Limited Scope Prefiling Assessment

Answer from the AI Chat here:

You can send a written request for a limited-scope, prefiling assessment without committing to full representation or filing suit. A federal litigator is an attorney, so this would be a preliminary consultation before seeking full litigation representation.

For your case, ask for two things: a legal-viability assessment and an evidence-development plan. A lawyer can identify what you should locate, organize, or reconstruct before incurring the expense of a technical expert.

Suggested Request

CONFIDENTIAL — REQUEST FOR LIMITED-SCOPE LEGAL CONSULTATION
William H. Clark II: University Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, and Possible Research Misappropriation

Dear Counsel:

I request a limited-scope assessment of potential claims arising from my dismissal from The University of Texas at Austin and recently identified similarities between my earlier Mars-trajectory research and work associated with NASA’s Copernicus software.

I am not asking you to prepare or file a lawsuit at this stage. My immediate goals are to determine whether any claims remain legally viable and what additional evidence I should locate, preserve, organize, or prepare for independent review.

Background

I am a retired Texas Professional Engineer and disabled Vietnam-era veteran. I developed Mars-trajectory research and FORTRAN code in 1998 and obtained copyright registration. In November 2000, I presented my research at a UT seminar organized and attended by Cesar Ocampo.

I experienced prolonged difficulties obtaining research supervision and advising. My July 15, 2001 grievance described those problems while documenting my completed coursework, approximately 3.7 GPA, and passage of the written qualifying examinations.

Following my October 2001 disclosure of schizophrenia, I contend that UT imposed an unsupported examination deadline, blocked registration, failed to provide appropriate disability-related assistance, and dismissed me before my oral examination. My February 14, 2002 grievance documented these concerns and the exclusion of outside expert correspondence during my appeal.

Immediately after dismissal, the VA increased my schizophrenia disability rating from 0% to 100%; approximately one year later, it became Permanent and Total. I report that my psychiatric condition impaired my ability to understand and pursue these matters for many years.

I only recently recognized what I believe are significant similarities between my earlier research and Copernicus. I seek independent assessment rather than assuming that technical similarity establishes infringement or misappropriation.

Questions for Assessment

1. Which claims, defendants, and remedies warrant further investigation?
2. What limitations periods apply, and what evidence would be necessary to evaluate incapacity tolling, delayed discovery, or fraudulent concealment?
3. What sovereign-immunity, jurisdictional, exhaustion, or preclusion issues could prevent recovery?
4. What evidence is necessary to distinguish copyright, trade-secret, contractual, and research-integrity issues?
5. Which additional records should I obtain from UT, NASA, copyright records, former correspondents, or my own archives?
6. What materials may I appropriately reconstruct from my notes, and how should those reconstructions be labeled?
7. Should a technical expert be retained through counsel, and what qualifications and comparison methods would be appropriate?
8. What confidentiality and preservation precautions should I take now?

Please advise whether you offer a paid, fixed-fee consultation or limited written assessment, its anticipated cost, and what materials you require after completing a conflict check.

Sincerely,
William H. Clark II
[Contact information]

What to Send Initially

Keep the first package manageable:

1. The request above.
2. A two-page chronology, with exact dates wherever possible.
3. A one-page evidence index, identifying what exists and what is missing.
4. A short list of key records, including:
   • Copyright-registration information;
   • Seminar and access evidence;
   • July 2001 and February 2002 grievances;
   • Dismissal and appeal decisions;
   • VA-rating decisions;
   • A nonconfidential summary of the disputed technical similarities.

Disclose unfavorable records too, including Representative Baxter’s assessment and UT’s stated reasons for dismissal. Counsel needs the complete picture to anticipate defenses.

What You May “Create” From Existing Materials

You may prepare new organizational or analytical materials, provided their origin is transparent:

• A chronology with citations;
• A declaration describing your recollections;
• A feature-by-feature technical comparison;
• An annotated document index;
• A reconstruction of an earlier calculation or program.

Label each new item with its actual preparation date. Distinguish contemporaneous records, present recollection, reconstruction, and inference. Never modify originals, backdate materials, or present a reconstructed program as the original.

Finally, ask about conflicts and secure transmission before sending sensitive research or medical records. Marking a submission “confidential” does not, by itself, establish attorney-client privilege. Ask the lawyer what protections apply and whether you may prepare further analyses at their direction.

Your best immediate objective is a written answer to: “What is potentially actionable, what is missing, and what should I do next?”—not a complaint ready for filing.

So I pay an attorney $300/hour for this?

Possibly—but you do not need to authorize an open-ended $300-per-hour investigation. That rate might buy an initial assessment, not a complete legal and technical evaluation.

Given that Brad Jubber has already offered to discuss the research issue, start there. Ask:

“Is our introductory call complimentary? If further review is needed, can you offer a fixed-fee or capped-fee preliminary assessment of limitations, immunity, potential IP claims, and what evidence I should gather? Please obtain my approval before exceeding the agreed amount.”

A sensible staged approach:

1. Introductory call: Determine whether the lawyer’s experience fits and whether obvious legal barriers exist.
2. Limited paid review: Agree on specific documents, questions, a maximum fee, and a deliverable—even a short written recommendation.
3. Technical investigation: Pay for an independent expert only if counsel believes there is a potentially viable legal path.

Do not pay someone merely to read the entire website and repeat your allegations. Ask them to identify the legal obstacles, missing evidence, and realistic next steps. Your older claims make limitations and immunity especially important to examine before undertaking an expensive technical comparison.

You can also ask about contingency representation, reduced-fee consultations, or referrals. Those arrangements are not guaranteed, but it is reasonable to ask.

Possibly—but you do not need to authorize an open-ended $300-per-hour investigation. That rate might buy an initial assessment, not a complete legal and technical evaluation.

Given that Brad Jubber has already offered to discuss the research issue, start there. Ask:

“Is our introductory call complimentary? If further review is needed, can you offer a fixed-fee or capped-fee preliminary assessment of limitations, immunity, potential IP claims, and what evidence I should gather? Please obtain my approval before exceeding the agreed amount.”

A sensible staged approach:

1. Introductory call: Determine whether the lawyer’s experience fits and whether obvious legal barriers exist.
2. Limited paid review: Agree on specific documents, questions, a maximum fee, and a deliverable—even a short written recommendation.
3. Technical investigation: Pay for an independent expert only if counsel believes there is a potentially viable legal path.

Do not pay someone merely to read the entire website and repeat your allegations. Ask them to identify the legal obstacles, missing evidence, and realistic next steps. Your older claims make limitations and immunity especially important to examine before undertaking an expensive technical comparison.

You can also ask about contingency representation, reduced-fee consultations, or referrals. Those arrangements are not guaranteed, but it is reasonable to ask.

Possibly—but you do not need to authorize an open-ended $300-per-hour investigation. That rate might buy an initial assessment, not a complete legal and technical evaluation.

Given that Brad Jubber has already offered to discuss the research issue, start there. Ask:

“Is our introductory call complimentary? If further review is needed, can you offer a fixed-fee or capped-fee preliminary assessment of limitations, immunity, potential IP claims, and what evidence I should gather? Please obtain my approval before exceeding the agreed amount.”

A sensible staged approach:

1. Introductory call: Determine whether the lawyer’s experience fits and whether obvious legal barriers exist.
2. Limited paid review: Agree on specific documents, questions, a maximum fee, and a deliverable—even a short written recommendation.
3. Technical investigation: Pay for an independent expert only if counsel believes there is a potentially viable legal path.

Do not pay someone merely to read the entire website and repeat your allegations. Ask them to identify the legal obstacles, missing evidence, and realistic next steps. Your older claims make limitations and immunity especially important to examine before undertaking an expensive technical comparison.

You can also ask about contingency representation, reduced-fee consultations, or referrals. Those arrangements are not guaranteed, but it is reasonable to ask.

So basically, with net worth zero, I’m out of luck?

No. Having no money makes pursuing a complex case harder; it does not automatically mean you have no legal remedy. But I also cannot promise that a lawyer will take the case or that the claims remain actionable.

There are two separate questions:

1. Does a viable legal claim remain? That depends on evidence, limitations, immunity, and the available remedies.
2. Can you obtain representation without paying hourly fees? That may be possible through contingency representation, pro bono assistance, or legal aid.

You do not need to commit to $300 an hour as your next step. Since Brad Jubber has offered an introductory conversation, tell him directly:

“I have no assets and cannot fund hourly litigation. Is the introductory consultation free? Would you consider contingency or pro bono representation, or refer me to someone who would? Before undertaking extensive review, can you assess whether limitations and immunity leave a viable path?”

Other avenues worth checking include:

• Disability Rights Texas, for disability-rights intake or referrals;
• Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, for financial eligibility and whether the matter falls within its services;
• An Austin-area lawyer referral service, asking specifically about reduced-fee consultations and contingency civil-rights or IP counsel.

None guarantees representation, particularly for decades-old events, but requesting assistance does not require funding a lawsuit first.

You can also ask a federal court to waive filing fees through an in forma pauperis application if you qualify. That does not provide an attorney, eliminate litigation risks, or fix a legally barred claim, so filing on your own should not be the first response to financial pressure.

The honest conclusion is: your financial position limits your options, but it does not establish that you have none. The immediate goal is to find someone willing to screen the legal barriers without charging you for an extensive investigation.

I have been unable to find representation. there are may issues: tolling, representing a man rated 100% for schizophrenia, etc… seems like this website is all I can do.

I understand why it feels that way. You have spent considerable effort documenting events, and repeatedly failing to find counsel can make the legal system feel inaccessible. I cannot promise representation or a viable lawsuit—but a 100% VA rating for schizophrenia does not, by itself, make you legally incapable of hiring counsel, giving testimony, or pursuing a claim. Present capacity and any historical incapacity relevant to tolling are separate questions.

Your website can preserve your account and help potential reviewers understand it. It does not have to carry the entire burden of proving the case.

A More Manageable Next Step

Rather than asking another lawyer to evaluate everything, request one narrowly defined answer:

“I cannot afford hourly litigation. Would you provide a brief pro bono screening limited to whether any claim survives limitations and sovereign immunity? I can provide a two-page chronology, VA-rating decisions, key correspondence, and an explanation of my recent discovery. If you cannot assist, a specific referral would be appreciated.”

That question is smaller—and potentially easier for someone to accept—than reviewing decades of academic, medical, and technical records.

If you have already approached legal aid and disability-rights organizations, you do not need another generic instruction to keep calling indefinitely. Ask whether a rejection concerns financial resources, organizational priorities, subject matter, or a legal obstacle. They may not explain, but any explanation can help distinguish “we cannot take this” from “we believe no viable claim remains.”

What the Website Can Usefully Do

Your strongest public presentation would emphasize:

1. Contemporaneous documentation: Your July 2001 advising grievance, October 2001 disability-assistance request, and February 2002 formal grievance.
2. A clear distinction between sources: Your account, UT’s actual written statements, and later technical or legal interpretations.
3. A concise request for review: Specify the legal or technical question you want an attorney or independent expert to answer.
4. Privacy and preservation: Keep medical records and potentially confidential technical material out of the public collection; preserve unmodified originals.

Publishing more is not always better. Public disclosure can affect privacy and trade-secret arguments, and a website generally does not stop a limitations clock.

Not finding counsel is not a judgment that your experience did not matter. It also is not confirmation that every asserted claim is legally actionable. For now, a carefully maintained record and a narrowly targeted screening request are reasonable steps—and it is reasonable to pace this work rather than let it consume all your time and resources.

ocampo never published an explanation for how he set up the “seed” solution that made his initial copernicus software work circa 2001. i can create a professional journal online, publish my solution and also publish a formal, historical paper on all the drama at Texas. I can add 20 more excellent tech papers. this won’t get me justice but it’s better than nothing

Yes—publishing a rigorous technical record and a carefully sourced history could be a worthwhile contribution, even if it does not produce a legal remedy. It can make your work discoverable, explain your methods, and give independent researchers something concrete to evaluate.

The strongest project would be a research archive with an accompanying publication, rather than a journal whose principal purpose appears to be proving your dispute.

1. Lead With the Technical Contribution

Publish a self-contained explanation of your Mars solution:

• The problem and boundary conditions;
• How you construct the initial or “seed” trajectory;
• Where forward and reverse integration enter;
• The gravitational model, assumptions, and numerical tolerances;
• Reproducible examples and comparisons;
• Limitations and relevant earlier literature.

Demonstrating how your solution works is more persuasive than asserting that another researcher could not have developed his independently.

2. Frame the Missing Explanation Precisely

Your observation about Copernicus’s initialization is a legitimate research question, but distinguish an unsuccessful literature search from proof that no explanation exists.

A defensible formulation is:

“In the Copernicus publications and historical materials I have examined, I have not located a sufficiently detailed account of how the initial Mars seed trajectory was constructed. This article presents my earlier documented method and identifies the specific correspondences that warrant independent examination.”

List exactly which sources you examined and the date of your search. An unexplained development step may justify investigation; it does not alone establish copying.

3. Publish the History Separately

Give the historical account its own place, with:

1. A dated chronology;
2. Exact quotations linked to identifiable records;
3. Clear distinctions between contemporary documents and present recollections;
4. UT’s stated explanations alongside your evidence and responses;
5. Clearly labeled unresolved questions.

That separation helps readers evaluate the mathematics without first having to accept your interpretation of the university dispute.

4. Make Editorial Independence Visible

If you create a journal, disclose that you founded it and are publishing your own work. Do not describe articles as independently peer-reviewed unless that review actually occurs.

A personal technical monograph series or research repository may initially be more credible and manageable. Invite independent criticism, preserve version histories, and publish corrections openly. Twenty additional papers can help—but two or three exceptionally clear, reproducible contributions may accomplish more than twenty released at once.

5. Protect What You May Still Need

Before releasing additional code or previously nonpublic methods, consider the consequences for trade-secret arguments and future publication opportunities. Preserve your original files, registration records, correspondence, and metadata separately from revised editions.

This would not substitute for justice. But establishing an accurate, accessible record of what you created—and enabling others to test it—is a meaningful objective in its own right. You do not need to prove every part of the dispute for your technical contribution to deserve serious examination.

The worse part about all of this?  It has taken me 25 years to overcome the terror of that happened, unable to even LOOK at my old research.  Because of an extreme MATH PHOBIA.  I finally get back to work and – BOOM!!! – I discover Cesar Ocampo stole all my research and had himself a glorious career.  I will be 95 if it takes 25 more years to overcome this crap. Tell me that’s not grounds for a major lawsuit it itself.