Attorney General Fraud

To Follow the Attorney General Fraud Follow Jane Gatewood:

 

-She was called by the Attorney General to give knowingly false testimony under oath

 

-While the Attorney General hid documents proving Gatewood’s perjury

 

-Gatewood admitted the Attorney General had the evidence in his possession, reviewed it with Gatewood for her perjured testimony, and concealed it from opposing counsel

 

-Then the Attorney General stalled service on Gatewood in the ensuing lawsuit till she could leave the state

 

-Thus procuring the absence of a witness to crimes in the Attorney General’s office

 

THE JILIN MEMO

 

The Jilin Memo is a UGA document showing the Director of UGA’s Office of International Education, Judith Shaw, ordering the cancellation of a UGA Chinese-language study abroad program in Jilin, China (Exhibit 1, Notice of Filing Exhibits)

 

That is important because the Attorney General of Georgia brought tenure revocation charges—the equivalent of the death penalty for a college professor—based on Shaw’s accusation that UGA Professor Dezso Benedek “cancelled” and “destroyed” the UGA program at Jilin.

 

In order to bring this charge, the Attorney General had to conceal the Jilin memo—which completely contradicts the charge. That gamble backfired when opposing counsel independently discovered a copy of the Jilin memo.

 

OIE employee Jane Gatewood, the main witness called by the Attorney General against Professor Benedek, admitted under cross examination that the Attorney General was in possession of the Jilin memo prior to the tenure revocation hearing, verifying that the Attorney General attempted to conceal the document in the tenure proceedings (similar to the recent Ethics Commission case). Shaw, Benedek’s original accuser, refused to testify on the charge against Benedek, admitting she would not have even made the accusation had she known about the existence of the Jilin Memo.

 

Will the Jilin memo be Sam Olens’ Waterloo?  Or Watergate?

 

In this newsletter:  Follow the smoke rings from the Jilin memo—they lead to fraud to conceal fraud to conceal fraud by the Georgia Attorney General.

 

Richard Nixon, for example, was facing obstruction of justice charges for false denials of wrongdoing in his office when he resigned the presidency.

 

Not an isolated incident of evidence tampering

 

The Jilin story, for which Jane Gatewood is the primary witness, is only one example of the Attorney General hiding documents that proved that the AG knew that tenure revocation charges brought against UGA Professor Dezso Benedek in connection with the UGA study abroad program in Jilin, China were entirely false.

 

Gatewood was also at the center of the AG falsifying charges, concealing documents that undermined his case, manufacturing false evidence, and calling witnesses to give knowingly false testimony based on the manufactured evidence related to a study abroad program operated under the UGA cooperative agreement with Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest.  That’s another story.

 

But since you don’t have all day to read about the Attorney General ‘s misconduct, the Jilin story, by itself, is a textbook case of evidence tampering, influencing witnesses, and subornation of perjury—followed by obstruction of justice by Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens

 

The Jilin story:

An intriguing story of how Professor Benedek was asked to create a UGA program at Jilin by the UGA Provost, only to have the program cancelled by OIE Director Shaw. That’s not the end to the intrigue as Shaw cancelled program and then accused Benedek of destroying UGA’s Jilin program, and the Attorney General brought a tenure revocation charge against Benedek on that basis.

The main problem with this charge was the Attorney General’s discovery, prior to the tenure revocation hearing at UGA, of a document proving the charge was false. The Jilin memo showed that the program was actually cancelled by Shaw, Benedek’s accuser.

What to do in this ethical dilemma? The Attorney General attempted to conceal the document from opposing counsel, coach the witnesses up on how to testify, and proceed with the knowingly false charge against the professor, anyway.

That clandestine plan backfired when the other side found the memo on its own. Attorney General witnesses against Benedek admitted under oath to reviewing the memo with the AG--who nonetheless attempted to conceal it from the other side.

Since, then, Olens has claimed the allegations are frivolous, while sitting on the documentation proving they are not.

Olens also shrugged his shoulders even as he knew the key witness evaded service and left the state, so she would not be available to testify about the AG evidence tampering and subornation of perjury--criminal acts being covered up by Olens with his knowingly false denials.

JILIN TIMELINE:

(all events described are documented by UGA records)
UGA Provost Arnett Mace asked Professor Benedek to create a Chinese language study abroad program for UGA students, implementing UGA curriculum in a language immersion program at Jilin U. in China

Mace was interested in Jilin because high level nanotechnology exchange and an already existing international programs cooperative agreement with Jilin.

 

Mace stated under oath that he had a total confidence in Benedek’s ability to create a model program—despite Benedek’s well-publicized criticisms and run-ins with UGA President Michael Adams.

 

Benedek traveled to Jilin at the Provost’s request and set up the program.

The program was then cancelled by Adams loyalist, OIE Director Judith Shaw.

Shaw's decision to cancel the program was memorialized at the time in a memo from Dean Kavita Pandit--the Jilin memo.

 

In further retaliation against Benedek, the Adams administration denied all transfer credit for UGA students in the Jilin program--a violation of UGA policy, since transfer credits are recognized from all universities with which UGA has an international cooperative agreement, as it did with Jilin (in addition to the problem of denying UGA credit for UGA's own Chinese language curriculum).

Adding injury to insult, Shaw accused Benedek of scuttling the Jilin program and referred the matter to the UGA Office of Legal Affairs for action against Benedek.

Benedek’s counsel asked the Board of Regents, and then the Attorney General to investigate these academic policy violations intended to harm Benedek—that were actually harming UGA and its students.

The Attorney General responded with a tenure revocation action against Benedek at the behest of Adams and Shaw (without investigating their actions reported by Benedek’s counsel)

The Attorney General formally charged Benedek with destroying UGA’s relationship with Jilin—if upheld, the charge would have resulted in Benedek’s dismissal from UGA, loss of his pension after 30 years’ service, and the destruction of his academic career.

A tenure revocation hearing was set, with broad discovery rules requiring each side to disclose and turn over all documents relevant to the charges.

 

The Attorney General discovered the Jilin memo, showing that Shaw, Benedek’s accuser, actually cancelled the Jilin program.

The Attorney General reviewed the memo with UGA witnesses against Benedek, made a slight amendment a week before the scheduled hearing, and proceeded with Jilin charge against Benedek, anyway.

Most importantly, the Attorney General concealed the Jilin memo from opposing counsel.

But Benedek independently located a copy of the Jilin memo.

After Attorney General witness Jane Gatewood accused Benedek under oath of cancelling the Jilin program, Benedek counsel showed Gatewood the Jilin memo.

Gatewood admitted reviewing the Jilin memo with the Attorney General a week before the hearing.

Shaw, Benedek's original accuser, testified under oath she did not remember cancelling the Jilin program and would not have accused Benedek if she knew of the Jilin memo.

 

The Jilin charge was dismissed and the attempt to revoke Benedek’s tenure failed.

Documentation of the Attorney General-Adams Administrations’ evidence tampering was presented to the Board of Regents--who ignored it.

Benedek sued Adams and the Board of Regents.

A month into the lawsuit, Benedek amended the complaint to add RICO claims against Gatewood and Shaw.

After waiting over a year for an order from the court allowing service to proceed on the RICO parties, Benedek learned that Gatewood was leaving UGA and moving out of state.

Benedek counsel brought this to attention of the court and the Attorney General—specifically to avoid the problem of having to find and chase Gatewood out of state to serve her.

The Attorney General stalled and refused all cooperation on ascertaining the status and whereabouts of Gatewood--till she could leave the state and avoid service.

The Attorney General disclaimed any responsibility--with respect to this witness to Attorney General misconduct--on the grounds that Gatewood was not a party to the lawsuit.

 

The Attorney General also said it was pose no significant problem for Benedek to find Gatewood out of state and serve her, while at the same time  refusing to disclose her location.

 

A hearing was scheduled, but ten days before the hearing took place the court entered an order denying the RICO amendment--contrary to law that allows amendment of claims by right—so the RICO claims and parties never became part of that suit.

Benedek then filed the RICO claims against Gatewood and others in a separate action in Fulton Superior Court.

The Attorney General urged dismissal of the second suit, claiming it is for the same claims and against same parties as first suit.

So the Attorney General claimed Gatewood was not a party in first suit, abetting her to avoid service.  Then the AG claimed Gatewood was a party to the first suit in order to have the second suit dismissed on the grounds the same claims were already ruled on by the first court.

The Fulton Superior Court dismissed the RICO action, saying that the RICO claims against Gatewood, Shaw, and the Attorney General were the same claims and parties as the non-RICO claims filed against Adams and the Board of Regents.

Thus the Attorney General procured the absence from the litigation of Gatewood, the principal witness to AG evidence tampering, influencing witnesses, and subornation of perjury

Concealing the document, the Jilin memo, in discovery is an ethics violation.

Evidence tampering, influencing witnesses, and subornation of perjury are criminal RICO predicate acts.

Olens, in covering up and abetting these ethical and criminal violations, is himself committing grave ethical and criminal violations

 

Olens, meanwhile, dismisses the allegations in Benedek’s suit—despite the undisputed documentation that the Attorney General hid the Jilin memo--as "frivolous," "nonsensical," and "outlandish conspiracy theories."

Olens, in public statements, refuses to investigate any of the allegations, despite the undisputed documentation of criminal conduct.

In light of these refusals, Benedek counsel asked Governor Deal to appoint a special investigator on 10-31-14.

Benedek counsel repeated the request to Governor Deal to appoint a special investigator, on 1-12-15, after the Attorney General admitted criminal RICO predicate acts by state officials in the Tricoli case

Governor Deal has not responded to either request.

 

Comparison to the Kalberman case

 

In 2014 Georgia taxpayer’s were forced to pony up for a $10,000 fine--

 

To pay for the Attorney General withholding a key piece of evidence in a case by whistleblowers—who were fired from their jobs for investigating Governor Nathan Deal.

 

The whistleblowers won their lawsuit anyway—at a cost of $3 million to the Georgia taxpayers, but discovered after the case was over that the AG withheld a memo in which the head of the ethics commission (hired to replace the one fired for investigating the Governor) talked about political pressure she received from the Governor’s office.

 

Sam Olens defended withholding the document—a position with which no disinterested attorney in Georgia agrees.

 

The Jilin memo exposes worse misconduct by the Attorney General’s office than occurred in the Kalberman case: evidence tampering, influencing witnesses, and subornation of perjury by the Attorney General in a case the Attorney General was prosecuting; and

 

Stonewalling by the Attorney General assisting the main witness to these crimes to evade service and leave the state

 

Once again, Sam Olens has dismissed the issue—in his own self-interest--as frivolous and not worthy of investigation.

 

Unlike the Kalberman case, in this case the Attorney General is not a bystander who failed in his duty to act. In the Benedek case, the Attorney General’s office actively participated in fraud, ethics violations, and criminal wrongdoing.  Then Attorney General Sam Olens, instead of coming clean on wrongdoing in the AG office, has actively defended it, discouraged an investigation, and abetted the flight of damaging witnesses.

 

Governor Deal has ignored repeated requests to appoint an independent investigator.

 

What are Olens’ and Deals’actions going to cost the Georgia taxpayers this time?

 

Fulton Superior Court on Tuesday, March 10th -Sovereign Immunity and RICO Criminal Acts by AG