May 10, 2004

June 1, 2004

Honorable Judge Madeline Cox Arleo,

United States District Court

District of New Jersey (Newark)

Martin Luther King Building and US Courthouse

50 Walnut Street, PO Box 419,

Newark, NJ 07101

RE: Thakar v. John F. Kennedy Medical Center, et al.

Civil Action No. 03-4536 (JAP)

Subject: 1. Requesting Continuance

2. Substitution of Attorney

3. Denying voluntary dismissal of charges

4. Permission to serve Subpoena (two)

Dear Honorable Judge Arleo,

I received defendant’s motion for dismissal along with the exhibits last week. Upon reviewing it, I realized the urgency of a professional help in drafting as well as presenting the response to the motion. With this letter, I would like to request continuance until I find substitute attorney, on following grounds.

1. Defendant’s motion and brief contains some complex issues that could only be best defended by an experienced attorney in the employment field.

2. I am unable to be present physically for the oral argument phase of the motion due to geographic – being in California - as well as financial reasons.

3. My ex attorney Mr. Tan has shown complete lack of professionalism in to presenting my case. Reviewing the transcript, due to his actions or incomprehensible vacuum of it, I am under extra pressure to meet the deadlines among other matters.

4. Analyzing the entire attorney client relationship with Mr. Tan has brought several facts in the light. There is a strong shroud of suspect actions by Mr. Tan, for the simple reason, no practicing attorney in US could perform so dreadfully in his or her own field. I will be asking New Jersey Bar Association to look in to his performance in my case and compare it with his other cases. If there is any intentional nonperformance by Mr. Tan, I must defeat the purpose as well as force(s) behind it by finding a better representation instead of going pro se.

Even though I have met infinite roadblocks and failures in the past in finding a professional and competent representation, at this juncture, I have no other choice but hope and find such representation as soon as possible. To continue without it would be devastating to my case. I am actively seeking an attorney and if a continuance is granted by your honor, it will give me time and opportunity to find such representation.

I would also like to take this opportunity to explain my reasons for denying voluntary dismissal of the charges mentioned in defendant’s motion. Even though a formal response to the motion is to be filed soon, by substitute attorney if court permits, I will try to express my thought process for the same as follows.

1. Defending Count one, Employment Discrimination:

a) Serial continuing violations:

Since my wrongful termination, there have been multiple events that either led to or created circumstances that prevented me from filing the charges in time. Fraud with my medical license is one such event. The later is a cause of daily harm to my career and deprives me of resources that would other wise enable me to buy a professional representation instead of seeking it on a contingency base. Strong evidences supporting medical license fraud and other events mentioned will be provided.

Quoting EEOC compliance manual *-

‘ If a disputed event is related to other discriminatory actions that continue into the filing period, however, then the related actions constitute a continuing violation. Under such circumstances, a charge would be timely with respect to all events constituting part of the continuing violation as long as it was filed within 180/300 days of the most recent discriminatory event in the continuing violation…. While the charging party must ordinarily file a charge within 180/300 days of the date of the alleged violation, the time for filing a charge will be extended under some circumstances.’

‘Continuing Violations⁽¹⁷⁸⁾

…….In contrast to a charge which involves an event that transpired on a certain date, a continuing violation takes place over a period of time, including into the filing period. Where a charge raises a continuing violation, all of the events forming part of the continuing violation, including those that transpired outside the filing period, are considered timely, and relief may be obtained for all of the discriminatory events.

……..To establish a serial violation, there must be:

Timely event: A discriminatory event or act that occurred within the limitations period….

Link: A link between the discriminatory event occurring within the limitations period and the actions that occurred outside the limitations period.⁽¹⁸¹⁾

……..Even if an untimely discriminatory act is not part of a continuing violation and cannot otherwise be raised in a charge, it might nevertheless be used as background evidence if it is relevant to the actionable issues raised in a charge. There is no time limit on relevant evidence.’

* Web address - http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html#2-IV

178. While the principles discussed in this section generally apply in most jurisdictions, a few specific principles may be inconsistent with the law in a particular jurisdiction. Investigators should consult with their legal unit in the event of a question.

181. E.g., Wilson v. Sysco Food Servs. Co., 940 F. Supp. 1003, 1010 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (incidents that were part of sexual harassment claim were sufficiently related to constitute continuing violation where they all involved same subject matter and were ongoing over five-month period).

b) Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel (Alternative defense):

Due to the conducts of defendants, I was unable to file the charges in time. Evidences supporting these conducts will be provided.

Again, quoting EEOC Compliance manual* –

…..’ WHEN CAN THE FILING PERIOD BE EXTENDED?

……Equitable estoppel: Did the respondent's misconduct inappropriately induce the charging party to delay filing?
….Although the EEO statutes provide that a charge must be filed within 180/300 days of the date of the alleged violation, the limitations period is subject to equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, and waiver. Thus, there are circumstances under which the charge should be accepted as timely even though the alleged violation transpired outside the limitations period.

…..2. Equitable Estoppel

The filing period can also be extended when the charging party's delayed filing is attributable to active misconduct by the respondent intended to prevent timely filing, or actions that an employer should have known would cause a delay in filing. The equitable estoppel doctrine generally presupposes that the charging party was aware of the facts that gave rise to the cause of action and might have filed earlier but for the respondent's misconduct.⁽²⁰⁰⁾ Where equitable estoppel applies, the filing period begins to run when the charging party knew or should have discovered the misconduct.⁽²⁰¹⁾’

* Web address: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html#2-IV

200. E.g., Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 58 F.3d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir. 1995).

201. See, e.g., Oshiver, 38 F.3d at 1390 (automatic extension by length of tolling period is justified where employer's deceptive conduct caused untimeliness); Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co., 785 F.2d 516, 520 (4th Cir. 1986) (limitations period extended by such time as employer's misconduct effectively operates to delay employee's effort to enforce his/her rights).

2. Defending Count two, Breach of Privacy:

Although the audio tape evidence only covers one incident of breaking and entering, almost constant and pervasive breach of privacy enabled cover up at the scale alleged. Various other evidences will be provided to support breach of privacy as late as few weeks back.

3. Defending count Three, Fraud with Medical Licensing Exam:

This charge was filed well under the statute of limitations, six years. Attorney Mr. Tan failed to amend the complaint and file the charge properly, with particularity as needed, despite my repeated requests. I request not to be penalized for his nonperformance. Due entirely to this fraud, for which I have clear and strong evidences, my otherwise scholastic career is destroyed ; I have experienced enormous physical, psychological and emotional trauma. This charge will be amended with court’s permission in the exact fashion needed with particularity and details. I request not to dismiss such serious count on technicality as I will be penalized for my ex attorney’s mistakes.

4. Defending Martin Gizzi, MD as defendant in count Four:

Dr Gizzi was the chairman and program director during the final year of my residency in Neurology at JFK Medical Center. His signature was on the signed residency contract. He was directly responsible for my education and completion of my training. He was primarily responsible for breaching the contract very early in the training and despite my repeated requests, even in writing, failed to provide even remotely adequate training. He is also responsible for discriminating me to the extent of a hate crime. An attempt by defendants to exclude him from responsibility is just simply wrong as there would not have been any reasons for litigation without him.

Lastly, to expedite the discovery process as well as to resume my Medical career, I would like to request two accompanying subpoenas. The documents desired are listed there in and are directly related to the case matter.

I thank you very much for your time and am hoping that I will be granted continuance to find substitute attorney.

Very Sincerely,