In 2005 Dr. Bob Drake, an untenured teacher at Bronx High School of Science, contacted me to help publicize his fight against the principal of Bronx Science, Valerie Reidy. I believed what he told me, that he was a whistleblower of the well-known misconduct of Reidy, and agreed to do the story. (See Teachers Flee From Specialized High School Bronx Science in New York City to Escape From Principal Valerie Reidy's Intolerable Rule). Bob sent me several letters of his friends to post. One letter from another teacher at Bronx Science had his home address at the bottom. As this concerned me, I called Bob up, and he insisted that this person had given his approval. So, I posted the letters. As it turns out, after this person gave Bob his letter in support of Bob, Bob added the name of this person at the top and the person's home address at the bottom without telling the writer!

More than 1 1/2 years later I heard from one of the friends, who asked me to take down her letter. I took her letter off the website and yet it still showed up on the internet. So, I told her to call the people who have the server for my website, and talk with them about removing it. The web tech person took her letter down.

Then I heard from the other letter writer, and I took his letter off of the website as well. I called my web server people and asked them to check on getting the letter off of the server. I assumed that it was off, and I did not hear back from anyone until a few days ago, when a NYC teacher sent me the emails below. I had no idea that Bob Drake had placed the name and home address of his former friend on the letter before sending the letter to me for posting, and I consider this a major legal problem....for Bob. I immediately contacted my web people to see if the letter was on the server because I did not need the threats from Bob, but Bob sent emails to a group of my friends and my web company threatening me and saying that no one would want to be my friend when he was through with me. He actually counted down the hours to the time that my life would be altered forever AFTER the letter was removed!

I filed a police complaint with the New York City Police Department.

Then I received a letter from the Law Offices of Craig Delsack, telling me to take this article down immediately from my website "or else". Mr. Delsack tells me that Bob's photo, taken from his facebook page readable by anyone in the world (I have "unfriended" him already) has his website and resume available for all to read as well. My company, Theater Kids, Inc., has nothing whatsoever to do with my website, and my website is not incorporated and is written by me.

Before I go to the emails below, I would like to ask Bob Drake and Mr. Delsack a question:
What is false about my posts? The New York City Bar, American Bar Association, and the New York State Education Teacher Discipline Unit need to know.

Betsy Combier

My reply to Mr. Delsack (this is part of a brief I wrote on this same issue in 2005, and I won the case in the New York State Supreme Court in 10 minutes):

TO: Craig Delsack, Attorney

My Constitutional rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments protect my freedom of speech, and as a member of the press, my right to publish whatever I want on my website, in the first instance if all is true and factual, and in the second instance if the post has been already posted on the internet and I re-post it.

I am a journalist and reporter, a member of professional organizations and Editor of the website parentadvocates.org, dedicated to posting news stories on politics, education, and the Law as a public service, as well as stories of those individuals and organizations who are succeeding in making America a safer, more ethical and just society. I do not focus only on corruption, but we look at good works as well, and celebrate those who have enough courage to whistleblow the political, educational or judicial systems with The “A” For Accountability Award. Theater Kids, Inc. has no legal connection to the website/online diary called Parentadvocates.org, and no agent or information will be sent to you for any reason.

The claim of injury for an assumption of malice when there isn’t any cannot provide appropriate legal standing to move any Court for an injunction or Temporary Restraining Order. Here there is no showing of personal or proprietary damage to justify the violation of my Constitutional rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments. To gain standing, according to US Supreme Court Judge George Sutherland in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923): “a taxpayer must be able to show… he has sustained…some direct injury as the result of its’ enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indirect way in common with people generally.”

Dr. Bob Drake is listed with the New York State Education Department as a teacher of chemistry. As such, he is a public employee who must abide by the legal, moral and ethical guidelines provided by the State as well as by the Union contract. Bob sent the emails posted on my website to me, and they are now public proof of his character. The New York State Education Department investigators will decide whether or not his license to teach should be revoked, this is not under my purview. I am simply informing the public and Bob Drake’s employer of the threats and harassment that has already caused me physical and emotional distress. May I remind you that his picture is readily available on facebook, as is his resume. None of this information is secret (see printout below of Bob Drake’s public facebook page).

If there is no subject matter on which the judgment of the Court can operate, and hence a ruling would not prove “conclusive” and “final”, the issue becomes moot. Additionally, the federal courts are the primary interpreters of federal law.

The considerations of the court would be, if there was a valid issue at bar (which there is not):
1. How serious an injury will the petitioner suffer if the injunction is not issued?
2. How serious a detriment will the defendant suffer if the injunction is issued?
3. What effect, if any, will issuance of the injunction have on the public interest?

In the case at bar, I will suffer extreme harm if the injunction is issued, as this imposes a gag order on my work that applies to the case at bar, my ability to provide information on my website that refers to my discovery in the writing of my report, and in completing the discovery necessary for providing adequate evidence to the NYS Education Department for further action. No one can unduly restrain my freedom to speak and write what I believe is in the public interest, in this case the moral and ethical character of Bob Drake as shown in his own words.

In the area of injunctions against free speech, the element of public interest is of extreme importance. The policy favoring freedom of speech is so strong that practically no demonstration of harm by petitioner should overcome the court’s reluctance to restrain that freedom and preserve the public benefit that flows from maintaining a society of free and open communication. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment prohibits even the awarding of damages for defamatory falsehoods against public officials in the absence of a showing of willful or reckless disregard for the truth. New York Times v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is not the case in this instance.

Indeed, Bob Drake’s and your emails and letter are full of libelous allegations and harassing attacks on me that require addressing.

The principle of lack of standing has developed that unless petitioner can show that he/she suffered an injury different in kind, rather than merely in decree, from that suffered by the rest of the public affected by the ‘public nuisance’, he/she has no standing to bring the action. Only the appropriate public official, such as the Attorney General or district attorney has standing to prosecute the action. In this case, the assumed harm suffered by the petitioner is similar to that which might be suffered by the public generally, if and when a libelous statement is posted on a website, and differs only in, perhaps, degree. The reason for the principle here is that without the requirement of an interest in the petitioner different in kind from that of the general public, individual petitioners could bring innumerable suits involving great expense and harassment to the [respondent], and a decree in favor of the respondent in one action would not bar suit by other petitioners. For this reason, absent a special kind of damage that harms an individual [or entity] suing to enjoin a ‘public nuisance’, which Bob Drake and you allege that my websites are, standing is reserved to the attorney general or district attorney representing the public.

No Court has the subject matter jurisdiction or discretionary power to order prior restraint based upon assumptions of future libel and harm because a Court’s discretion must be focused primarily on the relative rights and interests of all of the parties involved, including mine.

If a “prior restraint” gag order is imposed on me to enjoin me from posting information I have gathered from public data, this is discriminatory, prejudicial, and a violation of my Constitutional rights to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and protection accorded me for “symbolic speech” and to “speech-plus-conduct”:
As much a part of the “free trade in ideas”…as in verbal expression, more commonly thought of as “speech”. It, like speech, appeals to good sense and to “the power of reason as applied through public discussion…just as much as, if not more than, a public oration delivered from a soapbox at a street corner. This Court has never limited the right to speak, a protected “liberty” under the Fourteenth Amendment…to mere verbal expression. (Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961))

As a reporter and member of the press, I see “public information”- that readily available to the average person - and it’s “public use” as constituting anything that contributes to the general welfare and prosperity of the whole community. Likewise, “public interest” is that which is best for society as a whole, and I believe that my quest to publish information on my website is factual and the truth.

As the Supreme Court in Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), observed,

“The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment. The exigencies of the colonial period and the efforts to secure freedom from oppressive administration developed a broadened conception of these liberties as adequate to supply the public need for information and education with respect to the significant issues of the times…Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historical function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.”

An order for prior restraint cannot withstand the constitutional principles for freedom of the press based on the recognition that “speech concerning public affairs…is the essence of self-government (Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)).

Consistent with “the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public”, in Associated Press v United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945), the Court reaffirmed that “Any System of prior restraint of expression…(bears) a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity” in New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

The Doctrine of No Prior Restraint was the touchtone for freedom of the press in English common law and generally assumed to be incorporated into the First Amendment:
“(T)he main purpose of (the Free Speech and Press) provisions is to ‘prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments’, and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare.” (Patterson v Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907)).

US Supreme Court Justice O’Connor, in Simon & Shuster, Inc. v Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991), wrote:
“the Government’s ability to impose content-based burdens on speech raises the specter that the Government may effectively frive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace. The First Amendment presumptively places this sort of discrimination beyond the power of government.”

In New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) the U.S. Supreme Court denied as a prior restraint the government’s attempt to enjoin the publication of the “Pentagon Papers:

“I believe that every moment’s continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment…’Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press…’ Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints…” (Justice Black)

Below is my email to Craid Delsack, Esq.:

To:
Craig Delsack
600 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022-1615
212-688-8944
CDelsack@NYCCounsel.com

Dear Mr. Delsack,

My answer to your threatening letter dated November 26, 2010 is posted on my website :

http://www.parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=7851

Please make note of the following additional information:

1. Bob Drake, your client, threatened me and my life as I know it and sent his threats to four of my friends and my web company, after I took down a letter that he did not write but added private information to without telling the author or me. Bob Drake's facebook page is where the picture came from (see article) and this page is not under any copyright. Please submit to me any copyright laws that you allege exist in your threatening letter.

2. A complaint was filed at the New York City Police Department (please see the article for the original) upon my showing the officers the emails Bob sent to me that are on my website and will remain there. Any further contact with my web company will be immediately be submitted to the Manhattan DA for criminal prosecution.

3. A complaint is being prepared to be sent to the New York State Education Department about Dr. Drake's moral character and I was told to leave the "evidence" up in order for investigators to do their investigation.

4. A complaint is being sent to the Attorney Departmental Discipline Committee (1st Department) so that your threats can be completely reviewed, for relief from your threats against my 1st and 14th amendment rights.

I have been in constant discussion with my attorney, and any further action by you will be met in kind, as is proper under the circumstances.

Sincerely,

Betsy Combier
Editor, Parentadvocates.org

Here are the emails sent to me from Dr. Bob Drake and a mutual friend (#1 only)
To; x,
From; Bob Drake

I just got a call from Van Caplan, formerly of BxScience, about a letter that Betsy posted on my behalf that includes his address and phone number:

CaplanVanLetter

He had a deranged woman show up on his doorstep and she told him how she discovered his address, and it was the above pdf. His address and phone number come up with even an abbreviated search.

Betsy has ignored his request to take it down. One of my other friends (Tehilla Rieser) had to PAY HER to take a letter down, I learned recently.

I have attached the same letter without his address.

Would you be willing to intervene?

He is threatening to sue. Since I gave the letter to Betsy, he came to me to get it down. I gave her the one with his address in error.

Bob

I told Bob that I had no idea that his friend had to pay my web person anything, and told him that as far as I knew, the link to Van Caplan's letter was off of the website and server.

Bob replied;

Email 1;
FYI.

You told mr that you had taken down Tehilla's letter and it was still accessible. She had to pay to take it down.

You say that you took down Van's letter but it is still accessible.

Please admit that you are wrong.

Bob

Email 2:
Re: Bob sent me the below E-mail and he would like me to "intervene."

Utter nonsense. The Internet does not work that way. The letter resides at the address I sent -- your website.

Tehilla has suggested I pay off your HTML jockey the way she did. How do I contact him/her? Please send me a phone number or email address for his/her place of business. I want to get the job done.

Thanks, and best wishes.

Bob

Email 3:
No, Betsy. You will not be involved with the negotiation with your webmaster. Period.

I want his/her phone or email immediately. The rest of the paperwork you propose you can place where the sun does not shine.

You have been ridiculous over this matter. I will not agree to ridiculous amounts of money for something you should be gracious enough to do for free. And the agreement will not be secret.

I will not be silenced. You have threatened me and I have a record of all of it. You are attempting to extort ME. It won't happen, Betsy. You drag my name through the mud I will drag yours through the mud. An eye for an eye. You have more to lose at this point.

Please send the phone number or email of your webmaster immediately and get out of the way.

Thanks, and best wishes.

Bob

Email 4:
from me;

Bob,
You are defaming me and you are lying about me to third parties. I was never paid to take anything off of my website. If Tehilla paid my web guy he did not tell me, and I dont do any technical HTML stuff, I have other people do that. If you go to my website and put the name Van Caplan in the search box you will see that his name is not on my website. But of course you didnt do that, as your agenda is to harass
and extort money from me. Your extortion wont work, Bob. Also, your first email is, I believe, wire/mail fraud.

I called my web people and asked them to locate the letter in question, and take it off my website The letter was removed.

Bob Drake
to Betsy Combier
date Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:30 AM
subject Re: Bob sent me the below E-mail and he would like me to "intervene."

The letter has been removed!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van CaVan Caplan thanks you! plan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! lan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you! Van Caplan thanks you!

I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you! I thank you!

I apologize for any inconvenience.

Bob

Email 5;
from me:
Dear Mr. Drake:

Do you honestly believe that after defaming me, attacking me, lying
about me and my character and work helping teachers, that your pitiful
"sorry for the inconvenience" is sufficient?
Betsy,

from Bob:
It's "Dr. Drake" to you.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Betsy.

You removed the Caplan letter within 24 hours of my request. I thanked you for doing so.

"Thank you," is common courtesy. Most people would respond, "You're welcome."

You have now threatened me, tried to export money from me, and insulted me.

You really need to consult with your ParentAdvocates.com colleagues before you make any more threats.

They may be the only friends you have at this point.

What goes around comes around, Betsy.

Best wishes,

(Dr.) Bob Drake

Bob Drake
to me, Dave, Karen, Polo, April, Harvey400

You have 24 hours to apologize to me for your threats, extortion and insults.

I expect the apology to be in the form of a letter.

Thanks, and best wishes.

Bob Drake 12:17AM

You have 11 hours to issue an apology for your threats, attempt at extortion, and insults.

You have been warned.

Bob Drake

Dr Bob Drake
to me, PoloColon1, harvey400

show details 1:51 AM (37 minutes ago)

You have ten hours to apologize for your threats, attempt at extortion, and insults.

You have been warned.

Betsy,

You clearly forgot to take your pills.

You and your website (you refer to it several times as "my website") used to be a force for good in the education community, supporting those mistreated by the DOE. I send others to you.

However, you were asked to remove two letters dating from 2005 from your website at the request of my former colleagues who wrote them, because their letters included their home addresses. You claimed that you had, but in your ignorance of web design you removed the links on your pages but failed to remove the documents themselves. As a result they were still accessible through a Google search. You kept denying that the documents persisted at your site despite the Google evidence. You claimed someone had "downloaded them" despite your URL -- utter nonsense.

One colleague was forced to pay to have her letter removed. She has also stated that you threatened her. After she paid, the letter was finally removed.

Despite that previous experience, you recently claimed that a letter by a second colleague had been removed from your site despite Google evidence to the contrary. You claimed that you had no knowledge of HTML code and had no way to remove it, yet after I wrote a letter to your web hosting service you found a way to remove the second letter quickly.

But not before you threatened me, attempted to extort money from me to remove the second letter under onerous requirements, which I refused to pay, and then have insulted me, despite the fact that I thanked you for removing the letter that you had denied existed.

I gave you 24 hours to issue an apology for the threats, extortion attempt, and insults.

You have 9.25 hours left. And now you have even more to retract.

One who has examined the total of our correspondence in this second letter matter has labeled you "one sick dude."

Take your pills, Betsy, and set to writing the letter of apology I have requested.

Thanks, and best wishes.

Bob Drake

Dr Bob Drake ,
betsy.combier@gmail.com
cc "aergoodman@aol.com" ,
"flowers.js@gmail.com" ,
tprieser ,
"MBGladstone@aol.com" ,

date Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:06 AM
subject Re: Dr. Bob Drake threatens Betsy Combier
mailed-by gmail.com

3:06 AM

Dear Ms. Rieser,

Please describe in detail the threats that Bob Drake says you told him I said in the email below. Please respond no later than thursday, 5PM.

Bob, please give me the name of the person who calls me a "sick dude" no later than thursday, November 18, 2010, 5PM.

Thank you!!!

B

Email 6;
From Bob
Dr Bob Drake 8:36 AM November 18, 2010
Dear "One Sick Dude,"

FUTUE TE ET IPSUM CABALLUM! ("Fuck you and the horse you rode in on")

You have 3.5 hours left to provide a letter apologizing for your threats, attempted extortion, and insults.

Thanks, and best wishes,

Bob Drake

from Betsy to Bob Drake 2:14PM November 18, 2010
Dear Bob,

I filed agravated harassment charges against you at the New York City police department today at 11:45AM, and I am filing a complaint with the New York State Education Department.

(not sent is the following: It seems that the latest entry in Bob Drake's resume, the SAR High School, in Riverdale, 2010, was Bob's employer for 5 days. They fired him again.)

From Bob Drake 4:03PM
You show great initiative. Go to the head of the class.

I have been busy, too.

As I've said before, what goes around comes around.

Bob

From Bob Drake: 3:24PM November 19, 2010
Again, you lie.

I HAD permission to send you Van Caplan's letter on July 23, 2005. He changed his mind on or before August 14, 2005, and you were instructed to substitute the letter WITHOUT his address for the one WITH the address. You failed to do so. You are liable, not me.

You have knowingly filed false charges against me with the NYPD, if, in fact, you did. Detective Cooper of the 50th Precinct has read your web page about me and determined from the emails that you posted as "evidence" that I HAVE NOT MADE ANY THREATS AGAINST YOU WHATSOEVER.

Since you have refused to apologize, and have posted the defamatory website filled with lies, I will shortly start my defense in the education community, with every blog, commentary, available, including my own. My own blog will feature ALL of your emails including the threatening ones you failed to post. It will also include the documents from 2005 and 2006 showing that you were asked to remove Van Caplan's letter on August 14, 2005, and that you did not. At his request I will attempt to redact his name from any such documents.

I don't know how many friends you have left, Betsy, but I predict that when people read your own words you will have fewer of them shortly.

Best wishes,

Bob Drake

Dr. Bob Drake, formerly an untenured teacher at Bronx Science High School in the Bronx, NYC, used to stand outside of the high school and hand out yellow ducks, because, he said, the principal was a 'quack'. He became the talk of the school and got more than his 15 minutes of fame. Bob actually was right to question where Valerie Reidy, Principal, got her "Dr." degree from, and several years later was still talked about with great fondness (he was fired for his "quack" campaign):

Students walk out in Bronx Science protest
By Candice M. Giove, Riverdale Review
LINK

Students at the Bronx High School of Science wanted their principal - Valerie Reidy - to get their message, so they packed up their books and walked out of school this past Tuesday morning.

They slowly trickled from the prestigious school's 205th Street building at 10:45 a.m., ditching subjects like math, Spanish and English in order to voice their anger with an administration, which, they claim, kicked a number of teachers to the curb and pushed others to leave. In groups they crossed the street and created a mass 200-strong on the steep incline of grass at Harris Field facing the building.

"Enough is enough," said Chelsea Crowe, a senior. "Some of our favorite teachers are leaving and have left because they don't want to deal with what the school is doing to them already."

The body of students held placards that read "We Love our Teachers," "I'm a Doctor Too, A Ph.D. in my rights" and "Quack is Whack," referring to the 2005 No-Quack campaign that criticized Principal Valerie Reidy for attaching a "Dr." prefix to her name, although she was bestowed only an honorary degree from her alma mater, The College of Mount Saint Vincent.

Dr. Robert Drake was a casualty of the 2005 campaign. The highly qualified chemistry teacher was fired, after handing out flyers regarding Reidy's honorary title at the school.

The students at the walk-out said that 15 teachers have left or have been fired as a result of the administration's tactics.

"Teachers have been getting kicked out left and right, teachers that are overqualified for their jobs here and you know that they should be making more money. But they stay here to teach the kids and over little things that really don't matter-you know one of the teachers is in trouble for not having worksheets while we're watching movies-it's really simple things that they're getting in trouble for that really aren't worth it," explained Dennis Shirshikov, a senior who walked out of college math.

As the crowd amassed on the grass near Harris Field, students shouted slogans like "One, two, three, four, we won't take it anymore," and yelled demands for Reidy to come outside. The swelling crowd of students varied in age, and the common disgust with the school's leadership smudged the lines usually drawn around high school cliques.

Many of the students felt that there was no other way to express their disappointment with the school's handling of teachers and some of their other concerns.

"Everything else we've tried-flyers, trying to get parents involved-hasn't been effective. This is kind of a last resort," said senior Michel Dussack, who wore a "no-quack" button and left his English class to take part in the demonstration.

"We want change in the administration," he added.

Dussack said that he also took issue with violations to free speech rights. Students wearing pins, like the yellow one he wore to the rally, have had them confiscated or have been questioned and punished by administrators.

"It's a violation of first amendment rights and it's been established in court cases that symbolic speech is protected under the first amendment," he said.

One student chose to wear a yellow duck costume to the rally. Dakota Pite, a junior, said that he wore it on Halloween, and on days since, because of its meaning at the school.

"I'm out here because the principal of our school is a quack, because the administration of our school hates all of the hard-working nice teachers that go to our school, they hate all the hard-working, nice students that go to our school. They enact horrible cutting policies. They fire teachers for no reason," Pite said, after walking out of history class.

Principal Valerie Reidy said that the students were completely wrong.
"It's inaccurate," she said. "Fifteen teachers have not been fired or left the school because of my administration."

Reidy said that teachers who are no longer with the school left for other reasons: retirement, sabbatical, maternity leave, and to seek higher salaries at other schools.

"I'm disappointed in our students. This is the Bronx High School of Science. They should have checked their facts," she said.

The students alleged that Helen Kellert, an English teacher, was set to be fired. Reidy also denied that charge. She said that she was made aware of that concern after the student organization she meets with regularly told her about the tenured English teacher this morning.

Kellert could not be reached for comment as of press time.

Bob then got a job on long island, where he was fired three months later, and finally ended up in Connecticut where he stayed three years before being fired.