Federal Court rules against Contreras?

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by [email protected], Sep 1, 2003.

Loading...
  1. MarkIsrael@aol.com

    [email protected] New Member

    DegreeInfo's newest member, LegalTalk (that's also his AOL screen name), just sent this e-mail (out of the blue) to Bill Gossett, Bill Huffman, John Bear, and me. I have no idea if the info is true, or why it matters.

    Re: Federal Court Rules Against Mr. Alan Contreras, Administrator, Oregon, ODA

    Information Brief: United States District Court Judge, the Honorable Michael R. Hogan, directed the clerk to enter judgment against defendant Alan Contreras, July 25, 2003*. In his "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" District Judge Hogan wrote that Mr. Contreras was selectively and illegally using his regulatory authority to deny the constitutional rights of a community college professor based on his dislike for the professor's university.

    The court ruled that the "purpose behind the regulations" was not to punish even unaccredited colleges as long as such a university "is a serious minded institution." The court found that the plaintiff "did suffer significant stress as a result of the ordeal" and that "defendant Contreras provided an inadequate explanation" for why he singled out this individual and this institution. The court's Judgment:

    Findings of Fact:
    "[T]he court finds the plaintiff has demonstrated that Contreras' application of the regulations to plaintiff's degrees resulted not from the intent to achieve the goals of the regulation, but because of bias toward the institution from which they were received."

    Conclusions of Law:
    "Because Contreras' biased application of the regulation singled out plaintiff and because that regulation was not based on the State's significant interest in protecting against fraudulent degrees, the application of the regulation was unconstitutional."

    Judgment:
    "The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Alan Contreras. The clerk is further directed to enter judgment in favor of all other defendants. All other pending motions are denied as moot."

    *In the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Case No. 00-6272-HO (Lead case); Case No. 02-7070-HO (Consolidated case): Plaintiff, v. JEFF SVEJCAR in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of OREGON STUDENT ASSISTANCE; ALAN CONTRERAS, in his Official Capacity as Administrator of OREGON OFFICE OF DEGREE AUTHORIZATION; and ALAN CONTRERAS, in his Individual Capacity, Defendants.
     
  2. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    If this is true.

    Why does it not mention which constitutional rights were involved?

    Doesn't a judgement such as this render any regulation of degrees a moot point? The St Regis shills put forth a case that it is a serious school.
     
  3. Charles

    Charles New Member

    Was Dr. Dean Darris the plaintiff in this case?

    Even outside of Oregon, the ODA has been used as a tool in determining the worth of a particular college, does this decision damage the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization's credibility?

    Can the State of Oregon appeal this decision?
     
  4. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    The judgement states July 25 but the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization still lists Berne.
     
  5. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I'd be very surprised if this information is correct. It sounds like another eruption of the familiar Berne troll.
     
  6. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I would be especially surprised for the court to rule against Mr. Contreras personally rather than against the ODA.

    I've informed Mr. Contreras of the potentially libelous email.

    I also inspected the raw email header and confirmed that the source actually is who Mark says that it is.
     
  7. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I've been critical of Contreras and his handling of the "list." That said, all we have is a third-hand account. I'll wait until some first-hand information is available (or second-hand from a trusted source). And I won't hold my breath.... :rolleyes:
     
  8. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I agree with Bill; this doesn't sound like any ruling I've ever read, and anonymous emails are by definition unreliable sources.


    Cheers,
     
  9. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    If this is true, someone may end up explaining their actions to Judge Hogan.
     
  10. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I was running up against the 10 minute limit so I took this post off to fix a couple of typos. Here it is back again, confusingly after a couple of replies to it.

    I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on Degreeinfo. But this communication just doesn't read right to me. For example:

    The court ruled that the "purpose behind the regulations" was not to punish even unaccredited colleges as long as such a university "is a serious minded institution."

    Given the precise language employed in the Oregon statute, it is hard to believe that a judge would employ a meaningless phrase like "serious minded institution".

    The court found that... "defendant Contreras provided an inadequate explanation" for why he singled out this individual and this institution.

    Conclusions of Law:
    "Because Contreras' biased application of the regulation singled out plaintiff...


    Employing this logic, a police officer's arrest of a drug dealer can be invalidated because the officer singled out that particular dealer for arrest. How are laws supposed to be enforced if they can't be applied to individuals?

    Findings of Fact:
    "[T]he court finds the plaintiff has demonstrated that Contreras' application of the regulations to plaintiff's degrees resulted not from the intent to achieve the goals of the regulation, but because of bias toward the institution from which they were received."


    The regulator's personal feelings about Berne are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the degrees it issues conform with the Oregon statute.

    I'm just speculating, but this sounds to me like somebody kind of writing up his own resentments in a form superficially imitating the style of a court judgement.
     
  11. Charles

    Charles New Member

    I just spent the last hour or so searching LexisNexis, findlaw, etc. I'm pleased to say I did not find any documentation of Mr. LegalTalk's case. I do feel pretty gulible for believing it in the first place.

    Mr. LegalTalk,

    Did you make this up yourself?
     
  12. juristech

    juristech New Member

    Nothing in CourtLink or PACER either
     
  13. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    I am not a fan of Mr Contreras or the ODA. This fake document is exceptionally base and shameful. Perhaps, if this is what Mr Contreras' critics rely upon, I will have to reconsider my opinion of the ODA.
     
  14. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I received a response from Mr. Contreras. With his permission, I've included it below.

    ***********Start of email response***********

    I was copied on this outline of my wickedness, thanks. I forwarded to Oregon Dept of Justice. That case related to a section of the Oregon law that was changed in 2001. It has nothing to do with the current law. I was obligated to defend it because I was the state, defended by Dept of Justice. The plantiff was awarded one dollar.


    I surmise that the sender is Berne U. in drag, since they know that we are about to have an enforcement action against one of their users at an Oregon community college. Otherwise the very specific reference to a community college faculty member makes no sense. Berne is desperate now, since the feds (GAO and Dept of Ed) pulled their Title IV eligibility and formally found that they are not equivalent to a US institution, have inappropriately loose policies on the award of credit and poor financial oversight. The feds' snuff letter is making its way out into the world of higher ed and the Bernestench is increasing, so they lash out where they can. Also, the State of New Hampshire Dept. of Justice has sent Berne a Cease and Desist letter for their office in the U.S.


    If you'd like to share my comments above with the degreeinfo list, that's fine. We have major budget cuts here and little time for side issues now.



    Alan L. Contreras
    Administrator, Office of Degree Authorization
    Oregon Student Assistance Commission
    1500 Valley River Drive No. 100
    Eugene OR 97401
    (541) 687-7452 fax (541) 687-7419
    [email protected]
    Information: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda


    Messages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public under Oregon law.
     
  15. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    I believe the precise phrase going through Mr. LegalBalk's mind right now is,

    "Haha, made you look!"

    :D


    Tom Nixon
     
  16. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Besides Alan not being in trouble (I don't care for how he's handled things, but he does fight the good fight), this is the best news possible. I called New Hampshire authorities several months ago regarding Berne. They knew about Berne and expressed consternation over the operation. They were planning to do something about it, but we didn't hear anything until now....

    Great news!
     
  17. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    Then is Mr. Contreras saying the post was accurate? If so why, other than for intimidation purposes, is it being forwarded to the Department of Justice? If the post is inaccurate, perhaps he could explain.

    An award of $1.00 does not mean rights were not violated, only that legally recognizable damages couldn’t be proven.

    Oregon officials know, and have admitted, the law is unconstitutional as a violation of the first amendment. Knowing defendants have limited resources they will simply make minor changes to the law every time a court rules against them, as they may have done in 2001. Meanwhile, the law continues to have it’s intended chilling effect.

    This might be the “good fight” for a worthwhile cause, but its not the way I want my government run. To me, Mr. Contreras' list is not much difference than the Hollywood Blacklist of the 1950’s. Do two wrongs make a right?
     
  18. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Then again, perhaps I won't.

    Thanks again, Dr Boyd. (I do hope you saw my clarification that you were NOT my intended target on another thread; can't even remember which one any more.)
     
  19. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Perhaps you missed the part of the response that said that this was a case regarding the old law that is no longer in force?

    If by chilling effect you mean that it is making it harder for unaccredited schools to function then I'd think that would mostly be positive.

    I would be interested in knowing which Oregon officials admitted that the law is unconstitutional. Do you have any further information on this?
     
  20. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    No, I didn't. Their strategy is to make minor changes in the law each time they lose a case forcing endless litigation which defendants can’t afford to defend.
     

Share This Page