Re: Kaplan Inc. (Concord School of Law) Issue... ACLU Help Needed!

THE FOLLOWING WAS SENT 11/19/03 

November 19, 2003 

Honorable Chief Judge 
Donette W. Ambrose 
c/o 
Robert Barth, Jr. 
Clerk 
United States District Court 
Western District Pennsylvania 
1036 U.S. Post Office & Courthouse 
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219 
Via Facsimile (NUMBER REMOVED) 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Duty Agent 
3311 E. Carson Street 
Pittsburgh, Pa 15203 

Witold Walczak 
American Civil Liberties Union 
Greater Pittsburgh Chapter 
313 Atwood Street 
Pittsburgh, Pa 15213 
Vis Facsimile (412) 681-8707 

RE: Formal Complaint 

Dear Chief Judge Donetta W. Ambrose: 

In response to your letter dated November 17, 2003, please be advised
that the complaint addresses misplaced mail specifically address to
the Clerk and sent directly to the Clerk.

(1) On November 5, 2003, (NAME REMOVED) signed a U.S. Mail Return
Receipt, 7003 2260 0003 3717 9172. However, the mail, for a second
time, wasn't processed by the Office of the Clerk for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. That is the pleading wasn't docketed and the
mail has since disappeared.

(2) I placed an identification note on the mail specifically addressed
to the clerk's office to distinguish it from the courtesy copy mailed
specifically to Judge Cercone's chambers.

(3) The clerk's office denied the mail was received. 

(4) The Judges' chambers acknowledged receipt of the pleading, but
said "nothing could be done because a copy of the pleadings wasn't
first docketed with the Clerk's office."

(5) Later, the clerk's office suggested in defense of the missing
mail, that I had only sent mail to Judge Cercone (unaware that I had
placed an identification note on the pleadings).


Please supplement my complaint with the following "new" information: 

(1) On November 10, 2003, Jonathan Grayer, Chairman and CEO, Kaplan
Inc., 888 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10106, was served individual
copies of the complaint and summons in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(e) and with the Rules of Civil Procedure of the
forum state, i.e., Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure 403 and 404.

(2) However, an Order of Court dated November 7, 2003, with a postmark
plain and clear substantiating mailing after my filing of a Return
Service of the November 10, 2003, service of the summons and
complaint, suggest that the Order may have been issued after service
in accordance with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 403 and 404
was made on the defendants. See the Affidavit in Support of the
Request for a Temporary Restraining Order.

(3) The November 7, 2003, Order provides that, despite my In Forma
Pauperis status, I now must pay for Marshal service of the Complaint
and summons.

(4) The November 7, 2003, Order also denied the TRO without comment. 


Respectfully submitted, 
(NAME REMOVED)