Evidence Site Main Index
|
|
||
|
||
|
Letter to the American Institute of
Physics – March 15, 2011 [Includes Prior Emails to/from DOE-Science
2007-10] Office of Science
7-Year Fraud/Abuse/Mismanagement Provides Cause for Congress to Cut DOE
Funding -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
Cc: Steven Koonin [Science] ; Secretary
Chu ; William Brinkman [Science] ; Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] ; brandon.hurlbut@hq.doe.gov ; Glenn
Podonsky [DOE Security] ; H. Frederick Dylla [AIP] ; K Edmonds [DOE Tech Transfer] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:57 PM Subject: AIP 3/3/11 Letter to Senate Undermined by Ongoing
Fraud, False Claims, Perjury, Misappropriation, and Security Breach by
Battelle and Office of Science, Thus Providing Good Cause for Congress to Cut
Funding for DOE Research
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
To: mike.holland@science.doe.gov Cc: Steven Koonin ; Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] ; Secretary Chu Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010
8:57 PM Subject:
9/21/10: DOE Undersecretary Koonin's
Senior Advisor Confirms that Office of Science will continue financing
[taxpayers] research
misconduct/falsification [perjury] to conceal Battelle misusing DOE
small business assistance. [General Counsel authorized perjury.] Attachments: Compilation-ExhibitDocsOverviews.pdf
; 1A-Transcript-Hearing-CourtRejectsBattelleRightToDeliverZero.pdf
; Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf ; 2-BattelleNewCodeTacticToEvadeExclusiveMDMLicense.pdf
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
To: mike.holland@science.doe.gov Cc: Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] ; Steven Koonin Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:47
PM Subject:
Forward of 2009 Email Sent to Dr. Koonin
Office with Updates Re: PNNL Rebid Tainted; Science Financing/Advising
Battelle-PNNL
Litigation Fraud/Perjury[Radiation Portal Monitor Project];
DOE/Battelle v. SEC/Madoff; Defying President's Small Business Support Attachments: Compilation-ExhibitDocsOverviews.pdf
; 1A-Transcript-Hearing-CourtRejectsBattelleRightToDeliverZero.pdf
;
Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf
; 2-BattelleNewCodeTacticToEvadeExclusiveMDMLicense.pdf
Mike
Holland [Office of Science], Per our conversation
yesterday, I am forwarding this detailed evidence-intensive 2009 email
regarding Battelle's fraud against my small business, the patent office and
the court; Dr. Koonin never responded.
And, FOIA documents confirm that he [Office of Science (taxpayers)]
continues funding the litigation that includes research falsification and
perjury. As I repeatedly told you, the evidence implicating Battelle consists of their own documents and
testimony. For background, see the
evidence site, the attachments, and the following points: ▪ Battelle Misusing Federal
Assistance Program [Pocketing/grabbing technology developed for small
business] – Details [Motive: Unique Use Permit allowing Battelle to
conduct lucrative private consulting using gov. facilities – Details] ▪ Admitted Patent Fraud
[Battelle misrepresents inventions to US Patent Office (Calling old ones
“new” and renaming)] – Details ▪ Concealing Evidence via Perjury
[Falsifying DHS Radiation Portal Research and falsely denying commercial
ventures] – Details ▪ DOE Repeating SEC/Madoff
[Overlooking fraud (red flags) & shirking oversight of Battelle] – Details Sent to Secretary Locke ▪ Security Breach [Perjuring scientist
(with top secret clearance) working on air cargo explosives counter-terrorism
research]
– Details Sent to Sec. Chu ▪ Battelle Prior Violation of False Claims Act [Cost taxpayers
$1M, Inspector General recommended criminal sanctions for “theft, conspiracy and false statement”, placed in Congressional Record, and broadcast on
NBC’s Fleecing of America]
– Details ▪ David v. Goliath [Billion-dollar tax-exempt
Battelle soaking taxpayers ~$1M for litigation against small business]
– Details Regardless of the
“process” you cite [re:
General Counsel], the unequivocal fact remains that Office of Science
under Dr. Koonin [with $5B budget]
continued forcing US taxpayers to fund Battelle’s litigation fraud/perjury via research
falsification [to conceal evidence] [and retaliate] against my small business that reported fraud to
the IG per DOE Order 221.1. Science has spent ~$1M to
cover up billion-dollar Battelle’s defrauding small business
technical assistance, the court, and the US patent office; this blatantly contravenes
the President’s many statements supporting small business in the worst economy since the 1930’s. In sum, it’s
unacceptable for Science to repeat the SEC/Madoff debacle by continuing to overlook
Battelle’s fraud, security breaches and other misconduct and by soaking
[misappropriating] taxpayers via perjury to a federal judge and later the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The taxpaying public and the next Congressional appropriations
committees will agree, especially as the economy stagnates/worsens and the
budget deficit balloons. They will want to investigate the DOE Office of General
Counsel’s legal strategy/practice of having DOE-Science suborn perjury
by national lab scientists to conceal evidence of contractor fraud against
small business, universities, injured/sickened lab staff, the courts,
whistleblowers, patent office, etc. In my
case, Science has funded counsel whose prior firm was fined/sanctioned
[record $325K] for discovery abuse by wrongfully concealing smoking-gun evidence of drug
toxicity that brain damaged a 3-year old girl; this attorney
repeated such conduct by misrepresenting research [Radiation Portal Monitoring Project] and commercialization to hide
evidence. Obviously,
it's in the public, Congressional and national
security interest to immediately uncover and stop the 7-year DOE/Battelle fraud cover-up that’s: (i) Shown Science retaliated by
financing Battelle’s litigation fraud against small business, (ii) Violated national security by
suborning perjury by Q-Clearance scientist accessing classified information (e.g., counter-terrorism
explosives), (iii) Confirmed Science funds
assistance programs for Battelle to exploit as Madoff-like
“feeders” for corporate ventures, (iv) Condoned Battelle’s
admitted misrepresentations [18 USC §1001]
of DOE-funded inventions to patent office, (v) Soaked taxpayers in a $1M bailout
to “protect” Battelle corporate, (vi) Proved [like SEC/Madoff] DOE shirks oversight of its
contractors, and (vii) Tainted the upcoming “competitive” rebid of PNNL, i.e.,
predetermined result that Battelle wins.
As
promised, I will contact you next week as follow-up. Thank you. Sincerely,
Philip C. Pulver (509) 528-9212 cell http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB
[Evidence Site - Main] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Documents.htm [Summary Documents by
Topic - Cliffs Notes approach] http:/www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/LitigationFraudPerjury--Battelle-DOE-SummaryPage.htm -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver To: Steven Koonin Cc: William Brinkman[DOE-SC] ; Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] ; Glenn Podonsky[DOE-Security] ; Gerald Boyd [ORO]
; Michael Weis [PNSO] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 12:06 AM Subject: Pending
PNNL Rebid & ORNL Rebid/Renew Impacted [Tainted]; Office of Science Financing/Advising
Battelle-PNNL Litigation
Fraud/Perjury [Radiation Portal Monitor Project]; DOE/Battelle v.
SEC/Madoff; Defying President's Small
Business Support Attachments:
Compilation-ExhibitDocsOverviews.pdf
; 3-RPMP-BattelleMisrepresentationToCourt.pdf This information & evidence of Battelle's fraud, abuse, false
statements [18 USC §1001], and other violations of US Code is being provided to those with the
authority to act in the public interest. CCOL Inc. 2415
South Garfield St. Kennewick,
WA 99337 (509) 586-3051 November 23, 2009 Dr. Steven E. Koonin Under Secretary for
Science Office of Science U.S. Department of
Energy Dear
Under Secretary Koonin: I bring to your attention documented evidence of ongoing
Battelle-PNNL fraud/abuse and site office conduct that’s relevant to
the PNNL rebid and DOE’s pending decision to rebid/renew ORNL. Cited below, DOE site offices [ORO & PNSO] are “advising”,
“overseeing” and funding Battelle’s litigation fraud & perjury [e.g., research misrepresentation] to conceal evidence of misusing
PNNL’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP]
by withholding research [software]
from small business
TAP recipients and then pursuing its corporate/commercial/venture
opportunities. [Background
on my five-year lawsuit is cited below.] PNNL documents, deposition testimony and court filings implicate Battelle in the
following: Withholding TAP-funded
research from intended recipients - False Claims [31 USC §3729]; False Statements to DOE
& USPTO [18 USC §1001]; False Declarations [18 USC §1623]; Perjury [18 USC §1621]; and
disregarding 10 CFR 710 [Access to Classified Material].
These violations are substantiated by Battelle evidence cited in (i) 2008 emails [below] to prior DOE Science
Undersecretary Orbach and (ii) Extensive evidence site which includes the attached Compilation Summary.
As I stated to Dr. Orbach & Devon Streit, all evidence substantiating
the allegations is from Battelle/DOE. For these and other reasons cited below, the upcoming PNNL
rebid and ORNL rebid/renew are tainted [not objective]. Unless PNSO & ORO cease covering up the misconduct,
DOE’s awarding PNNL and/or ORNL to Battelle will be a
“pre-determined result” which will trigger bid protests, GAO
investigations, and lawsuits by losing bidders that spent millions competing
in good faith. Furthermore, to ensure
an objective [level-playing field] bid process, DOE must direct Battelle to redress/recant its litigation
fraud/perjury [research falsification], conduct that would disqualify any other
bidder. These
excerpts from the evidence site provide background for information
in this email: • Catalogs OnLine Inc. & Pulver v. Battelle Memorial Institute [Federal Case
CV-05-5028-RHW]. A 2009 article on the
case is at http://www.thenewstribune.com/1201/story/832132.html [Kennewick inventor battles Battelle in
court] • Pulver is suing Battelle for misusing DOE’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP] by withholding the TAP-funded Mobile
Data Manager [MDM] software from his small business.
He was granted worldwide exclusive commercial license to market, sell & develop follow-on versions. MDM enabled handheld
users [Palm, Pocket PC, BlackBerry...] to communicate with any standard
database or other source; see Description. • On 8/29/03, Battelle delivered a non-working MDM
version to him. Their evidence
[documents, testimony & code] and experts confirm that Battelle
kept the working version for which they nominated for R&D 100 Award, further developed,
patented and commercialized. In 2008, when Battelle asserted the right to deliver
“zero” after admitting a working version existed in
May 2003, the judge called that “ridiculous” and • Evidence shows the DHS Radiation Portal
Monitor Project [ • In 2003, Pulver filed a complaint [Battelle misusing TAP] with DOE-OIG which later closed the case after relying on
Battelle’s representations subsequently shown false by PNNL documents & testimony. His lawsuit was filed in February 2005. Battelle’s legal costs charged to taxpayers thru 2008 is
$750K and will likely exceed $1M by trial.
This email consists of the following sections: 1.
Critical Concerns/Issues – Ongoing Violations & DOE [Office of
Science] Conduct 2.
Waiving Oversight – DOE/Battelle & SEC/Madoff [DOE Conduct vs. SEC’s] 3.
PNNL Rebid & ORNL Rebid/Renew:
Tainted by Ongoing 6-Year Battelle/DOE Cover-Up 4.
Battelle & DOE-Science Defying President Obama’s Support of
Small Business 5.
Closing – Summary Points ========================================================================================== 1. Critical Concerns/Issues - Ongoing
Violations & DOE [Office of Science] Conduct It’s necessary for DOE to properly
address the following issues/concerns to (i) Ensure an
objective/untainted PNNL rebid and ORNL rebid/renew and (ii) Avoid protests/lawsuits by losing bidders claiming
“pre-determined result” when DOE awards the labs to Battelle
while/after funding and coaching litigation fraud/perjury to cover up
Battelle’s misconduct that would disqualify any other bidder: · Battelle Actually Asserting Right to Misuse/Defraud
Technical Assistance Program [TAP] – Battelle admits the
TAP-funded MDM software was operable & functional 3 months before delivering the non-working
version to Pulver. In a 2008 hearing and despite this key admission,
Battelle made the stunning assertion that it still had the right to deliver
an unworkable version, “zero”, “less than a Barbie
doll”. See Document [#1
& #1A].
The
judge called that
“ridiculous” and denied their motion to dismiss. Battelle is thus asserting it can (i) Misuse DOE’s Technical Assistance Program as a “feeder
fund” for its corporate/commercial
ventures and (ii) Withhold/pocket research [software] from small businesses for whom
DOE had specifically paid Battelle to develop [and violate the False Claims Act]. These
assertions confirm their evidence of two 2003 MDM
versions: Non-working [Delivered to Pulver] and Working [Battelle pocketed & nominated for awards]. · Small Business Entrepreneur Undercut – ORNL
scientists have stated that the fraud/exploitation against my small business
illustrates Battelle’s predatory commercialization/venture practices
that are likely being inflicted on entrepreneurs in the Oak Ridge Corridor
and Tri-Cities WA. Notably, Knoxville News Sentinel reporter Frank
Munger asked “Did Battelle undercut entrepreneur?” [http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2009/08/did_battelle_undercut_entrepre.html]
Evidence repeatedly
shows that it did. [Note, Battelle was illegally pursuing its “own” MDM licensing
deal with a Fortune 500 firm when it
delivered a non-working version to Pulver on 8/29/03.] · National
Security Breach [Classified Access] – In 2009, the judge ruled Battelle evidence [if jury finds credible] confirms that PNNL Q-clearance
holder Kevin Dorow withheld DOE/TAP-funded software from Pulver’s small
business. Therefore,
a federal court has ruled that Dorow’s fraud and “extortion” is an issue of material fact for
trial. Meanwhile, documents show his accessing classified material at ORNL, PNNL, LLNL & FBI/Quantico. By refusing to suspend his
clearance due to this “derogatory information”, DOE is violating 10 CFR 710 [Access to Classified
Material -
Excerpts: "Any doubt as to an individual's access authorization
eligibility shall be resolved in favor of the national
security"..."access... suspended pending the final determination"(e.g., jury)]. This may embolden
Battelle to suborn fraud/perjury by top-secret clearance holders at other
sites when “needed” to protect corporate interests [domestic/foreign]. · Falsifying RDADS Software to Hide Evidence – Since 2006,
Battelle’s Dorow
and DOE-funded counsel Miller have misrepresented DHS-RPMP as RPMP having funded “new and different” software [RDADS] that’s irrelevant to MDM and thus “must” be concealed. This misrepresentation [refuted by evidence of RPMP
enhancing MDM that Battelle renamed RDADS (“new code”) after adapting MDM to BlackBerry] misled the court to block
evidence [RPMP MDM versions] of Battelle withholding TAP-funded software from Pulver. RDADS versions of MDM were developed at PNNL & ORNL [air cargo screening].
Battelle’s
RPMP/MDM/RDADS misrepresentations
and their evidence refuting them are in the Documents & PNNL Testimony sections. · Concealing Commercial Investment [RDADS] from Court – Documents produced
in 2008 refute Dorow and attorney Miller’s 2006 denials of
Battelle’s 2005 RDADS investment in
developing an RDADS/RFID version [“TagCONNECT“], which
represents mobile software technology that Battelle Ventures
also invested $15.5M [2006-07].
See Documents
[#4]. By concealing the 2005 investment [commercialization], Battelle deceived the court into blocking critical
evidence of its violating Pulver’s exclusive MDM license [to
derivative versions (RDADS)] which would endanger Battelle
Venture’s investment.
Many will ask if this was motive for Battelle’s lying to the
judge. · DOE-ORO Office of
Chief Counsel [Carter] Overseeing/Advising Litigation Fraud – In a 5/6/09 phone call with
Pulver, Dationa Carter explicitly stated that she’s been
“advising” and “overseeing” Battelle’s
litigation. Her statements, in
conjunction with Battelle and DOE-funded Miller’s ongoing
misrepresentations [RPMP &
commercial investments], confirm that PNSO & ORO [DOE site offices]
are funding/directing Battelle to make false declarations & commit perjury to
mislead the court into blocking evidence of Battelle’s misusing
DOE’s Technical Assistance Program [False Claim], defrauding small
business and, as cited below, misrepresenting inventions to the patent
office. · PNSO Knowingly Financing Litigation Fraud –
Also verifying site office complicity in Battelle’s wrongfully
concealing evidence is PNSO Manager Julie Erickson, who told Pulver in May
that (i) Dationa Carter is their
“advisor” on the litigation and (ii) PNSO
will continue paying Battelle’s legal fees despite evidence of
litigation fraud/perjury [research falsification...]. Her statements show that Battelle’s keeping PNNL is pre-determined
despite that DOE will solicit others to
spend millions bidding PNNL. [In a 2006 PNSO
memo promulgating DOE Order 221.1 [to report fraud/abuse], Ms.
Erickson didn’t disclose to staff that DOE funds/directs litigation
fraud against those coming forward who later sue Battelle due to
retaliation.] [Per Order 221.1, complaints have
been filed against Carter & Erickson for funding/advising/suborning
Battelle’s litigation fraud & perjury.] · Misrepresenting Inventions to Patent
Office [USPTO] –
In depositions, Battelle staff explicitly testified/admitted to the following
conduct at PNNL: (i) Practice of rewriting/renaming old inventions and
calling them “NEW” to evade/reset statutory patent deadlines [“timeframes”]; (ii) Applying for a patent on 2005
RDADS [“NEW”] invention that’s actually
the TAP-funded 2002 MDM inventions developed for Pulver’s small
business, per his specifications. See the Misrepresentation to USPTO section. Battelle was
patenting at PNNL decades before
managing ORNL, INL, etc.; such misrepresentations may not
be confined to PNNL. · Implications
of DOE Funding/Advising Battelle Litigation Fraud/Perjury – The following pervasive impacts explain why the article
on this case was picked up by news feeds nationally & abroad: – Tainting and precluding objectivity
[level-playing field] of DOE rebidding PNNL and pending decision to
rebid/renew ORNL. – Showing that PNSO & ORO retaliates against those
complying with DOE
Order 221.1 [reporting fraud, false statements,
false claims...] – Emboldening Battelle to engage in
commercialization/venture-motivated fraud/abuse at PNNL, ORNL, INL, DHS
National Biodefense Analysis &
Countermeasures Center, Fort Detrick, etc. – Granting Battelle license to exploit/misuse small
business technical assistance [TAP] as a Madoff-like “feeder
fund”
for corporate ventures. – Confirming litigation fraud/perjury [research
falsification] as allowable expense to cover up Battelle’s civil or
criminal misconduct. Small businesses, Congress, scientists and others will demand to
know why DOE Office of Science has (i)
Ignored prima facie evidence of Battelle’s fraud/abuse of DOE
assistance programs for small business (ii) Continued funding/coaching Battelle’s
litigation fraud [e.g., misrepresenting DHS-RPMP] in a cover-up shortly before PNNL
rebid & ORNL
rebid/renew. [Note: Battelle’s prior fraud case [Laul] also gained national attention, e.g., NBC News [Fleecing of America] and Congressional
Record (Excerpt: “Battelle...lied
to the Energy Department in a cover-up...IG report recommended criminal sanctions...for `theft, conspiracy and false
statement.’”). See also DOJ
(Statement re: Battelle’s False Claim)] The 2008 emails delineate evidence of other Battelle conduct pertaining to the
following: Threat to small businesses & universities;
research integrity/reputation; false statements to DOE/OIG; thwarting
whistleblower laws; corporate conflict of interest & Use Permit; IG previously recommending
“criminal sanctions”; DOE-funded counsel prior firm sanctioned by
WA Supreme Court for misconduct [concealing toxicity evidence]; staff risks in health, safety or wrongful death lawsuits; and,
other impacts of DOE spending nearly $1 million in a six-year cover-up by
tax-exempt Battelle which
operates half the national labs, a
near-monopoly costing taxpayers billions annually. 2. Waiving Oversight – DOE/Battelle & SEC/Madoff [DOE
Conduct vs. SEC’s] Sources reveal direct parallels between SEC/Madoff and
DOE/Battelle, and further explain why DOE is abdicating its
statutorily-mandated oversight of Battelle.
And, there are key differences showing DOE’s conduct as being
more egregious than the SEC’s.
Together, similarities & differences confirm that DOE is (i) Enabling Battelle to act as a “Madoff of
national labs” [re:
technical assistance & ventures] and (ii) Providing a “litigation defense fund” [at taxpayer expense] for Battelle to direct/suborn its
scientists to misrepresent research [under penalty of perjury] and conceal smoking-gun evidence when sued for
defrauding small businesses, universities, et al. 2.1 Differences – Unlike SEC, DOE Funding & Covering Up Fraud While SEC was denounced for ignoring allegations of Madoff’s fraud, DOE’s conduct [re: Battelle] is worse because
its officials: – Ignored/dismissed actual
evidence of fraud [Battelle/DOE/USPTO documents &
testimony] – Funded/directed litigation fraud/perjury to conceal
misconduct by Battelle that runs 5 national labs, earns millions in royalties
from DOE research, oversees
top-secret (Q) clearance holders, and is required
by Congress to assist [not
undercut] those
working with the labs, e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs
whom President Obama has declared vital to economic recovery. – Concealed misconduct with much broader impact than Madoff
because it effects research integrity, national security, obstruction of
justice
[perjury...concealing evidence], misappropriation of taxpayer funds,
whistleblowers, staff health/safety, etc. Unlike
Madoff and cited above, Battelle has a prior fraud finding [Laul] that
DOE ignored. That case [costing
taxpayers $1M] is a
key reason for the
ongoing [DOE] cover-up in this case; namely, Battelle’s having two [multiple] fraud incidents would strengthen losing bidders’
claims that Battelle’s keeping PNNL & ORNL were pre-determined
results. 2.2 Similarities
– Sources: SEC/Madoff Parallels
with DOE/Battelle Situation In DOE/Battelle and SEC/Madoff, defendants possess(ed) these
traits: Reputation, Stature, Expertise, Innovation, Prominence & Influence. Managing
national labs for decades, commercializing/patenting inventions and serving
on lab advisory committees, Battelle’s prominence in research
and with DOE officials is undisputed. Similarly, undeniable was Madoff’s
stature on Wall Street and with regulators which [per sources] enabled
him to elude SEC scrutiny for years until he confessed; and, the SEC and DOE
each sought Madoff and Battelle’s expertise respectively. The following SEC/Madoff excerpts [emphasis added] clearly
correspond/apply to the DOE/Battelle relationship and to this six-year case whereby DOE ignored many red flags and credible evidence substantiating the
allegations: Excerpts –
Media: Reasons SEC Missed/Overlooked
Madoff http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE4BG6US20081217 SEC staff saw Madoff as a voice of authority “Wall Street veteran
Bernard Madoff may have escaped the
attention of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission staffers for one simple reason – they saw him as one of
their own. The former Nasdaq Stock Market chairman
regularly made appearances at the SEC,
serving on agency advisory panels, where he was widely regarded as a sage markets expert” [12/17/08] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121502971_pf.html SEC Didn't Act on Madoff Tips “Madoff...helped to create Nasdaq, the first electronic
stock exchange, and advised the SEC...large
campaign contributor and a familiar of
senior regulators. "Bernie had a good
reputation at the SEC with a lot of highly
placed people as an innovator...valuable resource...on things like
market data," said Donald C. Langevoort, a Georgetown University law professor who
specializes in securities regulation and served with Madoff on an SEC advisory committee.” [12/16/08] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_02/b4115024163467.htm
How Madoff Is Burning the
SEC “regulators initially suspected...a
Ponzi scheme perpetrated by the three firms.
When investigators learned the money had been funneled to a Wall Street titan, Madoff, they became less
concerned about outright fraud...Rather
than viewing Madoff as a scofflaw, regulators called on him for his expertise... Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the SEC from 1993-2001, has said publicly he consulted with Madoff during his
tenure.“ [12/31/08] Excerpts – September 2009 SEC
Inspector General Report with SEC Testimony http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2009/oig-509.pdf - Investigation
of Failure of the SEC to Uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme “The OIG
investigation also found the
Enforcement staff was skeptical
about Markopolos’ [whistleblower] complaint because Madoff did not fit the “profile”
of a Ponzi
scheme operator, with the branch
chief...noting...“an inherent bias towards sort of people
who are seen as reputable members of society.” [Pg. 36] “Examiners...aware of Bernard Madoff’s
stature in the securities industry...that Madoff’s firm “was very prominent”...served on various industry committees, was a well respected individual...SEC
examiners used an NASD manual with Bernard Madoff’s
name in it...stated...because of [his] reputation...may not have been any thought
to look into Madoff’s operation any further.” [Pg. 50] “examiners
recalled OCIE [Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations] telling them Madoff was a powerful and well-connected individual... interpreted the statement to raise a concern for them about
pushing Madoff too hard...testified...supervisors at the SEC appear to have been reluctant to push issues against influential
people” [Pg. 199] After
Madoff confessed, Lamore [Examiner] reflected in an e-mail with...Enforcement Assistant
Regional Director,
about why they were unable to uncover the
fraud...stated, “Our hesitancy toward rocking the boat also is something
that should be reconsidered.”...acknowledged at the senior
levels of the SEC, the hesitancy towards rocking the boat may be even more pronounced with
respect to someone like Bernie
Madoff,
who’s a well-known person in industry...easier to be more aggressive when you are examining
a “penny-stock firm” rather than, for
instance, Goldman Sachs...“very difficult” for someone in his position “to tell Bernie Madoff that he’s a liar.”” [Pg. 387] Senator Grassley [Finance Committee, Ranking Member]: Comments on IG SEC/Madoff Report http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=22814
“The SEC's utter failure to follow-up
aggressively on detailed and specific information about Madoff's fraud is
further evidence of a culture of deference toward the Wall Street elite at
the SEC." Rep.
Ackerman [D-NY]: Excerpt of Hearing on
SEC Ignoring Whistleblower Markopolos’ 1999 Report on Madoff Fraud http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOKSkaQoF_I&feature=related
Madoff
[2007]: “I'm very close
with the regulators.” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMQTiD-FAlw&feature=fvw In summary, sources show that underlying factors/situation for
the SEC/Madoff debacle are eerily similar/identical to DOE turning a blind eye and not holding Battelle accountable for ongoing
fraud and other violations, shortly before two national labs are re-awarded. 3. PNNL Rebid & ORNL Rebid/Renew: Tainted by Ongoing 6-Year
Battelle/DOE Cover-Up 3.1 Bid Protests or Lawsuits Looming at PNNL & ORNL Battelle’s ongoing DOE-funded litigation fraud will
trigger bid protests, lawsuits, media/watchdog scrutiny, and/or GAO
investigations when Battelle is awarded PNNL & ORNL. Losing bidders, after spending
millions competing in good faith, will
conclude that Battelle’s keeping the labs was a pre-determined because DOE site
offices funded a cover-up of the following misconduct that would disqualify
any other bidder: Misrepresenting PNNL’s largest project [ Q-clearance holder accessing classified work [e.g., DHS air cargo
explosives detection]; patent fraud; obstruction of
justice; and, other violations contrary to managing a national lab. 3.2 DOE Condones Using
Technical Assistance Programs as Feeders for Battelle’s Corporate
Ventures By willfully ignoring
evidence and funding/overseeing this cover-up, Office of Science
emboldens Battelle to intensify its predatory tactics against those very organizations that DOE encourages to work with national labs, i.e., small
businesses, entrepreneurs, inventors,
universities & industry. This contravenes Congressional mandates for
DOE to constructively engage small businesses to partner with [license, technical
assistance, CRADA] the national labs, including five run by Battelle. This ongoing litigation fraud/perjury also undermines
“day in court” whistleblower protections [e.g.,
§629 of 2005 Energy Policy Act] that have bi-partisan support in Congress;
soaking US taxpayers, Battelle will outspend whistleblower plaintiffs. Evidence and officials’ statements to Pulver consistently
confirm that DOE has granted Battelle license to exploit these government
programs as “feeders” to illegally capture proprietary
information, skim intellectual property resulting from technical assistance,
and then force taxpayers to fund litigation fraud/perjury when sued by those
victimized.
This raises the valid concern that DOE is
aiding/abetting Battelle to be the “Bernie Madoff of national labs”
[ORNL,
PNNL, INL, BNL & NREL] regarding inventions, commercialization
ventures, intellectual property, patenting and other issues effecting these organizations dealing with
Battelle. 3.3 Battelle/DOE
Violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [FRCP] to Conceal Evidence Until Battelle complies with FRCP [Rule 26 (Duty to Disclose; General
Provisions Governing Discovery)], their ongoing litigation fraud/perjury
precludes an objective/untainted re-compete of PNNL & ORNL[or renew]. Cited above, DOE-ORO Office of Chief Counsel
is advising & overseeing the litigation which includes DOE-funded counsel Miller
who’s violating his duty as “officer of the court” by (i) Deceiving/misleading the court regarding discovery to conceal evidence [e.g., RPMP versions of
TAP-funded MDM] (ii) Refusing to recant
his and Dorow’s material misrepresentations that were later proved false by [Battelle]
evidence; see the Testimony, Documents and Derivative [RDADS=MDM] sections. Unless this litigation fraud/perjury [discovery abuse -
withholding evidence] is rectified/recanted, this case will likely be appealed to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, at much greater expense to
taxpayers [not 501(c)3 Battelle] with a cumulative
cost nearing $2,000,000. 4. Battelle & DOE-Science Defying President Obama’s Support of
Small Business By funding and willfully inflicting litigation fraud/perjury
against my small business [and a federal judge] to conceal Battelle’s illegal misuse
of PNNL’s Technical Assistance Program, DOE Office of Science is
flagrantly defying the President’s publicly-stated advocacy for small
business, entrepreneurs and whistleblowers. Their ongoing six-year cover-up to
protect/advance billion-dollar Battelle’s corporate interests-ventures
directly flies in the face of Mr. Obama’s repeated assertions that
small business and entrepreneurs are critical to economic recovery and
deserve the government’s support: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-economy-jobs-forum [11-12-09] “in December [2009], we’ll be holding a forum
at the White House on jobs and economic
growth. We’ll gather CEOs and small business owners, economists and
financial experts, as well as representatives from labor unions and nonprofit
groups, to talk about how we can work
together to create jobs and get this economy moving again.”
“President
Barack Obama spoke of how important
small businesses are to the economy and described the steps his administration is taking to
support them. “Small businesses have always been
the engine of our economy – creating 65 percent of all new jobs
over the past decade and a half – and they must be at the
forefront of our recovery...Our economy as a whole can’t move ahead if small businesses and the middle class
continue to fall behind. “We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to build a better
world. And so many nations have already taken the
first step...But the journey is long and the journey is hard. And we don't have much time left to make that journey.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/News-Conference-by-the-President-3-24-2009
But one of the most
important lessons to learn from this crisis is that our economy only works if
we recognize that we’re all in this together ...At the same time, the rest of us can't afford to demonize every investor
or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit. That drive is what has always fueled our prosperity, and it is what will
ultimately get these banks lending and our economy moving once more. 5. Closing – Summary Points · Congress, watchdogs, media, scientists and
others will demand to know why DOE Office of Science is (i) Funding litigation fraud/perjury to conceal
Battelle’s misuse of PNNL’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP] by
“pocketing” DOE-funded research from DOE’s intended small
business recipient(s), (ii) Covering up
Battelle’s misconduct just prior to rebidding PNNL & ORNL [Battelle is incumbent], (iii) Condoning Battelle’s using DOE programs [e.g., TAP] as Madoff-like
“feeder funds” for corporate/commercial ventures and defrauding
small business, (iv) Soaking taxpayers
$750K for misconduct, e.g., top-secret clearance holder falsifying RPMP [Radiation Portal
Monitor Project], (v) Defying
President’s objective of supporting small business [e.g., convening Dec.
2009 economic/jobs summit], (vi) Misrepresenting
inventions to the patent office [USPTO], (vii) Ignoring
Dorow’s fraud [skipping polygraph] and emboldening other Q-clearance holders to
conceal misconduct. ·
Not only
did Battelle illegally withhold DOE-funded research [False Claim] and deliver a non-working MDM version to Pulver’s small business, it also asserted the right to deliver “zero” despite admitting that the TAP-funded working version existed; two 2003 TAP-funded versions exist. As he wrote to OIG, Congress didn’t appropriate
funds for Battelle to “assist small businesses and engage in predatory
tactics to undercut them when the resulting technical assistance work has
commercial value”. By
withholding critical functionality [intellectual property], Battelle prevented
his nationwide team from selling MDM and paying royalties to DOE, thereby
financially damaging the government. · Top-Secret (Q) clearance holder Dorow is
misrepresenting DHS-RPMP to withhold critical evidence and prevent software code
comparison of RPMP-funded MDM versions with the non-working version delivered to Pulver. Such examination would further confirm
Battelle withheld the TAP-funded working version from his
small business, made false declarations, committed perjury, made false
statements to DOE and USPTO [RDADS], and misled firms or investors signing agreements on derivative
MDM versions [e.g., RDADS]. See Derivative & Documents
[#3 – #5]. · Congress has been
concerned/outraged that DOE reimburses litigation costs for wrongdoing
contractors. [GAO Report d04148r] In this case, DOE
Office of Science [PNSO & ORO] has gone a giant step further by
funding Battelle and attorney Miller to willfully misrepresent research [RPMP], hide commercial investments, and
invoke other litigation fraud/perjury to conceal smoking-gun evidence. [See Document [#5] also citing Miller’s
prior firm sanctioned for similar discovery abuse, i.e., withholding toxicity
data on a drug causing brain damage to a 3-year old.] With this ongoing
cover-up, DOE
has set a precedent that jeopardizes others who may later file lawsuits for
injury, illness, cancer, toxic or radiation exposure, hostile work
environment, wrongful termination [whistleblower] or other causes of action due to
Battelle’s negligent or tortuous conduct at PNNL, ORNL and other Office
of Science labs. · Sources show distinct parallels between DOE/Battelle and SEC/Madoff. However, DOE conduct is more egregious
because it is (i) Funding-directing
Battelle’s litigation fraud to obstruct justice [conceal evidence] and (ii) Churning taxpayers to cover up Battelle’s misusing
small business technical assistance, and prior to rebidding PNNL & ORNL. Unlike Madoff, Battelle’s violations
effect/threaten national security [classified access (safeguards)], research & patenting integrity,
economic development, entrepreneurs, whistleblowers, and other issues
relevant to safely running a national lab. · In context of current events, Martha
Stewart, Scooter Libby and Senator Ted Stevens were each convicted for
violating
18 USC §1001 [False Statements] based on a fraction
of evidence compared to that implicating Battelle in this case. Many will ask if/why Battelle [managing five national
labs, overseeing top-secret clearance holders & classified material, and earning millions in
royalties] is
exempt from prosecution despite preponderance of incriminating evidence that
would normally result in a grand jury investigation, indictment and
conviction. Doesn’t Battelle’s misconduct [with ongoing DOE
cover-up]
warrant investigation for violations of antitrust
laws? With Battelle’s near-monopoly of DOE labs and looming rebid(s),
addressing these questions is imperative. · If there’s even the perception that DOE
is waiving enforcement of regulations/laws [CFR, DEAR, US Code] and funding
litigation fraud/perjury to conceal Battelle’s misconduct that would disqualify
any other bidder, then Battelle’s keeping PNNL & ORNL will be
questioned/challenged by losing bidders, representatives in their districts,
GAO and others. As taxpayer costs
escalate due to its ongoing refusal to hold Battelle accountable for violations
against the government and small businesses, Office of Science continues
strengthening the legal basis for bid protests, GAO/DOJ investigations, and
lawsuits against DOE by losing bidders claiming “pre-determined
result” when Battelle is re-awarded these two national labs costing
over $2B yearly. The ongoing site
office conduct also adds uncertainty in the communities around PNNL & ORNL. While the President rightfully expresses concern about businesses enduring the weakest economy since the 1930s and is holding an economic summit next month with small businesses and others, DOE Office of Science continues to bail out billion-dollar Battelle [501(c)3] by financing its outright perjury [research & other falsification] to conceal its misusing DOE’s Technical Assistance Program as a Madoff-like feeder fund for its corporate ventures and defrauding small businesses [mine & others] in the process. This taxpayer-funded Battelle/DOE cover-up is now in its seventh year. Therefore, Under Secretary Koonin, if I don’t receive
any meaningful response that DOE is expeditiously rectifying this ongoing
fraud against my small business, a federal judge, and taxpayers by the week of
December 15th 2009, I will inform the White House that DOE is willfully
repudiating and undermining the President’s advocacy/support of
small business, during the highest unemployment since 1983, when he and I
were students at Columbia. Additional information is at the evidence site. If you or others have questions or need more data, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely,
Philip C. Pulver CCOL Inc. [Small business] (509) 528-9212 cell http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB [Evidence Site - Main] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/PulverBackground-Awards.pdf [Battelle-PNNL Awards to Pulver] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Documents.htm [Summary PDFs by
Topic - Cliffs Notes approach] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Derivative--RDADS=MDM.htm [Dorow/Miller RPMP Misrepresentations
Refuted by PNNL Scientists] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/MisrepresentationToUSPTO.htm [Battelle False Statements to Patent
Office] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Emails-NewCode-2005.htm [Battelle’s Calling MDM/BlackBerry
“new code” to Defraud, “Pulver is Toast”] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm [Detailed Evidence & Testimony Showing
Dorow Perjury & False Declarations] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Depositions.htm [Battelle-PNNL
Testimony Refuting Dorow & Confirming Misrepresentations to USPTO]
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver To: Orbach, Raymond Cc: Secretary Bodman ; Glenn Podonsky ; James Rispoli ; Friedman, Greg ; fraudnet@gao.gov ; aloisee@gao.gov ; caldwells@gao.gov ; David Dillman Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:41
AM Subject: DOE Office of Science Decision Authorizing
Battelle-PNNL's Ongoing Litigation Fraud & Perjury Re: Radiation Portal
Monitoring Project [RPMP] Attachment: Dorow-Q-Clearance-AgenciesAtRisk.pdf
This email & associated Web
site is not currently available for dissemination to the public.
This information on Battelle's fraud, abuse and
other violations of US Code is being provided to those with the authority to
act in the public interest. CCOL Inc. 2415 South Garfield St. Kennewick, WA 99337 (509) 586-3051 September 29, 2008 Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Office of Science U.S. Department of
Energy Dear Under Secretary Orbach: This email is response to your 8/27/08 acknowledgment of my
8/24/08 update [below] on the following Battelle-PNNL misconduct: Misusing the Technical Assistance Program (TAP); top secret [Q] clearance
holder fraud; Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP]
misrepresentation-falsification; misappropriation; and, violations of US Code
[False Declarations (18 USC §1623), Perjury (18 USC §1621), False Statements (18 USC §1001) and False Claims (31 USC §3729)]. For background, see
8/24 email below and extensive evidence site at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/
Your statement that DOE Office of Science isn’t warranted
to take any action on this well-documented misconduct is contradicted by the
fact that DOE has been taking actions in this lawsuit for 3 years, including
the following: June 2005
to Present – DOE-Science authorizes & funds Battelle litigation defense costs
[See attached ORO letter.] 2005-2008
–
DOE Counsel interacts & meets with Battelle including Dorow [See attached Dorow pdf.] March-April
2007
– OIG & Science continue
financing litigation after ignoring Battelle & USPTO documents that confirm
Q-clearance holder
Dorow & outside counsel
Miller’s falsification of RPMP to federal court. May 2007 – Science & OIG ignore Battelle
evidence of False Claims Act violations and continues funding the litigation. June 2007 – Web site
visitor logs show that Science divulged my confidential emails & documents to
Battelle. January
2008
– Science cancels the PNNL recompete the same day my Battelle
depositions cited Use Permit fraud. August
2008 –
Science acknowledges but ignores Battelle documents & testimony of 3 PNNL
senior scientists implicating Q-clearance
holder Dorow in perjury [re: RPMP] and DOE-funded counsel Miller in making
material misrepresentations. Each time Battelle and DOE approved invoices from outside
counsel Miller, issued a check, or debited a DOE account to pay
Battelle’s internal & external litigation costs is an action taken by
DOE-Science [HQ
or site office]; the attached ORO file confirms DOE is funding the
litigation. Therefore, your stating
that Office of Science won’t take any action isn’t valid. Neither the 1830 PNNL contract nor 48 CFR
970.5228-1 [Litigation] nor any Federal statute grants DOE legal authority to
finance perjury, false declarations, or other misconduct to cover-up
Battelle’s criminal violations [e.g., False Claims] and protect/advance
its venture, Use Permit or other corporate interests. In real time, DOE is misappropriating
Federal funds [~ $250-500K so far] by repeatedly taking actions to finance
Battelle & outside
counsel’s litigation fraud and to fund perjury & false declarations
by top secret [Q] security clearance holder Dorow. Your decision [with Inspector General Friedman’s consent]
clearly confirms that DOE will continue to churn taxpayers by funding
Battelle’s ongoing perjury, research misrepresentation, and other
litigation fraud to cover up criminal violations cited above. This decision adversely impacts DOE Office
of Science laboratory staff regarding issues of health, security, safety,
whistleblower, research integrity, safeguarding classified information,
conflict of interest, filing patent applications, misuse of taxpayers, and
other matters; universities & businesses working with Battelle-run labs also now face
greater risks, e.g., misappropriation.
Accordingly and for the benefit of others, this necessitates a
factually-based response consisting of sections outlined here and presented
below: Section
1. Summary Points -
Adverse Impacts of DOE Allowing Fraudulent Litigation Tactics - Hanford
Bid Protest – Consequences if Battelle Wins - DOE
Five-Year Actions re: Battelle Misconduct -
Taxpayers, Congress and Tax-Exempt Battelle - Key
Whistleblower Protection Undermined - Case
Issues Relevant to Many -
Longest Un-Competed 43-Year PNNL Contract Now Being Renewed Section
2. Implications of DOE-Science Continuing to Authorize/Fund Perjury & Fraud to US District
Court - DOE
knowingly finances litigation fraud to conceal Battelle violations of US Code
& other misconduct. - Staff
health/safety/security at Office of Science labs is at greater risk going
forward. - DOE
permits national security violations by Battelle scientists with top secret
[Q] clearances during litigation. - DOE
Technology Transfer Coordinator allows Battelle’s admitted fraudulent
patenting practices to USPTO. -
Office of Science thwarted the most critical protection [jury trial] in
recently enacted whistleblower laws. - DOE
policy includes financing retaliation against those complying with
directives/orders to report fraud/abuse. -
Businesses & universities working
with Battelle-managed labs are much more likely to be defrauded. - Public outrage & lawsuits may occur
if Battelle wins bid protest of Hanford Mission Support contract. Section
3. Questions [by Topic] Resulting from DOE Funding Ongoing Litigation Fraud & Perjury - DOE
Officials’ Conflict of Interest re: Battelle - DOE
Concealment of Battelle Use Permit Fraud -
Battelle Prior False Claims Act Violation [Pattern] - DOE
Funding Retaliation for Reporting Fraud/Abuse -
Orbach 2005 Directive Blocking FOIA Access to Battelle-Run Investigations - DOE
Divulging my Confidential Information to Battelle Closing ============================================================== 1. Summary Points • Adverse Impacts of DOE Allowing Fraudulent
Litigation Tactics - Your decision authorizes fraudulent litigation tactics by
DOE-funded counsel [Miller] that were condemned by WA Supreme Court and
federal courts. Namely, DOE will fund
Battelle to wrongfully conceal evidence via tactics previously used to 1)
withhold smoking-gun toxicity documents on theophylline [drug] that
permanently brain damaged a 3-year old, and 2) hide automobile crash data in
an injury lawsuit. In my case, Miller
is misrepresenting the Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] to conceal
smoking-gun evidence showing that Battelle violated the False Claims Act by
withholding DOE/TAP-funded research.
By allowing such nationally-repudiated tactics [at taxpayer expense]
to cover up Battelle’s misconduct, DOE has put at risk staff who may
later file lawsuits for injury, illness, cancer, hostile work environment,
wrongful termination, or other causes of action due to Battelle’s
negligent or tortuous conduct at Office of Science labs. Details on Miller’s
misrepresentations and prior firm are at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/DOE-FundedCounsel-Misrep-RPMP.htm. • Hanford Bid Protest – Consequences if
Battelle Wins - Your authorizing “personal injury defense lawyer”
tactics and research falsification against whistleblowers will alarm many
Hanford staff [union or non-union] if Battelle wins its bid protest of the
Hanford Mission Support contract against Lockheed Martin. The extensive evidence in my case,
fraudulent court filings, DOE’s funding the litigation,
Battelle’s research misrepresentation [perjury], and your 8/27/08
decision unequivocally show how Battelle [misusing taxpayers with DOE consent]
will “deal with” future whistleblowers at Hanford and elsewhere,
especially when operational profit, ventures, intellectual property, or Use
Permit interests are involved. Your authorizing
Battelle’s litigation fraud, perjury and other misconduct clearly and
tangibly demonstrates that Hanford workers and whistleblowers will face
significant risks if Battelle wins the bid protest. [Example
Incident: As cited in 8/24 email,
Battelle threw my wife out of her PNNL job, one day after I filed my 8/31/07
declaration that Battelle misrepresented RPMP to the court. She was pushed to take a job jeopardizing
her safety; when she was injured, Battelle terminated her while she had an open injury [L&I] claim, leaving her
without health insurance.] • DOE Five-Year Actions re: Battelle
Misconduct - For 5 years, you have been provided with extensive evidence implicating Battelle
in false statements, fraud, abuse, perjury and criminal violations against
the government, taxpayers, the court, and my small business. Instead of
abiding by DOE policy and other Federal statutes to hold Battelle
accountable, Office of Science took
actions to protect Battelle’s corporate interests including but not
limited to (1) Financing litigation fraud by outside counsel and perjury by
Q-clearance holder Dorow via research falsification of Radiation Portal
Monitoring Project, PNNL’s largest program [under investigation by GAO & Senator
Lieberman’s Homeland Security committee], (2) Divulging my emails & documents to
Battelle, and (3) Ignoring security risks to agencies [DHS, DOD] that shared
classified information with Dorow, e.g., Air Cargo Explosives Detection Pilot
Program [ACEDPP]. Evidence of his
perjury is at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm
&
8/24 email. • Taxpayers, Congress and Tax-Exempt Battelle
- While the President and Congress
express concern for taxpayers in the ongoing financial crisis, DOE Office of
Science is knowingly forcing taxpayers to finance perjury & litigation fraud
against my small business to cover-up criminal activity by tax-exempt 501(c)3
Battelle which manages five national labs costing taxpayers billions annually
and has the unique Use Permit allowing private profitable work on public
facilities. Appropriations & oversight committees,
watchdog groups, media, other agencies, scientists, and/or others will ask
why the DOE Undersecretary for Science [overseeing $4B+ budget] is allowing
such misappropriation of DOE funds. • Key Whistleblower Protection Undermined - By allowing tax-exempt
Battelle to repeatedly churn taxpayers via litigation fraud/abuse [DOE-funded
counsel’s misrepresentations and Dorow’s perjury & false declarations]
to conceal misconduct against my small business, Office of Science has
severely undermined the crucial “day in court” whistleblower
protection that has strong bi-partisan support in Congress. This also raises
the question of whether DOE itself coached DOE-funded counsel Miller and
Q-clearance holder Dorow to conceal Battelle’s corporate-motivated
fraud; the attached Dorow file shows he interacted with DOE Counsel. Recently, the OIG acknowledged that
Battelle’s misuse of the US Treasury in this manner puts whistleblowers
at a critical disadvantage regardless of supporting evidence & testimony. • Case Issues Relevant to Many - With issues pertaining
to DHS Radiation Portal Monitoring Project, Battelle’s 2nd False
Claims Act violation due to Use Permit, patent filing fraud, Battelle
managing half the national labs, taxpayer-funded litigation fraud,
retaliation & thwarting new
whistleblower projections [jury trial], misuse of DOE’s small business
Technical Assistance Program, and perjury by Q-clearance holder working on
DHS Air Cargo Explosives Detection Pilot Program, this ongoing situation will
attract well-deserved national attention. • Longest Un-Competed 43-Year PNNL Contract
Now Being Renewed - Recent news articles confirm DOE is now giving Battelle a
four-year renewal of the PNNL contract instead re-competing it as all
other labs have done. [DOE canceled the PNNL recompete the same day my
Battelle depositions cited Use Permit fraud.]
Rather than hold Battelle accountable, DOE now rewards them with
renewal, thus depriving AECOM Government Solutions and others from bidding
PNNL. Recent articles also confirm
that DOE will let Battelle keep its unique & lucrative Use Permit, the motive for
fraud/abuse in my case and JC Laul’s False Claims case cited in the Congressional Record and NBC News; see http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm DOE is again letting
Battelle fleece taxpayers and conceal fraud motivated by its Use Permit. 2. Implications of DOE-Science Continuing to
Authorize/Fund Perjury & Fraud to US District Court DOE knowingly finances
litigation fraud to conceal Battelle violations of US Code and other
misconduct. Such fraud includes (but isn’t limited to) “personal
injury defense lawyer” tactics of DOE-funded counsel’s prior firm
[e.g., concealing drug toxicity (Fisons) or crash injury data (Subaru)] that
were condemned by state and federal courts for egregious discovery abuse
[obstruction of justice]. DOE has confirmed that
Battelle now has a taxpayer-funded license to coach/direct/suborn lab scientists to
misrepresent research, submit false declarations, and commit perjury to
conceal evidence of misconduct, to “neutralize” incriminating
documents, and to protect corporate/venture/UsePermit interests. Battelle can also use
such tactics to mislead courts into imposing sanctions against whistleblower
plaintiffs who file motions to compel evidence that Battelle is concealing;
their ongoing misrepresentation [perjury & false declarations] of DHS-RPMP to hide
evidence of false claims (31 USC §3729) is an example. [See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/DOE-FundedCounsel-Misrep-RPMP.htm] With your decision, these DOE-funded
litigation tactics will be inflicted on other whistleblower/plaintiffs who
sue tax-exempt Battelle. Further illustrating
what whistleblowers will now face is one of many news articles citing
litigation fraud/abuse of DOE-funded counsel’s prior firm in cases of
health and safety, issues relevant to DOE lab staff; thus, tactics used in
Jennifer Pollack’s brain damage case [condemned by WA Supreme Court] is
now allowable practice at Office of Science labs. [For more articles,
visit http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Articles-BogleGates.htm] Excerpts from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005514051 are as follows: “Bogle represented the drug company Fisons
in a case filed by the parents of a three-year-old girl named Jennifer, who
was permanently brain damaged from a dose of
theophylline... Bogle & Gates knew of a 1981 letter addressed "Dear Doctor"
on the subject of "Theophylline and Viral
Infections"...But the law firm
advised Fisons not to produce either that letter or a 1985
memo documenting theophylline's danger...On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court
unanimously reversed the trial court on the discovery issue...then remanded
the case to the trial court with instructions to punish Bogle with an amount severe enough to deter these attorneys
and others from engaging in such conduct again... Less than 2 years after Fisons opinion, their
litigators were in trouble again. This time Bogle & Gates represented Subaru of America on charges that the driver's seatbacks in
Subaru's Justy could collapse backwards when hit from the rear, potentially causing
grave injury. In the view of federal Judge Robert Bryan,
Bogle obfuscated, stonewalled, and gave
answers that were just plain wrong." Staff
health/safety/security at Office of Science labs is at greater risk going
forward. DOE’s authorizing Battelle to violate 48 CFR 970.5228-1
[Litigation in “good faith”] via “personal injury
defense” tactics to withhold smoking-gun evidence is relevant to staff
at DOE labs which entail HAZMAT, radiation, machinery, high-temperature
apparatus, and other work hazards.
These abusive/fraudulent litigation tactics put at risk staff that may
later file lawsuits for wrongful injury, illness, cancer, death, termination
or other causes of action due to Battelle’s negligent or tortuous
conduct. [GAO confirms most DOE contractor lawsuits pertain to radiation,
toxic exposure, personal injury, and/or wrongful discharge. See 8/24
email.] Your decision
eliminates/mitigates Battelle’s legal & financial risk of violating staff
health/safety/security procedures, ignoring DEAR, and thwarting whistleblower
protections. It will likely incent
them to relax such procedures to increase profit [See Westbrook ORNL case in
8/24 email.]; thousands of employees at the five national labs run by
Battelle could be adversely effected. Related Links: http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/DOE-FundedCounsel-Misrep-RPMP.htm See also 8/24 email below. DOE permits national
security violations by Battelle scientists with top secret [Q] clearances
during litigation. Your response disregards
Battelle-PNNL testimony & documents that implicate Q-clearance holder Dorow in violating U.S. Code
including False Declarations (18 USC §1623), Perjury (18 USC §1621), False Statements (18 USC §1001) & False Claims (31 USC §3729). Dismissing this extensive “derogatory
information” violates 10 CFR 710 [Access to Classified Matter] and
poses a security risk to those agencies that divulged classified information
to Dorow, e.g., DHS [Air Cargo Explosives Detection Pilot Program (ACEDPP)]
and DOD [RFID]. DOE’s refusal to
address Dorow’s fraud [e.g., via polygraph] will further embolden
Battelle to have other top secret clearance holders misuse/leak classified
information to protect/advance corporate interests including domestic or
foreign commercial business ventures. Related Links: http://www.energy.gov/nationalsecurity/10_CFR_709-710.htm & http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm See 8/24 email. DOE Technology
Transfer Coordinator allows Battelle’s admitted fraudulent patenting
practices to USPTO. As DOE Coordinator for Technology Transfer, you ignored PNNL
testimony confirming the following: 1)
Battelle’s practice to evade
USPTO filing rules and statutory bars, i.e., writing “new”
invention reports on older inventions, resetting the filing deadline [re: use
or public disclosure], and filing a patent application on the
“new” invention. 2) The ongoing
patent fraud, i.e., 2005 RDADS “new code” is the DOE-funded 2002
MDM inventions. Your decision puts in
question the integrity of Battelle’s patent filing process. Dept. of Commerce [USPTO] may ask why DOE
withheld this information and investigate how pervasive is this practice at
the 5 national labs and other facilities managed by Battelle. Companies licensing patents from Battelle
may be at risk because the patents may later be invalidated if/when such
fraud is determined. Related links: http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/BattellePatentFraudAbuse.htm http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/PNNLTestimony-PatentFraud.pdf and http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_10_23.htm
[Rules] Office of Science
thwarted the most critical protection [jury trial] in recently enacted
whistleblower laws. DOE’s knowingly funding Battelle’s ongoing
litigation fraud has established a precedent that severely undermines the
whistleblowers’ right to jury trial, a critical protection in recent
laws with strong bi-partisan Congressional support [e.g., 2005 Energy
Policy Act (§629-Whistleblower)]. As in
the JC Laul case and mine, tax-exempt Battelle will churn taxpayers to
financially drain whistleblowers/plaintiffs as follows: 1) Direct scientists
to misrepresent/falsify research and suborn perjury to counter evidence of
wrongdoing and to conceal documents showing violations of DOE rules, criminal
statutes, or national security; 2) Retain attorneys with track records of
wrongfully concealing smoking-gun evidence, e.g., chemical toxicity or injury
data. 3) Retaliate against whistleblowers’ spouses, e.g., threats,
injury, termination, and other intimidation. Your shredding of a whistleblower’s
right to their day in court will have
a chilling effect on scientists coming forward to report fraud/abuse at the
five Battelle-run labs that cost taxpayers billions annually. [After costing taxpayers
$750K, Battelle acknowledged these tactics after settling False Claims
violations with DOJ and Laul: "After nearly seven years, this fella is getting almost nothing. I
think the message is 'don't sue us”. http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm] Your
8/27/08 decision perpetuates such abuses against scientists and taxpayers.
DOE policy includes financing
retaliation against those complying with directives/orders to report
fraud/abuse. By authorizing Battelle’s taxpayer-funded litigation fraud
and cover-up of criminal violations, you have confirmed that Office of
Science will retaliate [not safeguard] against individuals complying with DOE
Order 221.11 and other directives to report waste, fraud, abuse, false
statements, security breaches, etc. [e.g., http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Directives-PNSO-IG.pdf]
Furthermore, DOE lets Battelle run
self-investigations [despite corporate conflict of interest] that result in
false statements [18 USC §1001], retaliation, and a multi-year DOE-funded
cover-up that occurred in my case, JC Laul’s and others. This demonstrates that such directives are
actually used to identify individuals posing risks to Battelle corporate
interests [profit, ventures, commercialization, Use Permit]. Under the pretense of encouraging whistleblowers,
Office of Science [with OIG consent] is putting them in jeopardy [financial,
reputation and safety] by having Battelle engage in taxpayer-funded
retaliation, e.g., perjury [research falsification] by scientists with top
security clearances. Under the principle of full disclosure,
shouldn’t staff be informed of DOE’s policy of retaliation
against those reporting fraud/abuse at the five Battelle-run national labs? Businesses & universities working
with Battelle-managed labs are much more likely to be defrauded. As DOE Technology Transfer Coordinator who is authorizing
Battelle’s real time perjury, litigation fraud and churning of
taxpayers, you have established DOE policy that leaves business and universities more vulnerable to Battelle’s
abusive/fraudulent tactics that include the following: plagiarism; unfair competition;
misappropriation of proprietary information; intellectual property theft;
patent fraud; copyright infringement; research misrepresentation/falsification;
defrauding authors, inventors or licensees; misusing the small
business technical assistance program to grab promising technology; and other
predatory commercialization/venture/UsePermit-motivated abuses. By indemnifying tax-exempt Battelle at
taxpayer expense, you have emboldened them to intensify predatory & abusive tactics
against the very organizations that DOE
encourages to work with national labs, e.g., universities, students,
post-docs, authors, industry and/or small businesses. Your 8/27/08 decision
also directly contravenes the President, Congress and DOE’s goals of
constructively engaging small businesses and universities to partner with
government agencies including the Battelle-run national labs. In sum, Office of Science has effectively
given Battelle a de-facto license to steal with impunity. Public outrage and/or
lawsuits may occur if Battelle wins bid protest of Hanford Mission Support
contract. James Rispoli [overseeing Mission Support contract bid] was
copied my 8/24/08 letter because Battelle’s misconduct in my 5-year
case is relevant to Hanford-related issues, i.e., security breaches
[Q-clearances]; litigation fraud in whistleblower or personal injury cases,
software tampering, retaliation/threats toward whistleblower relatives. On 9/3/08, DOE announced it did not award
the contract to the Battelle team which later filed a bid protest on
9/22/08. Your 8/27/08 decision to
authorize the ongoing litigation fraud and perjury clearly confirms that, if
Battelle wins the protest, union & non-union staff would incur similar
DOE-funded retaliation, litigation fraud and cover-up if they report
fraud/abuse against Battelle corporate.
Other contractors would likely be coached to use Fisons-like
litigation tactics to ward off lawsuits from injured or sickened workers,
many whom are exposed to toxic and high-level radiation daily. If Battelle wins the protest, the Lockheed team
will be understandably upset, given Office of Science is knowingly financing
Battelle’s cover-up of criminal violations that would disqualify any
other bidder from managing the Hanford Mission Support contract. Your decision to fund Battelle’s
cover-up significantly increases the likelihood of legal action if Battelle
wins the protest and DOE throws out the Lockheed team. Section 3. Questions [by Topic] Resulting from DOE
Funding Ongoing Litigation Fraud & Perjury DOE Officials’
Conflict of Interest - Does Office of Science staff have any direct/indirect
interest in Battelle ventures, licensees, Use Permit spin-offs, commercial entities,
or other Battelle interests after leaving office? Do any DOE officials plan to work for
Battelle [or
affiliates]
within the next 2 years as employees or consultants? Has your office interacted with Battelle
licensee Hi-G-Tek [Wireless data technology], Battelle Ventures or others [e. g. Carlyle]
regarding mobile/wireless data technology?
[Hi-G-Tek technology was identical to
investment proposal [RDADS] that Battelle misrepresented to court; Hi-G-Tek
received $15.5
M from BV.] See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Commercialization-MDM.htm
DOE Concealment of Use
Permit Fraud - How do you reconcile having taxpayers fund Battelle’s
perjury and litigation fraud to cover up violations motivated by their
unique/lucrative PNNL Use Permit with your
publicly explicit
opposition to the Permit? Did ORO General Counsel coach Q-clearance
holder Dorow to conceal Battelle’s UsePermit-driven fraud and misuse of
the small business technical assistance program [TAP] by
falsifying/misrepresenting Radiation Portal Monitoring Project, Air Cargo Explosives Detection
Pilot Program, commercialization and other material facts? Battelle Prior False
Claims Act Violation [Pattern] - Why did you and Mr. Friedman [IG] disregard
the JC Laul case in which prior Inspector General John Layton stated
Battelle’s "inability to conduct an unbiased investigation"
and recommended criminal sanctions for “theft, conspiracy and false
statement” after violating the False Claims Act? [As NBC news & Congressional Record cited, Battelle’s misconduct cost
taxpayers over $1M. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm Why does DOE now ignore PNNL testimony & documents confirming
Battelle’s fraud/abuse, and instead finance litigation fraud [e.g. RPMP
& ACEDPP falsification,
perjury] to conceal repeat violation of the False Claims Act and other
statutes, again motivated by Use Permit and other corporate interests? DOE Retaliation for
Reporting Fraud/Abuse - Why does DOE and
its Inspector General promulgate directives for staff to report waste, fraud,
abuse, false statements, security breaches and research misconduct [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Directives-PNSO-IG.pdf] and then finance
Battelle’s retaliation via research falsification, perjury by
Q-clearance holders, litigation fraud/abuse tactics [condemned by courts] to
conceal evidence, false statements by DOE-funded counsel, and
intimidation/threats/injury against their spouses as my five-year case
shows? Wouldn’t many thus
conclude that DOE issues such directives under false pretenses to “deal
with” those exposing Battelle’s corporate/commercialization/profit-driven
misconduct or criminal violations? Orbach 2005 Directive
Blocking FOIA Access to Battelle-Run Investigations - Was your 2005 DEAR
directive making misconduct investigation reports contractor-owned [to block
FOIA] in response to my rebuttal exposing Battelle’s false statements
and material suppressions in their January 2004
“self-investigation” report to DOE & OIG? Nature Magazine et al. are concerned
Office of Science enabled Battelle to now conceal these reports
(taxpayer-funded) from the scientific community and the public which pays
billions annually to fund Battelle research at half the US national labs: “Loopholes in
Oversight Rules Revealed” (Nature):
http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Nature-DOE-Oversight.pdf. DOE Divulging my
Information to Battelle - Did Office of Science divulge my confidential information
[allegations & evidence] to assist Battelle in Q-clearance holder
Dorow’s perjury, DOE-funded counsel misrepresentations to the court,
and concealment of evidence? Access
logs [non-public Web site] confirm that the information I sent to you on
4/25/07 & 5/11/07 [both emails
below] was extensively accessed by Battelle almost immediately. Closing Congressional appropriations & oversight committees and watchdog groups will
demand to know why DOE continues to finance Battelle’s litigation fraud
& perjury [by outside counsel & Q-clearance holder
Dorow]
that’s occurring at expense of national security [classified
information], whistleblower protections [right to jury trial], integrity of
DOE-funded research, taxpayers, small business, universities, and others
working with tax-exempt Battelle [501(c)3] which receives billions in federal research
annually to operate half the country’s national labs. By ignoring PNNL evidence [documents & testimony] and
knowingly financing ongoing litigation fraud & perjury, DOE has granted Battelle a license
to steal and also withhold research from small businesses & others, make false
statements to Government officials in investigations, misrepresent research,
churn taxpayers to cover up criminal violations, intimidate scientists [e.g.,
perjury], thwart whistleblower protections, and again violate the False
Claims Act due to Use Permit motivations.
Office of Science’s complicit funding of Battelle’s
perjury and litigation fraud against my small business and US District Court
is misappropriation of Federal funds.
Neither the 1830 PNNL contract nor 48 CFR 970.5228-1 [Litigation] nor
any Federal statute grants DOE legal authority to finance perjury, false
declarations, or other fraud to cover-up Battelle’s misconduct & criminal violations
[e.g., False Claims] and protect/advance its venture, Use Permit and other
corporate interests. Dr. Orbach, it’s now been over five years since I called
the OIG to report Battelle’s fraud and misuse of the small business
technical assistance program. Since
then, documents and testimony [sent to you] have not only confirmed my
original allegations but have revealed additional misconduct and criminal
violations on the part of Battelle. And, despite DOE ostensibly encouraging
people to report fraud and abuse, DOE has actually spent hundreds of
thousands of taxpayer dollars on litigation against me including RPMP
research misrepresentation and perjury.
Many will ask if Battelle, who manages half the US national labs, is
above the law and exempt from prosecution despite the preponderance of
incriminating evidence that would normally result in indictment. Your 8/27/08 decision to continue financing Battelle's
litigation fraud/abuse and perjury [e.g., RPMP misrepresentation]
clarified DOE’s policy position not only in this case but also for
anyone else reporting waste, fraud and abuse against Battelle. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver
-----
Original Message ----- From: Streit, Devon
<Devon.Streit@science.doe.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:29
AM Subject: Confidential Update to 5-Year
Case: Litigation & Patent Fraud; Q-Clearance Violations; Health/Safety
Implications for Lab Staff; Competing PNNL & Hanford Contracts
[Bid-Protest] Dear Mr. Pulver: This email is in response your email dated August
24, 2008 sent to Under Secretary Orbach which provided, as you stated, an
update on Battelle evidence to corroborate the allegations in your OIG
complaints. We acknowledge your concerns; however, because the issues you
raised are currently being addressed in your ongoing lawsuit against
Battelle, action by this office is not warranted outside the context of that
litigation. Sincerely,
Devon
Streit _____________________________________ L. Devon Streit
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver To: Orbach, Raymond Cc: Glenn Podonsky ; David Dillman ; Friedman, Greg ; Secretary Bodman ; James Rispoli ; fraudnet@gao.gov
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 8:57 Subject: Confidential Update to 5-Year Case: Litigation & Patent Fraud;
Q-Clearance Violations; Health/Safety Implications for Lab Staff; Competing
PNNL & Hanford Contracts [Bid-Protest] Attachments: CongressionalRecord-Laul-BattelleFraud-RepDavidSkaggs.pdf
; Dorow-Q-Clearance-ProjectsImpacted.pdf
This email & Web site is not
currently available to or intended for dissemination to the public. This information on
fraud and abuse is being provided to those with the authority to act in the
public interest. This email & Web site is for
sole use of the intended recipient(s).
Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. CCOL Inc. 2415 South Garfield Kennewick, WA 99337 August 24, 2008 Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Office of Science U.S. Department of
Energy Dear Under Secretary Orbach: This email with its accompanying Web site is a five-year
update/culmination of the preponderance of evidence that has confirmed
the following Battelle-PNNL fraud/abuse:
2003 Allegations [OIG - Misusing Technical Assistance Program (TAP)], Q-clearance holder
fraud misrepresentation
[falsification] of Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP], misappropriation [due
to Use Permit], and violation of U.S. Code [False Declarations (18
USC §1623), Perjury (18 USC §1621), False Statements (18 USC §1001) and False
Claims (31 USC §3729)]. The evidence-testimony site [www.ccol-inc.com/1] consists of case
background/chronology, the 2008 PNNL depositions, Battelle’s own
documents [2006-2008], DOE letters [ORO & PNSO], relevant GAO reports, links to US Code
statutes, descriptions & invention reports of TAP-funded 2002 MDM software, RDADS patent application, Battelle
commercialization & Use Permit re: MDM, my prior emails & evidence to DOE,
court filings by DOE-funded counsel Miller, WA Supreme Court and news
articles condemning Miller’s prior firm [Bogle] for same
litigation fraud, and other related information. This detailed email [with links to the evidence site] is
organized in the following parts: 1. Battelle Scientist Dorow
Misrepresenting/Falsifying DHS Radiation
Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] to Conceal Fraud [Violation of False Claims Act
by Withholding DOE-Funded Research from Small Business TAP Recipients]
[In 2006, Dorow obtained DOE Q-Clearance for DHS & DOD classified
work.] 2. DOE-Funded
Counsel Litigation Fraud by Misrepresenting RPMP to Conceal
Evidence. WA Supreme Court Sanctioned/Fined Prior Firm for Same
Tactics, Hiding Smoking-Gun Evidence of Drug Toxicity that Brain Damaged 3-Year Old.
Implications for Health/Safety Related Lawsuits at Office of
Science Labs & Hanford. 3. Patent
Filing Fraud to USPTO.
PNNL Testimony Confirms Battelle Evades Statutory Deadlines by Rewriting Old Invention Reports & Renaming as
“New” [Reset Clock]. 4. Potential Implications: Battelle Competing PNNL & Hanford Contracts [Bid Protests] 5. Closing
Points: Consequences to Others if Battelle Ongoing Litigation Fraud
Continues, Whistleblowers & Others Impacted, OIG
Abdicating Oversight per its Policy, GAO Copied The 2008 depositions of PNNL staff [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Depositions.htm] are the most significant
new information. They confirm allegations in the lawsuit and the 2003 OIG
complaint [I04RS007], but with one exception, Kevin Dorow. PNNL depositions, Battelle documents, Dorow
Lab Record Book, MDM software source code, his testimony, patent documents,
and other evidence implicate Q-Clearance holder Dorow in the violations cited
above and in Part 1; this evidence is posted on the site . Because of these violations and given
Dorow’s current access to classified information [via his Q],
DOE’s Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, Glenn Podonsky, has
been copied on this email. As cited in
Part 1, the list of agencies potentially impacted by Dorow is attached and is
not on the site. This email and site [with Battelle documents & testimony] will serve as notice
to other agencies [DHS, USPTO, FBI, DOD], GAO, US Attorney, media, watchdog
groups, and others that you were well informed of Battelle’s 5-year
misconduct that includes the following: RPMP research misrepresentation
& perjury by Q-clearance
holder, False Claims Act violation, DOE-funded counsel fraud [discovery
abuse], violating 48 CFR 970.5228-1 [Litigation], threats/retaliation/injury
against my spouse at PNNL, and other misconduct used to conceal criminal
violations and to protect Battelle’s corporate opportunities, e.g., Use
Permit [root cause of fraud in this case and JC Laul’s]. If this ongoing litigation fraud is not
finally stopped, many will ask why the DOE Undersecretary for Science [with a
$4B budget] chose to continue financing it, especially in light of
Battelle’s documents and testimony confirming the allegations. A court hearing will
be held on September 23, 2008 in Richland, WA. If DOE-funded counsel Miller and Q-clearance
holder Dorow continue to falsify/misrepresent DHS Radiation Portal Monitoring
Project [RPMP] and other material facts, then DOE Office of Science
complicity in this ongoing litigation fraud will be confirmed. [Note:
Hearing was delayed & held on 11/18/08] Setting such a
precedent & de-facto DOE policy
would have long-term adverse consequences to Office of Science lab staff
regarding health, security, safety, whistleblower, research integrity, and
other important matters. As shown in Part 2,
Hanford workers [union & non-union] would also be impacted if Battelle is awarded
the contract on 9/30/08. Accordingly, Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management James Rispoli is copied on this email. The GAO has been copied for two very critical reasons. One, the OIG [under Mr. Friedman] closed
the case in 2007 despite requesting and acknowledging extensive discovery
evidence showing Battelle’s “intent to mislead” DOE and a
Federal judge. [OIG told me to come back after my appeal.] Two, the
five-year evidence of Battelle misconduct pertains to the following topics in
recent GAO reports: DOE contractor
litigation cost reimbursement; re-competing national labs; oversight;
Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [Ports & Borders]; and DOE small business goals. This case goes far beyond the general
concern of paying litigation costs because DOE is funding fraudulent
litigation tactics previously condemned by the WA Supreme Court and a federal
court. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/GAO-RelatedReports.htm. David Dillman, Chief Operating Officer of the Downtown
Seattle Association, is copied for the following reasons: 1) He is
a first-hand witness to Battelle's misconduct dating back to mid-2002 when
Battelle commercialization staff began their abuse, Use Permit interference
with TAP, and misappropriation; 2) Working with DOE-HQ, he obtained
the original 3161 funding for PNNL Technical Assistance Program [TAP].
Battelle acknowledged his expertise in economic development and small
business: http://www.pnl.gov/news/1996/bnw96_28.htm Although nearly every document cited is already public
information, my assimilation and discussion of it is not. Dr. Orbach, in the interest of other
parties that may be impacted by the facts and evidence presented herein,
please have your staff treat this information with elevated discretion. At this time (before 9/23/08), I have no intention
to make this site widely available to the public. Because the site is a sub-directory, Google
searches won’t find it. The site
can also be password-protected, and will be if Web referrer logs show
unauthorized access by Battelle as happened last year after my 5/11/07 email
below. If any recipient of this email has questions, needs more
information, wants the CD version of the site, or finds a broken link,
please let me know. The detailed information now follows. 1. Battelle Scientist Dorow
Misrepresenting/Falsifying DHS Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] to Conceal Fraud
[Violation of False Claims Act by Withholding DOE-Funded Research from
Small Business TAP Recipients] [In 2006, Dorow obtained DOE Q-Clearance
for DHS & DOD classified work.] [Evidence & Testimony at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Q-ClearanceDorow-RPMP-Falsification.htm] 1a. Summary Under oath, software developer Dorow is falsely stating that (i)
RPMP abandoned/junked the 2002-03 MDM software funded by the Technical
Assistance Program [TAP] and (ii) RPMP instead, in 2004, funded development
of all “new” mobile data software for radiation portal installers
at US Ports & Borders, software
completely unrelated to small business TAP-recipient Pulver and his exclusive
license to MDM and follow-on [derivative] versions. [Dorow developed
MDM]. He’s making these sworn
declarations & testimony to claim the 2004 versions are irrelevant, thus block
discovery of post-2003 MDM code and conceal that Battelle withheld TAP-funded
research [software] when it delivered a non-working MDM version to Pulver on
8/29/03. [Documents & testimony show
Battelle was marketing their MDM version to Fortune 500 Ecolabs (1831 Use
Permit opportunity) and nominating “their” MDM version for R&D 100 Award in 2003. In 2008, Battelle’s own software
expert confirmed that the 8/29/03 MDM crashed.] However, 2008 depositions of 3 PNNL staff,
Battelle documents [2004 software screens, PNNL-RPMP emails, MDM Developer
[Dorow Lab Record Book], and PNSO-provided timecard records refute Dorow and
confirm RPMP indeed funded him to modify/adapt TAP-funded MDM to run on
BlackBerry with enhanced searching & dialing.
This evidence confirms Dorow is misrepresenting RPMP-funded research
and concealing “smoking-gun” evidence, i.e., post-2003 MDM versions
that Battelle renamed RDADS.
He’s doing so for these reasons: 1.
RDADS
would provide further confirmation that Battelle withheld
[“pocketed’] MDM code from the small businesses for whom DOE-TAP
paid Battelle to develop MDM, and thus violated the False Claims Act
[31 USC §3729]. [Cited in Congressional
Record, Battelle previously made False Claims: http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FCA-Violation-UsePermit-Dorow.htm 2. Verifying that RPMP-funded 2004 versions
are follow-on to MDM would shut down any Battelle commercialization
[licensing/ventures] of the newer versions due to Pulver’s exclusive
license to MDM & derivatives as Battelle staff confirmed to DOE and others. [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Exclusivity-MDM.htm
& http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Commercialization-MDM.htm]
3. Confirming RPMP funded
enhancements to 2003 MDM would refute Q-clearance Dorow’s
representations and implicate him in making False Declarations [18 USC §1623],
Perjury [18 USC §1621] and False Statements [18 USC §1001] to DOE [SC & OIG] when claiming
Pulver received the actual Best-Efforts TAP MDM version. 4. The post-2003 RPMP
versions would confirm that the “new code” [now called RDADS]
invention is actually the MDM inventions, thereby implicating Dorow in
fraudulently filing the RDADS patent to the USPTO. [See Part 3 below.] 6/30/08: Pulver filed a declaration with complete evidence [e.g., source code, funding & timecards, TAP-completion reports, USPTO
documents] confirming that Dorow violated the False Claims Act [31 USC §3729]
by withholding code from the TAP recipients when he delivered MDM software to
Pulver on 8/29/03. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FCA-Violation-UsePermit-Dorow.htm. 7/28/08: In his reply, Q-clearance holder Dorow provided
absolutely no evidence [nothing] to refute this serious allegation that
he made False Claims against the US Government. In fact, he even further implicated himself
by stating the 8/29/03 MDM version was unfinished & pre-Beta [untested] quality, which is
contradicted by documents showing
Battelle marketed “their” MDM to Fortune 500’s, nominated
it for R&D 100 Award, and
stated MDM was Beta quality [tested]. He again verified two versions:
1) An unfinished non-working MDM delivered to me [TAP recipient] and 2) The
working Beta-quality MDM that they kept for themselves and Use Permit
opportunities. 1b. Dorow
Q-Clearance 1b-1. As cited above, Battelle documents and PNNL
testimony consistently confirm is violating the following U.S. Codes: False Declarations [18 USC §1623]; Perjury [18
USC §1621]; False Statements [18 USC §1001]; False Claims [31 USC
§3729]. I reiterate that Dorow, in
response to my 6/30/08 sworn declarations, did not cite any evidence to
refute my allegations that he violated the False Claims Act; he merely denied
it, saying he’s offended.
Moreover, PNNL 2008 testimony and documents alone clearly show that
Dorow, under oath, continues to misrepresent the Radiation Portal Monitoring
Project to the court to block discovery of evidence that would implicate him
in the violations cited above. 1b-2. At the same time,
Battelle documents show that Dorow obtained his top secret Q-clearance from
DOE in 2006. Furthermore, they cite the following Gov.
agencies or labs that involve classified work: - DHS Air Cargo Explosives
Detection Pilot Program [ACEDPP]
– ORNL, LLNL & PNNL [In his deposition, Dorow stated ACEDPP
was using RDADS]
- Matchmaker software FBI work at Quantico - RFID
Development for PMJ-AIT [DOD] Attached is Dorow-Q-Clearance-ProjectsImpacted.pdf
which cites excerpts of his 2006 & 2007 reviews also attached; these two
documents are not on the site. [2009 Update: See http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Dorow-Q-Clearance-ProjectsCited.pdf
] 1b-3. Due to the extensive evidence of
Dorow’s multi-year US Code violations, in conjunction with his current
access to classified facilities and projects cited above [e.g., ACEDPP], the following
Code of Federal Regulations is applicable:
10
CFR 710 - CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR
ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED MATTER OR SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL. The most relevant subparts are as follows: §710.7 Application of the criteria. (a) The decision as to
access authorization is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, as to
whether the granting or continuation of access authorization will not
endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the
national interest. Any doubt as to an
individual's access authorization eligibility shall be resolved in favor of
the national security. Absent any derogatory information, a favorable
determination usually will be made as to access authorization eligibility. §710.8 Criteria. Derogatory information shall include, but is not
limited to, information that the individual has:...(l) Engaged in any unusual conduct or is subject to any
circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, reliable,
or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual
may be subject to pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or
duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best interests
of the national security. Such conduct
or circumstances include, but are not limited to, criminal behavior... §710.9 Action on derogatory information. (a) If the reports
of investigation of an individual or other reliable information tend to establish the validity and significance of
one or more items in the criteria, or of other reliable information or facts which are of security concern,
although outside the scope of the stated categories, such information shall be regarded as derogatory and
create a question as to the individual's access authorization eligibility. §710.10 Suspension of access authorization. (a) If information
is received that raises a question concerning an individual's continued
access authorization eligibility, the Local Director of Security shall authorize
action(s), to be taken on an expedited basis, to resolve the question
pursuant to §710.9(b). If the question as to the individual's
continued access authorization eligibility is not resolved in favor of the
individual...the individual's access
authorization be suspended pending the
final determination 1b-4. Dorow’s ongoing
misconduct raises the following valid questions that others may have
regarding how Battelle manages and safeguards access to classified
information by its Q-clearance holders: · In addition to misrepresenting DHS research
[RPMP & ACEDPP] under oath,
could Dorow be pressured by Battelle [or others] to misuse classified
information for financial, career or other reasons? · Do any of the
Battelle managers or internal attorneys [e.g. James Jackson] who pressured
Dorow to make false representations under oath have Q-clearances themselves? · Is such Q-clearance
fraud/abuse acceptable practice at all Battelle-managed labs [INL, NREL, BNL, ORNL and possibly LLNL], especially when its
venture or Use Permit interests are at stake? · Was Dorow’s
obtaining a Q Clearance Battelle’s reward/incentive for making false
declarations and testimony in order to protect Use Permit and other
commercial/venture interests? Is a
major criterion for getting a Q-clearance at PNNL the scientist’s
ability to bring in profitable Use Permit business for Battelle Corporate? · Will DOE administer
polygraph tests to Dorow, given the preponderance of evidence and testimony
that, at the very least, creates a question as to his access authorization
eligibility cited in 10 CFR 710? OR · Will Battelle do
another “self-investigation” [run by managers with Use Permit
compensation packages] which will result in false statements and cover-up
that occurred in my case and Laul’s? [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm] · Because Battelle is
allowing or coaching Dorow to lie under oath to protect corporate interests,
are there other “exemptions” from Q-clearance policy such as
misusing/leaking/trading classified information that could give Battelle
competitive advantages in securing commercial/ventures opportunities
[domestic or foreign]? 1b-5. In the interest of
national security, DHS, DOD-Army, FBI and others that have provided
classified information to Q-clearance holder Dorow should be notified; they
are potentially at risk given his misconduct that’s substantiated by
Battelle documents and testimony. They should at least
be shown the extensive evidence that he (i) repeatedly lied under oath
regarding DHS-RPMP and (ii) he misused the Technical Assistance Program and
violated the False Claims Act due to Use Permit opportunities. Note, 10
CFR 710.10(c) addresses notification to such other agencies in this very
situation. At this time, I will defer
disposition of this matter to Mr. Podonsky who is copied on this email. 2. DOE-Funded Counsel Litigation Fraud by
Misrepresenting RPMP to Conceal Evidence.
WA Supreme Court Sanctioned/Fined Prior Firm for Same Tactics, Hiding Smoking-Gun Evidence of Drug
Toxicity that Brain Damaged 3-Year Old. Implications for Health/Safety Related
Lawsuits at Office of Science Labs & Hanford. [Evidence
&
Testimony at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/DOE-FundedCounsel-Misrep-RPMP.htm] 2a. Summary & Motive DOE-funded counsel Miller is also materially misrepresenting
that RPMP (i) abandoned/junked the 2003 TAP-funded MDM software and (i)
developed new & different mobile software in 2004 [called RDADS] to which Pulver had
no rights. Miller stated to the court that “Battelle has developed a new
software product called RDADS (Rapid Data Acquisition and Dissemination
System). RDADS was created for and is
being used in the Department of Homeland Security’s Radiation Portal
Monitoring Project. It has absolutely
nothing to do with Plaintiffs [MDM,
Pulver] or their lawsuit.” [Exh. 2 link above.] However, Battelle & USPTO evidence
unequivocally refute Miller. As cited in Section 1a, 2008 Battelle testimony
and documents [from Battelle, DOE & USPTO] clearly confirm that RPMP funded Dorow
to adapt/port MDM to the BlackBerry with enhanced features, i.e., derivative
[follow-on] MDM versions. This
evidence confirms that Miller is misrepresenting RPMP-funded research to
conceal “smoking-gun” evidence, i.e., post-2003 MDM code
[RDADS]. Like Q-clearance holder
Dorow, he’s falsifying RPMP for the following key reasons: 1. RDADS would provide
further confirmation that Battelle withheld [“pocketed’]
MDM code from the small businesses for whom DOE-TAP paid Battelle to develop
MDM, which violates the False Claims Act [31 USC §3729]. 2. Verifying that post-2003 versions are
derivative to MDM would shut down Battelle’s commercialization/venture
of any follow-on versions [e.g., RDADS] due to Pulver’s exclusive
license to MDM & derivatives. 3. The post-2003 code
would thus confirm Miller materially misrepresented RPMP to conceal evidence,
the same tactic [discovery abuse] for which his prior firm was condemned by
state and federal courts; see Part 2b.
4. Examining the post-2003
“new code” [RDADS] would show it’s based on the 2002 MDM
inventions, thereby implicating Battelle in fraudulently filing the RDADS
patent to the USPTO. [See Part 3.] 2b. Miller’s
Prior Firm Sanctioned/Fined by WA Supreme Court for Discovery Abuse Litigation Fraud Condemned for
Withholding “Smoking-Gun” Drug Toxicity Evidence [Part 2c shows relevancy & potential impact to
Office of Science lab staff.] Delbert Miller was managing senior partner in the litigation
group at now-defunct Bogle & Gates law firm which engaged in the same litigation
abuses to conceal evidence that he’s now using in Pulver’s case
by blatantly misrepresenting RPMP [DHS Customs & Border Protection] and other
commercialization matters. In one of the most notorious litigation fraud
cases, the WA Supreme Court unanimously sanctioned Bogle $325K for flagrant
discovery abuse in the Fisons personal injury case because they withheld smoking-gun documents on a toxic drug
[theophylline] that permanently brain damaged a 3-year old girl. The following excerpts of articles on Bogle & Gates discovery
abuses speak for themselves: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/archives/1994/9401300070.asp BOGLE & GATES AGREES TO PAY
SANCTION FOR MISCONDUCT IN SUIT “Bogle & Gates, one of Seattle's three largest law
firms, and a New York drug company agreed yesterday to pay
$325,000 for withholding "smoking gun" documents in
a lawsuit involving a 3-year-old girl left brain-damaged by an asthma
medication. The case, which produced a landmark decision
by the Washington State Supreme Court, has drawn national attention as breaking new
ground in the field of lawyer ethics…Bogle acknowledged that it advised its client, the New York drug
maker Fisons Corp., to withhold documents that indicated the pharmaceutical company was
concerned with the toxicity of the medication. The sanctions are the largest ever imposed in Washington for attorney
misconduct and among the highest ever imposed in the United States, legal experts
said.” http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005514051 THE MORAL COMPASS: Calculated Malfeasance. The ongoing
abuse of discovery requires stronger, surer sanctions. “Less than 2 years after Fisons
opinion, their litigators were in trouble again. This time Bogle & Gates represented Subaru of America on
charges that the driver's seatbacks in Subaru's Justy could collapse backwards when hit from the rear,
potentially causing grave injury. In the view of federal Judge Robert Bryan, Bogle obfuscated, stonewalled,
and gave answers that were just plain wrong. In
one request, plaintiffs had asked for National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration records that showed the collapse of driver's seats from a rear-impact force of 30
miles per hour. Bogle's response was
that the request was "vague, confusing and
unintelligible…Specifically, 30 miles per hour is a velocity, not a
force, and due to this confusion of technical terms, no meaningful
response can be given." Judge Bryan called this
"lawyer hokum," and forced Bogle to pay the other side's attorneys'
fees.” More national articles on Bogle’s litigation abuses are at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Articles-BogleGates.htm. The WA Supreme Court Fisons decision is downloadable from
Cornell Law School: http://ww3.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty-pages/wendel/Law%20Governing%20Lawyers_files/fisons.pdf The extensive evidence [incl. 2008 PNNL testimony] confirms that
Miller is using these same Bogle discovery abuse tactics by misrepresenting
DHS-RPMP [US Customs & Borders Protection] to withhold smoking gun evidence that would
implicate Battelle in violating the following statutes: False Statements [18 USC §1001], Perjury [18 USC §1621], Subornation of
Perjury
[18 USC §1622], False Declarations [18 USC §1623], and False Claims [31 USC §3729]. The attached ORO letter confirms that Office of Science is
financing Battelle and Miller’s litigation fraud, tactics for which his
prior firm was condemned by courts and legal community as among the most
egregious discovery abuse in US history.
Financing his falsification of Federally-funded research [RPMP] is
misappropriation of DOE funds and violates the “litigation in good
faith” provision in 48 CFR 970.5228-1 [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/48CFR970-5228-1.pdf]. Appropriations
committees and GAO would be concerned that taxpayers are funding
Miller’s false representations that are concealing fraud, security
breaches [Q-clearance], and criminal violations by the tax-exempt charitable trust
that manages half the national labs and possibly the Hanford site on
10/1/08. For years, Congress and watchdog
groups have been concerned/outraged that DOE reimburses contractors’
defense litigation costs, e.g., http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04148r.pdf. In my case,
Battelle and Miller’s conduct goes one giant step further by forcing
taxpayers to fund research falsification [RPMP], security clearance breach,
hiding commercialization ventures, and other litigation fraud to wrongfully conceal smoking-gun evidence that would implicate them in violating
statutes cited above and misusing the small business Technical Assistance
Program for Use Permit opportunities. Fisons and Subaru financed their litigation
fraud, not the taxpaying public. If
DOE Office of Science, after receiving all extensive Battelle testimony and
documents confirming this fraud, continues to allow 501(c)3 Battelle to soak taxpayers for this ongoing litigation fraud, Congress,
GAO, watchdog groups and others will have justifiable concerns. 2c. Office of
Science, by funding litigation fraud in Pulver case, will set the stage for Battelle to use Fisons-like
tactics in safety/health-related lawsuits. While my case dealt with commercial/business litigation, GAO
reports [GAO-04-148R] that most lawsuits against DOE contractors pertain to
“radiation and/or toxic exposure, personal injury, and wrongful
discharge.” DOE’s authorizing “personal injury defense
lawyer” Fisons tactics in my case to conceal critically relevant
evidence is most relevant to staff at Office of Science labs that entail
HAZMAT, radiation, machinery, high-temperature apparatus, and other potential
work hazards. This sets a potentially dangerous precedent. With my case, Battelle now knows these are
allowable tactics toward anyone suing them at the five labs it manages and at
Hanford if DOE awards them the contract on 9/30/08. In summary, litigation fraud [condemned by
WA Supreme & federal courts]
used to conceal drug toxicity warnings [Fisons] and rear-impact crash injury
data [Subaru] is apparently approved procedure at Office of Science labs and
potentially soon at Hanford. Illustrating the possible impact of such tactics could be a
scenario in which a staff member sues Battelle for personal injury due a
malfunctioning apparatus involving radiation and/or HAZMAT. During discovery, Battelle would object to
releasing relevant data [e.g., maintenance records, usage logs, mfr.
warnings, safety infractions, bulletins, defective part or material notices,
recall notices, accident history, witness accounts]; they would object to
such requests being “overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence” in the same way Miller’s prior firm did to the parents
of Jennifer Pollack [permanently brain damaged by Fisons drug] [Ref: http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/WA-SupremeCourt-Fisons.pdf
- See Page 9] Miller had nearly
identical responses in my case, but went even further by misrepresenting RPMP
as irrelevant and concealing it; for example, when I requested SBMS
procedures [at PNNL’s suggestion], Miller claimed this request was
harassment. As my case shows, if
“unhelpful” evidence was produced, Battelle will
direct/coach/suborn scientists to make false/misleading declarations and
perjured testimony to “neutralize” the evidence, and soak
taxpayers in the process. Such tactics
would financially drain the injured worker and likely cause him/her to drop
the lawsuit; Miller and Battelle know this. The adverse implications for Office of
Science lab staff and Hanford workers are self-evident. An actual example suggesting that Battelle would invoke such
tactics in health/safety-related lawsuits is their conduct in an ORNL
whistleblower case. Seven years ago, ORNL
health physicist Janet Westbrook voiced concerns of Battelle’s
quintupling radiation dose exposure alarm levels [rem/hour] and having
technicians [not engineers] conduct radiation safety reviews; both were
implemented to increase profit.
Battelle responded by ignoring these health issues, downgrading her
performance rating, and terminating her.
DOE Office of Hearings & Appeals ruled that Battelle had engaged in
“manipulation of the system to reach a predetermined result”
(termination) and “used the criterion “transferability of
skills” in a distorted manner...an afterthought, one designed to
downgrade Westbrook and target her for termination.” See http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/whistle/vba0059.htm for OHA Director Breznay’s decision repudiating
Battelle’s retaliation tactics against Westbrook. Currently, Battelle-ORNL has dose exposure
alarm levels 2½ times the average of all other national labs. The Westbrook case, in conjunction with DOE funding RPMP and
other falsification in my case, undoubtedly confirms that Battelle & DOE will violate 48 CFR 970.5228-1 and use Fisons-like
litigation fraud to withhold smoking-gun evidence relevant to cause of injury,
illness, cancer, wrongful death or other damage incurred someone [or their
estate] suing Battelle at Office of Science labs. This effectively
eliminates Battelle’s financial and legal risk of not only violating
civil or criminal statutes but also ignoring/relaxing staff safety/security
regulations, violating DEAR, and undermining recently enacted whistleblower
laws; this could further incent Battelle to relax staff
health/safety/security policies to reduce overhead costs. [One final footnote is a harbinger of things to come if Battelle
keeps PNNL and wins Hanford contract.
One day after I filed an 8/31/07 declaration that Battelle
misrepresented the RPMP to the court, its senior management [Chief Research Officer
Doug Ray with Use Permit compensation] threw my wife Sharon Pulver out of her
job. For the next few months Battelle
made her “tin cup” for funding, urging her to take a position
requiring lifting heavy equipment which resulted in her being injured. Within two weeks and realizing she would
lose health insurance, Battelle terminated her when she had an open injury
claim [L&I]. Are you aware that Doug Ray shelved a
DOE-required investigation of the April 2005 phone threats against her at
PNNL, shortly after I filed the lawsuit?
These incidents further how this case is very germane to
health/safety/security/whistleblower issues at Battelle-managed facilities
that may include Hanford.] 2d. Questions
Regarding DOE-Funded Litigation Fraud · Was Battelle instructed to retain an attorney
with a history of litigation fraud, i.e., discovery abuse via
misrepresentations to conceal smoking-gun evidence? Was the determination made that Fisons
tactics were “necessary” for Battelle to escape
accountability/prosecution in my case?
· Was Battelle told to
repeatedly suborn perjury, protract litigation at taxpayer expense, and have
me “go away” thereby letting them get away with fraud/abuse
against the Government and my small business? · Is the purpose of the ongoing
DOE-funded perjury to have this case ultimately appealed, which would occur
well after any re-bid or quiet renewal whereby Battelle retains PNNL without
controversy or bid protest? [In March
2007, acknowledging the perjury, OIG told me to come back after my appeal.] · Why would industry, individuals, and universities risk working
with Battelle after Office of Science funded nationally repudiated Fisons
tactics to cover up Battelle fraud, false claims and plagiarism in my
lawsuit? · Do you realize the impact of making Miller/Battelle/Fisons
tactics standard practice at Office of Science labs, especially on
whistleblowers and staff suing for health, injury and wrongful death? · Have you considered
adverse effects on safety/security at DOE labs by funding product injury
defense lawyers who falsify research to block discovery production of injury,
radiation exposure, equipment maintenance logs, HAZMAT, or other necessary
data needed by staff suing to recover damages due to Battelle’s negligent
or tortuous conduct? 3. Patent Filing Fraud to USPTO. PNNL Testimony Confirms Battelle Evades
Statutory Deadlines by Rewriting Old Invention
Reports & Renaming as “New” [Reset Clock] [Details & Evidence at http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/BattellePatentFraudAbuse.htm] Battelle exhibits and 2008 deposition
testimony by a senior commercialization manager confirm that Battelle
violates patent filing rules of the US Patent & Trademark Office. Testimony,
Battelle exhibits and the RDADS patent application confirm the following: 1. Battelle practice is to write “new” invention reports on
prior [older] inventions when they want to patent them but have run out of
time. By “resetting the
clock”, Battelle is circumventing/violating statutory bar rules of the
USPTO and misrepresenting the originally-dated inventions. 2. In 2005, Battelle wrote a “new” invention report on the
original TAP-funded 2002 MDM inventions, renamed it RDADS and reset
[circumvented] the USPTO Statutory Bar from 10/1/03 [original] to 1/31/06,
and filed a patent on the “new code” in Sept. 2005. [Note, the
2003 MDM code was refinement of the 2002 inventions; Battelle coined
“PDAC” as alias to MDM in August 2002.] Nationwide, Battelle files far more patents than most other
government, educational or industrial organizations. USPTO would likely want to
know the extent of this fraudulent practice at Office of Science Labs and
other facilities that Battelle manages or owns [e.g., Ft. Detrick]. Because of your critical role as DOE Coordinator for Technology
Transfer and Commercialization, I provided you with Battelle documents,
patent application, and surprisingly candid Battelle-PNNL testimony
confirming the above abusive practices and citing RDADS “new
code” from TAP-funded MDM [PDAC] as an example of such patent filing
fraud. If I don’t soon hear from anyone on this email regarding
this patent fraud that Battelle testimony confirms is systemic at PNNL, I
will contact the Dept. of Commerce and USPTO directly. The integrity of
Battelle’s patent process is in question; they are violating USPTO
rules. [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_10_23.htm] 4. Potential[Likely] Implications:
Battelle Competing PNNL & Hanford Contracts [Bid Protests] A DOE decision to continue financing Battelle’s litigation
fraud and cover-up of their five-year misconduct would likely trigger a bid
protest or Congressional/GAO investigation if Battelle wins PNNL or keeps it
via renewal. Many will ask why DOE
knowingly funded Battelle’s cover-up of the following: DEAR & CFR violations; abuse of technical assistance
program; harassment/threats of whistleblower spouse; and, evidence of their
violating 18 USC§1001 [False Statements], 18 USC §1623 [False Declarations],
18 USC §1621 [Perjury] and 31 USC §3729 [False Claims]. They will have
greater concerns if Battelle keeps its unique & lucrative Use Permit which was motive for the
fraud/abuse/perjury and criminal violations in my case and the
well-documented Laul False Claims case. [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm] Losing bidders, who spent millions to compete, may conclude that
DOE solicited the PNNL bid under false pretenses that there was a
level-playing field, when in realty it was a pre-determined result that
Battelle would keep the lab for decades to come. In sum, it would strongly suggest that DOE
is rebuffing the intent of Congress: Objective competition of national
labs. See related GAO report at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03932t.pdf. For example, LA-based AECOM Government Solutions, GAO and
others would be dismayed that DOE-Science awarded Battelle the PNNL contract
after financing cover-up of fraud/abuse by using the following tactics: falsifying DHS-RPMP research; false
declarations & perjury by Q-clearance holder working on air cargo explosive,
military, FBI and other classified projects; throwing my wife out of her job
one day after my declaration that Battelle misrepresented RPMP; admitted
patent fraud; and DOE-funded counsel litigation tactics previously condemned
by WA Supreme and federal courts [Fisons & Subaru] as among the most egregious discovery
tactics ever. If there’s even the perception that DOE and its Inspector
General are waiving enforcement of statutes [CFR, DEAR, US Code] and
financing litigation fraud to protect Battelle’s corporate interests,
then the objectivity of the PNNL re-compete will be questioned by competing
bidders [and Representatives], Congressional oversight and appropriations,
watchdog groups, science community, media [e.g., Nature] and the GAO.
DOE’s unprecedented canceling of the PNNL re-bid on the same day
I deposed Battelle’s Associate Lab Director Mike Schwenk regarding Use
Permit misconduct would feed that perception. Finally, this case could impact public reaction to
Battelle’s winning the Hanford contract. As cited herein, Battelle’s conduct
in my case pertains to the following issues: Security [Q-clearances]; Litigation
Fraud [Fisons] in whistleblower and personal injury cases; and,
Retaliation/threats toward whistleblower relatives. If Battelle wins the Hanford contract,
staff [union & non-union] could witness similar misconduct and then incur
DOE-funded retaliation and cover-up if they report fraud/abuse against Battelle
corporate. Occurring both at Hanford,
Laul’s case and mine already establish a pattern that this will
happen. Battelle’s documented
[OHA(Breznay)] retaliation against health physicist Janet Westbrook [re:
radiation dose exposure] is a third example of Battelle’s
treatment toward those voicing concerns that impact corporate profit. In its role of managing Hanford, Battelle
may train other contractors to use Fisons tactics to ward off lawsuits from
injured or sickened workers, many whom are exposed to toxic and high-level
radiation on a daily basis. The implications are clear. 5. Closing Points, Consequences to Others if
Battelle Ongoing Litigation Fraud Continues, Whistleblowers & Others Impacted,
OIG Abdicating Oversight per its Policy, GAO Copied Undersecretary Orbach, as stated above, this
detailed email and Web site [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/] is a five-year
culmination of evidence confirming Battelle’s fraud/abuse, Q-clearance
holder misuse and violation of U.S. Code [False Declarations [18 USC §1623],
Perjury [18 USC §1621], False Statements [18 USC §1001], False Claims [31 USC
§3729]. The evidence substantiating these
violations is all from Battelle’s own documents, 2008 PNNL
scientist depositions, court filings by DOE-funded counsel Delbert Miller,
and DOE letters [ORO & PNSO]. All of this
evidence substantiating the violations is on the site. In context of current events, Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby [VP
Chief of Staff] and US Senator Ted Stevens were each indicted for violating
18 USC §1001 on a minor fraction of evidence in this case showing
Battelle’s multiple U.S.C.
violations. In contrast with Battelle, attached ORO letter confirms that DOE
is funding their litigation despite the preponderance of evidence provided to
DOE since 2003. Is tax-exempt Battelle
immune from prosecution because of a double-standard? Bidders on the PNNL and Hanford contracts,
and others potentially impacted, would like to know. To date, well over $200K [taxpayers] has been squandered to
cover-up Battelle’s Use Permit motivated fraud/abuse. My case shows a systemic corporate conflict
of interest previously exhibited in the Laul False Claims case that cost taxpayers
over $1M and for which John Layton [prior IG] recommended criminal sanctions
against Battelle for “theft,
conspiracy and false statement”.
The extensive evidence confirms that Battelle is a repeat offender
of Use Permit fraud/abuse. However, after
requesting/receiving/acknowledging discovery evidence confirming the
“intent to mislead on the part Battelle” [http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/DocsToOIG.htm], the OIG closed my
case in 2007, said to come back after my appeal, stating that OIG has a
hands-off litigation policy. Mr. Friedman’s policy to exclude litigation from OIG
purview has thus given Battelle carte-blanche to engage in false declarations
& perjury by scientists
[inc. Q-clearance holders], research falsification; Fisons-like discovery
abuse, obstruction of justice, retaliation against plaintiffs’ spouses,
and other litigation fraud. This policy ignores many millions DOE
spends yearly on contractor litigation; see http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04148r.pdf. Laul’s case being featured on
NBC’s Fleecing of America and
placed in Congressional Record illustrates
ongoing concern of Battelle et al. misusing DOE-funded litigation
indemnification policy. Note, Bill
Madia cited this policy as a threat to whistleblowers after Battelle settled
with Laul and the Justice Dept. for False Claims violations. See http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/Laul/Tri-CityHerald--Madia-Laul--010497.pdf
& http://www.ccol-inc.com/1/FalseClaimsViolation--Laul-v-Battelle.htm. The OIG, by
addressing and curtailing such emboldened abuse could return significant
funds to DOE. Therefore, the GAO [Fraudnet@gao.gov] is being copied
because the OIG has relinquished oversight of this DOE-funded litigation
waste, abuse, and fraud [e.g., perjury by Q-clearance holder] that’s
happening now, in real-time.
The meter is running for taxpayers. Congressional appropriations & oversight committees
will want to know if DOE [taxpayers] intends to continue financing
Battelle’s litigation fraud [outside counsel & Q-clearance holder
Dorow] that’s occurring at the expense of national security,
whistleblower rights [§629 EPA-2005], integrity of research, and taxpayers. The key consequences of Office of Science
choosing to still fund this fraud will be as follows: · Emboldened by
Dorow’s misconduct, Battelle may coach other Q-clearance holders to misuse/leak
classified information to gain competitive advantage winning commercial
contracts or closing venture deals [Use Permit] at home or abroad including
China or India where it recently opened offices. 10 CFR 710 and related
procedures will be selectively enforced. · Fisons-like litigation
tactics, condemned by state & federal courts, will be policy at Office of Science labs and
the whole Hanford site if Battelle wins the pending contract. These tactics will be used against those
suing for radiation,
toxic exposure, personal injury, and/or wrongful discharge. Realizing they can
invoke such DOE-funded tactics Battelle may relax health/safety procedures to
increase profit. Hence, many thousands of lab employees will be at greater
risk. · Battelle will have
de-facto license, at taxpayer expense, to “coach” its lab scientists to
engage in research misrepresentation, false statements & declarations, perjury,
obstruction of justice, retaliation, hostile work environment, and other
abuses to conceal misconduct and protect corporate/venture/UsePermit
interests. · Phone threats and
other intimidation of whistleblower’s spouses is now acceptable at
Office of Science labs [For example, Battelle’s Chief Research Officer
Doug Ray blocked investigation of PNNL phone threats against my wife when my
lawsuit was filed.] · DOE directives for
staff to report fraud/abuse/waste will have been issued under false
pretenses. Instead of protecting/assisting those
coming forward, DOE will finance retaliation against them. Especially at risk are staff reporting
corporate-motivated fraud at any of 5 Battelle-run labs. · Businesses & universities working
with Office of Science labs will face greater risk of Battelle’s
predatory commercialization/venture practices [misappropriation,
misrepresentation] because DOE-funded Fisons litigation fraud will
effectively shield Battelle from accountability. · Patent fraud will be allowable practice at
Office of Science labs. Battelle can continue
misrepresenting original inventions by rewriting & renaming them to “reset the clock”
and bypass statutory bar USPTO rules. · Bid protests and
GAO investigations will occur if Battelle wins/keeps PNNL or wins the pending Hanford contract on 9/30/08. Losing bidders will perceive that
Battelle’s keeping PNNL was a pre-determined result because DOE
financed this cover-up that pertained to security, research integrity,
treatment of staff and other relevant issues. · The critical provision [right to jury trial] in recent whistleblower
laws having overwhelming bi-partisan support in Congress will be severely
undermined. [e.g., §629 in 2005 Energy Policy Act] Battelle
would repeatedly suborn perjury [at taxpayer expense] to financially drain
whistleblower plaintiffs and win by default. Such blatant shredding of these protections
by the manager of five national labs will concern/anger many. Battelle’s fraud and abuse in this case
has continued unabated for five years. As in
Laul, taxpayers are incurring escalating costs in my lawsuit. Battelle’s litigation fraud by
outside counsel and Q-clearance holder Dorow is occurring in real-time and
violating the following US Code: 48
CFR 970.5228-1 [Litigation], 10 CFR 710 [Access to Classified Material], 18
USC§1623 [False Declarations], 18 USC §1621[Perjury], and [18 USC §1622]
[Subornation of perjury]. On September 23, 2008 [in Richland, WA], court hearing will be held on
this case. If DOE-funded counsel and
Q-clearance holder Dorow continue to falsify/misrepresent DHS RPMP and other
material matters, then DOE-Science complicity in this real-time litigation
fraud [e.g., Dorow perjury] will be confirmed. [Note:
Hearing was delayed & held on 11/18/08] As discussed above, setting such a precedent
would have long-term implications adversely impacting Office of Science lab
staff regarding health, security, safety and other material matters. Hanford workers [union & non-union] would also
be affected if Battelle is awarded the contract on 9/30/08; this could be
very problematic given very hazardous working conditions that have
been basis for lawsuits involving health afflictions. As you’re aware, such a decision to
continue the fraud and protect Battelle’s corporate [Use Permit]
interests, would contradict prior DOE public statements. In Oct. 2007, DOE acknowledged PNNL Use
Permit conflict of interest: “In order to ensure that [PNNL] laboratory resources are
dedicated to the public benefit and governmental purposes” the Permit
won’t be in the new PNNL contract. [http://www.energy.gov/news/5663.htm] And, in your public opposition to the Use
Permit you stated “no other arrangement like this exists at any other
DOE national laboratory because a use permit creates at least two significant
problems. First, it permits a private entity to use government facilities to
compete against the private sector.” 11/12/07 Tri City Herald Article [Orbach on
Permit] Dr. Orbach, this case provides you with an
unprecedented opportunity to effectively address Battelle’s decades-long
conflict of interest due to special privileges that they’ve
misused against JC Laul, me and others.
If anyone needs more information or wants the CD version of the
site, please let me know. A Word
version of this email is available. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver Attachments
-----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
To: Orbach,
Raymond Cc: Secretary
Bodman ; Friedman, Greg ; Jeff Salmon Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 13:58 Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Update - Evidence Battelle-PNNL Violated
the False Claims Act This
confidential online communication is for Government Use Only. Per DOE
Order 221.11, this information on fraud and abuse is being provided to those who have the
authority to act in the public interest. This information is not openly available and is not intended for dissemination to the public. CCOL Inc. 1177 Jadwin Avenue Richland, WA 99352 May 11, 2007 Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Dear Under
Secretary Orbach: Per DOE Order 221.11, I am sending this supplemental
update to my detailed April email below.
Further examination of the RDADS patent application and discovery
documents reveals that Battelle actually withheld [“skimmed”]
TAP-funded software development [functionality] when they delivered the
Mobile Data Manager software to me on August 29, 2003. This functionality pertained to
“drill-down-thru-category-levels” that’s necessary and
critical for handheld/mobile and online catalogs. Exhibits also show Battelle was
concurrently pursuing private [1831] commercial business with Ecolabs [$3.8
bil. rev.] to license MDM as a handheld catalog [sales automation] solution
for use by its worldwide sales force. In summary, Battelle “pocketed”
DOE-funded functionality and deprived it from the Government’s intended
technical assistance program [TAP] recipients. As discussed below, these actions
violated the False Claims Act and confirm the critical allegation [sabotage]
in OIG complaint I04RS007 [“Alleged Irregularities in Administering the
Technical Assistance Program”]. Office of Science directly
funded this TAP development work on MDM. Summary points, supporting evidence, and
observations/concerns are presented below.
All evidence substantiating these serious
allegations is from Battelle’s own documents. Summary Points
▪ Battelle [Dorow et al.] removed the TAP-funded category
drilldown [and other] functionality from the MDM software and delivered
a non-working MDM version to Pulver on 8-29-03. Their explicit Aug. 1, 2003 TAP project report confirms
that the catalog functionality was already developed for MDM. However,
the 8-29-03 MDM source code shows that this functionality was
removed and missing from the software’s main control panel, rendering the TAP-delivered code dysfunctional; the
software was inoperable. See http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/1A-Graphics.htm#Drilldown
and other evidence in the next section. [Note, Pulver provided Battelle with sample
catalog data sets [for category drilldown] during the 2002-03 MDM
TAP development; his online catalog clients were interested in handheld
catalogs.] ▪ Battelle kept the functionality in “their” MDM
version to pursue Ecolabs [et al] and prevent Pulver from being a future
competitor to their highly profitable 1831 corporate business. The RDADS patent application clearly
confirms they kept this critical TAP-funded and commercially valuable
functionality for themselves. 2003-04
documents show Battelle promoted/represented MDM/PDAC as having handheld
catalog functionality. [Note: In 2004 statements to OIG & SC, Vince Branton,
Battelle-PNNL's Manager of Intellectual Property Legal
Services affirmed Pulver’s exclusive rights to MDM [and derivatives]
and warned Battelle
staff NOT to market/demo MDM/PDAC to non-Government prospects; see http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/Intro-Timeline.htm#Branton. Battelle management ignored this legal
obligation, and instead hired a DOE-funded attorney who committed wanton
discovery abuse and had scientists make false declarations to conceal
Battelle’s illegal RDADS private/1831/commercial pursuits.] ▪ Battelle violated the False Claims Act [31 USC §3729]. They received Government [Office of Science]
payment for research that they claimed was provided to the technical
assistance recipients through Pulver.
Their withholding TAP-funded work and delivering non-working
dysfunctional/skimmed software [while marketing “their” MDM
working version] prove Battelle’s claims for payment were false. [See
PNNL timecard, SC funding, 8-01-03 TAP report, laboratory record book and
software screens in the next section.] 31 USC
§3729 text is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00003729----000-.html
▪ Their
withholding/skimming DOE-funded work and sabotaging the TAP-delivered MDM
proves that Battelle again misled [18 USC §1001] DOE
when it told SC & OIG in 2004 that “best efforts” were
delivered.
Battelle’s 2006 admission of pursuing private PDAC/MDM business and
discovery evidence further prove they kept the “best
efforts” version for their corporate opportunities. In 2003, Spanner [TAP manager at PNNL]
improperly funded Battelle staff to engage in MDM licensing discussions re:
Ecolabs, a clear MDM license violation and 1831 conflict of interest
with the DOE-funded TAP work. ▪ After removing critical TAP-funded functionality, delivering a crippled/sabotaged non-working MDM version to Pulver, and keeping “their” MDM version [a.k.a. PDAC, RDADS], Battelle misled the district court in July 2006 by audaciously declaring that Pulver’s “little” MDM was so functionally inferior, thus unrelated to RDADS, and that discovery on RDADS should be denied. Battelle then demanded and received sanctions [$17K] for his filing a motion to compel them to deliver the patent application and other RDADS documents. The revealing patent application now further proves Battelle misappropriated/falsified DOE research, suborned perjury, and used/manipulated the court as means for “de facto extortion” [against Pulver] to conceal their false claims against the Federal Government and their commercial misappropriation of DOE-funded MDM technology. See http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/Index-PatentSection.htm and http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/FalseStatementsToTheCourt.htm. Supporting Documentation/Evidence
Funding directly from Office of Science: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/GES-00227(011904-OfficeOfScienceWP).pdf
DOE-HQ approval of TAP work: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/GES-00252(071702-DOE_HQ-ApprovesJES).pdf RDADS patent application vis-à-vis MDM screens showing [catalog drilldown] functionality missing from 8-29-03 MDM: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/1A-Graphics.htm#Drilldown Scientist
Dorow’s and other Battelle documents: August 1, 2003 TAP report explicitly stating
handheld catalog functionality [“category drilldown”] had already been
developed for MDM: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/GES-00202(080103-TAPreports-MDM-DrilldownDone).pdf Excerpt: “drill-down
capability for multiple levels based on categories defined in the extraction plan…The coding required
to support a “drill-down” mechanism on both the administrative
application server component and the handheld application was completed. This included modifications and
additions to the web pages of the administrative application server component
[control panel] to support defining the fields to be used as the
“drill-down” categories” 2003 exhibits of Battelle [Dorow, Goodwin, et al] 1831
(corporate) business pursuits that show conflict of interest with TAP-funded
MDM and motive to skim Office of Science funded research from the software
delivered to the recipient of the technical assistance: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/Ecolabs-2003-HandheldCatalogOpportunity.htm
Dorow laboratory notebook showing catalog
drilldown functionality in MDM prior to 8-29-03 delivery to Pulver: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DorowLabRecordBook-Excerpts.htm
Source Code of TAP-delivered MDM on 8-29-03 showing removed
of functionality: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/SourceCode-MDM-082903.zip [IdentifyFields.java
--> catalog drilldown missing from control panel] Observations and Concerns
The two main allegations in OIG
Complaint I04RS007 complaint were 1) sabotage/crippling of the MDM
software and 2) Battelle’s plagiarizing & competing against Pulver with the working/functional
MDM/PDAC version. This latest evidence
of their withholding TAP-funded code from the 8-29-03 TAP-delivered MDM version
confirms the first. Battelle’s
discovery evidence and their 10-26-06 admission to the court confirm the
second main allegation. Battelle financially damaged the government. By withholding the critical MDM catalog and other TAP functionality from the non-working 8-29-03 TAP version delivered to Pulver, Battelle prevented him and his team from selling MDM and generating royalties to DOE-PNNL. Pulver and Battelle had signed a royalty-bearing license for the TAP-funded MDM . Battelle suppressed this material fact from SC & OIG in 2004; Pulver was also informed that the local site office would thwart any future False Claims Act claim by testifying to a US attorney that Battelle didn’t financially damage the government because no royalties were at stake. The preponderance of evidence [e.g., Ecolabs] shows
Battelle’s motive for its fraud & abuse was their 1831
Use Permit [to 1830 M&O PNNL contract], which is a rare/unique privilege that lets Battelle use
Government facilities to conduct private/corporate business. My case shows that DOE’s
conflict-of-interest directive on Non-Interference with DOE-funded work was
willfully ignored by Battelle management, including an Associate Lab Director
who was involved in the fraud/misappropriation as discovery documents show. This latest update further shows the following
compelling commonality between my case and JC Laul: - Violation
of the False Claims Act driven by 1831 corporate/commercial interests. - False
statements to cover-up and mislead DOE and OIG [18 USC §1001] -
Misrepresenting scientific data to mislead district court.
[Laul--chemistry, Pulver--software
engineering] - Blatant
retaliation [In my case, this included uninvestigated phone threats against
my wife at PNNL.] - Exploiting
taxpayer-funded litigation reimbursement to “churn the process”
to escape accountability [For details, see my March 8, 2007 letter to House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee below. JC can be reached
at LANL.] This update regarding Battelle’s violation of the
False Claims Act is very
significant. Evidence from 2003-2007
now proves Battelle withheld/skimmed DOE-funded research from the technical
assistance recipients to whom they were statutorily and contractually
obligated to provide. As the OIG
said in 2003, Congress didn’t appropriate funds for Battelle to use
the technical assistance program as means to take advantage
of small business and compete against them. The Energy Policy
Act [§1001 re: annual DOE reports] shows Congress remains very concerned
about such abuses. As indicated by its documents, Battelle is
nevertheless proceeding ahead with its deception [to DOE, OIG, district
court, patent office, firms that signed RDADS NDAs] to escape accountability
for documented violations against the US Government and small
businesses. In this supplement to the April letter, I provided additional and material evidence for DOE to diligently address Battelle’s fraud, abuse and false statements in OIG cases that began in 2003. It will serve notice to other government organizations that may choose to investigate allegations of False Claims Act violations and any other information provided herein. More detail on this updated information is at the main site: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/.
Sincerely,
Philip Pulver (509)
946-2411 -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
To: Orbach,
Raymond Cc: Secretary
Bodman ; Friedman, Greg ; Jeff Salmon Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:25 PM Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - Update and Delivery of Evidence of Fraud,
Abuse & False Statements Per DOE Order 221.11 This
confidential online communication is for Government Use Only. Per
DOE Order
221.11, this information on fraud and abuse is being provided to those who have
the authority to act in the public interest. This information is not openly available and is not intended for
dissemination to the public. CCOL Inc. 1177 Jadwin Avenue Richland, WA 99352 April 25, 2007 Dr. Raymond L. Orbach Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Dear
Under Secretary Orbach: Per DOE Order 221.11, I am sending this email to provide
DOE with an update on Battelle evidence including their admissions or
acknowledgments that corroborate the allegations in my OIG complaints
[2003 - 2007]. These allegations
include Battelle's false statements to mislead DOE-SC and OIG,
plagiarism, misrepresentation of funded research, discovery abuse and
misrepresentations by DOE-funded Battelle outside counsel, misappropriation,
and others cited in this email or at the evidence site referenced below.
Note,
all the evidence substantiating the allegations is from Battelle’s own
documents. This letter will also serve notice to any other government body
(Congress, GAO, DOJ, etc.) that I have provided all necessary evidence
to the Office of Science beforehand and have given DOE the opportunity to
properly address Battelle’s continued fraud, abuse, and false
statements to the government. This email and all content at
evidence site will be copied to CD and sent by certified mail to
your office by May 1, 2007. This email consists of the following three parts: 1. Evidence and Other Documents Re:
Allegations 2. Emphasis on Certain Issues/Allegations 1. Evidence and Other Documents Re:
Allegations Based on the evidence released in 2006,
Battelle’s statements to the court, and the OIG’s request for
Battelle discovery documents, an allegations-with-exhibits Web site was developed
in late 2006; note, the site is configured to make it unreachable by
search engines [e.g., Google]. The
site material has been since updated with new evidence, including
Battelle’s RDADS software patent application [released 3-22-07] that
clearly confirms my OIG allegations [e.g., false statements, plagiarism,
misappropriation]. This online material includes the actual Battelle
documents corroborating the allegations; relevant excerpts are cited to
expedite review. The information can
be found at the following locations: 1A. http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/ is a comprehensive site detailing the allegations with supporting evidence of Battelle-PNNL fraud, abuse, and false statements to SC & OIG. The site was developed in response to the OIG November 2006 requests for discovery documents showing Battelle's intent to mislead. It includes the following topics: Background & timeline [2001- 2007]; Pulver detailed emails to DOE & OIG; Battelle false statements to DOE & OIG [18 USC §1001]; Concealing corporate/1831 pursuits; RDADS “new code” misappropriation; Misrepresenting DHS US Customs & Border Protection Radiation Portal Monitoring Project [RPMP] research to conceal fraud; False statements/declarations & material suppressions to district court. 1B. http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/Patent/
presents new evidence discovered in FY07 that
materially substantiates allegations in the site above. It consists of the following
sub-sections: RDADS patent application
[released 3-22-07] with graphics and detailed text showing
plagiarism/misappropriation of MDM software; Named inventor on patent
repeatedly stating RDADS is new name for PDAC/MDM; Battelle’s 10-26-06
admission of pursuing private business for PDAC/MDM thereby implicating
itself in making false statements to SC & OIG in
2004; Timecards showing that Battelle misrepresented US
Customs & Border Protection RPMP work. The patent application and other new
evidence consistently confirm that Battelle has been misleading DOE, OIG
and the court. 1C.
http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/022607-Issues-Summary-OIG.doc
summarizes the following issues in the OIG complaints including fraud, abuse, false
statements, and damages to the government: I04RS007:
Alleged Irregularities in Administering the Technical Assistance
Program
I05RR039: Sabotage & Misrepresentation of PalmFon P07HL035-1: Submission of fraudulent copyright documents
and invention reports to DOE. P07HL035-2: False statements by outside counsel and two
Battelle scientists. [All DOE-funded] P07HL035-3: Deliberate sabotage and manipulation by
Battelle of the DOE-funded MDM software. P07HL035-4: Material misrepresentations to OIG and
Science. P07HL035-5: Misrepresentation of DOE technology
pertaining to licensing DOE-funded technology. P07HL035-6: Battelle’s false statements to
mislead the court to impose financial sanctions on Pulver P07HL035-7: DOE-Science funding Battelle’s
litigation costs to defend willful misconduct 1D. http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/030807-LetterToCommitteeOnOversight.htm
is an initial letter to the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform sent on March 8th. It discussed how my OIG cases and abuses by
Battelle outside counsel, if left unaddressed by DOE, undermine the intent of
Congress to protect whistleblowers via the Whistleblower
Enhancement Act of 2007 and the 2005 Energy Policy Act [§629: “…
seeking relief under this paragraph, such person may bring an action at law
or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United
States”]. Cited are GAO reports
and Chairman Waxman’s 2003 letter to the Energy Secretary indicating
concern over how DOE practices [that subsidize contractors engaging in
willful misconduct or illegal activity] will encourage wrongdoing contractors
to needlessly protract lawsuits at significant taxpayer and whistleblower
expense. The relevant JC Laul fraud
case is cited because (1) It was a prior instance of Battelle-PNNL making
false statements that the OIG confirmed, (2) Battelle issued
a blunt public warning to future whistleblowers, and (3) An in-depth
article on Battelle-PNNL's conduct toward DOE, taxpayers
and Laul was placed in the Congressional
Record by Rep. David Skaggs. Per the Committee’s February request, I
made recommendations to help prevent Battelle et al. from misusing taxpayer
funds in order to conceal fraud, abuse whistleblowers, and escape
accountability. I promised to keep the Committee posted. Two
material events have occurred since the March 8th letter: 1. The
Patent and Trademark Office released the RDADS patent application which
further confirms the allegations. 2. The OIG, after requesting
and receiving discovery evidence of Battelle’s "intent to
mislead”, summarily closed the case. However, prior to
sending an update to the Committee chairman, I am sending this letter with
the extensive evidence [Battelle documents] to you and Secretary Bodman;
although Mr. Friedman closed the case, I'm copying him as a courtesy. 2. Emphasis on Certain Issues/Allegations Within
extensive information provided at the links above, there are some issues that
warrant emphasis due to their impact on DOE, oversight, taxpayers, others
doing business with Battelle-managed labs, the court, and future
whistleblower protection. The issues are as follows: 2A.
Battelle repeatedly
misled Science and OIG to conceal their
fraud and abuse; extensive exhibits are at http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/FalseStatementstoScience&OIG.htm For example,
emails from two PNNL staff prove that Battelle made false statements to DOE
when they denied any wrongful competing/misappropriating. Mark Goodwin [later promoted to a
director], who plagiarized and interfered with the technical assistance MDM
software project in 2002, was goaled on 1831 [private] business volume; he
willfully violated the MDM license agreement, marketed the MDM software under
Battelle’s PDAC alias and misled a major corporation[s]. Kevin Dorow [MDM developer/inventor], two
weeks after delivering non-working software in 2003, stated he would demo the
working MDM version to my prospects only if Battelle thought it would lead to
the more profitable 1831 business. 2B.
Battelle’s outside counsel engaged in discovery
abuse [misrepresentation] and PNNL scientists made false/inaccurate sworn
declarations to the court in order to conceal Battelle’s
misappropriation/plagiarism [e.g., RDADS “new code” scheme]. They stated that RDADS had
“absolutely nothing to do with” Pulver [and MDM software]
and they blatantly misrepresented research funded by
DHS US Customs & Border Protection
RPMP; see exhibits at http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/Patent/7-BattelleMisledTheCourt.htm. Using the
scientists’ declarations, Battelle successfully misled the court. Battelle then demanded sanctions against me and received
them [$17,043] on 10/13/06. In early
November, they
threatened to seek contempt sanctions for more money; all the while, they
were deceiving the court as the RDADS patent application now so clearly
proves. As I wrote to Mr.
Friedman, Battelle later cashed my check and thus consummated their intent to
mislead the court and committed de-facto extortion as the
following links indicate: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/MisleadingCourt-DefactoExtortion.htm http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/113006-CCOLtoMiller--Letter&Check.pdf
http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/111006-ContemptThreat.pdf Details on outside counsel’s discovery abuse are at http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DiscoveryAbuse.doc; as
noted, his prior law firm [employer] was sanctioned a record $325,000 for
wanton discovery abuse.
The OIG’s 11-24-06 email to me and documents I sent back to them [11-27-06] are follows: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DocsToOIG.htm After specifically requesting, receiving and
acknowledging the extensive discovery[lawsuit] evidence that
corroborated Battelle's intent to mislead and the other allegations, the OIG
closed the case and apparently chose not to hold Battelle accountable
for its fraud, abuse, and false statements to DOE. My detailed response/concern to their
decision is at http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/041007-Email-ReOIG-ClosingCase.htm. [Excerpt: “In sum, although
the Battelle evidence and admissions have validated my allegations, the OIG
is nonetheless allowing Battelle’s misconduct [e.g. discovery abuse & false declarations] to continue at
DOE expense [allowable cost].
Unfortunately, my 3½-year case shows that reporting fraud allegations [per DOE
Order 221.1] against
a major DOE contractor to the OIG is effectively pointless and fraught with
significant risk to those coming forward.] 3. Closing Summary Points 3A. The 2007 evidence [RDADS patent application & PNNL timecard records] show that
Battelle materially misled the court to conceal their misappropriation of the
MDM software that was developed/funded under the technical assistance program
[TAP] in 2002 and enhanced in 2003 under TAP. The patent application’s visual
evidence [http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/Patent/1A-Graphics.htm] alone reveals their plagiarism; it explains why
Battelle “had” to mislead the court and conceal this smoking gun
evidence. The
RDADS patent application further underscores their fraudulent tactics to
deceive the court into imposing a $17K sanction for my pressing to obtain
the application and other RDADS documents; it proves Battelle
knowingly misled and used the court as a vehicle for extortion. As I stated to the Committee, this abusive
conduct of using/suborning national lab scientists and outside counsel to
mislead courts [and extort plaintiffs] undermines the most critical
protection of any whistleblower, i.e., having their day in court. 3B. Battelle and outside counsel,
through false declarations and representations, successfully
deceived the court. Their actions have
thus tainted the case; even the OIG acknowledges the case is tainted because
they told me on 3-22-07 to come back to them after the appeal. As stated in my 2-27-07 email to the OIG,
“Until Undersecretary Orbach, the Secretary or the OIG
intervenes, Battelle’s taxpayer-funded deception to DOE and the court
will continue unabated…As mentioned previously, unless Battelle
redresses its willful misrepresentations to the court, the case is tainted
and could thus result in an appeal on grounds of discovery abuse by their
DOE-funded attorney. If Science
doesn’t hold Battelle accountable for misconduct that’s now
overwhelmingly proven by their own documents, Battelle will have a de-facto
license to defraud/abuse DOE, the courts, the taxpayer, and those small
businesses or universities working with any of the five national labs that
Battelle manages.” Note,
Battelle's conduct in the Laul case forced an appeal to the Ninth Circuit which
JC won [new trial]. 3C. The preponderance of
evidence and admissions reveal that Battelle’s conduct has violated,
pertains to, and/or undermines the following regulations, directives, laws or
policies: Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1172 & http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-985 Energy Policy Act of 2005 - http://www.energy.gov/about/EPAct.htm §
629 [Whistleblower Protection] § 1001 [Improved Technology Transfer Of Energy
Technologies.] 18 USC § 1001 - Fraud And False Statements - http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1001
DOE Order 221.11 [Reporting Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse] - https://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/doetext/neword/221/n22111.html
DOE Policy on Research Misconduct - http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/June/Day-28/i12645.htm
DOE 48 CFR Part 970.5227-2 [Commercialization & Copyright] - http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/CFR48-970----SW-Copyright-Commercialization.htm
GAO Report on DOE Reimbursement of Litigation Costs - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04148r.pdf Battelle internal SBMS Policy on Plagiarism - http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/P20620.pdf
Battelle-PNNL 1831 Non-Interference Policy - http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DOE-Battelle-NonInterference-1831.htm
Patent Rules on Misconduct §10.23 - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_10_23.htm By way of
this letter, I have provided substantial and sufficient evidence for the DOE
Office of Science to diligently address Battelle’s fraud, abuse and
false statements to the government in OIG cases that began nearly four years
ago. It will serve notice [of providing such] to other
government organizations (Congress, GAO, DOJ...) that may choose to
investigate the allegations, the preponderance of evidence, and/or
Battelle’s statements/declarations/admissions to the court. Sincerely,
Philip Pulver (509)
946-2411 |
||
|
|
Back to
Emails-to-Officials List