Thirdpetition

Not fully proofread - beware

3rd Amended Petition

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA

DR. JOHN SWAILS, DR. TIM BROOKER, and DR. PAULITA BROOKER,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY, an Oklahoma Corporation; THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY; ORAL ROBERTS MINISTRIES, an Oklahoma Corporation; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORAL ROBERTS MINISTRIES; DR. RICHARD ROBERTS, ORU President; LINDSAY ROBERTS, ORU Regent; DR. MARK LEWANDOWSKI, ORU Provost; DR. WENDY SHIRK, ORU Dean; and DR. JEFF OGLE, ORU Associate Provost;
Defendants,

Case No. CJ 2007-06543

Judge Rebecca Brett Nightingale

ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

(stamped) PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1

THIRD AMENDED PETITION

COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Dr. John S wails, Dr. Tim Brooker. and Dr. Paulita Brooker, and for their causes of action against the Defendants: Oral Roberts University, The Board of Regents of Oral Roberts University, Oral Roberts Ministries,The Board of Directors of Oral Roberts Ministries, Dr. Richard Roberts, Lindsay Roberts, Dr. Mark Lewandowski, Dr. Wendy Shirk, and Dr. Jeff Ogle, allege and state:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1) The Plaintiff, Dr. John Swails, (hereinafter SWAILS) has served at Oral Roberts University, (hereinafter ORU) in excess of 14 years, where he was a Tenured Professor and Chair of the Department of History, Humanities, and Government. The Plaintiff. Dr. Tim Brooker, (hereinafter T BROOKER) was also a Professor at ORU since August of 2001, where he was recruited to coordinate the Government program and restore life to the dormant program. The Plaintiff~ Dr. Paulita Brooker, (hereinafter P BROOKER) was recruited and hired as an Adjunct Professor in the Department of History, Humanities and Government at ORU from August of 2004 until August of 2007. She became a full-time employee in the School of Lifelong Education in February of 2006, after being lured to ORU from her previous position with The Siloarn Springs Housing Authority; a position in which she was fully vested and in which she had accumulated eleven years of seniority.

2) The Defendant, ORU, is an Oklahoma Corporation, which was chartered in November of 1963. and is located and doing business at 7777 South Lewis Ave., Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Defendant. Oral Roberts Ministries, (hereinafter ORM), is an Oklahoma corporation, which was chartered in April of 1948, and is located and doing business at 7777 South Lewis Ave., Tulsa, Oklahoma. ORM owns ORU and has paid the Plaintiffs’ salaries during the entire periods of their employment. ORM is essentially a holding company which improperly and arbitrarily co-mingles the funds of ORU/ORM at the whim of those in fiscal control. Further, ORU acts as a “corporate veil” for ORM—rendering the separate financial status of the two corporations to be a pure sham. Therefore, the acts of ORU are synonymous with the acts of OEM. The ROBERTES have often stated: “We are a ministry which has a university.” The Defendant, Richard Roberts, (hereinafter R ROBERTS) is the President and CEO of ORU, as well as CEO of OEM, and has served simultaneously in these positions for approximately 13 years. The Defendant, Lindsay Roberts, (hereinafter, L ROBERTS) contrary to her assertions on national television, is paid a salary by ORU/ORM and wields great power on campus from her unspecified position. Defendant L ROBERTS is, however, a Lifetime Member of the ORU BOARD. Furthermore, both R ROBERTS and L ROBERTS are Officers of OEM. The Defendant, Mark Lewandowski, (hereinafter LEWANDOWSKI) is the current Provost of ORU and has filled that position since May of 2007. The Defendant, Wendy Shirk, (hereinafter SHIRK) is the Dean of The College of Arts of ORU and has filled that position since May of 2007. The Defendant, Jeff Ogle, (hereinafter OGLE) is the Associate Provost and Former Vice President of Student Services at ORU. and has filled those positions for approximately a decade. The Defendant, The Board of Regents of Oral Roberts University (hereinafter ORU BOARD) collectively compose the Corporate Directors of ORU. The Defendant, The Board of Directors of Oral Roberts Ministries (hereinafter, OEM BOARD), collectively compose the Directors of the corporate holding company known as ORM, and are ultimately responsible for supervision of OEM’s wholly owned subsidiary: ORU. This responsibility to supervise subsidiary corporations includes all actions of ORU Officers, Administration and employees.

3) All causes of action arose in Tulsa, Oklahoma. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction over the subject matter and Parties. Venue is also appropriate.

II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4) Plaintiff, T BROOKER, with a background in the fields of Diplomacy, Public Policy and Administration, Campaign Management, Talk Radio, and Mental Health Counseling was recruited and hired by ORU in August of 2001 to become the Coordinator of the Government Program of the Department of History, Humanities and Government Department. Under his leadership, the Government Program quickly grew from approximately 15 majors to over 200 majors within four years. The reputation increased to such extensive proportions that T BROOKER and SWAILS, the Chair of the Department, were personally approached by the Republican National Committee (hereinafter RNC), while they were in Washington, to be exclusively considered for a pilot program that the RNC had an interest in implementing. The RNC selected T BROOKER and ORU as the University to explore the development of this program in an effort to further Republican political efforts. T BROOKER, along with students from ORU, was involved in numerous political efforts during the next few years and experienced great success in these endeavors. However, all of this activity involved Political races outside the State of Oklahoma; with all costs and expenses involved paid by the RNC, or by another individual campaign committee. This arrangement maintained the compliance requirements of state and federal laws, including Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter IRC) section 501 (c) (3) and in preservation of the tax exempt status which was enjoyed by ORU. This strategy—of gaining service-learning experience by campaigning only outside of Oklahoma—was a consistent and well-known position by T BROOKER. Every Government student knew that one of Dr. Brooker’s mantras was: “We don’t do local politics because it turns neighbors into enemies.”

5) In December of 2005, T BROOKER was summoned to the Office of ORU President R ROBERTS for a meeting with President Roberts and Stephanie Cantese, (hereinafter CANTESE), R ROBERTS’ sister-in-law. CANTESE was introduced to T BROOKER as the Community and Governmental Liaison for the Oral Roberts Ministries. During this meeting, R ROBERTS instructed T BROOKER that it was time to utilize the talent and resources ofT BROOKER—as well as the students who had gained experience through his political program—in local political races. In an effort to convince a skeptical professor, R ROBERTS cited a Bible text, ‘First Judea, then Samaria, and then to the uttermost parts of the Earth” as a rationalization for directing T BROOKER to become involved in a race within R ROBERTS’ hometown: Tulsa, Oklahoma. R ROBERTS then directed T BROOKER to become involved in the Republican Primary for the office of Mayor of the City of Tulsa on behalf of Randi Miller— whom R ROBERTS and CANTESE had recruited and were supporting. At this point, T BROOKER resisted, explaining to R ROBERTS the implicit improprieties and the clear boundaries required by state and federal law, including IRC section 501 (c) (3); as well as the great danger of ‘turning neighbors into enemies.” However, R ROBERTS, remained undaunted by the applicable law and the offered counsel and persisted in his plan. Thereafter, there was a subsequent meeting with R ROBERTS—requested by Plaintiffs SWAILS and T BROOKER—and included T BROOKER’s entire chain-of-command, Plaintiff SWAILS, Dean George Thyvelikakath, and former Provost Ralph Fagin. T BROOKER again advised R ROBERTS—and his supervisors—of the potential IRS pitfalls and consequences of violation of the 501(c)(3) mandates through implementation of R ROBERTS intended course of action. Unfortunately, R ROBERTS again remained adamant in his position and remained firm in his direction to T BROOKER to follow R ROBERTS’ instruction. This edict from R ROBERTS, on behalf of ORU and as President of the Corporation—wherein university funds and resources would be used to favor a candidate in a contested, partisan race—was a direct violation of state and federal law; which expressly prohibits a tax exempt organization—such as ORU—from becoming involved in contested partisan political campaigns. This involvement in the Randi Miller campaign, as directed by R ROBERTS, substantially differed from previous out-of-state efforts; in which the expenses of T BROOKER and the ORU student/contractors were born by the RNC or another contracting campaign. In this instance, T BROOKER was informed by CANTESE that the ORU students ‘should be glad to work for Randi Miller without pay.” Furthermore, R ROBERTS’ edict and directive was in direct violation of the Articles of Incorporation of ORU and the Faculty and Administrative Staff Handbook and Policy Statement of ORU.

6) In May of 2006, ORU was contacted by the United States Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, concerning a complaint it had received about ORU’s involvement in the Randi Miller campaign. The IRS was investigating a potential violation of the 501(c) (3) statute that ORU had enjoyed for approximately 43 years. Within that directive, ORU was required to respond to a series of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Interrogatories. The IRS was specifically interested in any involvement by ORU’s administration—including R ROBERTS—as well as, the reasons for the participation of ORU students in the Randi Miller Campaign. Therefore, Plaintiff T BROOKER was directed to develop a narrative whereby Plaintiff T BROOKER was informed that he would “fall on the sword’ and accept full responsibility for all local politics] involvement and the resultant violations. This IRS inquiry was precisely the Outcome that Plaintiff T BROOKER predicted to be the likely consequence of R ROBERTS’ precipitous actions. T BROOKER was specifically instructed to cover-up the directives of R ROBERTS, and ordered to accept complete and total responsibility for the campaign involvement he had so vigorously opposed. In the words of then-Provost Fagin to T BROOKER, ‘At ORU, some people’s only role is to take the blame.’ Therefore, T BROOKER constructed two draft narratives in an attempt to provide Provost Ralph Fagin, pursuant to his direct instruction, with a document which would explain student involvement without disclosing the central role of R ROBERTS in the events. Both were rejected, and only on the third version of the narrative did three ORU Vice-Presidents-as well as ORU’s Chief Legal Counsel—accept the verbiage. Provost Fagin then utilized his own sanitized and inaccurate narrative—replete with incomplete and inaccurate information—to construct a sworn affidavit in response to the IRS’ questions; despite his full knowledge of R ROBERTS’ central role in ordering student involvement in the Randi Miller Campaign. Provost Fagin’s sworn statement, executed and sworn to under oath and on behalf of ORU, willfully and intentionally excluded the fact of R ROBERTS’ explicit instructions to T BROOKER. The result of this process was not only a complete cover-up by ORU and its Officers of all violations of federal and state lawn with regard to illicit university support for the Randi Miller campaign, it was also a massive misrepresentation, under oath, to the IRS. Defendants then accelerated their cover-up by initiating a series of punitive actions towards T BROOKER, in a transparent effort to portray the punishment of T BROOKER for his contrived wrong-doing, and to insulate their own culpability by making it appear they were disciplining T BROOKER for his involvement in the Tulsa Mayoral race—even though T BROOKER’s involvement had been duly ordered and was over his objections. To this end, ORU refused to pay T BROOKER substantially earned salary of approximately $18,000 for teaching administratively-approved summer school courses, and advising T BROOKER—a doctoral-level professor with twenty years of experience who earned a mere $42,000/year—that he ‘was making too much money as it was.” Further. T BROOKER suffered excessive and unnecessary harassment, loss of academic freedom, endured retaliatory and punitive conduct, and was subjected to public humiliation-all generated by Defendants on local and national levels, again, as a cover-up for the wrongdoing of ORU President R ROBERTS.

7) During the previously described period of time, an ORU student working for the Randi Miller campaign, provided to Plaintiff T BROOKER, a compilation of damaging information regarding Defendants, ORU, OEM, R ROBERTS and L ROBERTS. This information had been made available to him when CANTESE loaned her laptop computer—complete with passwords—to the Randi Miller campaign for use by the students. Absolutely no theft of files from Cantese’s home computer ever occurred—contrary to her recent assertions—the blame for students gaining access to this information lies squarely with her. CANTESE loaned and gave access to a computer—on which she had stored incriminating information—to any campaign volunteer.

8) This compendium itemized numerous and substantial acts of misconduct and improprieties by the Defendants, ORU, OEM, R ROBERTS and L ROBERTS. The material appeared to have been drafted and developed by CANTESE, in her position and within the scope of her employment as Community and Governmental Liaison for ORM. This internal document, according to R ROBERTS on national television, was provided to R ROBERTS at some point during 2004. CANTESE’S documents comprise a confidential assessment of potential vulnerability for legal, moral, political and ethical problems of R ROBERTS. L ROBERTS. ORU, OEM, and the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association resulting from itemized legal, moral, ethical, and financial lapses. T BROOKER, understanding the serious nature and apparent reliability of CANTESE’S Report, immediately delivered it to his Supervisor, Plaintiff SWAILS. Thereafter, upon prayerful consideration for approximately two weeks, Plaintiff T BROOKER provided the CANTESE Report to ORU Provost Ralph Fagin, who ultimately confronted R ROBERTS with this voluminous collection of impropriety. Soon thereafter, T BROOKER began to receive threats from CANTESE, in her capacity as The Community and Governmental Liason for ORM. CANTESE demanded return of all copies of her copied Files. This was an impossible demand in that Plantiff T BROOKER had given his original copy to Provost Fagin, and T BROOKER believed that there were multiple copies of the CANTESE Report in the hands of unknown students whose possession predated his own. The specific threats made by CANTESE included the termination of his wife—Plaintiff P BROOKER—from her then-new position at ORU; the termination of Plaintiff T Brooker; threats to harm and to interfere with the educations of the BROOKERS’ children; as well as, threats to attack BROOKER’S students enrolled in his programs—up to and including the cancellation of the Government major. The cancellation of this highly successful major—which under the tutelage of SWAILS, T BROOKER, and P BROOKER had blossomed to the fourth largest major on campus—has since been cancelled by Defendants R ROBERTS, LEWANDOWSKI, SHIRK, and ORU.

9) Unfortunately, neither ORU. ORM nor R ROBERTS performed any investigative or remedial action. This substantial documentation of immoral and improper conduct was handed to members of THE ORM/ORU BOARDS on July 16,2007, by Plaintiffs SWAILS and T BROOKER. The exact packet of information submitted to the BOARDS by Plaintiffs SWAILS and T BROOKER is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.’ (Bates Stamped pages 1 through 17). Therefore, after waiting fourteen months for action—and fearing that the CANTESE Report was about to be further disseminated by unknown students in possession of an original copy—T BROOKER and SWAILS provided Exhibit A” to THE BOARDS, which did much hand-wringing, hut took no action whatsoever. This reporting of wrongdoing to the governing body of the university immediately preceded the termination of all three Plaintiffs by Defendants R ROBERTS and L ROBERTS and the other herein named Defendants. Thereafter, Defendants conspired to discredit and rid themselves of Plaintiffs by engaging in improper and deceitful conduct, in an obvious attempt to insulate themselves from their inappropriate and illegal conduct. The OEM and ORU BOARDS remained as spectators, and passively watched as all three Plaintiffs were savaged both personally and professionally by those legally under their collective supervision and control. In addition, national reports from investigative journalists now indicate that numerous members of the ORU/ORM Boards personally enjoy lifestyle perquisites similar to those complained of by Plaintiffs. Their own participation in opulent and extravagant lifestyles doubtless made them callous to the point of negligence regarding the excesses of Defendants R ROBERTS and L ROBERTS.

III.
CAUSES OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT/WRONGFUL DISCHARGE

10) The Plaintiffs were employed pursuant to various written and oral contracts with ORU, but were compensated solely with checks issued by Oral Roberts Ministries, However, the Defendants breached their contractual obligations and agreements with the Plaintiffs, wrongfully terminating both S WAILS and P BROOKER, and wrongfully causing the resignation and constructive discharge of T BROOKER. through intimidation, harassment, and intentionally making or allowing T BROOKER’S working conditions to become so intolerable, that a reasonable person in T BROOKER’S situation would feel that he had no choice but to resign. On August 28, 2007, SWAILS was wrongfully discharged by Defendents LEWANDOWSKI and ORU, in direct violation of SWAILS’ contract and ORU’s Policies and Procedures. These actions were undertaken at the explicit direction of R ROBERTS and L ROBERTS, and on behalf of Defendants ORU and OEM. Furthermore, LEWANDOWSKI impounded SWAILS’ office; needlessly directed two Security Guards to publicly humiliate him; marched him from the building like a criminal: barred him from reentering the campus; and confiscated, then refused to return, any of SWAILS’ personal property—including his personal computer files. These files contained the original manuscript of Plaintiff SWAILS’ latest book. Defendant SHIRK was determined to persecute. humiliate and discharge T BROOKER, based upon factually inaccurate. anonymous reports and in the face of massive disconfirming evidence. Plaintiff T BROOKER was constructively discharged by ORU/ORM, R ROBERTS, LEWANDOWSKI and SHIRK; although SHIRK had never met or spoken with T BROOKER prior to his constructive discharge. Following the wrongful termination of T BROOKER, in clear violation of the terms of his contract with ORU, Plaintiff T BROOKER had hoped and even attempted to resolve this conflict without public attention or further scrutiny upon Defendants. However, his efforts to do so became impossible as a result of ORU’s contemporaneous and wrongful termination of T BROOKER’S wife, Plaintiff P BROOKER, and Tenured Professor, Plaintiff SWAILS. Thereafter, ORU and OEM began disseminating damaging and false gossip and information about T BROOKER, in an attempt to cause the public, in general; and the ORU community, in particular, to question the integrity of the Plaintiffs.

11) P BROOKER was wrongfully discharged in May of 2007 by Defendants, OGLE and ORU, in violation of ORU’s Policies and Procedures, and in breach of both oral and written contractual agreements. Furthermore, the recruitment process engaged in by ORU and OGLE, was false and misleading; wherein, P BROOKER was induced to leave her secure job through a series of misrepresentations during the hiring process by ORU and OGLE. In April of 2006, CANTESE, on behalf of ORM, ORU, R ROBERTS and L ROBERTS. pledged to destroy Plaintiff P BROOKER’s career if all copies of the incriminating documents were not returned to her—which was an impossible demand. Thereafter, those threats were carried out by the Defendants.

12) Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege, upon information and belief, that P BROOKER was also wrongfully discharged by OGLE in retaliation for the reporting of OGLE’S ongoing sexual harassment of a young, female professor in Plaintiff SWAILS’ Department. In protection of a young teacher Plaintiff SWAILS had convinced to join the faculty at ORU, Plaintiff SWAILS refused to drop his subordinate’s harassment claim against this powerful Vice-President, and informed Defendant LEWINDOWSKI and Defendant SHIRK of his intention to fully investigate his subordinate’s claims of sexual harassment and seek justice on her behalf. However, none of the Defendant;, including ORU, ORM, the ORU BOARD, or the OEM BOARD performed any investigation, took any action, and in due course, negligently forced the resignation of this courageous victim. This young professor has since left academia, and even left the country. In point of fact, Defendant LEW[NDOWSKI sent a chilling message to other female ORU employees when he constructively discharged the alleged sexual harassment victim for pursuing her complaint. Thereafter Defendant LE\VINDOWSKI added insult to injury by immediately promoting the alleged perpetrator: Defendant OGLE. Plaintiff P BROOKER was the only one of the Plaintiffs working directly for Defendant OGLE, and asserts that her firing was partially in retaliation for Plaintiff SWAILS’ pressing of his subordinate’s sexual harassment complaint against Plaintiff P BROOKER’s direct supervisor: Defendant OGLE.

LIBEL/SLANDER/DEFAMATION

13) The Defendants slandered the careers, reputations, and good names of the Plaintiffs, intentionally placing them in a false light as an excuse for their improper conduct and personal agendas, and because of the attempts by Plaintiffs SWAILS and T BROOKER, to act as whistle blowers concerning Defendants’ egregious, immoral and conspiratorial conduct.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS/OUTRAGE

14) The Defendants’ actions in the setting in which they occurred were so extreme and outrageous that their conduct went beyond all possible bounds of decency, and would be considered atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. The Defendants intentionally or recklessly conspired to cause severe emotional distress to the Plaintiffs, beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure. In point of fact, Plaintiff P BROOKER was hospitalized in July of 2007 as a direct result of the actions of the previously-mentioned Defendants.

LIBEL/SLANDER/DEFAMATION PER SE

15) On more than one occasion, Defendants R ROBERTS has libeled and slandered the Plaintiffs. accusing them of criminal conduct such as blackmail and extortion. These willful and wanton allegations by R ROBERTS were intentionally made to damage the Plaintiffs, ruin their reputations and constitute libel, slander, and defamation per se. On more than one occasion, Defendant OGLE has directly— or through surrogates and subordinates—willfully, maliciously, and falsely accused Plaintiff T BROOKER and Plaintiff P BROOKER of having been convicted of criminal activity allegedly associated with a “land swindle in Arkansas.” These untruthful allegations of criminality, made by Defendant ROBERTS and Defendant OGLE, have caused the Plaintiffs to suffer additional emotional distress, embarrassment, and damages.

NEGLIGENCE

16) The ORU BOARD and the OEM BOARD have exhibited a consistent pattern of negligence regarding their fiduciary and oversight duties to authorize and supervise the conduct of the other Defendants. An example was cited previously in the treatment of a young, female professor at ORU who bad the courage to report instances of sexual harassment; and was constructively discharged for her trouble. A second example of supervisory neglect occurred during the summer of 2007. The BOARDS allowed R ROBERTS and ORU to give a convicted sexual deviant unrestricted access to the students of the university, wherein several students and their families were defrauded of tens of thousands of dollars in a pyramid scheme. Prior to his association with 0EV, this man had confessed to a number of abhorrent sex-related crimes within the Court Systems of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, and Payne County. This “Mentor” for ORU Students had been personally endorsed and vouched for by Defendant R ROBERTS. The ‘Mentor’s’ most recent confession had been to the charge of exposing himself to a fifteen year old boy in a school bathroom, at a Basketball Camp

Missing page 13 here

meetings—involving three ORU Vice Presidents, was aboard a corporate jet. [Specifically, this jet was a Hawker Siddeley HS.125 Series 700A, serial number NA0256, N455BK. This jet was leased in 2003 for a period of five years at a cost of $1,809,185.00 from Tulsa Jet Management, Inc. The lease was signed by Tulsa Jet’s President, William L. Christianaen and by the Vice President of Finance and Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Oral Roberts Evangelistic Association: David J. Ellsworth. This is the same jet referenced in”Exhibit A”]

20) The Defendants and other officers of ORU, conspired with officers of ORU/ORM—including the Defendants—to discharge the Plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Defendants, and other officers of ORU/ORM, carried out their conspiracy to discharge the Plaintiff(s) against the advice of their own legal counsel. They then conspired to initiate a smear campaign against the Plaintiffs to insulate themselver from exposure, liability, or the consequences of their egregious conduct. This smear campaign has since been implemented by the Defendants.

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

21) The Defendants, in their official capacities, conspired and individually acted to interfere with the contracts and business relationships of the Plaintiffs. This interference was not undertaken in good faith or for a bona fide organizational purpose, but was a malicious, improper and intentional plan to harm and damage the Plaintiffs.

FRAUD

22) Prior so and during the course of the employment of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants provided false and misleading material information to the Plaintiffs, with the intention that it be acted upon by the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, the Defendants knowingly failed to provide thorough and truthful information regarding the Defendants ORU/ORM. The result of this deceit was that the Plaintiffs were induced to accept employment and to continue employment pursuant to false pretenses, misrepresentations and omissions. The Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon this fraudulent information and representations to their detriment, and continue to suffer damages.

IV.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF

23) The Plaintiffs, and each of them, seek Actual Damages in excess of $10,000, Punitive Damages in excess of $10,000, Attorneys Fees, Court Costs, Prejudgment Interest and any further relief that the Court deems just and equitable. In addition, Plaintiff SWAILS seeks retroactive reinstatement to his former position as Departmental Chair and Tenured Professor of History. This reinstatement would include an expungement of the record of his firing, all accrued back-pay, restoration of benefits, eligibility for promotion, and restoration of the Department of History, Humanities, and Government to the status quo ante.

Respectfully submitted,
RICHARDSON LAW FIRM, P.C.

Gary L Richardson, OBA #7547
Paul T. Boudreaux, OBA #990
Charles L. Richardson, OBA #13388
6450 S. Lewis, Suite 300
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136
Telephone: 918/492-7674
Fax: 918/493-1925

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 9th day of November, 2007, to the following:

Frank M. Hagedorn, Attorney at Law
Robert P. Fitz-Patrick, Attorney at Law
320 S. Boston Avenue, Suite 400
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74103-3708
ATTORNEYS FOR RICHARD ROBERTS

John H. Tucker, Attorney at Law
Jo Anne Deaton, Attorney at Law
Lindsay J. McDowell, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 21100
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74121
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License