Who Is Joseph Martin Carasso?

In a city teeming with attorneys, it might have been assumed that Susan O’Malley could have found a First Amendment or libel law specialist to file her $2 million lawsuit against Sharad Karkhanis.

Instead, the former UFS chairperson/PSC executive committee member turned to a 54-year-old entertainment attorney named Joseph Martin Carasso. A graduate of the William Mitchell College of Law (not an institution many would confuse with a Tier-I law school), Carasso’s Lexis/Nexis entry lists his specialties as entertainment litigation and personal injury matters.*

Carasso also served as consultant to a 2003 film called How Do You Spell Murder?, which “documents the L.I.F.E. literacy program at the New Jersey State Prison, one of the few inmate-run literacy programs in the United States.” He also has advertised himself as providing “low-cost legal advice for independents.”

It’s not clear how any of this experience—or, presumably, his personal injury lawsuits—prepared Carasso for filing what Brooklyn College professor Mitchell Langbert has termed a case “consistent with the long-observed deterioration of universities’ willingness to tolerate dissent,” which “may suggest an extension of this deterioration to universities’ use of the courts to suppress external criticism.”

In an interview with the New York Sun, O’Malley termed her cause of action “very, very silly.” Perhaps that’s why she had to turn to an entertainment and personal injury lawyer to get an attorney willing to file the suit.

Publius

*--corrected, in light of Carasso's subsequent denial of an association with ARP

Paranoia As Defamation?

Among the oddest of the many odd claims in Susan O’Malley’s $2 million lawsuit against Sharad Karkhanis is the following item:

“Plaintiff fears that people who only know her through [The Patriot Returns] . . . will harm her.”

Why? Because Karkhanis noted (correctly) that O’Malley had supported the employment at CUNY of people convicted of or charged with terrorist-related activity.

The inclusion of this clause suggests the close coordination between the former PSC executive committee member’s lawsuit and the PSC leadership: PSC spokesperson Deborah Benz, asked for a comment on the suit, replied, “Free speech, however, has limits . . . in a post-9/11 world.” (This is from the same union leadership that said it was OK for Brooklyn College’s Tim Shortell to term all religious people—including his religious students—“moral retards.”)

One major problem with O’Malley’s claim: the law—at least to date—doesn’t allow paranoid musings to be offered as evidence. And O’Malley appears to have no other grounds to substantiate her claim.

The former UFS chairperson says that she’s afraid people “will harm her.” Has she received any threats of harm? The complaint mentions none.

Has she filed a report alleging threats with the Brooklyn Police? Or with CUNY Security? Again, the complaint mentions no such action.

In recent years, critics of neoconservative theorists have contended that the neocons’ theories have actually promoted rather than combated terrorism. By O’Malley’s reasoning, each and every person who has made such a criticism of the neocons (including some of the PSC upper leadership) has opened themselves up to a $2 million lawsuit. Surely the neocons have as much reason to fear that people “who only know them through” the anti-war criticism that their policies have promoted terrorism “will harm them” as O’Malley does to fear people who only know her through The Patriot Returns.

We no longer live in 17^th century Salem, Massachusetts: the long hand of the law cannot impose sanctions just because an influential figure—like O’Malley at CUNY—feels afraid.

Publius

Candid O'Malley

A recent court filing contained some highly unflattering descriptions of former UFS chair and PSC executive committee member Susan O’Malley. Readers learned that some consider O’Malley:

• “a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal, and ‘terrorist’ character, who supports ‘terrorist’ activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without regard for the CUNY academic community, who acts purely for her own selfish reasons, and not for the best interests of the academic community, who believes in those who practice or preach terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability or influence to secure jobs for criminals and ‘terrorists’ instead of and at the expense of decent upstanding citizens and law-abiding Americans.”

• “a thief, a person of dishonest and disreputable character, who works for her own selfish interests and against the best interests of the CUNY academic community, who improperly takes money and/or dues from the PSC and uses them for her own benefit, and further a person who dislikes and looks down on her academic colleagues and staff.”

• “unscholarly, lacking scholarly excellence, and characterize[es] her academic achievements dishonestly.”

• “a person of lazy and disreputable character, and who was working for her own selfish interests . . . She dislikes teaching, mistrusts her staff and colleagues, and is in all respects a person who has failed to contribute anything of value to her students, CUNY governance, and the CUNY academic community.”

• “a person of disreputable character, who participated in a demonstration in front of Chancellor Goldstein’s home and who advocated demonstrations of no value or merit for her own interest and against the interest of the CUNY academic community.”

None of those descriptions of O’Malley came from Sharad Karkhanis, the person that O’Malley is suing for $2 million in a lawsuit that she herself has described as “very, very silly.” Indeed, apart from the word “terrorists”—Karkhanis’ description of Susan Rosenberg and Mohammed Yousry, both of whom were convicted of terrorist-related activity—none of those words appeared in any Karkhanis publication to describe O’Malley.

Instead, these descriptions of O’Malley all come from O’Malley’s attorney, Joseph Martin Carasso, an entertainment law specialist that O’Malley prevailed upon to file her “very, very silly” lawsuit. Given that Carasso’s descriptions of O’Malley are far more severe than anything Karkhanis has written about her, will Carasso be next in line to experience an O’Malley lawsuit?

Perhaps that’s why Carasso had demanded—in what would be an extraordinary provision—a court order that “all pleadings, papers, exhibits and other matters filed with the Court in this action be sealed.”

Publius

O'Malley v. Karkhanis: the Complaint

A recent posting in Mitchell Langbert’s blog, “...Does Mad Magazine Defame?” provides the greater part of the text of the full complaint in the libel case of O’Malley v. Karkhanis. If, as Publius notes below, “Sue” wins the day, lampooning will be illegal at CUNY, and soon across the American academy. O’Malley’s suit may be “silly,” but the implications are not.

Brutus

Silencing Sharad Won't Be Simple

At the Democracy Project blog, Phil Ornstein recounts Sharad Karkhanis’ decades-long efforts in the cause of free speech in India and the United States. Phil also reminds us that this is not the first time that Susan O’Malley has tried to silence her most effective (and amusing) critic:

“In 1996, faculty union official and former chair of the CUNY Faculty Senate, Professor Susan O’Malley ordered Karkhanis to stop publication of TPR. Fearing repercussions to their careers, other critics bowed to O’Malley’s repressive exploits but Karkhanis refused to be silenced.”

If Sharad was willing to run the risk of disagreeing with Indira Ghandi, he is well able face the wrath of CUNY’s “Dear Leader” and Prof. “Sue.” The latter would be well advised to drop her "silly" lawsuit soon.

Brutus

O'Malley's Curious Claim

In recent years, Sharad Karkhanis has mocked PSC head Barbara Bowen as the “Dear Leader.” The details of former UFS chair/PSC executive committee member Susan O’Malley’s complaint against Karkhanis (in a case that O’Malley herself has termed “very, very silly”) suggests that absolutist tendencies aren’t confined to the union’s leader.

Indeed, the complaint is chilling, essentially suggesting that expressing skepticism about the PSC/UFS leadership’s motives—even in the context of election campaigns—constitutes grounds for a defamation suit.

Portions of O’Malley’s complaint—penned by entertainment attorney Joseph Martin Carasso—appear to be based on the premise that the court system should be used not to redress grievances but to bolster a client’s self-esteem.

Carasso tells the court that:

• “SUSAN O’MALLEY is a distinguished scholar and teacher”;

• O’Malley “has many friends and associates among her fellow faculty”;

• O’Malley “has served with distinction in various CUNY university and governance roles”
  

• His client received a UFS resolution honoring “her great humanity and her intelligence, and acclaiming SUSAN O’MALLEY as a worthy and eminent leader.”

• “SUSAN O’MALLEY worked hard for her achievements”

• “SUSAN O’MALLEY’S life has been devoted to teaching, scholarly research, and governance at KCC and CUNY.”

• “SUSAN O’MALLEY had a distinguished career as a scholar and teacher, and has made outstanding contributions to university governance and to the Faculty Staff Union.”

Is it O’Malley’s belief that to publicly challenge any of these cozy descriptions of herself constitutes defamation?

Perhaps because his background is in the entertainment world—where shameless flattery is the order of the day—rather than libel law, Carasso went overboard, and in the process appears to have fatally undermined his client’s already feeble case. Included in Carasso’s paeans to O’Malley is this highly revealing clause:

SUSAN O’MALLEY has acquired and retained a high standing and reputation among the CUNY academic community for her advocacy of high academic standards and accessibility of higher education, her humanity and intelligence. [emphasis added]

O’Malley’s entire lawsuit is based on a claim that Karkhanis’ allegedly defamatory attacks have ruined her reputation. Yet here is her own attorney affirming—under, he writes, penalty of perjury—that O’Malley retains “a high standing and reputation among the CUNY academic community.”

So what, exactly, is her case?

No wonder O’Malley has termed her action a “very, very silly” lawsuit.

Publius

O'Malley at the MLA: Defamed, but not Discouraged.

Despite claims that Sharad Karkhanis has caused her profound psychic and professional harm, CUNY’s Prof. “Sue” has been rather busy at the 2007 meeting of the MLA. The Radical Caucus in English and Modern Languages presented two resolutions to that body’s Delegate Assembly: one on Zionism; the other on Ward Churchill. Since “Sue” serves as the RC’s Executive Director, we presume that both resolutions express her sentiments, and as such should be shared with her admiring public:

On Zionism and its critics:

“Whereas some organizations and individuals have urged that faculty, writers and speakers who criticize Zionism and Israeli policies be denied tenure, disinvited to speak, speak only when “balanced” by a pro-Zionist speaker, or be fraudulently called “anti-Semitic”; and

Whereas this constitutes a serious danger to academic study and discussion in the USA today,

Resolved that the MLA defend the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech of faculty and invited speakers to criticize Zionism and Israel.”

On Ward Churchill:

“Whereas, upon criticism of Professor Ward Churchill for his remarks concerning the 9/11 attacks, the University of Colorado initiated proceedings against him, and investigations of his scholarly work, and removed him from his directorship of the Ethnic Studies Dept. and subsequently from his tenured teaching position, and

Whereas such acts of retribution threaten free expression in the university setting, particularly against those in historically marginalized disciplines,

Be it resolved that the Modern Language Association condemns this action of the President and Regents of the University of Colorado.”

That the radical “Sue” would rally to the support of Ward Churchill is not surprising. Nor is the anti-Israel bias of a long standing member of the PSC’s New Caucus and Executive Board. But O’Malley’s asymmetric approach to issues of free speech is astonishing. While her attorney is filing a full civil complaint for libel and defamation in New York, she is running through the corridors at Chicago’s Hyatt Regency and shouting that academic freedom is in jeopardy! Not bad for someone who, supposedly, has been sorely wounded by Sharad’s virtual slings and arrows. We marvel at her recuperative powers, or perhaps at her hubris.

Brutus