The stated reason for not letting me back can be found in their response to my Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (click here for response)
According to the response and an affidavit created by Dr. Tom Klein in a last minute attempt to stop the initial preliminary injunction (click here for affidavit) , the reason for the committee not letting me back was due to 5 reasons:
1) Plaintiff sending numerous harassing emails to staff members promoting campus security to block his email address and funel his email communications through Robert Hendrick, Director of Security;
2) Plaintiff appearing uninvited at the offices of members of TJU faculty and staff;
3) TJU staff reporting being afraid of Plaintiff and uncomfortable in his presence;
4) Plaintiff posting confidential patient information on his website and Myspace account;
5) Plaintiff causing the close of TJU's Office of Research Administration after Plaintiff told NIH personnel that he would be going to the office to "make things right" on October 9, 2006.
The following excerpt is taken from my reply brief (click here to see brief) to address these reasons for not letting me back in their response. It is clear that this affidavit of Dr. Klein was created last minute to stop the Preliminary Injunction granted by Judge Manfredi and contains proven to be false statements and other pretextual unfounded reasons:
2) The Plaintiff since the formation of the reinstatement contract never appeared uninvited at offices of members at TJU. The incident where Dr. Klein is referring to that plaintiff appeared “uninvited at the offices of members of TJU faculty and TJU staff” happened prior to agreeing upon the reinstatement contract and plaintiff was asking for his money that was due to him as a Principal Investigator of his NIH grant. As discussed already in plaintiff’s initial Memorandum of Law for this Motion, Jefferson admitted there was no specific threats ever made and admitted that they were wrong in withholding money and agreed to pay plaintiff over $4,000 that was due to him. Also, being the only student at Jefferson who was also a principal investigator on a NIH grant the plaintiff had obligations that no other student had, which those not realizing this might have thought it was strange to be seeing him there.
3) The members who reported being afraid of plaintiff misunderstood the behavior of plaintiff caused by medications. At the time of this alleged incident, plaintiff was shocked to hear about the desire of the University to dismiss him and his psychiatrist then doubled the amount of medication he was already on. The plaintiff was 45 pounds heavier, tremoring, extremely sedated, slurring his speech, couldn’t articulate full sentences, and likely wasn’t making much sense due to the excessive medication at the time following this increase of medication to extremely high doses of 1500 mg of Lithium and 20 mg of Zyprexa per day. Those who didn’t know the medication he was on or who did know of the diagnosis of bipolar disorder likely had a reason to feel uncomfortable in plaintiff’s presence due to the affect created by the excessive amount of medication, which was determined soon after in September by the Elmhurst evaluation, in which the plaintiff then started the process of slowly weaning off the medications. Also, as already discussed in detail in the initial memorandum of law for this motion, internal email communications have documented that the plaintiff never made any specific threats to anyone during this alleged occurrence of being afraid of plaintiff.
4) Plaintiff never posted information about this case on Myspace or any other website until after defendants decided in October 2006 to never allow him back. As for putting patient sensitive information about this case on Myspace or any other website, it would be completely impossible for a decision to never allow plaintiff back in October 2006 could have depended on this because the myspace site wasn’t created until November 2006 (See Exhibit “C”) and the only reason defendants knew about the site was because plaintiff sent an email in November 2006 telling them about it (See Exhibit “D”). Plaintiff put information about this case over the internet to garner support because he had no prior knowledge about the legal system, no friends or family he knew that could provide him any help and plaintiff needed support quickly to figure out what to do and he has gotten a tremendous amount of help through the internet, which if he never got, he likely wouldn’t be before the Court still today. Also after a closer look at the dates of the internet printouts attached as exhibits to Dr. Klein’s affidavit (See exhibit “E” for a complete copy of Dr. Klein’s affidavit-- the defendant’s in their response attached as their Exhibit “A” a copy of the affidavit missing the attached exhibits to it) show dates of 8/15/2007 and 12/6/2007 long after the decision to refuse to reinstate the plaintiff was made on 10/12/2006. Because of this, in addition to all the other intentional acts of deceit, it is more than likely than not that no special meeting ever took place that considered all the factors as Dr. Klein proclaims in his affidavit (an affidavit that was created last minute and attached to Jefferson’s initial Motion to Dissolve/Reconsider the order granting the first Preliminary Injunction request) and most likely in October 2006 he just determined plaintiff wasn’t allowed back because the University had no intentions of ever letting him back in.
5) The alleged statement to “make things right” even if made was by no means a threat. Finally the alleged statement of plaintiff coming to Jefferson to “make things right” to the NIH was already addressed in plaintiff’s initial memorandum of law in support of this motion and plaintiff does not remember ever telling anyone at the NIH this and even if he did make such a statement he never had any intentions of doing any harm to anyone and was hoping through open and honest communication from what he had learned through his doctors to be able to be reinstated then and have his NIH grant reactivated then and the only reason they perceived such a statement as a threat is because they knew of plaintiff’s past diagnosis of bipolar disorder.