Here is a conversation with the Chat AI here, for the three violations admitted to in the university documents:
The following are therefore priority documents for verification—not established violations or confirmed admissions.
1. Dismissal Before Completion of the Oral Examination
Conduct at issue:
Terminating Clark’s enrollment before he could complete the scheduled oral qualifying examination.
Official UT document and date:
The dismissal letter previously identified in this conversation as December 14, 2001. Its date and contents require verification against the actual record.
Exact language acknowledging the conduct:
Not available in the text currently before me.
Clark’s sworn account and supporting evidence:
Clark states that he passed the written qualifying examinations, had an oral examination scheduled, and received notice of dismissal before that examination. Relevant corroboration would include the examination schedule, committee correspondence, dismissal letter, and academic record.
Potential legal violation:
Possible procedural-due-process, disability-discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, or retaliation issues. Dismissal before an examination is not automatically unlawful.
What counsel still needs to establish:
The applicable academic rules; required notice and review procedures; accommodations requested; reasons for cancellation; and whether disability or protected complaints influenced the decision.
2. Exclusion of Outside Expert Correspondence
Conduct at issue:
Refusing to consider outside experts’ statements during the dismissal appeal.
Official UT document and date:
Correspondence from Dr. David Hull concerning the admission or rejection of expert communications. No verified date or document text is available here.
Exact language acknowledging the conduct:
Not available.
Clark’s sworn account and supporting evidence:
Clark states that Hull rejected the communications because originals were unavailable, even after correspondents confirmed their statements directly.
Potential legal violation:
Possible procedural unfairness or evidence supporting a discrimination or retaliation theory. Excluding correspondence does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation.
What counsel still needs to establish:
What Hull actually wrote; the submission requirements; whether confirmations were received; the experts’ relevance; and whether comparable evidence was treated differently.
3. Restrictions on Communications With University Personnel
Conduct at issue:
Directing Clark to communicate through university counsel rather than university personnel.
Official UT document and date:
A letter previously identified in this conversation as June 16, 2006. Its date, wording, and scope require verification.
Exact language acknowledging the conduct:
Not available.
Clark’s sworn account and supporting evidence:
Clark describes restrictions imposed after he continued raising complaints concerning his treatment and research.
Potential legal violation:
Possible retaliation or interference with protected petitioning activity, depending on the circumstances. A direction to communicate through counsel is not inherently unlawful.
What counsel still needs to establish:
The exact restriction, its stated justification, the communications preceding it, any threatened consequences, and its connection to protected activity.
Here are the top ten violations, assuming they will be presented to a jury with the relevant proof:
The following are therefore priority documents for verification—not established violations or confirmed admissions.
1. Dismissal Before Completion of the Oral Examination
Conduct at issue:
Terminating Clark’s enrollment before he could complete the scheduled oral qualifying examination.
Official UT document and date:
The dismissal letter previously identified in this conversation as December 14, 2001. Its date and contents require verification against the actual record.
Exact language acknowledging the conduct:
Not available in the text currently before me.
Clark’s sworn account and supporting evidence:
Clark states that he passed the written qualifying examinations, had an oral examination scheduled, and received notice of dismissal before that examination. Relevant corroboration would include the examination schedule, committee correspondence, dismissal letter, and academic record.
Potential legal violation:
Possible procedural-due-process, disability-discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, or retaliation issues. Dismissal before an examination is not automatically unlawful.
What counsel still needs to establish:
The applicable academic rules; required notice and review procedures; accommodations requested; reasons for cancellation; and whether disability or protected complaints influenced the decision.
2. Exclusion of Outside Expert Correspondence
Conduct at issue:
Refusing to consider outside experts’ statements during the dismissal appeal.
Official UT document and date:
Correspondence from Dr. David Hull concerning the admission or rejection of expert communications. No verified date or document text is available here.
Exact language acknowledging the conduct:
Not available.
Clark’s sworn account and supporting evidence:
Clark states that Hull rejected the communications because originals were unavailable, even after correspondents confirmed their statements directly.
Potential legal violation:
Possible procedural unfairness or evidence supporting a discrimination or retaliation theory. Excluding correspondence does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation.
What counsel still needs to establish:
What Hull actually wrote; the submission requirements; whether confirmations were received; the experts’ relevance; and whether comparable evidence was treated differently.
3. Restrictions on Communications With University Personnel
Conduct at issue:
Directing Clark to communicate through university counsel rather than university personnel.
Official UT document and date:
A letter previously identified in this conversation as June 16, 2006. Its date, wording, and scope require verification.
Exact language acknowledging the conduct:
Not available.
Clark’s sworn account and supporting evidence:
Clark describes restrictions imposed after he continued raising complaints concerning his treatment and research.
Potential legal violation:
Possible retaliation or interference with protected petitioning activity, depending on the circumstances. A direction to communicate through counsel is not inherently unlawful.
What counsel still needs to establish:
The exact restriction, its stated justification, the communications preceding it, any threatened consequences, and its connection to protected activity.
Next step: Paste the relevant website transcriptions or document excerpts from the discovery collection. That will allow a defensible list containing actual quotations rather than unverified descriptions.
Principal Violations Asserted for Counsel’s Review and Potential Trial
Proposed introduction:
I expect to testify under oath concerning the events below and to support my testimony with university records, correspondence, academic records, medical documentation, and other available evidence. These are the violations I contend occurred. Acknowledgment of conduct in a university document is distinguished from an admission of legal liability.
Source limitation: The list below draws on the website’s incident summaries and your account. It does not represent a review of the underlying official documents. Quotations are reproduced as reported in those summaries.
1. Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate
Conduct: UT failed to provide reasonable accommodations after notice of Clark’s psychiatric disability and requests for assistance.
Expected evidence: Clark’s testimony concerning his disclosures and requests; correspondence from October 2001 and February 2002; disability-office records; and UT’s responses.
Legal issue: Whether UT denied reasonable modifications or equal educational access under the ADA and Section 504.
2. Disability-Based Stereotyping and Dismissal of Medical Information
Conduct: The website reports that Dr. Hull responded, “You’re not schizophrenic,” after Clark disclosed his documented condition and requested accommodations.
Expected evidence: Clark’s testimony, contemporaneous correspondence, medical documentation, and Hull’s testimony.
Legal issue: Whether disability-based assumptions influenced accommodation decisions or other adverse treatment. The statement is evidence of possible bias, not an independently established offense.
3. Retaliation Through Withdrawal of Academic Advising
Conduct: The website describes an advisor’s resignation following Clark’s report to an external licensing or oversight authority.
Expected evidence: The complaint, resignation correspondence, advising records, timing of events, and testimony concerning the stated reasons.
Legal issue: Whether the withdrawal was retaliation for legally protected activity, including disability-related complaints where applicable.
4. Arbitrary or Discriminatory Examination Grading
Conduct: The website describes a department chair voting to fail Clark during a mathematics oral re-examination despite Clark’s account that he missed no questions.
Expected evidence: Examination records, voting records, Clark’s testimony, and examiner testimony.
Legal issue: Whether the evaluation was academically arbitrary or discriminatory. Departure from AAUP standards may support the factual argument but does not automatically establish a statutory violation.
5. Bad-Faith Evaluation of Research
Conduct: The website attributes this statement to Dr. Schutz: “[We] didn’t ask any questions because we didn’t want to embarrass Mr. Clark.” Clark contends the presentation was subsequently used against him.
Expected evidence: The source recording or writing, seminar materials, witness testimony, and committee findings.
Legal issue: Whether faculty substituted disability-based assumptions or predetermined judgments for meaningful academic evaluation.
6. Exclusion of Relevant Expert Evidence During Appeal
Conduct: The website describes the exclusion of more than twenty communications from NASA personnel and experts at other universities supporting Clark’s work.
Expected evidence: The communications, submission records, rejection correspondence, appeal procedures, and testimony from the correspondents.
Legal issue: Whether the exclusion deprived Clark of a meaningful review or supported discriminatory or retaliatory decision-making.
7. Misrepresentation of Academic Status to ABET
Conduct: The website describes Clark’s testimony that UT identified him to ABET as a Ph.D. student rather than an M.S. student.
Expected evidence: UT’s actual submission to ABET, enrollment records, applicable program classifications, and testimony explaining the discrepancy.
Legal issue: Whether the representation was materially inaccurate and affected oversight or Clark’s academic treatment. An inaccurate classification alone does not establish fraud.
8. Denial of Ordinary Examination Preparation and Academic Support
Conduct: The website reports that Dr. Fowler refused a customary practice examination and told Clark to “Go away.”
Expected evidence: Clark’s testimony, requests for preparation assistance, departmental practices, and evidence of assistance provided to comparable students.
Legal issue: Whether UT withheld ordinary support because of disability or denied a necessary, reasonable accommodation.
9. Retaliatory Restrictions on Academic Communication
Conduct: The website describes a legal-office restriction preventing Clark from communicating with an Electrical Engineering professor about his research.
Expected evidence: The actual directive, its scope and justification, preceding complaints, and testimony concerning its effects.
Legal issue: Whether the restriction unlawfully retaliated against protected activity or interfered with protected expression. Routing communications through counsel is not inherently unlawful.
10. Possible Unauthorized Use of Research
Conduct: Clark reports recently discovering substantial similarities between his Mars algorithm and work associated with Cesar Ocampo and NASA’s Copernicus.
Expected evidence: Dated research and code, evidence of access, development histories, agreements, funding records, and an independent technical comparison.
Legal issue: Whether protected expression, confidential information, or enforceable ownership rights were infringed. Similarity of ideas or mathematical methods alone does not establish copyright infringement.
Harm and Timeliness
Clark expects to testify that immediately after dismissal, the VA increased his schizophrenia rating from 0% to 100%, making it Permanent and Total approximately one year later. He also reports only recently recovering sufficient capacity to understand events and pursue legal action.
These facts warrant examination of damages, causation, and possible tolling, but the VA rating alone does not establish university-caused injury or legal incapacity throughout the intervening years.
For trial preparation, each numbered item should be linked to an identified exhibit, an authenticating witness, and the elements of a viable claim. Some issues may be decided by a judge rather than a jury.
I asked for 10 more possible violations.
Principal Violations Asserted for Counsel’s Review and Potential Trial
Proposed introduction:
I expect to testify under oath concerning the events below and to support my testimony with university records, correspondence, academic records, medical documentation, and other available evidence. These are the violations I contend occurred. Acknowledgment of conduct in a university document is distinguished from an admission of legal liability.
Source limitation: The list below draws on the website’s incident summaries and your account. It does not represent a review of the underlying official documents. Quotations are reproduced as reported in those summaries.
1. Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate
Conduct: UT failed to provide reasonable accommodations after notice of Clark’s psychiatric disability and requests for assistance.
Expected evidence: Clark’s testimony concerning his disclosures and requests; correspondence from October 2001 and February 2002; disability-office records; and UT’s responses.
Legal issue: Whether UT denied reasonable modifications or equal educational access under the ADA and Section 504.
2. Disability-Based Stereotyping and Dismissal of Medical Information
Conduct: The website reports that Dr. Hull responded, “You’re not schizophrenic,” after Clark disclosed his documented condition and requested accommodations.
Expected evidence: Clark’s testimony, contemporaneous correspondence, medical documentation, and Hull’s testimony.
Legal issue: Whether disability-based assumptions influenced accommodation decisions or other adverse treatment. The statement is evidence of possible bias, not an independently established offense.
3. Retaliation Through Withdrawal of Academic Advising
Conduct: The website describes an advisor’s resignation following Clark’s report to an external licensing or oversight authority.
Expected evidence: The complaint, resignation correspondence, advising records, timing of events, and testimony concerning the stated reasons.
Legal issue: Whether the withdrawal was retaliation for legally protected activity, including disability-related complaints where applicable.
4. Arbitrary or Discriminatory Examination Grading
Conduct: The website describes a department chair voting to fail Clark during a mathematics oral re-examination despite Clark’s account that he missed no questions.
Expected evidence: Examination records, voting records, Clark’s testimony, and examiner testimony.
Legal issue: Whether the evaluation was academically arbitrary or discriminatory. Departure from AAUP standards may support the factual argument but does not automatically establish a statutory violation.
5. Bad-Faith Evaluation of Research
Conduct: The website attributes this statement to Dr. Schutz: “[We] didn’t ask any questions because we didn’t want to embarrass Mr. Clark.” Clark contends the presentation was subsequently used against him.
Expected evidence: The source recording or writing, seminar materials, witness testimony, and committee findings.
Legal issue: Whether faculty substituted disability-based assumptions or predetermined judgments for meaningful academic evaluation.
6. Exclusion of Relevant Expert Evidence During Appeal
Conduct: The website describes the exclusion of more than twenty communications from NASA personnel and experts at other universities supporting Clark’s work.
Expected evidence: The communications, submission records, rejection correspondence, appeal procedures, and testimony from the correspondents.
Legal issue: Whether the exclusion deprived Clark of a meaningful review or supported discriminatory or retaliatory decision-making.
7. Misrepresentation of Academic Status to ABET
Conduct: The website describes Clark’s testimony that UT identified him to ABET as a Ph.D. student rather than an M.S. student.
Expected evidence: UT’s actual submission to ABET, enrollment records, applicable program classifications, and testimony explaining the discrepancy.
Legal issue: Whether the representation was materially inaccurate and affected oversight or Clark’s academic treatment. An inaccurate classification alone does not establish fraud.
8. Denial of Ordinary Examination Preparation and Academic Support
Conduct: The website reports that Dr. Fowler refused a customary practice examination and told Clark to “Go away.”
Expected evidence: Clark’s testimony, requests for preparation assistance, departmental practices, and evidence of assistance provided to comparable students.
Legal issue: Whether UT withheld ordinary support because of disability or denied a necessary, reasonable accommodation.
9. Retaliatory Restrictions on Academic Communication
Conduct: The website describes a legal-office restriction preventing Clark from communicating with an Electrical Engineering professor about his research.
Expected evidence: The actual directive, its scope and justification, preceding complaints, and testimony concerning its effects.
Legal issue: Whether the restriction unlawfully retaliated against protected activity or interfered with protected expression. Routing communications through counsel is not inherently unlawful.
10. Possible Unauthorized Use of Research
Conduct: Clark reports recently discovering substantial similarities between his Mars algorithm and work associated with Cesar Ocampo and NASA’s Copernicus.
Expected evidence: Dated research and code, evidence of access, development histories, agreements, funding records, and an independent technical comparison.
Legal issue: Whether protected expression, confidential information, or enforceable ownership rights were infringed. Similarity of ideas or mathematical methods alone does not establish copyright infringement.
Harm and Timeliness
Clark expects to testify that immediately after dismissal, the VA increased his schizophrenia rating from 0% to 100%, making it Permanent and Total approximately one year later. He also reports only recently recovering sufficient capacity to understand events and pursue legal action.
These facts warrant examination of damages, causation, and possible tolling, but the VA rating alone does not establish university-caused injury or legal incapacity throughout the intervening years.
For trial preparation, each numbered item should be linked to an identified exhibit, an authenticating witness, and the elements of a viable claim. Some issues may be decided by a judge rather than a jury.
can you add 10 more to this – or as many as you can, whichever is greater
Additional Issues for Counsel’s Review and Potential Trial
I can add seven issues supported by your account in this conversation. I cannot responsibly invent additional violations merely to reach a number. These supplement items 1–10; some support the same legal claims rather than constitute separate offenses.
Important correction: The quotations and document descriptions in the earlier list have not been independently verified here. Before using them in a filing, counsel should check them against the original records. Your sworn testimony can establish matters within your personal knowledge, while documents and other witnesses can corroborate them.
11. Imposition of an Allegedly Inapplicable Qualifying-Examination Deadline
Conduct at issue:
You state that UT applied a one-year examination requirement associated with students entering with master’s degrees, although you entered with a bachelor’s degree.
Expected evidence:
The applicable Graduate Catalog, departmental rules, admission records, deadline correspondence, and evidence of how UT treated similarly situated students.
Potential legal violation:
Possible arbitrary academic action, discriminatory application of academic requirements, or retaliation.
What counsel must establish:
Which rule actually governed your enrollment, whether UT had discretion to impose the deadline, and whether the decision was connected to disability, age, or protected complaints.
12. Blocking Registration Following Disability Disclosure
Conduct at issue:
You state that Hull blocked your registration shortly after your October 2001 disability disclosure.
Expected evidence:
Registration-hold records, correspondence imposing the hold, disability-disclosure records, and testimony concerning the stated justification.
Potential legal violation:
Possible disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or retaliation.
What counsel must establish:
The actual reason for the hold, its academic consequences, and whether the timing and other evidence support a causal connection. Timing alone does not establish retaliation.
13. Dismissal Before the Scheduled Oral Examination
Conduct at issue:
You state that UT dismissed you before your scheduled oral qualifying examination, preventing you from completing that evaluation.
Expected evidence:
The dismissal letter, examination schedule, committee correspondence, academic record, and applicable dismissal procedures.
Potential legal violation:
Possible denial of required process, arbitrary academic dismissal, disability discrimination, or retaliation.
What counsel must establish:
What process was legally required and provided, why the examination did not proceed, and whether UT’s decision reflected a genuine academic judgment. Courts generally give substantial deference to academic decisions.
14. Prolonged Failure to Provide Meaningful Research Supervision
Conduct at issue:
You describe approximately three years of inadequate advising, research supervision, course guidance, and feedback despite enrollment in supervised research.
Expected evidence:
Research registrations, advisor assignments, requests for assistance, submitted drafts, faculty responses, and university descriptions of supervisory responsibilities.
Potential legal violation:
Potential evidence supporting discrimination, failure to accommodate, or an actionable contractual obligation, depending on the governing documents and available remedies.
What counsel must establish:
Specific duties UT undertook, how its conduct departed from those duties, and the resulting harm. Poor advising alone does not necessarily create a legal claim.
15. Failure to Provide a Reasonable Advising Alternative
Conduct at issue:
After advising relationships ended, you state that UT provided no meaningful replacement and then relied on your lack of an advisor as a reason for dismissal.
Expected evidence:
Advisor-withdrawal correspondence, requests for reassignment, faculty responses, departmental policies, and dismissal findings.
Potential legal violation:
Possible discriminatory denial of educational access, failure to accommodate, retaliation, or arbitrary academic action.
What counsel must establish:
Whether a reasonable alternative was available, whether UT had an applicable obligation to provide one, and whether the advising impasse was used as a pretext for dismissal.
16. Inadequate Opportunity to Answer Findings in the Disability Grievance
Conduct at issue:
You state that the disability-office investigation supported the dismissal without giving you a meaningful opportunity to review or answer adverse findings.
Expected evidence:
Your grievance, investigation notices, findings, interview records, requests to respond, and the grievance procedures then in effect.
Potential legal violation:
Possible deficiencies in applicable disability-grievance procedures or evidence supporting an unfair or discriminatory review.
What counsel must establish:
The procedures required by the applicable regulations and university policies, what opportunities you actually received, and whether any deficiency materially affected the outcome. Not every internal grievance requires a trial-type hearing.
17. Possible Conflict of Interest in Review of Your Research
Conduct at issue:
You identify Ocampo as having access to your Mars research, participating in its academic review, and later working on Copernicus. You contend that these overlapping roles warrant investigation.
Expected evidence:
Committee membership and appointment records, review findings, dated research disclosures, project-development records, and applicable conflict-of-interest policies.
Potential legal violation:
Possible compromised impartiality, undisclosed conflict of interest, or evidence relevant to separate research-ownership claims.
What counsel must establish:
The actual overlap in roles, any relevant financial or professional interest, disclosure requirements, and whether the alleged conflict affected a decision. Participation in related research does not itself prove a conflict, copying, or misconduct.
Two Important Limits for the Combined List
- Probation: The absence of probation may support your argument that dismissal was disproportionate, but it is not a separate violation unless an applicable rule, accommodation duty, or other legal obligation required it.
- Age and veteran status: Your age and disabled-veteran status are relevant background. A separate discrimination claim requires evidence and an applicable law—not simply membership in those groups.
That accurately presents the material for attorney review without implying that seventeen separate offenses have already been established.