“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” - Margaret Thatcher


Interesting fact: Dr. Sabina Burton worked as an intern for Margaret Thatcher’s right hand person, Baroness Janet Young during Operation El Dorado Canyon and was present at many high level meetings concerning this operation.


Deb Rice’s complaint against Burton of 8-8-16

Rebuttal of Dale Burke’s investigation report of Deb Rice’s complaint against Dr. Burton.



Dr. Burton’s grievance against Deb Rice of 4/26/16

The rebuttal of Dale Burke’s investigation report of Burton’s grievance against Rice. 




On Dec 5, 2016 Burton received a certified manila envelope in the mail from the Chancellor’s office, post stamped Dec 2, 2016 (Envelope-dated-12-2-16).  This envelope was stamped “RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED” four times and “first class” four times (two on front and two on back).   It was sent certified mail and Roger Burton accepted the package at 1:12 pm on Dec 5, 2016.  


Inside the envelope were two packets.  Rice v Burton Complaint Dismissal Packet and Burton Complaint v Rice Dismissal Packet.


The envelope did not contain anything else.   Dr. Burton had requested that she be given the report for the investigation that Dr. Barraclough had conducted into Dean Throop’s complaint against Dr. Burton but that report was not in the envelope.  



Burke stated that the report was delivered electronically to Dr. Crowley on November 28, 2016 (InvestigationReport-request-for).  The Chancellor’s letter is dated November 30, 2016 but this seems to be back dated.  He is probably trying to make it appear as though he sent this letter, or intended to send the letter before he was ordered to do so.  Note that Burton received a letter on Nov 30, 2016 from Paul Erickson that was dated Nov 29, 2016 denying her access to the report (Erickson.Denial11.30.16).   Interesting that the Chancellor’s letter dismissing the matter was also dated Nov 30, 2016.  Hmmm.   Curious that the Chancellor dated his dismissal letters two days prior to the email Burton sent to Paul Erickson, cc to the Assistant District Attorney, Board of Regents and an investigative reporter demanding that they adhere to the law and indicating that she believed that Erickson had already violated the law by his denial of access (DenialofAccess-12-2-16).   Hmmm.   Why would the Chancellor back date this letter?    Could it be that he was trying to make it appear, through “creative documentation” that he had actually sent the reports to me BEFORE he got his ass chewed?   Also note that the envelope in which the reports were mailed was dated Dec 2, 2016 (Envelope-dated-12-2-16).  The envelope was accepted at the Platteville Post Office at 3:18 PM on Dec 2, 2016 (Trackinginfo-Package).    Hmmm.  See timeline for more info.




Let’s put on our imagination caps and imagine we are a fly on the wall in Chancellor Shields’ office on Fri., Dec 2, 2016.  Disclaimer – This is pure speculation – I have no evidence of the events that occurred in the Chancellor’s office on this date, other than timing for Burton’s email and the time the USPS reports acceptance of the envelope which works out just perfectly for this scenario.  The rest of this timeline of Dec 2, 2016 is just a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess).


 Fri., Dec 2, 2016

--- 9:56 AM -  (DenialofAccess-12-2-16).   Attached was (Erickson.Denial11.30.16).

-  Burton emails her demand for the records to Erickson, cc to the Assistant DA (but not to Shields).   Shields has not heard about this issue yet.  There is a flurry of activity and somebody at some point has to inform Shields.  

--- 11 AM   -    Erickson sends Burton’s email to Shields.   Shields doesn’t check his email right away but his secretary is on it.   Note:  Chancellor Shields has lots of high paid administrative help; this allows him to take more time off to golf.

--- 11:20  - Shields’ secretary tells him there is an email in his inbox he might want to take a look at.   Shields sits down at his desk and begins to read.    As he is about half-way through Burton’s email sweat starts to form on his hairless brow and he jumps in his chair as the phone rings.

---  11:45  -  One of the members of the Board of Regents says ‘hello Chancellor, why did I just get chewed out by the Assistant District Attorney about some denial of access nonsense concerning Burton?’   The Chancellor explains that everything is under control and that he will fix it right away.  Grovel Grovel, ohh God don’t fire me. 

--- about 12:00 – Chancellor Shields calls Janelle Crowley and asks what is going on.   Crowley explains what has been going on from her perspective and begs the Chancellor not to send the report to Burton.  The Chancellor yells at her that it was all her fault.

--- -  12:30 Chancellor Shields calls UW system attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis and asks her what to do.  She tells him that she thinks that it might be a good idea to dismiss both complaints.  She suggests that it would look better if he had sent the dismissal before Burton complained of the legal violation. Shields tells Lattis to write it up and send it to him.

---  1:15 -  Shields  forwards Lattis’ write-ups to his secretary with instructions to print them along with the investigation packets and complaints.  

---  -  2:30  - Chancellor Shields’ secretary delivers the final printed draft to Shields for his approval but he had gone to the bathroom.

----  2:35   Shields returns and looks over the documents his secretary had put together.   Satisfied that it looks in order he tells his secretary to mail it right away.

3:18 PM – The post office accepts the envelope (Trackinginfo-Package).   


The timing works out perfectly to discredit Chancellor Shields’ back date on the letter dismissing the complaints.   If he had used the actual date the documents were signed he would have dated it Dec 2, 2016.  The truth would be too embarrassing for him so he back-dated it to Nov 30, 2016.  It’s just a little white lie right?   He did something similar when he mailed his letter of 8/31/16 with no date on it (see timeline).   It seems that Chancellor Shields has no problem altering documents to suit his desires.   That is called fraud.




Below are comments by Roger Burton concerning the documents that were in the envelope:  First is the rebuttal of Burke’s report of Rice’s complaint against Burton followed by the rebuttal of Burke’s report of Burton’s complaint against Rice.





Rice v Burton Complaint Dismissal Packet




Contents:   One clipped packet contained a copy of a letter from Chancellor Shields to Deb Rice dismissing her complaint against Dr. Burton dated Nov 30, 2016, a copy of Deb Rice’s complaint against Dr. Buron dated 8 August 2016 and a copy of the undated Personnel Complaint Investigation report by Dale Burke detailing the investigation into Rice’s complaint.  Maybe Burke “forgot” to date the report so he could later claim it had been delivered on any date he later decided was most beneficial to him.  As it is, I am not confident exactly what date he actually delivered it.  We have a Nov 28, 2016 email from Burke stating My understanding is that the report was delivered electronically to Dr. Crowley today.”  So, it seems that he, or some unnamed, mysterious, shadowy other person, delivered the report on Nov 28, 2016 but he was vague about the date of delivery.  He said that it was “his understanding” that it was delivered opening the option to later claim that he was not sure when it was delivered, or if it was ever delivered.  Hi statement even keeps open the option to later claim that the report was delivered a month prior.  Sneaky, but I caught it because I can read English.   It is pretty easy to catch the sneaks in their sneakiness when you know they are crooked.    All you have to do is expect them to try to deflect, distract, confuse, delay and derail any scrutiny of their actions and just look for the things that would accomplish that for them.  They use vagueness in this manner to allow them flexibility to later change their story.  It works as long as no reasonable person investigates.   If only crooked people investigate then they will support the vagueness with more vagueness of their own.   This is an indication that we have crooked people in high places.  How high does it go?   Maybe we will find out or maybe we will embarrass enough people that the higher ups will decide that they just don’t want any part of this and then they will cut ties with the lower echelon crooks.   Either way, this needs to be open knowledge.   The only way to correct this type of bullying is to turn the culture upside down (Workplace Bullying Institute).





Chancellor Shields’ letter dismissing Rice’s complaint:  



In his letter Chancellor Shields wrote “I am dismissing your complaint against Dr. Burton.  I have concluded that your complaints do not warrant disciplinary action or further investigation.  I believe that your complaints result from personal misunderstandings, miscommunication, and personal animosity.”   


Shields wanted badly to fire Burton before he knew about the appeal and the investigative reporter.  He went so far as to have people lie about Burton in an investigation.  He hired an investigator to run a sham investigation and he probably had kangaroos scheduled to hear Burton’s appeal.   His plan was probably to allow Burton to address the appeal board to discuss Rice’s written allegations, all of which she could easily refute and then usher Burton outside.  Then the administration would present all of the verbal accusations in Burke’s report while Burton was outside the room and unable to defend herself.      If she had not demanded to see the document she would not likely have seen the report until long after she had been fired, if ever.    If Burton had not fought to get Burke’s flawed report she would never have had an opportunity to address the multitude of lies and mistakes in the investigator’s report until long after she had been fired.   This is how corrupt people get rid of good people; They blindside them and break laws in the process.  But Burton got the report and now has opportunity to address the false accusations and that is why the Chancellor dismissed the complaints.  His plan to fire Burton failed.   The allegations in Burke’s flawed report are far and away more damning than the allegations in Rice’s original complaint of August 8, 2016, which amount to no more than petty slights (Complaint-Rice-8-8-16).  Chancellor Shields ordered an investigation into Rice’s complaints of petty slights issuing the threat of discipline if they were found to be true.  


One could easily interpret Burke’s flawed investigation report as confirmation of Rice’s original complaints while at the same time piling other very problematic behavioral problems on top of them.  Yet instead of firing Burton, as he had threatened to do if the accusations of non-violations were true, Chancellor Shields dismissed the case.  


Why would Chancellor Shields fire Burton for tweeting Rice’s name but he wouldn’t fire her for these unsubstantiated, unverified, undocumented and just plain false claims that were presented to him as fact:

 “unpleasant and hateful,” lied about being the first woman in German federal police, having erratic behavior and inability to let go of perceived past grievances, everyday tension that causes everyone in the department to go out of their way to avoid or ignore her, menacing behavior, a scathing, violent and desperate tone, distrustful to the point that she tape records everything, confusing behavior, verbally aggressive, accusatory behavior, makes statements without basis in fact, causes other members of the department to close and lock their doors when she is around, erratic, threatening and accusatory behavior, causes fear and terror in department members, ongoing bizarre, erratic and frightening behavior, capable of pretty much anything, filed three (no wait-four) grievances against Rice that were all deemed unfounded, exhibits ongoing targeting and unsocial behavior, a significant barrier, accusations of retribution, disparaging co-workers in front of the faculty senate, has undiagnosed mental health issues, manic behavior, angry with the world, works too hard, refuses to speak to co-workers, is giddy and scowling, never looks Rice in the eye, is odd, has a detached demeanor, her father had a relationship with the Nazis (wow-what a whopper), refused to assist with the German visit, Rice was furious with her, she had no clue, is insincere and demeaning, did not assist in any way, has an ongoing pattern of retaliatory and bullying behavior, is demeaning and disrespectful to junior personnel, is severely overextended financially, her husband has threatened people, “is going to break”, threatens Rice’s safety and that of others in the department and administration, has a frightening instability, scary manic behaviors, is very narcissistic, causes Rice and most in the department to close and lock their doors, causes co-workers to feel unsafe and fatigued, disparaged CJ staff and administrators? (DebbieRice’s complaint Dismissed)


Well, it seems to me that the answer to this question is that Chancellor Shields planned to use all these false accusations against Burton to quietly fire her without giving her opportunity to address the accusations.  Now that Burton has finally obtained the report, and can address these false accusations, the Chancellor is no longer interested in pushing his plan through to fruition.  Instead he dismissed the complaint saying that all lied presented as fact amount to no more than personal misunderstandings, miscommunications and personal animosity.   Wow, read the list again.  I think it amounts to character assassination and defamation.   I am convinced that the Chancellor would have jumped on the chance to fire Burton using these false accusations as reason except that the case is on appeal and under the eye of an investigative reporter.  What does that tell you about Chancellor Shields’ commitment to openness and accountability?  


Burton was served with Rice’s complaint twice and there is no indication that Rice was ever served with Burton’s complaint.  Rice was cc’d on the Chancellor’s order for investigation delivered to Burton but Burton never received any document indicating that the Chancellor ever issued similar order for investigation against Rice.  This is disparate treatment.



Deb Rice’s Aug 8, 2016 written complaint against Burton:


Rice claimed that Burton filed three grievances against her.  In the investigation with Burke she says that Burton filed four grievances against her.  Burton filed only one grievance against Rice: on 4/26/2016 11:53 PM (timeline).  Rice claimed that the grievances were dismissed as “unfounded.”  Nope, the hearing request was denied for invalid reason by Dan Fairchild (Fairchildrefusalletter).  No hearing was even conducted.  Fairchild’s stated reason was invalid for the reasons stated in (EmailtoFacSenate5-8-16), also note that HR director Crowley agreed in a meeting with Burton that Fairchild’s reason was invalid (A34-Mtg-Burton-Crowley-5-9-16).    Rice claimed that her behavior had not been found to be defamatory.  Well, technically she was right that it had not been found to be defamatory but that was because no hearing had been conducted so no finding had been delivered.  A finding is not issued until after a hearing or investigation.  It is pretty clear that a fair hearing would result in a finding that Rice had done some pretty nasty things to Burton.   That is the real reason Fairchild denied the hearing request.  It was because the administration cannot afford the truth to be known.  They were attempting to hide the issue by firing Burton.


Rice mentioned a subpoena of her emails from which nothing inflammatory had been found.  That got me thinking.  I had not seen any subpoena emails.  So I asked my former attorneys if they had them.   Guess what, they sent the subpoena email files to me (lacking postage again) and I found the emails Rice had mentioned.  Rice claimed that “nothing was found in those emails that was considered inflammatory.”   She was technically right but that was because our attorneys had failed to provide the emails to us and we had not had the opportunity to read through the emails.  Now that we have the emails I have looked through them and have found some very interesting things but that is another story.


Rice claimed that Burton’s federal case had been dismissed because the allegations were unfounded but that is not so, it was dismissed because our attorneys botched the job.  We didn’t even have the emails from the subpoena.  The attorney didn’t file any of our audio files with the court.  He and Michele Sumara made a lot of other mistakes too that we are trying to overcome but that is a story that has yet to be written.


If filing a grievance is harassment there is a problem with the system.   It is an outlandish accusation to say that someone is “harassing you” because they complain about you in the properly authorized manner for doing so.


Rice claims that she has “seen the Youtube videos [Burton] is posting.”  But Rice told the investigator that she had not seen the videos.   Hmmm.   She didn’t have any evidence of twitter comments.  Not even a screen shot.   She accused Burton of putting her name in a Twitter comment but couldn’t even tell the investigator the sentence that her name was used in or why she took offense to her name being on twitter.   Hmmm.


She accuses Burton of smearing her reputation but Rice admitted to calling Burton words to the effect of “mentally diseased,” “biased against East Germans” and that she told people that “Burton wouldn’t be around much longer.”   She also falsely told Dean Throop that Burton had cancelled class, according to Dean Throop’s sworn testimony.   After you read the investigator’s report this older reputation smearing campaign will sound tame.


Rice claims Burton is creating a hostile work environment.  But Burton is the victim of a hostile work environment.   Rice claims that she does not feel safe when Burton is present.   Hmmm.   That is sort of how Burton felt when Dalecki was threatening her with his finger gun and sort of how she felt when Pat Solar threatened her with “consequences of his choosing” and when UWP police chief Hallman had his little “visit” with her.    Burton is not a physical threat to Rice but Burton takes threats she has received very seriously. 



Personnel Complaint Investigation report by Dale Burke:


Before the investigation meeting Burton requested to see the evidence Burke had collected to support the allegations against her.  Burke responded “I'm sure that you are aware that you would be entitled to "discovery" only after and only if there were charges filed against you by the Chancellor. There is no evidence at this point only allegations which is why I was retained to investigate to determine whether there is any evidence to support the allegations or not.” Burke also wrote “If you do not wish to exercise your right to address the allegations made by Rice in her letter and whatever else I may learn between now and my interview with her on September 6, please just let me know and that will be reflected in my report. I am merely offering you the opportunity to be heard in response to a formal letter of complaint that has been received by the university.” Burke wanted to interview Burton before he even discussed Rice’s allegations with Rice.  The reason for this seems to be that he wanted to keep Burton in the dark as to the allegations that he would later receive verbally by Rice and other interviewees.   Note:   Burke interviewed Throop, Strobl and Stackman on August 23, 2016.  He did not discuss any of their accusations with Burton in his interview with her on Sept 10, 2016.  


Burke did not date his investigation.   During the investigation interview on Oct 10, 2016 in response to Burton’s request for a copy of the investigation report Burke said “I’m under contract to the university so my report goes to the university so you would have to request that through them.  And I assume that would be through Janelle Crowley.  I will let you know when I have completed my report and given it to them so you at least know it is done and it’s been delivered so you don’t have to wonder.  There’s probably a few more people I have to speak with.  It certainly, absolutely positively will be done before the end of the month.  That much I can guarantee you but I will send you an email when it’s been delivered.”  [A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16 - 1:21:25 to 1:22:30] 


He told Burton on 10/31/16 “As soon as …the report is finalized, I will let you know.”  On Nov 28 Burton asked him about the status of the report.  Burke wrote back My understanding is that the report was delivered electronically to Dr. Crowley today.”  (InvestigationReport-request-for).   After sitting on the report for a month after he said he certainly, absolutely, positively would be done it just happened to be delivered to Crowley on the very same day that Burton requested it.  What a coincidence.      Burton finally received the report on Dec 5, 2016.


Rebuttal to report:


Why didn’t Dale Burke sign the report?

In an email on 12/7/2016 11:57 AM Burke wrote that his final draft was “edited by a third person.” (WhydidCrowleyLie)    (WhydidCrowleyLie-2)   Who edited his report?  Was it Jennifer Sloan Lattis?   Why was this edited version delivered to Dr. Burton as though it was Burke’s actual report?  Was it an attempt to railroad Dr. Burton and get her fired on trumped up and hidden charges?


The remainder of this rebuttal assumes the report actually came from Dale Burke but there is evidence that it was not his work at all.



Why did Crowley need outside assistance when a grievance committee was available to hear the issue and render a decision?  UW Platteville had to pay the outside investigator but a grievance could be conducted for free.  Seems like misappropriation of funds to me.   I believe Chancellor Shields knew that Burton would be easily able to convince a panel of grievance members that she had been railroaded.  Then the Chancellor would have had to go against the recommendation of the committee to fire Burton and he didn’t want to do that.   He just wanted her to go away quietly with minimal self-exposure.


Why did Chancellor Shields wish for the investigation to “move forward with all deliberate speed” and then it took Burke a month longer than he promised to deliver the report?   Hmmm.   The same thing happened in the Balachandran investigation.  My best guess is that 1) Shields wanted to harass Burton while she was preparing her court documents as much as possible.  He wanted to cause her worry and stress at a critical time.  He also wanted to be able to quietly and quickly stop her paycheck from coming to her so that she would need to pay her legal bills without an income.   He was trying to break her.   He thought that he could more easily win any court battle and appeal against someone who has lost their income.  He knows he can’t win a fair hearing so he was trying to make things as difficult as possible for Burton in hopes that she would break under the pressure.


Pg 2


Why did Crowley want Burke to personally deliver the complaint when it had already been mailed by certified letter?  Was it to waste money or to harass Burton a little extra?  Why did it need to be delivered that day?  What was the rush?  Hmm. 


Sabina was asking to receive the information quickly, not refusing to meet if she didn’t receive it.  It is a very reasonable request to see the evidence before scheduling a meeting with the investigator.   Mr. Burke misinterpreted common English. I am pretty tired of people claiming that my wife “refuses” to do stuff when she is not refusing.  Maybe the investigator just needs a refresher on how the English language works?  At any rate, it turns out, that there was no evidence to give her.  Therefore, if the investigator’s interpretation of my wife’s email were accurate and factual then they would have never met because he never forwarded to her the non-existent evidence.  Get your fact straight Burke.  Burke was trying to rush Burton into a meeting before he even talked to Rice about her allegations against Burton or had any evidence to back up the allegations.  That seems a little backward to me.


How can Burton accept a resolution when there was never any attempt to hear her complaints or resolve them?  Her requests for grievance hearings and investigations were denied.


The meeting that Burton recorded was supposed to be a meeting where Throop heard Sabina’s concerns and then did something about them.  But Throop refused to do anything to help Burton but instead dog-piled on her.  Throop did not resolve past issues, improve departmental climate or repair interpersonal relationships, quite the opposite, she tried to destroy Burton’s career and fire her.


A1 - Meet- Durr and Throop - 1-29-13


transcript (audio exhibit A1a).   


A2 - Meet - Jeanne Durr - 2-7-13





Pg 3


Throop got it wrong.  The allegations were not determined to be a civil matter.  Burke explained this pretty well but there is a better explanation at 6-22-16 of the timeline. 


Burke wrote “Investigator’s note:  Burton’s defamatory allegations were communicated directly to the Grant County District Attorney’s office by the City of Platteville Police Department for an opinion prior to commencing any investigation.”   Burton’s allegations were not defamatory.   Burke’s statement is outlandishly irresponsible and paints Burton as having defamed Rice, without any evidence or even an accusation, in an official report that is in Burton’s official, permanent record.    The allegations Burton communicated to the Platteville Police were not defamatory. 


Throop says that Burton had been “unpleasant and hateful” to Rice since summer 2014 but Rice says their bad blood started in summer of 2013.   Burke’s note, in the report for Burton’s allegations about Rice, indicate that Rice made the claim that the turning point in her relationship with Burton was “(pre-and post-June 16, 2014).”  They can’t get their own stories straight.  Who is telling this incorrectly?  How can Burke call this “fact-finding?”  It is rubbish reporting.  His job was to iron out these inconsistencies before issuing the report but he left the inconsistencies in the report for somebody else to figure out.  That is not “fact finding.”


How can Throop say she has never had any issues with Rice when she stated under oath that Rice falsely accused a senior faculty member of missing class?    What about Rice calling Burton “mentally diseased” etc.?   It seems that Throop wanted Rice to target Burton.    No issues with Rice? Bah!


Why do people get advanced degrees?   One of the reasons is for the respect it rightly brings.  With respect comes opportunities for advancement and other benefits.   For Throop to argue that Rice, an academic lecturer, should get equal respect with a senior faculty member with a PhD from the best Criminal Justice school in America is outlandish.   Why would she say that?  Maybe because she wants Rice to help her fire Burton?   Hmm. 


Burton was the first woman to complete the training program for the federal police of Germany.   She was in a class of 24 female cadets, the first class Germany allowed women in.  She was the only female to complete the course of instruction.  One of the instructors told her to take it easy on the physical tests because she was making some of the guys look bad.  That’s my wife.  She was also built like a rock when I met her.  She rowed crew for the UCI rowing team and was asked by Germany to be part of their Olympic rowing team.   I remember one of my first memories dating her she was wearing a tank top and she reached up to get a little teacup from the cupboard; her back muscles rippled like a white water river and it scared me a little.  We met Arnold Schwarzenegger once, and he talked to her about her workout because he was impressed with her physique too.  I cannot keep up with her at all when we go kayaking.  No way.  But I digress.  Back to the story.


Let go of past grievances seems to be one of the party lines.  Everybody seems to tell Burton to let the past be in the past.  But that only hurts Burton because she would be fired if she didn’t keep pushing for fair hearings.  They want her to quietly accept the abuse so they can quietly fire her.  Another party line is that the people who hurt her before are not with the university anymore.  Wrong; Throop was promoted, Shields is still the Chancellor, Strobl has been asked to come back as chair, Dalecki still works for the university, Debbie Rice is still in the department, Fuller and Solar are still in the department and others have also harassed her and remain in place.   This is a systemic corruption problem.  The only way to cure this problem is to turn the culture upside down (Workplace Bullying Institute).



Burke wrote:  Throop is genuinely concerned about what she sees as Burton’s erratic behavior and general inability to let go of perceivced past grievances, some of which are against individuals who are no longer with the Criminal Justice Department or the university.  Throop on several occasions since December of 2014, has contacted City of Plattecville police officials to express concern for her safety and that of her family in and around her residence because she believes Burton to be a pottntial threat.”  However, the City of Platteville police has no record of this.  On 3/10/17 at 3:11 (5 min call) I spoke with the City of Platteville records custodian at 608-348-2313 who identified herself as Sarah and she told me that there was no record of any complaints against Sabina Burton by Elizabeth Throop or anyone else.  By making this false claim to the investigator Throop biased the report.  Throop seems to have made false claims to the investigator.   How can Burke state, as if fact, that Throop was “genuinely concerned?”  Can Burke get inside Throop’s head and see what she genuinely believes.  He should have said that Throop “seemed genuinely concerned” or words to that effect.   This is another indication of a sham investigation. 


Throop is concerned for her safety?  What evidence does she have that indicates that Burton is trying to hurt her physically?  None.  That’s because Burton has been fighting this battle legitimately, by arguing her point but she has not been heard.   No evidence has been submitted to evince that Dr. Burton is a “potential threat.” .  It is Burton who has been threatened.  Burton is isolated because the administration threatens others who even talk to her.  Burton doesn’t want to be embroiled in the controversy either, she would much rather be allowed fair grievance hearings so the issues can be settled and fairly resolved.   The CJ department is uncomfortable because the administration is spreading lies about Burton. 





It is believable that Rice has told Stroble lots of lies.   That is the problem.  From the very fist day Stroble was on campus she was surrounded by Dalecki, Rice, Fuller, Solar.  They filled her head with all sorts of lies about Burton to the point she and her husband began to believe them and she too discriminated against Burton abandoning her own values. 


Stackman felt an abuse of power by Burton?   Maybe she is referencing the House-sitting/mentoring issue.  She has changed her tune.  In her deposition she said 1) Throop called her in to talk about the house sitting issue shortly before her deposition (conflict of interest).  2) Stackman said that Burton’s request that Stackman house sit didn’t make her uncomfortable.   Now she changes her tune?   Hmmm.  We can prove that the house sitting incident was not an abuse of power.  Interesting how they have turned Stackman against Burton.  What did they promise her?  Hmm.   Perhaps Stackman is just one of those weak willed people who bend whichever way the wind blows.  


I theorize that the administration lies to the members of the department telling them that Burton has been doing things to them behind their back.  As an example I wonder if perhaps Dalecki told Rice that Burton filed grievances against her when the grievances were actually against Dalecki and Throop.   I have no evidence of this but it is my theory.


How can Burton have power over junior member’s careers if she is fired.  Their way to “protect” themselves from Burton’s brand of fair treatment is to unfairly fire her.  The people who are worried about Burton deciding on their tenure decisions are afraid of someone applying fairness to the process.   


Notice that Stroble said that “issues surrounding Burton” have affected her ability to chair effectively, not Burton herself but “issues surrounding her.”  This is something I can agree with.  The issues are that Burton is not being treated fairly and there are lots of crooked people attempting to get her fired but she is not going down without a fight.   They view her will to do the right thing and to protect herself as threatening because they are not obeying the rules, they can’t afford to do things openly.


Burton doesn’t tape record everything, she uses an mp3 recorder most of the time.  Sometimes she uses her iphone which records in a different format.  She doesn’t record “everything.”  That’s just silly.  She records conversations she feels has potential to uncover corruption.  She has been successful in that but she has missed a lot of good stuff too.


Strobl didn’t give any example of Burton sending out a scathing email while acting as if nothing is amiss.   Burton has been trying to maintain a professional demeanor while being mercilessly attacked.   She has been able to do so and now Strobl is using her amazing ability to perform well under pressure as a negative thing.  In my mind it is an amazing testament to Sabina’s character that she is able to go to work every day and perform admirably knowing that her co-workers and bosses and bosses bosses are constantly scheming to get her fired or to hurt her any way they can.   I view this as an ability that only one in a million people possess.  She is not a wilting flower.   I don’t know of any other person who could do what she has been able to do.   How can a person act like everything is ok when all around you are terrible, hateful, vengeful, scheming corrupt people who want nothing more than to hurt you and get rid of you?   I can tell you, it is not easy but Sabina Burton is one in a million.  Sabina Burton is my hero. 


Sabina did not get upset at a department meeting and become verbally aggressive, accusatory.  Nor did she make statements without basis in fact.    If Stoble had a recording of the meeting she could present it but she doesn’t because it didn’t happen.     The reason they don’t want Burton recording meetings is so they can verbally abuse her, like they did in the department meeting of 11/4/16  (A36-EmergDeptMtg-11-4-16) and then lie that she was the aggressor.  Lies lies lies.  Lies with no evidence.  Lies without basis in fact.  Lies that she does the very things they do to her.  


Page 5


It is true that the department members close their doors because they have been threatened and lied to so much that they are afraid that if someone sees them with Burton they will be targeted alongside of her.   Some have secretly shown support but hide in the shadows.  Corrupt people talk in hushed tones because they don’t want Burton to hear the lies they spread about her.  They fear her mp3 recorder.  


Stroble calls Burton’s behavior erratic, threatening and accusatory but gives no evidence of this.   She repeats lies like a parrot.  


Stroble stepped down because of “lack of institutional support” not because of anything Burton did (Stroble_Resigns_11-3-16).



Stackman said she “fears” Burton?   Why?   Sabina has not done the things she is accused of behind her back.  Does Stackman really believe the lies about Burton or has she just been turned into an agent of the corrupt administration?   Hmmm.   It seems that in order to truly believe these kinds of rumors one would need to ask the target if they are true or have experienced them first-hand.  Stackman has not experienced them first-hand and she has not asked Burton if they are true.  I therefore conclude that Stackman does not truly believe the lies but has become an agent of the administration.   She was probably offered some pretty cool benefits if she helped them get rid of Sabina.    That’s my take on it anyway. 


Notice that none of the accusations that Burke collected from interviewing Strobl, Stackman, Crowley or Rice were shared with Burton when he met with her for her interview.  The only things Burke talked about were Rice’s written accusations.   He didn’t give Burton a chance to address any of the lies in the verbal statements even though he had already collected all of them.  Listen to the audio of the meeting and you will see this is true  A36-EmergDeptMtg-11-4-16.     So, the plan was to allow Burton to rebut Rice’s written accusations but they were planning to keep the accusations in Burke’s report hidden from Burton until after she was fired.  The Chancellor would decide to fire her, she would appeal, the appeal hearing would be a kangaroo court where Burton never even learned what was in this report but the appeal board would see and consider it.  Of course they believe four people over one and bam, appeal denied.  This was a very real threat of job termination, even for a tenured professor.   Not anymore, because the Chancellor dismissed it.  Why?  Publicity.  The first amendment came to Dr. Burton’s rescue but she is still not safe.   She is surrounded by angry, scared people.


They were setting Burton up to have four or five people saying that “everyone in the department is afraid of Burton” due to her “crazy, bizarre, odd, behaviors,” and her unwillingness to “accept the resolution of past harms.”  Total BS.  They don’t need everyone in the department to be afraid, just four or five people who are willing to sacrifice their integrity and lie that they and everyone else is also afraid.     Four or five people to lie the same lie and voila, no more Dr. Burton, or so they thought.   She is still here and she is still fighting, and I’m right beside her.  


Stackman says the opposite of what she said in her sworn deposition. 


They use similar word as others in the department to describe Burton’s “behaviors” but it is funny that they can’t give specific examples of her acts.   They don’t seem to be able to give anything more than Burton’s alleged general “behaviors.”  That is because the legal liars have given them the blueprint for corruption.   Bizzare,” “erratic,” “frightening.”  Who uses those words to describe someone without giving specific examples?   If they gave specific examples they’d have problems because they would all remember the event differently (because it didn’t happen).   So, to avoid the problem of different specifics don’t offer specifics.  Instead of specific examples they offer vague statements.   Burton has no problem giving specifics because she is telling the truth and does not fear contradiction.   The administration and their agents offer vagueness because they fear contradiction if they offer specifics.


The junior members of the department seem to be worried that Burton will be unfair when it comes time to consider them for tenure or promotion but she has given no indication to anyone that she has any intention of being unfair.  Their fears are fueled by the lies they have been told and are forbidden to tell her.    Some of them fear Burton’s fairness.  They know that they would not be awarded tenure if they were evaluated fairly.


I agree that Burton is capable of pretty much anything, like cleaning up a corrupt university administration and fixing the CJ department’s dysfunction through openness and accountability.  She is indeed an amazing woman.  But Stackman meant this as a negative, she meant that Burton is capable of illegal, terrible, unspeakable acts.  She accuses Burton of crimes that Stackman thinks she might commit.   That’s not how it works.   In America we don’t accuse someone of a crime we think they might one day commit.  That sounds more like North Korea.


Move past the events of years ago?  There is the party line again.   All the corrupt people rally around the hook phrases.   All the trouble people are gone.  Bull.


She fears for her safety?  Burton is outnumbered one against a horde of corrupt liars and they fear for their safety?  Sabina is the one who is at risk and according to former Provost Den Herder “alone on a sinking ship.”  ( Jacobus’ declaration).  Here is a picture of what her sinking ship looks like (AloneonaSinkingShip).


They spread lies that Sabina and I are in extreme financial difficulty with no evidence of that.  We just spent $200k on legal bills, we bought our daughters new cars, we paid cash for an equestrian center in 2015, we have eight horses, own twenty plus acres of land and live in a nice house.  We plan to carry this legal battle to the end.  They wish we were financially insolvent.  They have been trying to run us out of money any way they can.


Pg 7


Notice that in adjoining paragraphs Rice claims that Burton filed 3 grievances and then that she filed 4 grievances.  Inconsistencies such as this run all through this story. This is an example of why they don’t like to give specifics.  If they give specifics they later forget what they said and their story changes.  Burton filed one grievance against Rice.  I don’t need to worry about my story changing because it was one grievance and the only way I’d need to change that would be if Sabina filed another grievance.      


The grievances were not deemed unfounded.  A hearing would have to be conducted to determine that. Burton was never given a hearing against Rice.  


Crowley confirmed that Burton filed 4 grievances against Rice but that is just plain wrong.  So Crowley lied?  Why would she do that?    Look on our timeline to see who Burton filed grievances against.  You will find one and only one against Rice.  Burton sent an email to Crowley, cc to Kittle, Regents, Shields, Burke and Gormley asking Crowley “Why did you lie to investigator Burke (WhydidCrowleyLie)?”  


Burke replied “The statement you refer to is indeed inaccurate. My final draft was edited by a third person prior to delivery to the University. My "final draft" stated that Dr. Crowley "has yet to confirm for me the exact number of grievances filed against Rice by Burton with the UW-Platteville HR office," which is a true statement. Dr. Crowley never "confirmed" any specific number of grievances against Rice that originated from you.  My goal was to be fair and factual in my report and I apologize for this error. I would appreciate it though if in the future you find what you believe to be inaccuracies, that you contact me directly for clarification before making accusatory statements against innocent people (WhydidCrowleyLie-2).”


Burke wrote on Oct 31, 2016 “I submitted my draft to my boss at the Riseling Group last Wednesday. She has been in Washington D.C. since then and just returned yesterday. She and I are meeting tomorrow morning to discuss the report. A draft will then be submitted to Dr. Crowley. As soon as revisions are made (assuming any are required) and the report is finalized, I will let you know (InvestigationReport-request-for).

So, it seems that Dale Burke is accusing his boss of altering a legal document and falsifying material information contained therein.    Regardless, Burke’s point is irrelevant because 1) he was acting as a “fact finder” so if he reported this material fact inaccurately then every other “fact” in the report becomes suspect.  His statement invalidates the entire report and brings into question who actually wrote the report.  Why would Burke’s a “third party” to change material information in this legal document without first-hand knowledge of the events?  What other material information did Burke’s boss, or the other unnamed, mysterious, shadowy third party change?  Why would anybody have the ability to edit this report besides Dale Burke?   Who is the boss that Burke seems to accuse of making material changes to his report?  Is it Sue Riseling, founder of the Riseling group?   2)  Even if his boss made a change to the report it is ultimately Dale Burke’s name on it so it is Dale Burke who must answer any questions of impropriety.   Does Mr. Burke owe an apology to HR Director Crowley or is he lying now to cover for Crowley’s lie?  One thing is clear, somebody lied, and it isn’t Burton.   It seems too that Burke needs to explain why he falsified this document, a document that could get Burton fired and is now a permanent part of her personnel record.  How many other false “facts” are in Burton’s personnel record?   How many times has he done this to other employees of the university?  It brings into question all of his previous reports and opens the university up to legal issues arising from those cases as well.  It tarnishes the Riseling Group’s reputation that their staff falsifies legal documents this way.   


Why did Mr. Burke promise Dr. Burton that the report would “certainly, absolutely positively will be done” by the end of October 2016 but it was not delivered to Crowley until Nov 30, 2016?  What was Burke doing with the report for that extra month?  Why did it take him so long to complete the report?  Was he “changing” it in an effort to get Burton fired?


Sabina sent a response to Burke in which she wrote “I question your entire report and your ethics (HowDareI).”



Pg 8


Burton doesn’t call Rice’s actions “Retribution” she calls it “Retaliation.” The word “retribution” is defined by google as punishment inflicted on someone as “vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.  There is no reason why Burton would use that word.  But if Burke were trying to make Burton look like a criminal he might put that word in her mouth and it appears that is what he did.   Burke got this wrong in his report and it looks like he must have read that account to Crowley and then she used the same term.   Or, perhaps Burke changed Crowley’s words again?   If Rice were getting retribution against Burton that would imply that Burton had done something to Rice but that is not the case.   Listen to the audio of the meeting and you’ll see that Burton didn’t use the term “retribution” (A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16).   Neither has Burton ever used the term “retribution” to describe Rice’s actions against her in written form in her communications with Burke. Burke irresponsibly put that word in Burton’s mouth on a formal, legal document that seems to have been designed to get Burton fired.  Did he do it purposefully to make it seem as though Burton had done something to Rice that would warrant Rice’s retribution? 



Crowley says the promotional process was compliant with policy but she lied about the number of grievances so what credibility does she have here?   Did Burke change Crowley’s words again?   What evidence does Crowley have to show compliance?


Burton doesn’t need evidence that Rice’s promotion was reward for retribution because she didn’t make that claim.  She made the claim that Rice’s promotion was reward for her loyalty to Dalecki in his quest to get Burton fired.  Rice was rewarded for her efforts to help Dalecki retaliate against Burton.  That’s how corruption works.  The loyal people are rewarded and promoted despite lack of quality while quality people are targeted for elimination making more room for incompetent people at the top levels of an organization.  The top becomes heavy with incompetent people who bring in their buddies to join in with no requirement for quality, just loyalty.  It is a pyramid scheme.


Pg 9


Rice here says she saw the youtube videos and in the next paragraph says she didn’t see it.   That is quite a contradiction.  Either way, she couldn’t present any evidence about her claim.  She didn’t need to, because they knew Burton would effectively rebut any claim presented in a frontal attack (Rice’s 8/8/16 complaint).  That is why they planned to discredit her in a report that she was never supposed to see.  This report is full of inconsistencies.  The inconsistencies are evidence of a sham investigation that was intended to get Burton fired behind closed doors with Burton outside the room. 



Burke says that Burton says that the youtube videos were “recorded” by someone else.    But Burton said that they were “uploaded” by someone else.  Burke made another careless mistake. 


The correct forum for airing grievances is the established grievance process but if that process is broken taking issues public is an option.  It is messy but it was the administration’s choice to push Burton to a point where she had no other option than to take her accusations to the public. 


Rice has no proof, by her own admission, yet she makes vague accusations about Burton’s “manic behavior.”  Lies, lies lies.  It is character assassination.   Will Burke later lie about some mysterious, shadowy third party changing Rice’s comments?


Pg 10


Rice seems to believe that hard work equals mental health issue.  That is the kind of work ethic that prevails at this school.  If you are a hard worker you are labeled as crazy, and fired.   The Workplace Bullying Institute explains that people who are targeted by bullies are “more technically skilled than their bullies. They are the "go-to" veteran workers to whom new employees turn for guidance. Insecure bosses and co-workers can't stand to share credit for the recognition of talent. Bully bosses steal credit from skilled targets.”  They further explain that “Targets are ethical and honest. Some targets are whistleblowers who expose fraudulent practices. Every whistleblower is bullied. Targets are not schemers or slimy con artists. They tend to be guileless.”  That is the case here despite the rantings of the multiple bullies who participated in this sham investigation.


Burton worked hard on the Germany trip and Rice tried to take credit for her work.


It is not Burton who refuses to talk to people, the other way around.  Department members avoid her because they know anyone seen talking to Burton can expect to receive retaliation, like Ron Jacobus did.  They are all afraid to even talk to her.  Burton has protected her supporters by not trying to advance her cause at their expense.  She has not attempted to recruit people who would then be targeted for supporting her.  She has taken the high road.


Burton looks Rice in the eye.  It is Rice who averts her gaze.


Here Rice says the turning point was the June 2013 Germany trip.  But Throop tells the investigator that the turning point was in 2014.  They can’t get their stories straight.


Again, Rice uses a vague term “odd” to describe Burton’s “behavior” without giving any specific example or evidence.


Rice questions Burton’s Jewish heritage with very offensive statements.  Burton’s father grew up in Prague, spoke Yiddish fluently and he went to Israel multiple times as a guest of the Israeli government.  Burton grew up in a home where members of the Mossad visited with Burton’s father on multiple occasions to work with him in various political areas.  One of her father’s close friends, Murray Goodman who taught at UCSD, was a guest of the family for half a year.   Goodman was a famous chemist, maybe as famous as Sabina (Wuensch) Burton’s father.  Goodman’s wife was a Hebrew language instructor.   How much more Jewish can one get?  


Burton’s father, Erich Wünsch (English spelling Wuensch), was drafted into the German Air Force at the age of 19.  He flew the ME-109 and the ME-262 (world’s first jet).  He was never in the SS, nor was he ever affiliated with the Nazis.  In fact, he was at one point hunted by the Nazis for his refusal to carry out war crimes.   Rice’s statement is extremely offensive, has no basis in fact whatsoever, was intended to offend, and has nothing to do with Burton’s work at UW Platteville.  Mr. Burke was irresponsible for even including such statements in this record.   Burton’s father was captured by Americans as he was evading Nazi patrols.  After the war he was instrumental in coordinating for the release of countless prisoners of war in high level political discussions.  He spoke five languages fluently, earned two PhDs and was nominated for a Nobel prize for his advances in Peptide chemistry.   Working with the Max-Planck Institute Her Wuensch obtained a patent for a “method for preparing peptides and intermediate products,” (Erich Wünsch patent).  I don’t understand this chemistry stuff but believe me in the chemistry world Sabina’s dad was a big deal.  Sabina learned that her father was in grave condition on January 24, 2013, shared that information with Caywood and then he and Throop decided to attack her Cyber Security efforts on the same day.   We believe they attacked her because of the bad news she shared with Caywood that morning.  She was vulnerable so they decided it was time to put their plan into motion on Jan 24, 2013.    Burton’s father passed away on Valentine’s day 2013.  He was a great man.  He does not deserve to have his memory smeared by jealous little Debbie Rice.


Dr. Burton has had a long standing passion to fight the kind of corruption that led to the rise of Hitler and she sees that kind of corruption at UW-Platteville.   That is one of the primary reasons she has stayed to fight instead of finding employment elsewhere, which she could have done.


Burton didn’t refuse to assist the student.  Rice refused to give Burton the work that the student did.  Burton did a lot of work on the German visit.  Look in the timeline in and prior to June 2014 and you can see some of her work.  Burton had a clue, she donated $6.400 to the German delegation visit.  She expected a little help and support but none was given.   Dr. Dalecki set Burton up to fail.


By her own admission Rice admits that she “went off on [Burton].” Not the other way around.  Rice claimed under oath that Burton said “Ha, ha. Look what happened. I gave it all back on to Mike [Dalecki] and to Tom [Caywood].”  But Burton backed away from leading the delegation because her mother was in grave condition.  She had lost her father just the year prior and was heartbroken.  Rice didn’t seem to believe that Burton’s mother was ill during that time so here are the medical records to prove it (Oma-MedRecords).



Pg 11


Burton wanted to meet the German delegates at the welcome breakfast but Dalecki changed the location of the breakfast and called Burton to tell her to stay away.  He could have told Burton where the new breakfast location was but he instead told her that the breakfast had been cancelled.  Dalecki said, under oath, that he didn’t call Burton that morning but we have phone records to prove that he did call her.    Burton was excluded from participating in the visit.  She wanted to help but Dalecki wouldn’t allow it.   There is much evidence to show this in the timeline.


Rice calls Burton a “bully” but she and Dalecki and Throop and many others are the bullies.   It is ridiculous to say that one person who is fighting against so many is able to “bully” them.  It shows that the real bullies don’t like what Sabina is doing and are dog-piling on her.  Burton is exposing corruption and the corrupt are accusing her of the very things they are doing.  According to the Workplace Bullying InstituteEvery whistleblower is bullied.”  Corrupt people at UW-Platteville oppose and fear Dr. Burton.


Burton is not financially overextended.  She is not going to break.  She is now being heard and that gives her courage and energy and relieves her anxiety greatly.  


Where does this “narcissistic” comment come from?  The “behaviors” that Rice seems to attribute to Burton do not indicate a narcissistic personality at all.  Maybe she doesn’t know what the word “narcissist” means.  Sabina is definitely not a narcissist.  A good example of a narcissist would be Dr. Dalecki.  Here are two articles that that accurately describe Dr. Dalecki, former interim chair of the CJ department’s Self-Centered / Narcissistic / Manipulative personality type (exhibit 576) (exhibit 576a).  Dr. Dalecki tormented Dr. Burton for two years as her boss.


Corrupt people who spread lies like to talk behind closed doors because the truth hurts their ears.  That is why Burton is shouting the truth as loud and long as she can.  She will continue to do so and I will help her.


Pg 12


Burke states that the CJ members he contacted confirm that many members of the Criminal Justice department feel certain ways about Dr. Burton.  But Burke did not talk to a representative cross section of the department.   He spoke to Stackman, Rice and Strobl.  He failed to list their names in the cover page of the report (possibly so he could later claim that he talked to more people).  Three people who say the same things in exactly the same way as though it was rehearsed.  Burton should leave this in the past, the people who hurt her are no longer with the department, Burton is crazy but I have no evidence of any of this.’  Burke reports it as fact in an already suspect report.  Why didn’t Burke talk to every member of the department for a matter this important?  Why only three?  Why those particular three?  Did he talk only to them because they were the only ones willing to lie?   Will those three department members deny making the statements Burke reported?   If so, will Burke say his boss changed it?    Hmmmm.


Burton did accuse and disparage corrupt people who are damaging the university and seem to be trying to destroy the CJ department.   Fortunately for Dr. Burton this is the United States of America and not North Korea.  Burton has a First Amendment right to do so and should not be punished for speaking out the truth.    By attacking Burton for exposing the truth Rice displays her alignment with those who wish to cover up the truth.


Rice didn’t file a grievance on Aug 8, 2016 but a complaint.  There are specific differences in the way each is investigated and handled.   Burke is supposed to be a veteran of making this sort of report but he made so many mistakes it makes me question his ability and his ethics.


Burke goes into great detail to describe his journey to a meeting.  Why does he feel this belongs in a report about a complaint that can get someone fired?  What does this trip to an equestrian center have to do with Deb Rice’s complaint against Dr. Burton?   Hmmm.


Burke’s report leaves more questions in my mind than it provides answers.   This fact finding report is full of non-facts.  I told Burke that if he was after facts I liked him.  Well, I guess I don’t like him as he didn’t seem interested in reporting facts.


(end of rebuttal of Burke’s investigation report - Rice’s complaint against Burton)








Burton Complaint v Rice Dismissal Packet


– Contents:  The other clipped stack of papers contained an original letter from Chancellor Shields to Dr. Burton dismissing her complaint against Deb Rice dated Nov 30, 2016, a copy of Dr. Burton’s complaint against Deb Rice dated Sept 2, 2016 and a copy of the undated Personnel Complaint Investigation report by Dale Burke detailing the investigation into Burton’s complaint.



– Comments: 


Chancellor Shields’ letter dismissing Burton’s complaint:  


AVP Brokenburr should not have returned the complaint to UW-Platteville as Burton had informed her that Chancellor Shields was not going to treat her fairly.  Shields did exactly what Burton told Brokenburr he would do.  Now that Chancellor Shields has dismissed her complaint Burton will need to take it to higher authority for resolution.  If Brokenburr had investigated and handled it on the higher level perhaps Burton would not need to appeal the Chancellor’s decision.  


Chancellor Shields misappropriated funds by arranging for Dale Burke to conduct this investigation.  There was no reason why it could not have been heard in a fair grievance hearing for free.   The Chancellor did this, I believe, to quietly dismiss Burton’s grievance against Rice thereby protecting one of his loyal corrupt cadre from exposure of her illegal activities that would ultimately also reflect badly on the Chancellor himself.


Chancellor Shields is inconsistent in his conclusions.  He concluded from Rice’s unsubstantiated, unfounded and undocumented complaint against Burton that Burton acted badly enough that she might be fired over it but he quickly dismissed her well documented allegations of Rice’s illegal activity saying that it warrants no disciplinary action or further investigation.     What criteria does Chancellor Shields use to support his very lop sided conclusions?  This matter, and Chancellor Shields’ involvement in it, definitely needs to be further investigated.


Chancellor Shields does not believe that this is a matter of merely misunderstanding, miscommunication and personal animosity.  He knows what it is, but he is trying to cover up the fact that this is indication of severe systemic corruption that implicates him as well as Deb Rice and others in ongoing attempts to cover up their corrupt acts.    Chancellor Shields refused to talk to Burton about this issue after she requested an audience, that he himself suggested and asked for multiple times (see timeline Aug-Nov 2016).   This is not a matter that can be resolved by mediation between Rice and Burton.  Resolution of this matter will require turning the bullying culture of UW Platteville upside down (according to Workplace Bullying Institute).








Dr. Burton’s Sept 2, 2016 complaint against Rice:


This is Burton’s complaint against Rice.  Her stance on all issues is still the same as when she submitted the grievance on 9/2/16 (see timeline on this date for the exhibits). 




Personnel Complaint Investigation report by Dale Burke:


Burke failed to put a date on his report.  This seems to be a common practice among corrupt people.  They like to be able to change the dates of their reports depending on how things turn out.  They like to be able to claim it was delivered months earlier if it suits them.  They want to be able to change the date later if the actual date of delivery becomes uncomfortable.


Interviewees were insufficient to provide the investigator with enough real information to make an informed, unbiased report.


Interviewees:  Laurie Hammer.  Hammer had only a miniscule part in the complaint against Rice, to the point of complete insignificance.


Dan Fairchild:   Burton accused Fairchild of illegally denying her access to due process by denying her grievance hearings.   He is hardly an unbiased person with knowledge of the issues.   All he knows is that Burton asked for a grievance and he was ordered not to give it to her.


HR director Crowley:  Burton accused the HR director of violating her due process rights.  Dale Burke’s report on Rice’s complaint against Burton indicates that Crowley lied to the investigator about the number of grievances she filed against Rice.  She is hardly someone who provides an unbiased look at the issues.



Deb Rice:  Burton’s complaint is against Deb Rice.  She is hardly someone to provide unbiased information about the issue.


Other interviewees:  Burke mentions that he spoke with other members of the department but he does not identify them at the beginning of the report.  In his report about Rice’s complaint against Burton he identifies Strobl, Stackman and Rice as his interdepartmental interviewees.  Hardly a representative cross section of the department upon which he could fairly come to an unbiased conclusion.  I identify the issues with these three now:


Rice – obvious conflict of interest since she is the subject of Burton’s complaint

Stackman – obvious conflict of interest since Burton’s request for her to house sit somehow found its way into a letter of direction in which Throop falsely claimed that Burton pressured Stackman and that she had complained about it.   Dean Throop met with Stackman a few days before her deposition and the house sitting issue was a central concept of the discussion (Stackman’s deposition).  

Strobl – obvious conflict of interest since she removed Burton from a grant and Burton complained about it.  Strobl stepped down from the chair position in Nov 2016 citing lack of institutional support as the reason.


Why didn’t Burke talk to others in the department?   Hmmm.  This needs further investigation.  I think he only spoke to these select few people because they were the people who were involved in the plot to get Burton fired.   Bringing in other people would possibly sway the findings in Burton’s favor and he couldn’t have that.  This is called circumscribing and indicates that this was a “sham investigation.”



Burkes Report:


Allegation #1:  Burke misquoted Burton.  Burton did not say that she is “convinced that Rice’s ongoing animosity towards [her] originated as a result of [her] having deleted the co-leader identification and other Rice quotes from this press release.”  Listen to the audio of the meeting to see A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16.   Burton told him that perhaps that was what started her animosity.  Burton never said that she was “convinced” but she offered it as a possible explanation about the origins of Rice’s hostility.   Get your facts straight Burke.



Page 3 first paragraph – investigator’s note:  Rice states that the turning point in her relationship with Burton turned as a result of events surrounding the trip to Germany but later she says it was the following year.  Her story is inconsistent.   


In Burton’s grievance against Rice the press release issue was listed first because, it came first chronologically, but it is really a very minor part of this overall issue.   Burke devoted more than a full page to this matter, making it appear far more important than it is; perhaps he did so to distract from the core of the issue.


Allegation #2:  Burke mistakenly wrote that Burton stated that she “was not interested in doing something without compensation when [she] had other things to do during that summer.”  This is a fabrication.  Listen to the interview recording and you will find that Burton never said this (A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16).  Burton was indeed interested in accommodating the visiting German delegation but her mother became ill so she was unable to do so.  Burke fabricated this statement and presented it as fact as though Burton had said it.    An investigation should be conducted into Burke’s handling of this investigation.   How can he be trusted with investigations such as this when he makes such materially important “mistakes?”   I believe he misquoted Burton on purpose to get her fired.  I believe he thought he would get away with this fabrication because Burton was never supposed to see his report.   He was promised that Burton would never ever see the report.  I wonder how many other people have been fired this way?   


Burke wrote that Burton stated that the reason she limited her attention to the German delegation visit was because she “was very busy with other things that summer.”    This is another fabrication.  Listen to the audio of the meeting and you will see that Burton did not say that (A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16).   Burton limited her involvement because her mother was ill.  That is well documented in the evidence she gave to Burke.  Burke further wrote that Burton “claims that if she had been asked and if the CJ department would have offered to reduce her other academic obligations, she most likely would have been able to do more, but nobody ever asked or offered.”   Another fabrication; listen to the audio and you will see (A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16).  


Burke wrote that Burton “reiterated that she would have helped if she could but there were many things going on in her personal life which prevented her from doing so that summer, many involving health issues with various close family members.”   This is a half-truth.   Burton’s mother was seriously ill and that is why she didn’t help with the German delegation visit so that part of his sentence is somewhat true but he didn’t say that her health issue was the reason.  He muddied the water and made it sound as though her family issues were minor and that she just wanted time off.  This is called spin.  Burke changed Burton’s stated reason to make his report seem to indicate that her reason was not justified.   Again, listen to the audio and you will see that he was inaccurate, although partially correct.   The administration tries to make all of their false allegations contain at least a small bit of truth to it and this is an example. 


Burke wrote “When Burton was accused by others later of having “dumped” the German guests, Burton replied, “I’m sorry but that’s why some people have 12 month contracts.” She went on to say “that’s not my gig.” “If you need someone to work, you need to put them on payroll.””    Burke mischaracterizes and misquotes Burton’s words here.   He paints Burton as a person who refuses to do anything without “being on payroll” but Burton put in countless hours of volunteer time and she donated $6,400 to the German delegation visit (see timeline June 2014 to see how much volunteer work Burton put in).   She did help with the German delegation visit but she couldn’t be the leader of the visit because she needed time to care for her ailing mother.  Yes, Burton’s mother was gravely ill (Oma-MedRecords). 


Rice believes International programs donated some money but the money that was used for the visit was the $6,400 Burton had donated.  Dalecki burned through it by going to the pistol range twice and paying Stackman and Rice for assisting in an event that Burton was reprimanded for not handling alone on a volunteer basis.   Dalecki told Burton that there was no money for her to buy sandwiches for the delegation but there was over $300 remaining even after Dalecki paid Rice and Stackman about $2,000.  International Programs didn’t donate anything. They didn’t have to because Burton donated the money.


According to Burke “Rice said that when Burton phoned her just days prior to the German’s arrival and said “in an almost sweet little girl voice,” “Look what I did to Mike [Dalecki] and Tom [Caywood].”   I suppose it is one of those “she said – she said” sort of things.  Personally I believe Sabina’s account of the phone call that Rice swore at her and called her lazy and greedy.  Sabina says she just called to thank Rice for helping with the German visit.   I can’t refer you to any document to show this one because Sabina didn’t record the conversation.  She didn’t expect she would need to.  She thought Rice was her friend at that time.    Burton wasn’t retaliating against Caywood and Dalecki.  How stupid would it be for someone to retaliate against their boss?   What the hell??????     And just how does stepping out of a volunteer activity injure her boss anyway?    They seem to blame Burton for the tornado too.



Burton’s allegation #3


Burton never said that Ron Jacobus was being mentored by Rice.  This is another fabrication by the investigator. 


Burke wrote that Burton “was clearly upset that she was expected to perform services without compensation when others were paid to do so” but he failed to include in his report that Burton donated $6,400 and this is the money that was used to pay Rice and Stackman (Dalecki’s deposition).


Of course Rice “doesn’t recall” saying that Burton won’t be around much longer because that would indicate that there was a plot to fire Burton and Rice has been warned not to validate that.   Or, maybe Burke changed Rice’s story to cover it up?  Who knows?  I don’t trust either of them.   Hmmm.  I wonder if we would be allowed access to the audio recording of Burke’s interview with Rice.   Hmmm.  Maybe we should ask for that.


Burton allegation #4


Burke wrote that Burton stated that “she has no more trust issues with East Germans than she does with anyone in this country who violates other people’s rights.”   Here Burke makes Burton seem to have a trust issue with East Germans by misquoting her.  In this misquote presented as fact he falsely confirms Rice’s allegation that Burton is biased against East Germans.   Of course Burton didn’t say this as can be easily confirmed by listening to the audio recording of the meeting (A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16).   This is another obvious attempt by Burke to twist facts to make Burton look bad.  He was hired to create a document that could be used to fire Burton and that requires twisting facts.  


Rice calls Burton’s “behavior” bizarre but gives no evidence of this.  Burton’s behavior has only been bizarre in the sense that she stayed and endured four years of harassment when others have given up and quit.  


Burton never said “I just don’t trust those East Germans.”  Rice lied.


Burton’s allegation #5


The allegation that Rice treated Jacobus with hostility was not “from a recording” but it was information obtained from Jacobus.   Burke got this wrong.  Rice’s hostility toward Jacobus was more of a general fall from grace.  Rice began treating Jacobus as though he didn’t matter anymore because he wouldn’t be around much longer, and he wasn’t.


Rice admits to treating Jacobus differently, as though she couldn’t trust him anymore.  She admits that she stopped speaking with him.  She viewed him as a spy.  She began to suspect him of sneaking around spying on her.  That’s kind of hostile.    I have noticed that many of the false accusations against Burton were for the very things that the accuser had been doing themselves.   Perhaps this is no different.  Perhaps Rice expected Jacobus to be spying on her because she had been spying on Burton.  I have no evidence of this but the theory fits.   Chances are pretty good that Rice spied on Burton.  We have evidence that Rice quickly snitched emails from Burton to higher ups.  Rice’s paranoia about people spying on her is probably due to her desire to keep her actions secret.  People who have much to hide are often paranoid about others learning their secrets so her paranoia makes sense. 


Burton’s allegation #6


Rice claims that he mentioned to Dalecki that students told her that Burton was going to Germany.  She told Dalecki about this, in keeping with her habit of spying on Burton and reporting her every move to higher ups.   It seems that she had a student “spy” in Burton’s class.  Why would a student come and report that to her?   Hmmm.  This seems to fit with the article by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) published on Sept 28, 2011, “OCR’s New Sexual Harassment Guidelines Threaten Academic Freedom, Due Process.”  Read more about this on the short stories page.


There seems to be an intricate lie triangle that Throop, Dalecki and Rice have formulated together:  Rice says she only told Dalecki.  Dalecki says he might have mentioned it to Throop in passing.  Throop claims Rice told her and confirmed it.  This way nobody will want to investigate because it is too tangled and twisted.   Dale Burke spent no time whatsoever in trying to find out why their stories don’t jive.    Hmmm.  Why wouldn’t an “investigator” try to “investigate” such a material inconsistency?   Hmmm.  Could he be corrupt too?   Yep.   That’s probably why he was called in for this job.


Let’s try to overlook the obvious error that Burke made in writing up this report that he wrote 2016 but should have written 2014.  It shows that he is a bit sloppy in his reporting but we know he meant 2014 because that was the year all this happened.   So, we’ll assume he meant 2014 but that he got the rest of the dates correct.   Moving on. 


Rice finds Burton’s trip odd because she “knew that there was a big department meeting scheduled for the next Monday (December 15, 2014) afternoon which Burton would be expected to attend.”   But there never was a department meeting scheduled for Monday Dec 15, 2014.   Rice was in a three-way conspiracy to get Burton fired on trumped up charges working with Dalecki and Throop to blind-side Burton.   Their first plan was to accuse her of missing a “big department meeting.”  It was actually an impromptu meeting called after Dalecki already knew Burton was in Germany.


On Mon 12/15/2014 7:39 AM – (DeptMeeting-12-16-14)   Dalecki called an impromptu department meeting for the next day.  He knew Sabina had gone to Germany and was going to use the occasion to reprimand her for leaving without permission.  It backfired because Sabina was back for the Tuesday meeting so they made up the cancellation of class thing instead.  Dalecki probably assumed Burton would be gone for a week at least.  He called for the Tuesday meeting hoping and expecting that Burton would not be able to come back from Germany in time for the meeting.  He planned to write Burton up for her absence from the meeting but he was surprised when Burton showed up for the meeting.   Everyone looked at her that day like she was a ghost.  His plan to discipline Burton for missing the meeting didn’t work so he, Rice and Throop conspired to discipline her for having missed her class the previous Friday.  Dalecki saw Sabina on Friday morning but by Tuesday afternoon he had probably forgotten about that and assumed that she must have cancelled her class.  Or maybe he didn’t care at that point whether she had cancelled class or not.  It doesn’t matter at UW Platteville if you are innocent, just that you are a target.


On December 15, 2014 5:38 PM – Throop wrote an email to Lohmann saying “(I am going to have to file a Ch. 6 Complaint against [Burton])  (Ch6ComplaintDec15-2014).   At the time she was probably expecting Burton to miss the department meeting the following day and she was going to use that against her.  This shows that her accusation that Burton cancelled class (which was sent after this email) was pretext to give her reason to fire Burton.  It also demonstrates that her statement in the deposition was perjury (Dkt 42 pg 114-115).  She did want to fire Burton, why else would she plan a Chapter 6 complaint before she even issued the false allegation that Burton cancelled class or missed the meeting?  She wrote that she “had to” file the complaint but there were many other options available to her.  She could have, for example, asked Dr. Burton if she had cancelled the class instead.  She did not “have to” file the complaint, there was no need for it and no justification for it.   It seems too obvious that Burton was right; Throop wanted to fire her. She enlisted Rice in this goal.  Also, on Oct 29, 2014 Throop planned to file a chapter 6 complaint even then.   The accusation of cancelled class or the missed meeting was pretext to disguise the true motives for filing the complaint.  After learning that Burton didn’t cancel class Throop issued the chapter 6 complaint anyway, instead of apologizing for the false accusation.  Note:  Throop said in her deposition that she owed Burton an apology for the false accusation (Throop deposition pg 124).  Burton is still waiting for an apology. (Subpoena-Throop December 15, 2014 6:38:57



Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:51 PM   -Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit J).  Dkt 43-3 BENSKY EXHIBIT AAAA – 002      Dkt 41-42.   Throop sent Burton an email accusing her of canceling classes the past Friday and threatened disciplinary measures.  She wrote: “It has come to my attention that you cancelled classes last Friday, the last day of classes, so that you could travel to Germany. You did not obtain permission from your chair for this absence; indeed, you did not even inform him that you would be gone. You are in violation of UW Platteville’s Employee Handbook… I will be forced to pursue disciplinary measures as a result.”  


She did not say who told her Burton had cancelled class.    Burke failed to investigate Burton’s allegations so we still don’t have a definitive answer to the question “who reported to Dean Throop that Burton cancelled class?”  This needs to be investigated by a neutral, unbiased third party.   This tangled spaghetti mess needs to be straightened out.


Rice claims that she never spoke with Dean Throop about the cancelled class information.   Hmmmm.


Burton’s allegation #7


Rice questioned the appropriateness of Burton’s trip to Germany to visit her God-Father on his death bed.   She thought it inappropriate based on Burton’s bleak financial situation without having any idea of Burton’s financial situation.  She might be surprised to learn that Burton flew business class on Lufthansa on this trip.


How is it inappropriate to go to Germany on a Friday and return before the following Tuesday?  Just stupid.  I’m sorry, it is just stupid and I can’t think of any other way to describe it.


Ok, so, going to Germany on Friday to visit ones dying God-Father and then returning before a Tuesday meeting is “inappropriate,” and “irrational behavior” that demonstrates that a person is “manic?”    That is way over the top.  Sorry, just out there.  Rice is clearly trying to make a case that Burton needs to be fired but she doesn’t have anything rational to say to make that happen so she says these irrational, irresponsible and insulting statements to an “investigator.”  As long as Burton never sees the report she doesn’t have to worry about what she says.   It’s all covered up.



Burton’s allegation #8


Rice said that “while she may have questioned the legitimacy of the leave to individuals privately, she never said anything to students or faculty as a whole?”  So, as long as you don’t spread rumors to everybody all at once it is ok?   What she described is spreading false rumors.  She was telling people that Burton faked her ulcers.   We have medical records to prove that Burton was on medical leave for very legitimate, life threatening ulcers.  They were caused by stress at work.  She gave as much notice as she was given opportunity for.   The ulcers were not scheduled. 


Burton posted pictures of her trip to California the year prior to her medical leave, not while she was on medical leave.    Rice was looking for anything at all to justify her harassment of Burton.  She was trying to spread dissent among the other department members.  She was lying to them to get them to stay away from Burton.  She was a spreading targeted rumors to destroy Burton’s reputation and career.  She was engaging in character assassination.


Rice didn’t believe that Burton’s medical leave was Burton’s passive/aggressiveness she was telling that to others, including the investigator, to alienate Burton from others and get her fired on trumped up charges.


Rice demonstrates the “claim they did what we are doing” phenomenon.  She claims that Burton went on medical leave, with life threatening ulcers, to “retaliate against or punish those who had dared to stand up to her.”   But the exact opposite is true.  Burton went on medical leave, with life threatening ulcers because Rice, Dalecki and Throop retaliated against and punished her because she dared to stand up for justice.


Investigator’s note:  Yep. Burton worked for UW Milwaukee while she was on sick leave.  She taught a cyber-crime class online.  She normally did her work in bed wearing pajamas.   She did this whenever she felt up to it.   The implication that she couldn’t have really been sick if she could teach an online class for UW Milwaukee is absurd.   Get over it guys.  She was really sick.  I was there.  Try this… Listen to the way she talked at the grievance she had with Caywood before she developed ulcers (A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13  -  CD 2)  and then listen to the talk she had with John Lohmann and Jen DeCoste two days before she went to the hospital with severe medical problems (A12 - Meet deCoste and Lohman 8-13-14).   See if you can hear a difference in the way she presents her issues.  You will notice that she was very weak on 8-13-14 but still able to get across her story.


Burton allegation #9


Burton comment section:  It appears that Burke is writing as though Burke is speaking but it is in the Burton comment section so it is confusing.  This is poor report writing. It is not clear what he is trying to say so I’ll try to explain.  Burton believes that the administration told Fairchild not to give Burton a grievance hearing for either of the grievances she filed, one against Throop and one against Rice.   


Investigator’s note section:   Crowley told me in an audio recorded meeting that my grievance against Rice should be heard even using the new Seriously Flawed and Discriminatory Grievance Hearing Procedures (SFDGHP) that Fairchild references (A34-Mtg-Burton-Crowley-5-9-16).  So, Fairchild did not follow even that seriously discriminatory procedure.  The administration wouldn’t allow it.  The hearing procedures are seriously flawed and discriminatory because they were created to discriminate against Dr. Burton specifically. This behavior is anticipated in an article by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) published on Sept 28, 2011, “OCR’s New Sexual Harassment Guidelines Threaten Academic Freedom, Due Process” which explains how corrupt administrations “draft their school code” (more info in short stories).  


Burton sent an email to the Faculty Senate that explains the problems with the new SFDGHPs.  May 9, 2016 1:14 AM – Burton sent an email to the Faculty Senate asking them to review the email she had sent to Mr. Fairchild.  Her email opened with “The grievance process at UW-Platteville is severely flawed and in essence non-existent.”    (Re_ Fw_ DeniedGvncHrg-5-9-16)   Attached were (LtrfmFairchild)  and (Fairchild refusal letter-5-3-16)  


As for Crowley believing she was the only administrator to have contact with Fairchild I say pshaw.  Any administrator could contact Fairchild with the click of a button and Crowley would have no knowledge of it.  Also, what explains the sudden change in Crowley’s stance on appropriateness of Burton’s requested grievance hearing?  Why did she say on 5/9/16 that Burton should have a hearing and then later say the opposite?    Hmmm.   The administration denied Burton access to grievance hearings so they could cover up their corrupt acts.  Plain and simple.  Crowley is an administrator.


Sure, Fairchild is going to tell the investigator that Dean Throop pressured him to keep Burton from getting a hearing (sarcasm intended).  It is ridiculous to ascribe any degree of legitimacy to Fairchild’s statement that the administration didn’t pressure him because if they did pressure him they would also have told him not to tell anyone they pressured him.   Burke’s investigation is flawed by relying on Fairchild’s assertion of no pressure from above without digging deeper.  Even worse, the way Burke worded his note implies that he never even asked Fairchild directly if the administration pressured him but just that he gave no indication of being pressured.


Crowley did say that Burton was entitled to a grievance hearing against Rice (A34-Mtg-Burton-Crowley-5-9-16).


Burke seems to try to give Crowley a “way out” of her pickle by writing that she “does not have the authority to mandate a hearing which would conflict with university policies or procedures.”  By writing it this way Burke implies that he agrees that Fairchild was following procedures by rejecting Burton’s hearing requests.    But Burke did not investigate whether Fairchild’s denial did indeed comply with the procedure.   It did not, as Burton explained in the email to the Faculty Senate above.


Burton’s allegation #10


Investigator’s note is out to lunch.   It was indeed Burton’s and Rice’s call to make whether they wanted a grievance hearing.  Fairchild violated policy by rejecting the request.  Burke made a serious mistake my misinterpreting policy and taking Fairchild’s word as the final and correct interpretation of policy.   The investigator is wrong.


Burton did not say that she “gave” Rice a trip to Germany in the sense that she paid for it.  She provided an opportunity for Rice and her husband to come along.


Rice “cannot understand why Burton continues to protest events from years ago.”  This is the party line.  All the corrupt people who have harassed Burton for years say the same thing.  Of course Burton continues to protest these events because they have not been resolved and because they continue to cause her harm.    Burton has the right to pursue grievances but they have been denied her.  That is why she keeps trying to be heard.  Rice fears the end result of Burton’s pursuits because she is mired in the corruption at UW Platteville.  She will suffer backlash if the corruption is exposed and cleaned up.     Rice sees no good coming out of it for Rice.  For the university much good will come of cleaning up the corruption.


Burton’s allegation #11


Was Rice required to use her accrued sick days for this leave?   Did Burke see the leave request with Strobl’s signature and proper dates?  Did Burke look into these questions?  Not likely.  It seems he just took Rice’s word that Strobl approved the leave request.   It is as though Burke believes what everybody says.   That’s not fact finding.  People lie.  People who tell the truth back up what they say.   Burton provides lots of evidence for her claims.  Rice provided absolutely no evidence for anything she said, by Burkes admission.     Was Rice charged sick days for her time off or was it freely given to her as a reward for her complaint against Burton?


Interview with Dan Fairchild: 


Fairchild was incorrect in several ways.  Burton did not file a grievance against Rice in 2015.  Fairchild is mixing up Burton’s grievances.  He can’t even keep straight how he violated Burton’s due process rights.   That happens when you lie.   You forget dates and events; they all get jumbled up.   To find out what grievances Burton filed, and when, search for the keyword “grievance” on the timeline.   Fairchild and Balachandran both delayed Burton’s grievances way, way, waaaayaaaaaay past the mandatory 20-day deadline.   Burton withdrew two of the grievances because it became clear the administration would never give her a fair hearing, and on advice from her attorney.


The report I got did not contain any attachments by Fairchild.  Maybe we should request these.



Interview with Laurie Hammer:


The press release of Sept 10, 2013 is one of the most minor of issues in Burton’s complaint.  Burke spends a lot of time on nothing.  He should have spent his time finding out who told Throop that Burton cancelled class instead of wasting his time asking about this press release.  This was not even really a complaint by Burton.  It was merely her suggested possible reason why Rice might have become nasty toward her.   Burke wasted his time on this issue.   He probably did this to cover up the real issues.


(end of rebuttal of Burke’s investigation report – Burton’s grievance against Rice)