In Tecza v. USF (2013), US Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit found in favor of plaintiff by way of reversing in part a US District Court ruling of dismissal, see articles: in SFGate Blog (prior to 2019, SFGate was the online portal for the San Francisco Chronicle, winning a Pulitzer Prize in 2012, and is currently a separate and independent news periodical), Tecza Article 1; in Law360 (a Lexis publication), Tecza Article 2; and Appellate Court Ruling, Tecza v. USF (2013). This is illustrative of mechanisms through which proprietary information can be exposed through carelessness of parties to the extent that an individual feels the need to seek redress for damages through litigation, having wherefore transferred to another academic program.

I sympathize to the extent that information I had assumed would be private until 2009 became public, necessarily, by pursuit of litigation—Kao v. USF, trial proceedings 2012, appellate decision 2014. However, judicial analysis and public record of this dispute affords me the opportunity to write with authenticity and authority concomitant with my modest education and experience; see section, Writing Projects, infra; which to me has been a most reasonable exchange.

Return to Top of Webpage

• Yeung reports that he once passed John in the hallway last week. John said nothing, but veered across the hallway as if to run into Yeung. At the last minute, Kao avoided contact. When Needham heard this and Zeitz heard this, they both confirmed that, independently, last semester, they received significant "shoulder bumps" in hallways from John this last semester. Both assumed these were purely accidental and that may be the case.

In connection with this latter issue which was addressed during trial, Kao v. USF with court trial proceedings concluding 2012, following is testimony of, witness, Ms. Christine Liu (USF Mathematics Department Program Assistant) under direct examination by Mr. Christopher Katzenbach—whereby, Q. refers to Mr. Katzenbach, A. refers to Ms. Liu, MR. VARTAIN refers to counsel for USF, and THE COURT refers to the presiding judge (see trial transcript, under link Post-Trial documents, infra, pg. 1065 - 1067):

• Q. Do you know Professor Yeung?
• A. I do.
• Q. At any time did there become a question -- did you raise an issue with search -- I'm sorry. When you do this work, are you reporting to the search committee?
• A. Yes.
• Q. A search committee is a faculty committee from the math department and usually one outside person?
• A. Yes.
• Q. Now, in connection with the search involving -- which resulted in Dr. Yeung being hired, did you raise any question concerning his degree with any members of the math, with the search committee?
• A. I don't remember doing so at that time. But I remember this topic came up after Dr. Yeung was hired.
• Q. How did that come up?
• MR. VARTAIN: Objection. Not relevant.
• THE COURT: Overruled. The Witness may answer.
• THE WITNESS: I was told by Dr. Yeung and the search committee of which he was a part at that time after Dr. Yeung was hired that I had asked the committee whether I should write the year that Dr. Yeung completed his PhD, which it turns out was not in mathematics.
• MR. KATZENBACH: Q. Okay. Did you have any conversation with Dr. Yeung about that?
• A. In the sense that he came to me and said thank you for calling him to the attention of the search committee when he was an applicant.
• Q. Thank you.

• Degree Evidence 1, Degree Evidence 2, Degree Evidence 3, Degree Evidence 4, Degree Evidence 5.

The first three pages of the first file, Degree Evidence 1, correspond to a website link recorded March 13, 2022, which contained different material content prior to the trial proceedings of Kao v. USF taking place in 2012, further at the date of website printing to PDF format, no CV was posted as would be anticipated in accord with the purported features of the first represented webpage (this is demonstrated in later pages of the file, see in particular page fourteen of this link, Degree Evidence 1, for details as to verification). The fourth and fifth pages of the first file includes a website screen capture and an excerpt of the print to PDF format therewith from the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine); the established website, web.archive.org, for which see the following articles from The Register, theregister.com, dated September 4, 2018, in connection with the decision United States v. Gasperini (2018)—IAWMArticle1; and Forbes, dated March 7, 2022— IAWMArticle2; of the more general website, usfca.edu/arts-sciences/undergraduate-programs/mathematics/faculty, archived June 12, 2021, and evinces that consistent information was published at that date. The sixth and seventh pages of the first file, are similarly from the source, Internet Archive, and evinces information consistent with page one of the file was published again at usfca.edu/arts-sciences/undergraduate-programs/mathematics/faculty, August 14, 2020. The eighth page of the first file is a Microsoft Edge webpage capture from Internet Archive of archival date September 6, 2015, which shows that the webpage under consideration (page one of file) was materially different in 2015. The ninth page is meant to demonstrate that according to the record retained by the Internet Archive, the download CV feature fails—an irrelevant student housing document appears instead—the method of verification is detailed on page fourteen, and applies use of Google Chrome, "Developer tools," accessible from the far right corner menu having three vertical dots, under list item, "More tools." The remainder of the first file is evidence presented for purpose of response (in connection with my trial testimony to the contrary) to the content of the first page.

The the first three pages of in the second file, Degree Evidence 2, also presented for purpose of response (in connection with my trial testimony to the contrary as regards the first page of file—link, Degree Evidence 1), was admitted into evidence at trial; and it was asserted via the document Addendum with Complaint (which itself was entered into evidence at trial in its entirety, see link, from Post-Trial documents) to have been on official record with the mathematics department at USF during the academic year 2007/08. Attorneys for USF did not dispute the authenticity of the first three pages of this particular file, link Degree Evidence 2, neither at trial nor during appeal proceedings (neither orally—see trial transcript, nor via written motion/brief, nor for that matter by introducing evidence at trial which would be easily obtained by USF such as an academic transcript). (Generally, for more detail relative to this particular issue, the reader of this webpage might perform document search of trial transcript, under link Post-Trial documents, infra, with search term, "mechanics"; further, special attention may be directed to pg. 696 - 707, whereby attorney for USF, Mr. Michael Vartain, performed cross-examination—testimony of Dr. John Kao—so regarding.). It was thereafter submitted as evidence on appeal. In conformance with Rules of Court established by the Judicial Council of California (retention for civil cases generally 10 years from date of decision by the Appellate Court, in this case 2014, upon which possible further retention with the California State Archives is evaluated), in my opinion and my best understanding of these Rules of the Court, the trial transcript for Kao v. USF (2014) as well as the entirety of the document Addendum with Complaint (submitted as evidence on appeal) which contains as part, the document corresponding to the first three pages of file, Degree Evidence 2 ,should be archived and remain available for public review through the California Court of Appeals for the First District, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA, until at least calendar year 2024, and possibly later, because a number of appellate cases (each cycle) are evaluated as sufficiently important to warrant record retention beyond 10 years from date of publication of the corresponding judicial opinion. (Note: this paragraph was written in the form found herewith, April 2023.) The boxed labels, SD 280 - SD 282, were placed to reference the location as part of Addendum with Complaint, which contains other supporting materials relevant hereto, see link Post-Trial Documents.

(Note: file, Degree Evidence 2, was revised June 6, 2023, in the following manner: additional documents were appended to the original file Degree Evidence 2 as published on www.JSKIndependentLegal.com in calendar year 2022, to provide context. The fourth page of this file contains a description of this appendix. Included herein is Assistant Vice President of Human Resources, Martha Peugh-Wade's, "two-page response," to document, Addendum with Complaint, referred to by the Appellate Court in its decision, see file link labeled, Court Summary, (page 2, lattermost thereof) in section of labeled, Reference Documents & Court Summary, infra, as an attachment to an email from USF Human Resources to myself, dated March 27, 2008. The "two-page response," was separately entered into evidence at trial proceedings for Kao v. USF, as Plaintiff's Exhibit 70, see trial transcript page 357. Salient contents of this document, as described by the Appellate Court, "two-page response," which was also transmitted to me in the form of a memorandum dated September 17, 2007, were read verbally into the record, in the form of my testimony, as reflected in the trial transcript—pages 357 - 361. Plaintiff's Exhibit 70 was not included in file Degree Evidence 2, for reason of it being duplicative of Plaintiff's Exhibit 24.)

The third file, Degree Evidence 3 (archived with Perma.cc, see URL: https://perma.cc/53EV-EZRK), is an article published January 8, 2009, in the established online news periodical, Inside Higher Ed, insidehighered.com, which reports on the evolution of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, which to include, merger with the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University.

The fourth file, Degree Evidence 4, is the Cornell News Release referenced in this latter article, dated December 22, 2008, which was retrieved from the database of Internet Archive (in turn, archived with Perma.cc, see URL: https://perma.cc/7QRJ-JP5F). The fifth file, Degree Evidence 5, which first 25 pages is comprised of screenshots taken from Perma.cc archival records in regards the first file, and to me, adduces the significance of calendar year 2016 relative to the subject matter under consideration.

Disclaimer: the inferences drawn in the preceding six paragraphs are subject to the limitations and operation of this database, Internet Archive, and its historical project therewith—such is acknowledged here. This is not the case of records retrieved from websites current from March 2022, which have been archived separately by JSK Independent Legal Services through Perma.cc, a service developed by Harvard's Library Innovation Lab (official website—lil.law.harvard.edu); and which resource is utilized for internet archival purposes by both academic libraries and courts.

Furthermore, the matter of Dr. Yeung's appointment and his academic credentials as described supra was formally reported to the university by way of Complaint submitted May 15, 2006, with preparation, including documentary evidence, made with my attorney Mr. Katzenbach. It was further referenced explicitly in the original legal complaint filed in the Superior Court of California for the City and County of San Francisco by attorneys on my behalf, Mr. Christopher W. Katzenbach and Ms. Kimberly A. Hancock, then of the law firm, Katzenbach and Khitikian, June 17, 2009, see link Court Complaint and pg. labeled 4 thereof, infra; and for purposes of authentication, see also the following archival link of the same document (as published through the online records of the court) with Perma.cc, URL—https://perma.cc/NE8J-UREP; also see herewith the archival link through Perma.cc of the Register of Actions (as published through the online records of the court) within which the document appears (entry 275, first filing in Register, which are cataloged in reverse chronological order), URL—https://perma.cc/Z956-98GR. Note that Perma.cc records do not have the attribute of automatic archival of individual links on a website, and thus, a separate record must be created for each such, individually.

The Addendum submitted August 15, 2007, included an appeal of the evaluation and course of settlement conferences, conducted fall 2006, which appeal was under the purview of: Ms. Donna Davis, General Counsel; Mr. David Philpott, Director of Employment/Labor Relations; and Ms. Martha Peugh-Wade, Assistant Vice President of Human Resources, Business and Finance (see trial transcript, pg. 275 and pg. 471 - 472; also see Addendum with Complaint). As of March 2022, these same three administrators apparently had positions with USF (based on published information on USF's website, myusf.usfca.edu), respectively: General Counsel; Assistant Vice President, Labor and Employee Relations; and Associate Vice President - Compliance and Compensation (from myusf.usfca.edu/human-resources/about-us/staff-directory, archived through Perma.cc). Further, documents entered into evidence during trial proceedings Kao v. USF, in 2012, along with webpages and documents published as of July 2022, on myusf.usfca.edu available to the general public, in searchable format, to me, strongly suggests that Ms. Davis has held the appointment of USF General Counsel continuously since the last years of my employment at USF (from at latest 2006) to March 2022; Mr. Philpott held appointment of Director of Labor and Employee Relations continuously from 2006 to spring 2020, and had changed title to Assistant Vice President, Labor and Employee Relations, as of October 12, 2020; and Ms. Peugh-Wade was Director of Human Resources in 2006, Assistant Vice President of Human Resources, Business and Finance, in 2007, Associate Vice President of Human Resources in 2012 which title was held continuously until 2016, and has held the title of Associate Vice President - Compliance and Compensation, continuously from at latest September 2016, to March 2022. For evidence to this effect archived with Perma.cc, see the following URLs: https://perma.cc/L3AP-5DYY, https://perma.cc/95CE-GABR, https://perma.cc/U3Y2-R8NU, https://perma.cc/6N8T-D9K3, https://perma.cc/YCV2-VQRL, and https://perma.cc/8KBZ-JSGY (amongst others—details available upon special request, see contact information infra).

With the informed consent of executive officers, complainants' reports against me changed dramatically over the course of months during the spring semester of 2008. As one example, see the Appellate Court's finding in relation to Dean Jennifer Turpin's email diary log (in the Appellate Court's nomenclature, "email to herself," see Court Summary, pg. 20)—alteration of text after composition of the original on April 23 reporting an incident allegedly transpiring on April 22; registered via the official university server, and subsequently altered by way of particular description from "said loudly" to "shouted" (the latter, to me, synonymous with "yelled") and then forwarded to USF Human Resources in an electronically revised form approximately two months later on June 26 personally, by Dean Turpin as an email diary log, although the forwarded document carried the original date stamp of April 23 which would ordinarily suggest it had been written in the revised form on that date; see California Appellate—Court Summary, pg. 20, wherein the Court indicates, "Turpin testified that she sometimes edits memoranda she writes to herself, and could not recall when she made the foregoing changes," (see also, as to this testimony, link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, pg. 2246), which suggests to me the alterations were made substantially later than April 23 as, at least I, would ordinarily expect an individual to remember the, approximate, if not exact, date of such revision of an email diary log, if it had occurred on or about the day of the original writing. Consider further the subsequent disposal within a year prior trial testimony in February 2012 of relevant computer hardware, notwithstanding revelation of two discrepant versions of this email diary log document produced during deposition proceedings July 23, 2010. (See link California Appellate—Court Summary which references disposal of Dean Turpin's computer; also Online Records of the California Superior Court as to motion to compel evidence—computer—therewith.) Further, see file link Forensic Evidence, below, documents labeled USF 2776 - 2777, and USF 0140, which at trial corresponded to, Plaintiff's Exhibit Tags 83 and 84, respectively; reference link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, pg. 2244 for entry of these exhibits into evidence during court proceedings. Here, in this regard, I remark that somewhat prior to April 22, 2008, I had heard that Dean Turpin's daughter had been hospitalized (though not the specific reason for the hospitalization), as it had been a topic of conversation on campus whereby individuals reflected apprehension; I was genuinely concerned as to whether Dean Turpin's daughter had made a full recovery thereafter; and in connection with which I was later relieved to learn that this had been the case. Further, I assert that I do not recall ever acting in a discourteous fashion to the spouse of a faculty member at a university social event, such as per testimony of Dr. Needham cited by the Appellate Court in its decision/summary, in connection with a math department party toward the end of spring semester 2008—no official university document with description of this specific latter purported incident was offered as exhibit at trial nor was any such provided to me nor my attorneys during pre-trial discovery. As testified by Dr. Needham, this math department party (which also honored the retirement that academic year of Dr. James Finch) was hosted by Dr. Needham at his home with his wife present; and to me, had he been sincerely frightened on the basis of events which allegedly transpired during spring semester 2008, electing to host this University-sponsored event at his residence instead of having the department hold it on campus which was (at the time) secured at all hours by armed and uniformed USF Public Safety officers seems contrary to ordinary reasonable notions of good sense. (See trial transcript: testimony of Mr. Dan Lawson, Director, Department of Public Safety, pg. 920, as to the approximate number of officers employed in 2007, the existence at the time of 24/7 dispatch service, and that uniformed officers carried firearms; testimony of Dr. Needham, pg. 1691 - 1693 and pg. 1876 - 1877, which includes testimony as to the location being in Dr. Needham's home, that the party was a, "University-sponsored event," and that he did not request any security personnel to be present; further see, in trial transcript, closing argument by Mr. Katzenbach, pg. 2775 - 2776, which includes a summary of exhibits entered into evidence relevant as to absence of report of this latter specific incident herewith.)

For more detail, see Dean Turpin's testimony in court, link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, in which she indicated that Dr. Kao did not follow her into the parking lot adjacent the Harney Science Center as suggested in both original and altered written descriptions but was rather over 50 feet away as she turned around and saw Dr. Kao from inside her vehicle.

As other examples, consider the discussions purportedly frightening Associate Dean Brown, and Dr. Zeitz, separately (in court testimony—"shouting" and "screaming" respectively, see Court Summary) both taking place January 3, which were described in official records as having "voice raised." See link Forensic Evidence, below, documents labeled USF 0079 - 0080, and USF 2747 - 2749, with notes taken January 8, 22 and 30 in preparation for an in-person meeting with consulting psychologist Dr. Paul R. Good which took place February 12, 2008; also USF 2750—with notes which coincide with the in-person meeting itself (see supra, for trial exhibit tag identifiers and pages of trial transcript as to entry of the documents referenced in this paragraph into evidence).

• Q. Okay. In your conversation with Dean Turpin, what did she tell you about the reason for contacting you?
• A. She said there was a faculty member that was causing concern to the University; that he had been evidencing some behaviors that were frightening to other individuals. There had been no written or verbal threat expressed, but there were behaviors, nonverbal behaviors that were of concern.
• Q. Did she describe those nonverbal behaviors to you?
• A. Yes, she did.
• Q. What did she say about those?
• A. She gave as examples the fact that Dr. Kao could be very intensely angry. He could stare aggressively. He could raise his voice; tremble as if he were in a rage; that he might stand too close to individuals and so there was a concern about him violating boundaries of individuals; that he frothed at the mouth on occasion. These were the kinds of behaviors she mentioned.

• Q. Okay. And at the meeting that you held on the 12th of February, did anyone tell you that Dr. Kao had behaved recently in a faculty meeting in a way that anyone thought was inappropriate?
• A. There were some comments that other faculty members were feeling alarmed or fearful around him and that there was a -- the faculty were withdrawing from him.
• Q. Okay. Did they mention anything that occurred at a faculty meeting?
• A. I don't remember a specific incident. I remember the general comment.

• Q. Okay. Do you recall other people speaking in response to Dr. Kao?
• A. Yes.
• Q. Who do you recall speaking in response to Dr. Kao?
• A. Dr. Needham and Dr. Zeitz.
• Q. During the course of this meeting, did you observe that -- this portion of the meeting, did you observe at times where people may have talked over one another?
• MR. VARTAIN: Calls for speculation. Objection.
• THE COURT: Overruled.
• HE WITNESS: I may have.
• MR. KATZENBACH: Q. Okay. During the course of this meeting, do you recall anyone asking Dr. Kao to speak more quietly?
• A. I don't remember specifically in this meeting.

• Q. At any time during the spring of 2008, did you observe -- was there any time during spring of 2008 did Professor Needham say anything to you that -- in regards that he was frightened of Dr. Kao?
• A. I don't remember.
• Q. Did Dr. Needham express any concerns he had with Dr. Kao?
• A. I remember one conversation, but my memory is a little vague.
• Q. When do you recall that -- I'm sorry. What do you recall Professor Needham saying in that conversation?
• A. He came in my office and asked me if I felt -- if I had observed any behavior from Dr. Kao that bothered me or made me feel nervous.
• Q. And what did you tell Professor Needham?
• A. As I recall, I said I don't really -- I had not really.
• Q. Okay. Did Professor Needham express to you any concerns that he had about how, about Dr. Kao's attitude?
• A. I don't remember that he did.
• Q. Did Professor Zeitz ever come to you and express any concerns he had about Dr. Kao's attitude?
• MR. VARTAIN: Objection. When? Lacks foundation.
• MR. KATZENBACH: Fair enough. I'll rephrase it, your Honor.
• THE COURT: Okay.
• MR. KATZENBACH: Q. During the semester of 2008, did Dr. Zeitz come to you and express any concerns he had concerning Dr. Kao?
• A. He didn't come up to me and express concerns regarding Dr. Kao.
• Q. I see. Did you overhear him expressing concerns about Dr. Kao?
• A. I didn't overhear him say that to other people.

All of the documents in the file following, with the exception of those carrying Bates labels USF 2761 (invoice of Dr. Good), USF 2794 -2795 (invoice of Dr. Reynolds) were admitted into evidence at trial proceedings for Kao v. USF. The invoice of Dr. Good is included to reaffirm the dates of consultations with USF which is separately averred by dates in the notes corresponding to these consultations preceding the invoice in the file under link Forensic Evidence. The invoice of Dr. Reynolds is included to reaffirm that Dr. Reynolds was provided, "Summary of three faculty interviews," which would have been included in the, review and analysis of complete history and background—work history, provided for by the mandatory consent form concomitant with the FFDE. This summary of three faculty interviews included, unqualified by contrary witness statements, reports of behavior which was not not disclosed to me nor my attorneys prior to discharge and the discovery proceedings during litigation; see examination in section labeled, California Appellate Court Decision (2014), supra. This was separately averred at trial by the testimony of Ms. Martha Peugh-Wade (Associate Vice President of Human Resources); see for instance, Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript, pg. 1397 - 1398. All documents, with Bates labels "USF," were produced by USF via the discovery process through litigation. Further, the document, Addendum with Complaint, which can be found under link, Post-Trial Documents, under section labeled Reference Documents & Court Summary, infra, was also admitted as evidence as trial; see Plaintiff's Exhibit Tags 3 - 4, entry into evidence, trial transcript, pg. 312 and 820. This latter document was submitted, in its entirety, to the California Appellate Court for purpose of judicial review:

• Forensic Evidence.

The recorded instances of people in the public eye (business, politics, law, etc.), yelling, screaming, shouting, or some equivalent, under stressful circumstances with no adverse impact are numerous; for example, "behaviors" of Steve Kerr coach of the San Francisco Bay Area and NBA Championship basketball team, Golden State Warriors, include regularly and publicly breaking, also throwing, hard, solid clipboards out of frustration, see publication with video link available, SF Gate—Steve Kerr Article 1; also The Washington Post—Steve Kerr Article 2. Note that these news articles appeared in 2016 and 2019, respectively; notwithstanding, at the date of the writing of this paragraph, June 17, 2022, the Golden State Warriors defeated the Boston Celtics 4-2, to win the 2022 NBA Championship Finals—in this finals series and throughout the 2022 NBA season, the Golden State Warriors were coached by Mr. Steve Kerr.

Alternatively take note of a obituary from a Silicon Valley news periodical of Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs, American businessman, inventor, industrial designer; an iconic figure in the field of applied science, who had a well-documented reputation for "screaming" in professional context, from, Newman, B. (2011, October 5). 2011 obituary: Steve Jobs, Apple co-founder and Silicon Valley pioneer, dies at 56. The Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/10/05/2011-obituary-steve-jobs-apple-co-founder-and-silicon-valley-pioneer-dies-at-56:

• A man of sometimes confounding contradictions, Jobs once traveled to India and shaved his head seeking spiritual enlightenment. But he also brought a fierce urgency to his business dealings, often screaming at subordinates and belittling foes. Feared and revered, Jobs commanded the respect of his competitors, loyalty from the engineers he goaded relentlessly, and loathing from many others. | "It's not easy to like Steve close up — he does not suffer fools gladly," said Bob Metcalfe, founder of the networking giant 3Com and an old friend of Jobs. "But I like him very much. His energy, and standards, and powers of persuasion are amazing. He is the epitome of a change agent." | Rock star CEO | Whether by accident or design, Jobs created such an intense aura of mystery about what he was on to — and up to — that he developed a cult of personality, sometimes called "Macolytes." His appearances at the annual MacWorld Expo were often an occasion for the rollout of some new product that Jobs — with a rock star's sense of theatricality — had managed, until that very moment, to keep top secret. To his loyal fans, it seemed to matter little that Apple's new device inevitably cost far more than its competitors'. | And while his personal fortune — often the measure of success among the tech elite — was dwarfed by peers such as Larry Ellison of Oracle (ORCL) and Bill Gates of Microsoft, Jobs' matchless record of innovation over three decades made him the coolest computer nerd in the valley.

• Steve Jobs, Isaacson's biography makes clear, was a complicated and exhausting man. ... He [Isaacson] talks to everyone in Jobs's career, meticulously recording conversations and encounters dating back twenty and thirty years. ... He screams at subordinates. ... He sits in a restaurant and sends his food back three times. He arrives at his hotel suite in New York for press interviews and decides, at 10 P.M., that the piano needs to be repositioned, the strawberries are inadequate, and the flowers are all wrong: he wanted calla lilies.

• After looking at the first commercials for the iPad, he [Jobs] tracked down the copywriter, James Vincent, and told him, "Your commercials suck." | "Well, what do you want?" Vincent shot back. "You've not been able to tell me what you want." | "I don't know," Jobs said. "You have to bring me something new. Nothing you've shown me is even close." | Vincent argued back and suddenly Jobs went ballistic. "He just started screaming at me," Vincent recalled. Vincent could be volatile himself, and the volleys escalated. | When Vincent shouted, "You've got to tell me what you want," Jobs shot back, "You've got to show me some stuff, and I'll know it when I see it." | I'll know it when I see it. That was Jobs's credo, and until he saw it his perfectionism kept him on edge.

On this subject the following account of the professional comportment of a California attorney, Michael Vartain, found online as an active webpage, March 2023, purportedly dating to a meeting during calendar year 2016, and preserved on the Internet Archive as follows, in my opinion, might or might not be accurate, but also, may be of significance herewith in connection with the expression, which I feel is reasonable in comparison, "rant in a manner that made no sense," and which latter closely resembles the expression, "rant about things that made no sense." To view original Internet Archive record, copy and paste a particular URL to address bar of browser; or alternatively, see Perma.cc archival link of the Internet Archive record provided on bullet item directly below.

• http://web.archive.org/web/20230303172617/http://ccaadjuncts.weebly.com/bargaining/bargaining-update-ccas-lawyer-to-faculty-shut-up-and-fuck-off1506041
• (Note the description in the graphic herein, "A lawyer who yells 'fuck you' 4 times at the faculty union rep during negotiations." Emphasis mine. The account is dated June 1, 2016. See Perma.cc link: https://perma.cc/DU62-EDCS.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20170527064839/http://ccaadjuncts.weebly.com
• (Note: scroll to bottom of webpage hereto, with attention drawn to the corresponding archival date, May 27, 2017. See Perma.cc link: https://perma.cc/V547-MV4X.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20170426120052/http://ccaadjuncts.weebly.com/about.html
• (See Perma.cc link: https://perma.cc/DZS6-EBHF.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20151009092800/www.vartainlaw.com/attorneys.htm
• (See Perma.cc link: https://perma.cc/3FRH-Y74D.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20151027044806/http://www.vartainlaw.com/clients.htm
• (See Perma.cc link: https://perma.cc/UJ44-4WEW.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20210116163458/https://hyperallergic.com/603274/teachers-staff-block-traffic-in-escalating-labor-dispute-at-california-college-of-the-arts
• (See Perma.cc link: https://perma.cc/KCV6-GJ9L.)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20230131070138/https://hyperallergic.com/about
• (See Perma.cc link: https://perma.cc/ZTB8-Z5R3.)

In final cases (which "behaviors" I absolutely do not condone), consider the May 2017 article about Governor, State of Texas, Greg Abbott, published by Reuters (online—reuters.com) as to remarks made publicly after personal firearm practice at a gun range, "Texas governor jokes about shooting reporters," also news of former Montana Congressman Greg Gianforte who pleaded guilty to assaulting a reporter shortly prior to being appointed to the US House of Representatives during a special election. From the Washington Postarticle, "Congressman-elect Gianforte gets anger management but no jail time for assaulting reporter," of June 12, 2017, is the in-court statements of the victim and Representative Gianforte:

• Reading from a prepared statement in court, Jacobs said he has interviewed hundreds of politicians, including President Trump. "Mr. Gianforte's response was to slam me to the floor and start punching me," | Jacobs said, according to the Daily Chronicle. It also thrust him into "a national spotlight I did not seek or desire," Jacobs reportedly said. | "I have accepted his apology and fully expect his thoughtful words to be followed by concrete actions once he has taken his seat in Congress," Jacobs told the court, according to the Daily Chronicle. | Gianforte apologized again. | Outside the courtroom, Gianforte spoke with reporters. | "This was not a proud moment," he said, reported the AP, "but I'm ready to move on."

People bump into me practically every time I shop during rush hour in metropolitan San Francisco, particularly in crowded Union Square. The decision in Kao v. USF (2014), has the potential to give a handful of key individuals in a corporation the power to take away decades of employee investment in building an exemplary career, through exaggeration, prejudice, or retaliation; vis-a-vis testimony about events occurring years before and with "incidents" accruing over a period numbering even further to as many as 12 years prior to the last.

Return to Top of Webpage

We anticipate that as direct consequence of tragedies such as: the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill—Joseph Hazelwood (alcohol abuse, highly cited by advocates of greater implementation of FFDEs); the 1999 Columbine High School massacre—Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (internet posts of violent threats, criminal history, court ordered juvenile diversion program leading to psychiatric treatment for depression); the 2102 Aurora, Colorado, shooting—James Eagan Holmes (schizoaffective disorder with psychosis); the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School—Adam Lanza (autism, Aspberger's syndrome); the 2015 Germanwings Flight 9525 mass killing—Andreas Lubitz (severe depression with suicidal tendencies); the 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting—Christopher Harper-Mercer (suicide attempt during U.S. Army service); the 2017 San Francisco United Postal Service, UPS, shooting (DUI conviction)—Jimmy Lam; the 2017 New York, Bronx Lebanon Hospital shooting (criminal record: misdemeanor false imprisonment)—Henry Bello, MD; the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting (family history, father with extensive criminal record—media speculation of genetic predisposition)—Stephen Paddock; also, incidents of politically motivated domestic terrorism: the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing—Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; the 2015 San Bernardino attack—Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik; the 2016 Orlando Nightclub attack—Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, whose former wife Noor Salman was arrested Jan. 16, 2017, in California, and indicted on charges of aiding and abetting in the attack; the 2016 Dallas shooting of police officers—Micah Xavier Johnson; the 2016 Houston shooting—Nathan DeSai (carrying Nazi insignia at the time of incident); and the 2017 Congressional Baseball Shooting in Alexandria, Virginia—James Thomas Hodgkinson; psychiatric/psychological fitness for duty examinations will become ubiquitous in American employment and education.

Our lobby's foundation: fitness for duty examinations, generally, should be regulated by the interactive process as defined by ADA/FEHA case law on the basis of perceived disability, regardless of whether or not an employee satisfies the current criterion for a "declared workplace disability." It is our firm conviction that failure to adhere to this basic privacy standard endangers the safety of all U.S. citizens by discouraging individuals from seeking and complying with appropriate medical treatment (because records thereto might jeopardize their employment); and has the potential to ruin the lives of many others through prejudice and the misapplication of psychiatry absent reasonable safeguards against false positive results, in the vain attempt to scientifically predict future human behavior.

Nevertheless, we believe the U.S. judicial system is in transition currently with judges conflicted, see United States Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage; Obergefell v. Hodges (2015); also prior state and federal court rulings in contradiction thereby. We are hopeful that the state of California either through the judicial or legislative branches will come to its senses in the matter of psychiatric/psychological fitness for duty examinations. Eventually.

Return to Top of Webpage

JSK Independent Legal Services is a legal research firm. Our not-for-profit activities include political action—a working petition to the California State Assembly (jurisdiction, Committee on Labor and Employment) for hearings that lead to legislative change and expand employee protections.

Consultations post-trial (current issues pending) appeal, petition for review, political/legislative action:

• Dr. Phillip J. Resnick (MD, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine), Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine; also Director, Division of Forensic Psychiatry; also Adjunct Professor, School of Law: Case Western Reserve University; Cleveland, OH.


• Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum (MD, Harvard Medical School). Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine & Law; also Director, Division of Law, Ethics and Psychiatry; also Director, Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics: Columbia University; New York, NY.


• Dr. Lenore Terr (MD, University of Michigan); Terr Medical Corporation; also Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco (UCSF); also awarded Blanche F. Ittleson Award—lifetime achievement for research in child and adolescent psychiatry, affiliation American Psychiatric Association; also author of the renowned monograph, Too Scared to Cry, featuring her treatment of victims of the 1976 Chowchilla mass kidnapping and extortion incident involving the live burial of a school bus full of children and attending adults; honored in a special public address by Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton Administration, for career contribution to the prevention of violence in the United States of America; evidence submitted to the state of California for judicial review, see Appellate Court Records, Kao v. USF (2014), San Francisco, CA; also see, letter of support for JSK Independent Legal Services and professional/educational activities of John S. Kao thus, dated June 1, 2016, attachment from link Curriculum Vitae).

• Christopher W. Katzenbach (JD, Yale Law School), also son of Nicholas deBelleville "Nick" Katzenbach (January 17, 1922 - May 8, 2012), United States Attorney General for the President Lyndon B. Johnson Administration, widely credited by historians for leadership in the federally mandated racial desegregation of American schools and businesses, see for example, the "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" incident, Alabama 1963, further, the United States Supreme Court decision Katzenbach v. McClung 1964; Katzenbach Law Offices; San Rafael, CA. Retired 2022. Retained 2009 - 2022.


• Kerry R. Stoebner (JD, Stanford Law School); also wife of Christopher W. Katzenbach; Katzenbach Law Offices; San Rafael, CA. Professional services proffered 2011 - 2014, though not formally retained for the entirety of this term.


• Mr. Melvin D. Honowitz (JD, Golden Gate University School of Law). Honowitz & Associates; San Francisco, CA. Currently retained.


• Mr. Jack Palladino (JD, University of California Berkeley School of Law). Palladino & Sutherland; San Francisco, CA. Retained 2015 - 2020.

Return to Top of Webpage

Political action progress (website statistics, updated monthly, multiple pages), standard metric—"visits/sites" in yellow/orange ("hits" in green may reflect a single patron viewing multiple links on the same page): Website Statistics.

Return to Top of Webpage

Christopher W. Katzenbach's, Petition for Review of Appellate Decision (California Supreme Court) 2014:

• Petition for Review.

Available at next link infra is the California Appellate Court Summary and Decision. (Which in response to USF's motion 2014, was published as precedent.) Attached to this document is the mandatory consent form for the FFDE introduced as evidence at trial (document labeled USF 0249; for trial proceedings, Plaintiff's Exhibit Tag 38, and entry into evidence, link Post-Trial Document, trial transcript, pg. 1462), also the two correspondences which together demanded the examination and specified the conditions concomitant. See trial transcript for details as to this evidence admitted at trial (the correspondences are described in the California Apellate—Court Summary), and in particular, the testimony of Dr.James Missett, pg. 2193, following. Here, Q. refers to Mr. Katzenbach, and A. refers to response by Dr. Missett (pre-FFDE consulting psychiatrist for USF):

• Q. All right. He [Dr. John Kao] wouldn't get to see the psychiatric report that Dr. Reynolds prepared, correct?
• A. At least for himself, that's true. The only thing he can see is what went to the University in terms of: I find this person fit, I find him not fit, I find him fit under certain circumstances.

• Peugh-Wade directed Reynolds not to provide any "medical diagnosis or other clinical information."

• Requiring a health 'fitness for duty' evaluation of you by an independent physician ('IP') selected by the University, at the University's expense, with the IP issuing a report to the University regarding your fitness for your faculty functions here at the University. You will be required to cooperate with this process, provide your medical records for the past years to the IP, and meet with the IP cooperatively. The IP, however, would not disclose your medical records, or medical diagnoses of your health professionals, to the University.

The Appellate Court had latitude to interpret evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, USF; correspondingly, witness testimony in favor of the plaintiff was for the most part excluded. Note remark of the Appellate Court, in Summary, pg. 15 - 16 (in the following quotation from the Appellate Court opinion, emphasis mine), "... as required by Government Code section 12940, subdivision (f). 'In evaluating this claim, we apply the familiar substantial evidence standard of review: We view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, drawing every reasonable inference and resolving every conflict to support the judgment.' (Jonkey v. Carignan Construction Co. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 20, 24.)":

• Court Summary.

Complaint (lawsuit) filed by Christopher W. Katzenbach and Kimberly A. Hancock, Kao v. The University of San Francisco, Superior Court of San Francisco) 2009:

• Court Complaint.

• Post-Trial Documents.

Return to Top of Webpage

For information about recent FFDE cases both state and federal, see references: News and Case Law.

Return to Top of Webpage

• Volunteer Fire Department, Princeton Hook and Ladder Fire Company, 1988 - 1990, Princeton, NJ—all volunteer fire department. Fire and rescue services as a fully certified firefighter, including the 1990 downtown commercial building fire (Thomas Sweets) with personnel photographs featured on the front page of Town Topics: Princeton's Weekly Newspaper Since 1946, thereto. Evidence of this service was presented to jury at trial during plaintiff's opening statement by Mr. Katzenbach, and the matter of this public service was never disputed by attorneys for USF, see link Post-Trial Documents, trial transcript.


• Life Member, US Judo Association (1991); also, Life Member, USA Judo (2009); formerly volunteer—tournament official, including the 2009 US Open (while member of the Silicon Valley Judo Club). Judo has been an official Olympic sport since the 1964 games in Tokyo—with exception of 1968—and Paralympic sport since the 1988 games in Seoul.


• Millennium Club Member ($1,000 annual contribution), Japanese American Citizens League, JACL, San Francisco Chapter; 2015 - present.


• Life Member, National Japanese American Historical Society, NJAH (2015).


• JSK Independent Legal Services—contributor, University of Utah Shih-Kung Kao Endowed Scholarship in the Department of Atmospheric Science (established by Mrs. Yasuko Watanabe Kao in 1983, the endowment reached $156,481 as of June 30, 2021, with fiscal distribution of $5,387 during the academic year). Dr. Shih-Kung Kao (1917-1980) was assigned by the Air Force, Kuomintang, National People's Party, Republic of China, during World War II to travel by foot (in small units) throughout remote regions of central and south-west China taking and recording meteorological data in support of the allied forces. Though in an ostensibly non-combat capacity, Dr. Kao came under fire by the Japanese (Air Force). In 1944, Dr. Kao was sponsored, by the Republic of China, to pursue further education in America at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), this again, in support of the allied war effort. After the defeat of the Republic of China by the People's Liberation Army under Mao Zedong, Dr. Kao remained in the US and performed grant supported research on behalf of the United States Air Force (USAF). He taught and conducted research at UCLA, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and eventually the University of Utah, where he was appointed Professor and Department Head, Meteorology (Atmospheric Science), with research supported by USAF, NSF (National Science Foundation), among other federal agencies.

Return to Top of Webpage

As an aside, the following is not relevant from the perspective of US federal or California state law. My parents came to the United States and were left virtually penniless as of the conclusion of WWII. Thereby, my mother was a waitress in a Japanese restaurant, while my father petitioned to serve as government scientist at UCLA and eventually earn citizenship. I was born into a modest middle-class family (suburban home, inexpensive car, no annual vacation, and for recreation—dinner once a week at a Chinese restaurant).

My father passed on at the age of 63 of heart attack, and my mother raised myself and my sister alone, with no assistance from relations who were all abroad, supporting us through her profession as Department Head of Cataloging, University of Utah Marriott Library, from when I was age 13 and my sister age 8.

I began working, myself, at the age of 15 (legally, also paying US federal and Utah state taxes, upon receipt of a special exemption to child labor laws prohibiting work prior to the age of 16, due to my status as a full-time university student). I filed cards at the University of Utah Marriott Library and served as junior custodian at Rowland Hall-St. Mark's High School, which my sister attended.

I obtained employment teaching, Physics Teaching Assistant, on behalf of University of Utah Physics Department, first group tutoring and then lecturing to classes of 30 when I was of ages 16 and 17. This teaching involved the prerequisite primary physics course, with minimum B- grade necessary for all engineering majors to continue on for advanced study at the University of Utah School of Engineering. The summer after my graduation while still the age of 17, I was employed as a computer programmer and statistical analyst for the Department of Physics, University of Utah.

The latter position was obtained in relation to my acceptance to the Princeton University Doctoral Program in Mathematics, matriculation the following fall semester.

In my experience, statistics is virtually useless in convincing a jury or judge of anything, however, it does have practical application in the stock market.

I have been playing pocket billiards (pool) as hobby since 2005 in billiard establishments throughout the San Francisco Bay Area (for further information, see www.ITZBilliards.com).

Return to Top of Webpage

My ultimate goal is to publish as a nonfiction and journalistic writer; following in the tradition of the author ("muckraker") Upton Sinclair.

Several projects are in development including an instructional monograph on pocket billiards using mathematics as paradigm for conceptualizing modern technique; this with first author, Mr. Ronnie Rodas (see link preceding).

Another work drafted is an account of my experiences as a Juris Doctor Candidate, and how such endeavor, per se, can be both positive and transformative. It is inspired by Scott Turow's, One L, published in 1977, prior to his graduation from Harvard Law school, honors Cum Laude, in 1978. In particular, I would like to document the impact of formal legal training on political action initiatives in relation Kao v. USF (2014). As an example of educational opportunities to which privileged, I include here my notes from the moving talk included hereby, McGeorge School of Law Distinguished Speaker Series—Justice Richard Fybel, California Appellate Court, Fourth District, November 7, 2017; When Mass Murder, Theft, and Violation of Civil Liberties were "Legal": The Nazi Legal System, 1933-1945; Justice Fybel Seminar. Herein, reference to the mass murder of Jewish, Romani, homosexual, physically disabled, cognitively impaired, and mentally ill; people; by the Nazi regime; with the German judiciary complicit. As quoted from the official website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, November 11, 2017; www.USHMM.org, in particular, encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-murder-of-people-with-disabilities, with section headings all capital:

• At the beginning of World War II, individuals who were mentally retarded, physically handicapped, or mentally ill were targeted for murder in what the Nazis called the 'T-4,' or 'euthanasia,' program. The 'euthanasia' program required the cooperation of many German doctors, who reviewed the medical files of patients in institution to determine which handicapped or mentally ill individuals should be killed. The doctors also supervised the actual killings. Doomed patients were transferred to six institutions in Germany and Austria, where they were killed in specially constructed gas chambers. Handicapped infants and small children were also killed by injection with a deadly dose of drugs or by starvation. The bodies of the victims were burned in large ovens called crematoria. Despite public protests in 1941, the Nazi leadership continued this program in secret throughout the war. About 200,000 handicapped people were murdered between 1940 and 1945. ... OCTOBER 1939 ... Adolf Hitler authorizes the beginning of the 'euthanasia' program — the systematic killing of those Germans whom the Nazis deem 'unworthy of life.' The order is backdated to the beginning of the war (September 1, 1939). At first, doctors and staff in hospitals are encouraged to neglect patients. Thus, patients die of starvation and diseases. Later, groups of 'consultants' visit hospitals and decide who will die. Those patients are sent to various 'euthanasia' killing centers in Greater Germany and killed by lethal injection or in gas chambers. ... AUGUST 24, 1941 ... Mounting public criticism of the 'euthanasia' killings prompts Adolf Hitler to order the end of the program. Gas chambers in the various 'euthanasia' killing centers are dismantled. By this time, about 70,000 German and Austrian physically or mentally impaired patients have been killed. Although the 'euthanasia' program is officially ended, the killing of physically or mentally impaired people continues in secret in individual cases."

It is of relevance to me that, Mr. Turow went to publish several bestselling books, nonfiction and fiction; further, pursued legal practice including criminal law—defense. In a highly publicized 1995 case, Mr. Turow, working pro bono, won the release of Alejandro Hernandez, who spent 11 years on death row for a murder for which he was eventually exonerated, in part, by DNA evidence; and which led to indictments of several former prosecutors and police officers on charges including conspiracy to obstruct justice. See article: Beuttler, B. (2003, December Issue). Life or Death Decision. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/12/life-or-death-decision/303107.

An artistic inspiration is the career of the sibling of one of my attorneys, Christopher Katzenbach—his brother, Mr. John Katzenbach, served as criminal court reporter for the Miami Herald and Miami News; and subsequently became an Edgar Award nominated fiction author whose novel, In the Heat of the Summer, was made into the 1985 film, The Mean Season, starring actors Kurt Russell and Mariel Hemmingway; whose novel Just Cause, was made into the 1995 film of the same name, starring Sean Connery and Laurence Fishburne along with co-star Ed Harris; and further whose novel, Hart's War, was made into the 2002 film of the same name, starring Bruce Willis and Colin Farrell along with co-star Terrence Howard. The latter based in part on their father, Nicholas Katzenbach's, experience in a German Prisoner of War Camp after the B-25 Mitchell Bomber, upon which he was navigator as part of the US Army Air Corps, was shot down over the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of North Africa, during World War II.

To such end, it is my literary conceit that publication of this website from January 2015 - present, and responses received from nationally prominent attorneys such as Mr. Jon B. Eisenberg, see link Curriculum Vitae; also steadily increasing public interest, see link Website Statistics; represents contribution, as an author, for myself, and as genuine reward, bona fide equity.

Return to Top of Webpage

Since 2009, my legal investigation team has conducted legal research, legal writing, and trial preparation; in a variety of areas of law and including pro bono endeavors. My personal experience in this area of endeavor began as legal assistant working under Mr. Christopher Katzenbach for Kao v. USF (2014), from the composition and filing of the Department of Fair and Employment and Housing Complaint (prerequisite step for formal court lawsuit), during calendar year 2009, to obtain a "Right-to-Sue notice" thereby, to direct research and assistance with appeal of the trial decision leading to the Appellate Court opinion and precedent in calendar year 2014. My attorneys retained throughout, did not work on a contingency basis, but were retained on the basis of hourly fee; and my assistance was critical at deferring costs. I have estimated my contribution of time herewith in the neighborhood of 50% (by hour, and including training) of all legal labor thereto, entailing but not limited to legal investigation: legal research, legal writing, editing, trial preparation, filing, photocopying, and driving around San Francisco ferrying documents. Such estimate was published on this website for a number of years since calendar year 2016. Mr. Katzenbach during this period has concurrently represented me as an attorney on other matters continuously up until his retirement in calendar year 2022. I regard myself as most honored to have had him as an informal instructor in connection—U.S. civil law and procedure.

Therewith, I aspire to assist others in preserving rights requisite under state and federal disability regulation. Our not-for-profit activities includes research towards a petition to the California State Assembly (jurisdiction, Committee on Labor and Employment) for hearings that lead to legislative change and expansion of employee protections. If you are involved in a FFDE case or have information of one on-going, you are invited to correspond, John S. Kao, at the address provided (see contact information infra).

Return to Top of Webpage

Curriculum Vitae with supporting documents (attached university teaching/research/service evaluations and recommendations produced as evidence 2012 in court, never challenged by USF—see trial transcript; also submitted post-trial to the State of California for appellate review); further attached, documents and recommendations in relation professional legal endeavors: Curriculum Vitae.

JSK Independent Legal Services
2625 Yuba Street
El Cerrito, CA 94530-1443
Telephone (work): (415) 400-5349
Telephone (cell): (628) 688-7543
Email: Kao@JSKIndependentLegal.com

Return to Top of Webpage