American University of Antigua has
refused to produce my medical and student records
since November 22, 2010!

(American University of Antigua disclosed student records and
sued me to cover-up AUA Medical School faculty incompetence!)

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
20 USC 1232g


FERPA: Students have the right:
-Inspect and review education records within 45 days of a request
-Seek to amend education records believed to be inaccurate;
-Consent to the disclosure of personally identifiable information from education records, except as specified by law.

A university that discloses private student records or
refuses to produce student records is suppose to be sanctioned and
refused Federal funding under Federal Law!

This is not the case with corrupt, corporate owned, and lying
Federal judges and Department of Education!
The Department of Education allows American University of Antigua to continue receiving Federal Loans!

American University of Antigua Student Handbook


"The University adheres to the mandates of the United States Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act(FERPA):
1. The student has the right to inspect and review his educational record within
45 days of the University's receiving a written request for access."

AUA Medical School Student Handbook, page 25

AUA claimed I committed “Tortious Interference”
for exposing AUA's disclosure of private student records…
AUA admitting to a contract concerning student records.

Tortious Interference:
In an intentional interference claim,
the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the elements of the claim
rather than on the defendant to prove that its acts were justified.
To prevail on the claim, plaintiff must prove four elements:

(1) that a valid contract existed,
(2) that defendant had knowledge of the contract,
(3) that defendant acted intentionally and improperly, and
(4) that plaintiff was injured by the defendant’s actions.

Federal Case Law Supporting University/Student Contractual Obligations

Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410-Court of Appeals 7th Cir. 1992
”basic legal relation between a student and a private university or college is contractual in nature.
The catalogues, bulletins, circulars, and regulations of the institution made available to the matriculant become a part of the contract”

Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry. 862 F.2d 570, 577, (6th Cir.1988).
"Catalogs, manuals, handbooks, bulletins, circulars and regulations of a university
may help define this contractual relationship. Ross, 957 F.2d at 416."

Mangla v. Brown Univ. 135 F.3d 80.83(1st Cir. 1998)
"contracts contain an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing"

Atria v. Vanderbilt University, 142 Fed.Appx. 246 (2005)
“provisions may be enforced in Tenessee if it creates an implied contract.
See Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383, 405 (Tenn.2002).
This court, applying Tennessee’s law, has stated that “the student-university relationship is contractual in nature
although courts have rejected a rigid application of the contract law in this area.”

Mangla v. Brown Univ. 135 F.3d 80.83(1st Cir. 1998)
“contracts contain an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing"

The Michigan and Federal Courts ruled against my breached a contract claim against AUA!

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Public Law 104-191

"The Rule also gives patients rights over their health information,
including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records."

I served AUA requests to produce my medical and student records
during the lawsuit AUA filed against me in the United States Federal 6th Circuit Court!

I served AUA per
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(Rule 34):

"Please produce a copy of all patient records for Steven Woodward
concerning any clinical treatment provided by any AUA employee."
"Please produce a copy of all counseling records for Steven Woodward written by any AUA employee."
"Please produce a copy of all prescriptions for Steven Woodward for any clinical treatments
provided by any AUA employee."

-Request for Documentation, page 22
-Email Serving AUA Requests For Production.

AUA refused to produce any documentation I requested;

including any documentation to support their claims!

I filed a Motion to Compel AUA to produce my student records and
follow Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure

Motion To Compel AUA

Federal Court Orders against AUA;
-AUA refused to obey Court Orders!

AUA refused to obey Court Orders (Rule 37)

I filed a Motion for Sanctions against AUA for violating Court Orders and
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

-Motion For Sanctions Against AUA for refusing to obey Court Orders

My brief to the Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
"AUA refused to produce discovery served by Woodward per FRCP 26,
including Woodward's own student records and any medical records"
-Brief I filed to the Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Federal Courts refused to sanction American University of Antigua...
The Department of Education refuses to sanction or refuse Federal Funding to American University of Antigua......
Because the Federal Government, including the Courts and Department of Education are Corrupt, Corporate Owned Liars!


Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure

Rule 34
Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information,
and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

"(A) Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within
30 days after being served"


Rule 37
Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

(2) Sanctions Sought in the District Where the Action Is Pending.

(A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order.
If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)
—fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a),
the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established
for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses,
or from introducing designated matters in evidence;

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order

except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination."
(BACK) | Top