Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz

Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz

Postby johnkarls » Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:48 am

.
Suggested Answers To The Second Short Quiz


Question 38 of the First Short Quiz was --

So with all this demonstrated success with inner-city children and with such political support, why did America turn its back on THE PROMISED LAND and WANDER IN THE WILDERNESS for 30 years WHERE IT CONTINUES TO WANDER???

Answer 38 said this would be addressed by the Second Short Quiz.



***********************************
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

Question 1

Has it really been 30 years since the 1986 New York Times front-page article and the 1986 “60 Minutes” Program that featured the self-made multi-billionaire who had returned 5 years earlier to his alma mater, Harlem P.S. 121, to address the graduating 6th graders whom, on sudden inspiration, he had challenged to stay in school and he would pay their college tuition?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Had Eugene Lang then provided each of those “Dreamers” with a tutor and a mentor for the past 5 years? And were the New York Times and “60 Minutes” reporting that approximately 2/3 of the original 1981 Sixth Grade Class of Harlem P.S. 121 were now headed for college?

Answer 2

Yes. And yes.

Question 3

Why did the “I Have A Dream”® Foundation of the 1990’s and its 178 projects in 51 American inner-cities (most of which sent 90% of their original THIRD graders to college) bear virtually no relationship to the post-2000 “I Have A Dream”® Foundation which appears to have concentrated on suburbs and appears to have lost all of the institutional knowledge about inner-cities that was accumulated by the 178 inner-cities projects of the 1990’s?

Answer 3

The vast gulf between the “I Have A Dream”® Foundation of the 1990’s and the post-2000 “I Have A Dream”® Foundation that rose from the ashes, had at least two causes --


******************************
The Ego of Eugene Lang


Yes, Gene was a genius in inventing the IHAD model.

But he was always grabbing the limelight to the chagrin of the Sponsors of the 178 IHAD projects in 51 American cities, most of whom were CEO’s of major corporations.

And CEO’s of major corporations tend to have egos as well.

As a result, Gene was a pariah among virtually all of those 178 Sponsors.

And Yours Truly can testify from all of the fundraising he has done from the world’s multi-billionaires who tend to be widows, that a CARDINAL RULE of successful fundraising is that you NEVER take any credit for a particular charitable gift. You ALWAYS make sure the limelight is focused SOLELY on the person making the contribution.

So instead of being propelled forward by 178 extremely-influential cheerleaders, IHAD-National had almost 178 “albatrosses around its neck”!!!


******************************
The Scandals of Eugene Lang’s Co-Mingling of Funds and the IHAD-National Executive Director’s Embezzlements From Americorps


These scandals are described at length in a 5/22/2010 e-mail to Peter Fishbein who was serving at that time as Co-Chair of the IHAD-National Board of Directors and as IHAD-National General Counsel.

That e-mail was posted as “Reference J – Offer to the National ‘I Have A Dream’® Foundation” in the third section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Inner-City Holocaust and America’s Apartheid ‘Justice’ System (In Honor of Jonathan Kozol and In Memory of John Howard Griffin).”

That e-mail will be posted immediately below as a “reply” to this posting because trying to recreate the descriptions in the e-mail, even on a cut-and-paste basis, would be too painful.

However, it is worthwhile to consider at this point an Editorial Note that was inserted at the beginning of that bulletin-board posting so that the bulletin-board reader could appreciate the significance of how badly Eugene Lang and the IHAD-National Executive Director had “screwed the pooch”!!!

“[Editorial Note = As of 3/22/2010, the IHAD-National web site listed the Board of Directors as headed by two Co-Chairs, one of whom was Peter Fishbein who, per the web site, also served as General Counsel. When I was a Director and Treasurer of IHAD-National in the 1990’s, Peter was General Counsel but chose not to serve as a Director, which was why he apparently was unaware of the two legal imbroglios described below. On 3/22/2010, Peter inquired about the legal imbroglio involving “X” [name redacted] apparently because, as a fellow Harvard Law alumnus, he had been embarrassed by the resignation of my friend Lillian Rothschild Berkman from the IHAD-National Board because she also served on the Harvard University Board of Overseers and Chaired its Subcommittees on New-Building Contributions and Oversight of Harvard Law School -- and Lillian had apparently (per Peter Fishbein) told friends of hers on the Harvard University Board of Overseers and told the Harvard Law School Dean (Robert Clark) with whom she was especially close on a social basis that she had resigned from the IHAD-National Board because of a legal scandal involving “X” [name redacted]. THE NEXT TIME I CHECKED THE IHAD-NATIONAL WEB SITE (8/21/2010) TO PROVIDE A “HEADS UP” THAT I WAS CONTACTING 43 AMERICAN NEWS-MEDIA SUPERSTARS AND THEY MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MY OFFER TO ASSIGN MY LEGAL RIGHTS GRATIS TO IHAD-NATIONAL, PETER WAS NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH IHAD-NATIONAL (accordingly, the “heads up” was provided to the Executive Director whom I did not know, together with a copy of this e-mail to Peter).]”

Additional Notes:

Lillian Rothschild Berkman had joined the IHAD-National Board accompanied by a pledge of $10 million at my request.

There is described elsewhere on this bulletin board (for example, the posting entitled “The Silver Spoon In His Mouth With Which John Karls Was Born” which appears under the “Participants Comments” section for our 9/14/2016 meeting) how having tossed more than 3,000 bouquets for opera stars (and a few ballerinas) over 60 years had led to close personal friendships with many of the world’s multi-billionaires (who tend to be widows) and how those friendships led to prodigious fund-raising for IHAD and, later at the personal request of the U.N. Under-Secretary General for the Environment, for UNEP.

Lillian Rothschild Berkman, mentioned in the foregoing Editorial Note, was one of those multi-billionaires.

However, the Editorial Note does NOT fully explain how badly Eugene Lang and the IHAD-National Executive Director each “screwed the pooch” with their respective scandals.

Because it explains ONLY why Peter Fishbein, the IHAD-National Board Co-Chair and General Counsel, became aware of the scandals = as a Harvard Law alumnus, he had heard rumors of Lillian’s displeasure by virtue of Lillian’s serving on the Harvard University Board of Overseers and chairing two of its subcommittees, one overseeing new-building contributions and the other overseeing Harvard Law School.

But Lillian’s displeasure had a much farther reach!!!

Lillian had been widowed twice.

Her first husband was the head of the worldwide Rothschild family. As a result of which, he became the custodian of all of the fine art stolen by the Nazis for whom heirs could not be located until, God willing, heirs can be located.

[Her second husband was a Harvard Law alumnus who inherited the family business, the world-famous Caterpillar Tractor Company. Which is why Lillian, who had no other connection to Harvard, consented to serve on its Board of Overseers and chair two of its subcommittees.]

When her first husband passed away, Lillian became the custodian of the Nazi-stolen-art collection, which dwarfs the collections of any of the world’s finest museums including the Hermitage in St. Petersburg.

In addition, Lillian had her own personal collection of “Old Masters” which dwarfed the “Old Masters” collections of any of the world’s finest museums including The Louvre in Paris.

So it should be no mystery why she was on the Board of many of the world’s finest museums, starting with NYC’s Metropolitan Museum, since all of them were constantly besieging her to loan important pieces for special exhibitions, and many of them probably hoped that she would remember them in her will vis-à-vis her own personal collection.

So Eugene Lang and the IHAD-National Executive Director really “screwed the pooch” with respect to all of the world’s multi-billionaires, at least those connected to the world of fine art who, as collectors, are virtually all of them.

A footnote:

The e-mail does contain the following paragraph:

“During the F.B.I. investigation [of the IHAD-National Executive Director for embezzling from Americorps], I was replaced as the head of IHAD-Stamford by my board which comprised some of my large contributors (I had only funded personally about 50% of the required scholarship-endowment funds for my three classes comprising 200 Dreamers and had raised the remainder from others). Several years later, I learned that “X” [name redacted] had engineered my replacement and that, as IHAD-National Executive Director, she had approved my ouster even though there was no successor sponsor for IHAD-Stamford as required by IHAD-National policy.”

For the curious, this was a permanent “battle scar” from being forced to “cashier” the IHAD-National Executive Director.

I was aware that IHAD-Stamford began to flounder after my departure and, inter alia, began to invade the scholarship endowment which had been fully funded. [I had made sure the scholarship fund was fully endowed because it is easy to raise current-operating funds on a continuing basis for the monthly trips of Mentors/Dreamers, etc., if your appeal stresses that such activities depend on contributions.]

Accordingly, Hyacinth Demar and I made an offer to the IHAD-Stamford Board of Directors to “right the ship.”

Hyacinth was the President of the Stamford Chapter of Links, a national sorority of prominent African-American women.

The IHAD-Stamford Board of Directors rejected our offer.


***********************************
PART I: BILL AND MELINDA GATES AND THEIR FOUNDATION

Question 4

Following the 1986 reports in the New York Times and “60 Minutes” did Bill and Melinda Gates and their Foundation “brainwash” America into worshipping for 10 years the “false idol” of breaking up inner-city schools into smaller units?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

After admitting that failure, did Bill and Melinda Gates and their Foundation “brainwash” America into worshipping the “false idol” of school choice (aka charter schools)?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Did Stanford University conduct in 2009 a study of 2,403 charter schools (about half of all charter schools and 70% of all charter-school students) which found that 37% had learning gains that were SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW those of local public schools, 46% had gains that were NO DIFFERENT, and ONLY 17% showed growth that was significantly better?

Answer 6

Yes!!!

Question 7

This despite charter schools typically selecting only students of parents who were functional enough to have their children apply -- and despite charter schools typically expelling under-performing students?

Answer 7

Yes!!!

Question 8

Was the Stanford University study funded by PRO-CHARTER groups including the Walton Family Foundation, and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation?

Answer 8

Yes!!!

Question 9

Did this force us to conclude at our 9/12/2012 meeting that treating inner-city school results as an EDUCATION problem rather than a SOCIOLOGY problem makes no more sense than shutting down an inner-city police precinct in which a crime is committed and hiring amateurs in its place?

Answer 9

Yes.

Question 10

BTW, did Prof. Diane Ravitch (N.Y.U.’s Research Professor of Education, a historian of education, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education) like so much our analogy to an inner-city police precinct in which a crime is committed that she included it (without attribution) in her next book “Reign of Error: The Hoax of the School Privatization Movement” (Alfred A. Knopf 2013)?

Answer 10

Yes. [We are delighted whenever anyone uses our ideas, with or without attribution.]

Question 11

Did we approve unanimously at our 9/12/2012 meeting a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign to President Obama which concluded with --

“Since the reckless behavior of Bill and Melinda Gates are ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ as defined in the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court at The Hague, it is respectfully requested that you petition the U.N. Security Council to provide the ICC with jurisdiction to prosecute the Gates. After all, they are condemning more inner-city children to a ‘fate worse than death’ than the number of victims involved in all of the prosecutions at the ICC combined.”

Answer 11

Yes.


***********************************
PART II: PRESIDENT OBAMA AND 20 OTHER U.S. AND CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS + GWEN IFILL AND 42 OTHER NEWS-MEDIA SUPERSTARS

----------------
NB: The information in this Part II is documented by hundreds (if not thousands) of documents posted in the Third and Fourth Sections of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org under the Section Headings of “Inner-City Holocaust and America’s Apartheid ‘Justice’ System (In Honor of Jonathan Kozol and In Memory of John Howard Griffin).”
----------------

Question 12

When Yours Truly took early retirement in 1997 from Ernst & Young to become an investment banker, did he inform his Ernst & Young partners and did he inform the other 177 Sponsors of “I Have A Dream” projects in 51 American inner-cities (most of whom were CEO’s of major corporations) that he was doing so in order to devote every penny that he might earn as an investment banker to funding IHAD or IHAD-style programs?

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

Since quite a few of my Ernst & Young partners and since virtually all of the 177 Sponsors of other IHAD projects made THEREAFTER contributions to IHAD, do courts routinely treat such SUBSEQUENT contributions as the “quid pro quo” that makes a promise such as that of Yours Truly to donate every penny he might earn as an investment banker AS A LEGALLY-ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

Did Yours Truly learn from a front-page article in the 6/30/2006 Wall Street Journal that one of his financial products had been stolen by Barclays Capital which had used it to save billions for some of the world’s largest financial institutions?

Answer 14

Yes.

Question 15

Did the Wall Street Journal article say that the financial institutions involved had refused to answer any questions on the grounds that the financial product was a “Trade Secret” and did the WSJ article say that the WSJ had been unable to find any experts who were not privy to the “Trade Secret” who were able to “reverse engineer” the “Trade Secret” to figure out how it worked?

Answer 15

Yes.

Question 16

Is “conversion” the civil-law name for the crime of “theft”?

Answer 16

Yes.

Question 17

Is “conversion” regularly applied, for example, in the case of fine art stolen by the Nazis to return it (or its then fair market value at the option of the plaintiffs) to the heirs of the Holocaust victims who owned it?

Answer 17

Yes.

BTW, if the heirs of the Holocaust victims who owned the fine art opt to be paid the fair market value of the fine art (rather than to have it returned), the fair market value is NOT based on the value of a piece of canvas and a few cans of paint BUT INSTEAD includes the value of the intangible concept of the artist in creating the work.

Question 18

Were there in fact 15 of the world’s largest financial institutions who acquired Yours Truly’s “Trade Secret” from Barclays Capital and who were able to save an estimated $21 billion courtesy of the “Trade Secret”?

Answer 18

Yes.

Question 19

Did Yours Truly sue 15 financial institutions who were “in receipt of stolen property” for “conversion” for $84 billion, which included treble damages for a reckless failure to ascertain who owned the “Trade Secret” because they hadn’t even asked Barclays Capital for a standard warranty that Barclays Capital owned the “Trade Secret”?

Answer 19

Yes.

Question 20

Did the California courts rule on a preliminary basis that no lawsuit could be permitted in California for “conversion” of “property” even though (A) the same trial court that so ruled had recently permitted a lawsuit for “conversion” of “property”, and (B) two California appellate courts were simultaneously permitting lawsuits for “conversion” of “property”?

Answer 20

Yes.

Question 21

Did all of the courts involved in Yours Truly’s lawsuits rule that their decisions could NOT be published? And rule further that their decisions could NOT be cited as precedent?

Answer 21

Yes.

Question 22

Was the “Question Presented For Review” in our Petition For Certiorari (i.e., Request To Accept An Appeal) to the U.S. Supreme Court --

“Can state court judges order their decisions which they know are diametrically-opposed to well-settled law, not to be published or cited (a strategy labeled ‘the segregated toilet’ in correspondence with 51 inner-city clergy who represent the 10 million inner-city children who have been disclosed from the outset as the ‘real parties at interest’ in this law suit) in order to flush away the rights of the 10 million inner-city children without disturbing the rights of first-class American citizens -- without violating the ‘Equal Protection of the Law’ requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”

Answer 22

Yes.

Question 23

Had numerous letters been sent over several years to President Obama and 20 other U.S. and California Governmental Officials imploring them to file Amicus Curiae Briefs?

Answer 23

Yes.

Question 24

Had numerous letters been sent over several years to Gwen Ifill and 42 other news-media superstars imploring them to shine a light on what the California courts were doing?

Answer 24

Yes.

Question 25

Did President Obama, the 20 other governmental officials, Gwen Ifill and the 42 other news-media superstars ALL REFUSE TO LIFT A FINGER even though each of them knew that any one of them lifting a single finger might have been sufficient to enable THE 10 MILLION INNER-CITY CHILDREN TO AVOID “A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH”?

Answer 25

Yes.

BTW, the Obama Administration replied to my letters, but only to voice admiration for IHAD and IHAD-style programs!!!

In addition, all of the Members of Congress representing the inner-cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland PRETENDED that my letters were a request from a non-constituent -- when each of the letters EXPLAINED UP-FRONT that they were being requested to act on behalf of the 10 million inner-city children WHO WERE INDEED THEIR CONSTITUENTS!!!

In addition, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi -- NONE OF WHOM could claim that I was not one of their tax-paying constituents -- PRETENDED that there was nothing they could do even though each of my letters EXPLAINED UP-FRONT that they were being asked to use their influence to have Amicus Curiae briefs (together with the citation of the U.S. Supreme Court Rule that permits such briefs) filed by (A) the Obama Administration, (B) the Governor of California, and (B) the Mayors of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland -- ALL OF WHOM FILE SUCH AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS AS A ROUTINE MATTER!!!

Question 26

Had Yours Truly been corresponding during the entire imbroglio with 51 inner-city clergy from Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland, NEVER ASKING FOR A PENNY but only for THEIR PRAYERS and the prayers of their congregants?

Answer 26

Yes.

Question 27

Was one of the reasons for corresponding with the 51 inner-city clergy to be able to create quickly IHAD and IHAD-style programs with their congregants as tutors and mentors?

Answer 27

Yes.

Question 28

Was the final letter to the 51 inner-city clergy sent on 10/5/2011 to (A) inform them that the US Supreme Court on 10/4/2011 refused to hear our appeal, (B) thank them for their efforts with the solace that each of us would be able to say at The Pearly Gates with St. Paul (II Timothy 4:7): “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” and (C) request them and their congregants to pray for the souls of the 43 news-media superstars, the 21 governmental officials, the California judges and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices?

Answer 28

Yes.


***********************************
PART III: POPE FRANCIS

Question 29

Did Pope Francis visit the U.S. last fall?

Answer 29

Yes.

Question 30

Did we approve unanimously at our 6/17/2015 meeting a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign to Pope Francis with e-mail copies to the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who was helping to organize the Pope’s visit?

Answer 30

Yes.

Question 31

Did our E-mail Campaign call attention to the fact that UNICEF reports that the rate of American children living in poverty is at least DOUBLE THE RATE tolerated by any other industrialized country and TRIPLE the rate in Germany, Austria and France and QUADRUPLE the rate in such nations as Denmark, Slovenia, Norway, The Netherlands and Finland?

Answer 31

Yes.

Question 32

Did our E-mail Campaign also contain most of the other information set forth in the First Short Quiz?

Answer 32

Yes.

Question 33

Did our E-mail Campaign note that “It would appear that America is failing to obey Christ’s Second Commandment to Love Your Neighbor As Yourself when it comes to America’s inner-city children. This despite the overwhelming majority of Americans self identifying as Christians and despite the Roman Catholic Church’s 78.2 million baptized members comprising 24% of the U.S. population.”?

Answer 33

Yes. And yes.

Question 34

Did our E-mail Campaign implore Pope Francis to “Carpe the Diem during your impending U.S. visit to challenge U.S. clergy to organize such programs and…..challenge their congregants to become the Surrogate-Parent tutors and mentors to minister to the 23% of American children that UNICEF confirms live in poverty”?

Answer 34

Yes.

Question 35

Did Pope Francis and the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops shun America’s poor by blocking WITHIN A MATTER OF HOURS the e-mails that were being sent to them as a result of our campaign?

Answer 35

INCREDIBLY!!!

Question 36

Do you think God will be able to forgive Pope Francis and the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for this behavior?

Answer 36

It is respectfully suggested that the correct answer to this question is “God only knows”!!!

In this regard, you should NOT be confused by the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which was NOT invented until The Counter-Reformation to explain why Martin Luther’s famous “95 Theses” entitled “Disputation of the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” protesting the sale of licenses to commit sins such as murder -- which Luther famously nailed to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517 -- could not be a valid criticism!!!

[NB: Apologists for the Roman Catholic Church claim that the Indulgences were not sold before commission of the sins such as murder or, in the cases in which they were sold beforehand, doing so was not authorized. However, even if that argument is accepted, historical works also note that the “price list” for forgiveness of various sins such as murder was well known, so there was no hesitation to commit a sin such as murder with an assurance of what the “price” would be.]

The reason why you should NOT be confused by the relatively-recent INVENTION of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility???

Because the Pope is ONLY INFALLIBLE when speaking EX CATHEDRA (which means OFFICIALLY or, literally, “from the chair”).

And no Papal pronouncements have been labeled EX CATHEDRA since 1950.

So Papal infallibility does NOT pertain to Pope Francis’ turning his back on America’s poor.

And he must be forgiven for this sin, just like any other human being needs forgiveness for sins.

BTW, “Cathedra” is the Latin word for “chair” which is why there should be no confusion over the meaning of “Cathedral” in either Roman Catholicism or in the Church of England (aka in America, The Episcopal Church -- which is essentially Roman Catholic except for the famous schism caused by Henry VIII’s unsuccessful demands that the Vatican grant him annulments from his many wives which caused Henry VIII to decree that going forward, all churches in England would report to him rather than the Pope which is why, to this day, one of the zillions of components to the Official Title of the English Monarch is “Protector of the Faith”).

So “Cathedral” has nothing to do with the grandeur (or lack thereof) of a particular structure. Instead, it is the building (typically a church) in which a Bishop or Cardinal “sits” or, in other words, has his office. For example, NYC has two Cathedrals = St. Patrick’s (Roman Catholic) and St. John the Divine (Episcopal).


***********************************
CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE

Question 37

Will the current political proposal to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for poor and middle-class families cure the problem?

Answer 37

Please read on.

Question 38

Isn’t it true that the “I Have A Dream”® Foundation of the 1990’s had agreements with virtually all of America’s colleges and universities (including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and MIT) that the IHAD tuition promise would be ignored in determining their scholarship grants -- so that IHAD dollars could be stretched to cover more inner-city children?

Answer 38

Yes.

Question 39

As a practical matter, wasn’t there so much scholarship money available at that time for inner-city children because Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, etc., were so desperate to provide diversity in their student bodies, that very little tuition money had to be provided by IHAD sponsors on a per-capita-student basis? And that the “last dollar” tuition promise of the IHAD sponsors enabled them to adopt considerably more “Dreamers”?

Answer 39

Yes.

Question 40

So wasn’t THE REAL PROBLEM focusing inner-city children on higher education and careers?

Answer 40

Yes.

Question 41

AND, as previously described, the IHAD tutors and mentors BECOMING SURROGATE PARENTS who would tell their “Dreamers” that they could make something of themselves with the IHAD program and it would “break the heart” of the Surrogate-Parent tutor/mentor if the “Dreamer” did not do so?

Answer 41

Absolutely!!!

Question 42

AND, as previously described, adopting EVERY student in the third-grade of an inner-city school or EVERY third-grade resident in a public-housing project IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A PROTECTIVE COCOON IN WHICH LEARNING IS REVERED RATHER THAN RIDICULED?

Answer 42

Absolutely!!!
johnkarls
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

The E-Mail Referenced In Q&A-3

Postby johnkarls » Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:50 am

.
Ref J - Offer to the National "I Have a Dream"® Foundation
Posted by johnkarls » Fri May 20, 2011 1:51 pm
.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: I Have A Dream
From: john@johnkarls.com
Date: Mon, March 22, 2010 11:57 am
To: pfishbein@kayescholer.com
Att – Taking IHAD to the next level
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harvard Club - Box 126
27 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
March 22, 2010


Peter M. Fishbein, Esq
Kaye Scholer LLP
425 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022

[Editorial Note = As of 3/22/2010, the IHAD-National web site listed the Board of Directors as headed by two Co-Chairs, one of whom was Peter Fishbein who, per the web site, also served as General Counsel. When I was a Director and Treasurer of IHAD-National in the 1990’s, Peter was General Counsel but chose not to serve as a Director, which was why he apparently was unaware of the two legal imbroglios described below. On 3/22/2010, Peter inquired about the legal imbroglio involving “X” [name redacted] apparently because, as a fellow Harvard Law alumnus, he had been embarrassed by the resignation of my friend Lillian Rothschild Berkman from the IHAD-National Board because she also served on the Harvard University Board of Overseers and Chaired its Subcommittees on New-Building Contributions and Oversight of Harvard Law School –- and Lillian had apparently (per Peter Fishbein) told friends of hers on the Harvard University Board of Overseers and told the Harvard Law School Dean (Robert Clark) with whom she was especially close on a social basis that she had resigned from the IHAD-National Board because of a legal scandal involving “X” [name redacted]. THE NEXT TIME I CHECKED THE IHAD-NATIONAL WEB SITE (8/21/2010) TO PROVIDE A “HEADS UP” THAT I WAS CONTACTING 43 AMERICAN NEWS-MEDIA SUPERSTARS AND THEY MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MY OFFER TO ASSIGN MY LEGAL RIGHTS GRATIS TO IHAD-NATIONAL, PETER WAS NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH IHAD-NATIONAL (accordingly, the “heads up” was provided to the Executive Director whom I did not know, together with a copy of this e-mail to Peter).]


Dear Peter:

It was a pleasure to chat with you again this morning after so long.

The main reason for this e-mail is that a few moments after we finished, my cell phone on which we had been speaking (01-917-270-1280) registered the receipt of a text message and, unfortunately, I am old school and do not have a texting capability. Accordingly, if you were the texter (and nobody tries to text me except once in a blue moon), I would suggest an e-mail or another call.

The secondary reason for this e-mail is to provide some background information about two historical IHAD-National legal matters about which you seemed somewhat surprised.

When I became the volunteer treasurer of IHAD-National, the existing staff which was headed by an Executive Director whose name I no longer remember (she was two ahead of “X” [name redacted] in that position) seemed eager to tell me about quite a few improprieties involving Gene Lang.

I always took the position that I didn’t want to hear anything about them unless they affected the IHAD-National legal entity of which I was treasurer.

One did.

One of the most recent IHAD projects at that time (the mid-1990’s), which was in the NYC area, involved a couple acting as sponsors whom Gene had instructed to deposit the college-scholarship funds for the Dreamers they were adopting with Gene personally. They and Gene agreed on 2-3 payments over a few months but after the first payment, they believed Gene had commingled their funds with his own personal funds and took the position that they would not deposit the remaining funds with Gene.

So why did this involve IHAD-National as an organization???

Because the college-scholarship guarantee was made to that set of Dreamers on IHAD-National stationary with Gene signing as chairman of IHAD-National. Accordingly, the letters comprised a unilateral-contract offer giving rise to a legal obligation of IHAD-National.

As treasurer, I of course insisted that IHAD-National recognize this legal liability on our financial statements. Gene resigned from the board in a huff.

In all fairness to Gene, I can appreciate why he was offended that anyone should question whether he would make good on the commingled funds and I’m sure that he well knew that as a practical matter, nobody would prosecute an American icon. Unfortunately, I was not an American icon and didn’t want to spend my retirement years at Leavenworth. If Gene is still offended, by the way, that I was forced to make an issue of this, I am very sorry (indeed, I apologized to Gene for being forced to make it an issue at the time, both before and after the event).

The second legal matter???

As previously mentioned, “X” [name redacted] was the third Executive Director with whom I served.

I was her strongest supporter for her first 2-3 years in office – recruiting Lillian Rothschild Berkman for the National Board and raising some significant contributions for IHAD-National from some of my IHAD-Stamford donors (in addition to making quite a few myself with my personal contributions to IHAD-National probably adding up to more than $100 thousand) – even though I was only the treasurer and Chris Coons was in charge of fund raising.

In addition, I took “X” [name redacted] by the hand to Bob Dole’s lobbying firm to try to pry some money out of Congress (I used to use that firm for tax lobbying when I was Senior Tax Counsel and Director of Worldwide Tax Planning for Texaco Inc. 1974-87 when it was still a Fortune-Ten company). “X” [name redacted] was utterly unprepared so I had to make the presentation myself and it was fortunate that I had put together a leave piece at the last minute before departing for the DC shuttle since it occurred to me that “X” [name redacted] might not do so.

However, before Bob Dole and his colleagues were able to obtain governmental funding for IHAD-National, I discovered that “X” [name redacted] had been embezzling funds from the U.S. Government’s Americorp Program on behalf of IHAD-National.

By way of background, virtually all of Americorp grants were made to local IHAD programs, courtesy of some wonderful work done by Chris Coons. However, Chris set up the funding for any local IHAD program that wanted Americorp volunteers so that the money would flow through IHAD-National. And as a relatively new organization, Americorp had established a procedure with Chris pursuant to which all IHAD-National had to do was inform Americorp on a continuing basis how much money it wanted and when, and the funds would be automatically transferred.

However, Americorp did have established regulations with which Chris was intimately familiar when he established all of these procedures, that the transfers requested by IHAD-National were geared time-wise to the actual expenditures by the local IHAD projects.

Like you this morning, I had always been informing the Board at each of its meetings the date on which IHAD-National would run out of funds. When my predictions failed to come true, I immediately investigated and discovered that “X” [name redacted] had decided to begin accessing Americorp funds in an ever-increasing amount above the legal limit that she knew existed.

I told her that IHAD-National should immediately return the excess funds and that we would just have to default on our obligations, including payroll.

She refused. I informed the Board and they refused to support me. So I said that I would resign as treasurer unless the Board was at least willing to obtain a legal opinion from you regarding the imbroglio. The Board refused. I resigned as treasurer and informed Americorp what had happened.

The F.B.I. investigated “X” [name redacted]. The investigation took about 6 months. During the course of their investigation, they noted that “X” [name redacted] had a personal reason for embezzling the funds on behalf of IHAD-National because the embezzlements permitted IHAD-National to go on paying her salary. At the end of the investigation, the F.B.I. offered “X” [name redacted] the chance to resign from IHAD-National with no publicity about why she was resigning, or face criminal prosecution. Apparently, the F.B.I. did not want to damage the reputation of IHAD-National by prosecuting its Executive Director if that could be avoided.

“X” [name redacted] resigned.

During the F.B.I. investigation, I was replaced as the head of IHAD-Stamford by my board which comprised some of my large contributors (I had only funded personally about 50% of the required scholarship-endowment funds for my three classes comprising 200 Dreamers and had raised the remainder from others). Several years later, I learned that “X” [name redacted] had engineered my replacement and that, as IHAD-National Executive Director, she had approved my ouster even though there was no successor sponsor for IHAD-Stamford as required by IHAD-National policy.

So there we have it. I am sorry to have to recall such unpleasantries, but since the Board never consulted you on the Americorp embezzlement (and who knows what you might have been told about Gene’s resignation from the Board), it seemed to me that as the highest-ranking attorney currently serving on the IHAD-National Board, you should be aware of this history.

*****
For the sake of good order, this will confirm that you declined to serve on a pro bono basis as counsel in the event that the Supreme Court grants the petition for certiorari in the Goldman Sachs, Citicorp and ING lawsuits which would have been assigned to IHAD-National if you had been willing, while I continue to pursue the eleven California state court actions on a pro se basis until such time as IHAD-National might be willing to have them assigned also (all of the state-court actions are stayed in the trial court pending a decision by the California Court of Appeals – First District whether to re-affirm its 1988 decision which appears to be controlling).

However, you also confirmed that if any of the California IHAD programs can obtain pro bono Supreme Court representation in the event certiorari is granted, there would be no objection from IHAD-National to my assigning any or all of the 15 lawsuits to the California IHAD programs.

Incidentally, if there is no attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court willing to take the Goldman/Citicorp/ING cases on a pro bono basis in the event certiorari is granted, my present intention is to proceed with the petitions on a pro se basis. However, I petitioned the Supreme Court once in the past on a pro se basis and recognize that the Supreme Court is virtually certain, as a practical matter, to reject a petition for certiorari from a pro se party.

As discussed, the size of the potential recoveries is difficult to estimate but Barclays Bank had $21 billion of foreign tax credit to sell to the 15 defendants and I requested treble punitive damages for a reckless failure to ascertain whether Barclays actually owned the property – for a total of $84 billion.

For your information, I am attaching a paper entitled “Taking I Have A Dream To The Next Level” to implement IHAD programs on the scale needed for all of our American inner-city children. I think you would agree that the description of the project would comport with IHAD guidelines if it were done within the IHAD framework. It appears on the bulletin board for a monthly political-discussion group that I lead in the location of my Utah ski house. The group is patterned after 2-3 discussion groups of the NYC Harvard Club in which I participate, though my group sends six-degrees-of-separation e-mails to US decision makers, such as the President. (The paper appears on our bulletin board = http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org as part of our six-degrees-of-separation e-mail campaign following our January meeting – the concept had been proposed to President Obama in a previous six-degrees-of-separation e-mail campaign following our May 2009 meeting.)

Good luck to you both personally and with IHAD-National. (Although you say IHAD-National will run out of funding by the end of the year, that Perils-of-Pauline scenario sounds very familiar!!!).


Sincerely yours,

John S. Karls



************************************************************************************************************************************************
There follows the text of the paper referenced in the penultimate paragraph of the foregoing e-mail --


TAKING "I HAVE A DREAM" TO THE NEXT LEVEL

In 1981, a self-made multi-billionaire returned to his alma mater, Harlem Public School 121, to address the graduating sixth graders and, on sudden inspiration, promised them their college tuition if they would stay in school. Eugene Lang then provided tutoring and mentoring for the next six years.

“Identical twin” studies consistently show that inner-city children have the same average I.Q. as suburban children. It is their environment (typically 99% single-adult households, 90% of which are headed by a druggie, almost all of whom turn any receipts such as welfare checks over to the pusher so that the kids have to steal just in order to eat) that produces the typically SINGLE-DIGIT inner-city H.S. graduation rates (if measured correctly by including everyone who has dropped out before the beginning of H.S. and including everyone incarcerated or killed).

Eugene Lang’s original program and the follow-on 180 "I Have A Dream" Programs in 51 American cities by the 1990’s demonstrated that the typically SINGLE-DIGIT inner-city H.S. graduation rates typically increased to 65%-70%.

The key to success is a “surrogate parent” (typically a tutor or mentor) who cares about the “Dreamer” and makes clear to her/him that s/he could make something of her/himself with the IHAD Program and it “would break the heart” of the “surrogate parent” if the “Dreamer” failed to do so.

Indeed, it was discovered that about 50% of the female “Dreamers” typically became pregnant and, as a practical matter, did not graduate from High School and proceed to college. And that the difference was that a “surrogate parent” of the females who had not become pregnant had made clear that it would break the heart of the “surrogate parent” if the “Dreamer” had not taken advantage of the IHAD Program, while the females who had become pregnant felt there was nobody in their lives who cared what happened to them and they were going to create a human being who cared. Following the discovery of the importance of a vocal “surrogate parent,” Dreamer pregnancies became very rare and High School graduation/college matriculation rates reached the 90% level.

In contrast, virtually all other “good ideas” (incentive pay for teachers, charter schools, early-intervention programs such as “Head Start,” etc., etc.) have only a negligible impact.

From 1992-2008, IHAD was the darling of national politicians. Hillary Clinton had served on Gene Lang’s national advisory board until the 1991 Iowa caucuses and Gene Sperling, Bill Clinton’s chief domestic adviser, had done his PhD thesis on IHAD. Meanwhile, both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush did extensive fund-raising for both IHAD-Houston and IHAD-Boston (the latter was led by their nephew/cousin Jamie Bush) and George H.W. Bush was fond of saying that his famous “1,000 Points of Light” speech was inspired by IHAD.

However, it has become clear that relying on wealthy individuals to found and fund an IHAD Program and relying on sufficient volunteers to step forward as tutors and mentors will never amount to more than a “drop in the bucket”!!!

The only way to obtain “surrogate parents” and “surrogate siblings” on the scale needed is to bring to reality “magnet schools” that are so outstanding (and for whose graduates the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities will compete to admit) that suburban students will be attracted, but whose admittance to, and retention by, the “magnet school” will be conditioned on the suburban student and her/his family acting as a surrogate sibling and family for an inner-city student at the school.

It should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6/28/2007 reversal of “Brown v. Board of Education” in “Parents v. Seattle School District No. 1” which held that race cannot be used as a criterion for achieving diversity, will probably block state/local funding for such “magnet schools” even if they otherwise qualify as “charter schools.”

Nevertheless, creating as many such “magnet schools” as possible to demonstrate that Gene Lang’s “surrogate parent” idea can be taken to the scale required, is essential to the future of our country and its finally achieving the ideal of opportunity for all. Hopefully, the success of such “magnet schools” will inspire the federal government (which is not subject to “Parents v. Seattle”) to undertake such “magnet schools” for all inner-city children.

If anyone has any comments or questions, a wealth of information is available on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org or by e-mailing at ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com John Karls who founded and principally funded an IHAD Program serving 200 inner-city children and who served as Gene Lang’s volunteer national treasurer during the 1990’s.
johnkarls
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm


Return to Participant Comments – Helping Children Succeed: What Works and Why - Oct 19

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron