Here, my site http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/ is continued.
I have documentary proof that the University of Toronto investigation which denied my allegations of fraud and plagiarism was conducted illegally: without the investigative committee and by a sole incompetent investigator. The law here is unambiguous: an incompetent investigation violates my right to the fairness of the due process and constitutes denial of fundamental justice; an incompetent investigation must be declared null and void. Moreover, any administrative decisions relying on an incompetent investigation must also be declared null and void.
My allegations of fraud and plagiarism were denied illegally. On December 30, 2016, I sent the following letter to the NSERC President, Dr. B. Mario Pinto.
Dr. B. Mario Pinto,
President of The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
December 30, 2016
Dear Dr. Pinto,
I hereby request that NSERC, without delay, will declare the following four documents in my case null and void.
1). “Investigation Regarding Mr. Pyshnov’s Complaint”, April 25, 1995, signed by Donald N. Dewees, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc27.htm).
This is the report of an investigation resulted from NSERC request made to the University of Toronto to conduct an investigation of my allegations of fraud and plagiarism at the UofT. The report denied my allegations of plagiarism against Dr. Larsen.
This investigation was conducted in brutal violation of NSERC and UofT policies on such investigations, which required establishing an investigative committee including members having appropriate scholarly background.
Contrary to the policy, this investigation was conducted by a single person, a lawyer, who did not have scientific background and was not qualified to be a sole investigator of my allegations. He also was not qualified to communicate with me competently. The report, on the face of it, is the report of the sole incompetent investigator. The report should have been declared by NSERC invalid.
2). A letter to me from NSERC, January 29, 1996, signed by Catherine Armour, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc31.htm).
The letter said that NSERC Committee “agrees with the conclusions of the investigative report that there was no breach of scientific integrity by Dr. Larsen”. This NSERC decision quite illegally and in violation of NSERC policy denied my allegations of plagiarism when it relied on the report of the incompetent investigation. This NSERC decision used an illegal procedure and denied me the fundamental justice. The NSERC decision amounts to the concealment of fraud and plagiarism in UofT.
3). A letter to me from Dr. T. A. Brzustowski, President of NSERC, February 24, 2003, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/NSERC.htm).
Brzustowski said: “I am satisfied that this difficult case was treated fairly and in accordance with policies in effect at the time.” This statement was false because “the policies in effect at the time” clearly required establishing an investigative committee having members with appropriate scholarly background, as it was stated in the UofT policy from March 1995, at the time when the UofT investigation was being conducted, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/p10.gif). And obviously, no legitimate policy can support an investigation conducted by a sole incompetent investigator.
4). A letter to me from the NSERC Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, May 9, 2012, signed by Karen Wallace, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/wallace.gif).
This letter was the answer to my “Allegations of Extreme Breaches of Policy by the University of Toronto”, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/Allegations.html), submitted to the Secretariat. The Secretariat, contrary to their obligation to investigate such allegations, did not do this. Moreover, the Secretariat fraudulently said that these allegations were already “addressed” in two previous NSERC letters (para 2 and 3 above). In fact, however, in these two letters, not a single of these my allegations was mentioned, let alone investigated.
NSERC knows perfectly well that the UofT investigation was an incompetent investigation as it brutally violated the NSERC own policy designed to forbid such incompetent investigations in universities. NSERC, by its mandate, has an obligation to reject the university policies and decisions made in violations of the NSERC policies. Yet, NSERC, for twenty years, has been making illegal decisions relying on this incompetent investigation and, so, disrupting the due process and denying me fundamental justice. NSERC has corrupted the due process, and to this day, no scientist had investigated my allegations of fraud and plagiarism in the UofT.
Here is his answer, January 11, 2017
Page 1 (image)
Page 2 (image)
Let’s understand his arguments.
Para. 2. Dr. Pinto presents the university investigation report and three NSERC letters as “considered opinion of the writers in the exercise of their functions”, and he refuses to void them. No, they are not private opinions – these documents are administrative decisions that affected, and continue to gravely affect my rights. They in fact were called “decisions” in other NSERC documents and called “institutional decisions” in the above letter of Dr. Pinto. When the institutional, administrative decisions violate the law and make a mockery of my legal rights, they are declared null and void, quashed and invalidated.
Para. 3. He presents justifications for the unconscionable fraud perpetrated by the U ofT in the procedure of the investigation. However, some questions now will show his justifications to be nonsense.
1) Why the investigation did not wait for the approval of the policy? What was the urgency that allowed to a) dispose with the investigative committee and b) appoint a sole incompetent investigator? Nine months passed between the investigation and the NSERC decision on it; there was no urgency.
2) Why the “subject matter expert”, if he was a competent scientist, was not included in the committee? Why I could not see the “subject matter expert” and did not even know of his existence before I saw the report of the investigation?
3) How can Dr. Pinto dare to say that “the investigation did respect the spirit of the draft policy” when the actual “spirit” of the draft policy explicitly said entirely different things, namely, a) that the committee is needed and b) that the appropriate scholarly background is needed? It appears that there never was any policy, approved or not approved, which allowed to dispose with these two central requirements.
4) Why the investigation needed to use the (obviously faked) “spirit” of the draft policy but not the actual policy? Was there something wrong with using the draft policy, but nothing wrong with using its “spirit”?
It is abundantly clear that U of T manipulation of the procedure was a fraud. But it is also clear that the result of this manipulation was an incompetent investigation violating my right to a fair procedure. Justifying the details of these manipulations by Dr. Pinto does not make this investigation legal.
Para. 4. Here, Dr. Pinto calls the documents “institutional decisions”, forgetting the formula of “considered opinion of the writers in the exercise of their functions”. Of course, these decisions can be voided. There is no need for new evidence or new NSERC powers, there is clear evidence of illegality of these “institutional decisions”. (In fact, this President’s letter is the new evidence of cover-up. Is this why he will not answer my letters?)
Para. 5. The rule and the practice in academia are saying that any paper found to be plagiarised must be retracted without any regard for the date it was published, period. Authorship rights are fundamental human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, in my case it was not one plagiarised paper but three. In my case, there is irrefutable evidence of fraud by which I was removed from the university. And it’s not just my “personal sense of grievance”. The case for which Dr. Pinto cannot find money is about huge cover-up in Canadian science administration. There is undeniable public interest in doing the justice in this case and in doing the justice publicly.
Scientists should not agree with the fraudulent procedures where allegations of plagiarism cannot be competently and fairly investigated. It now becomes clear that NSERC is in collusion with the University of Toronto and it approves administrative banditism in the university. There are press articles which condemn institutionalised secrecy and dishonesty in the NSERC, although not even once disclosing the documents of my case. (The last one is in Toronto Star, July 12, 2016.)
NSERC is being run as a private business, but using billions of dollars of public money. NSERC has been turned into the “only game in town”. NSERC has been fighting against the proposal to establish an independent and competent agency for investigating scientific misconduct. The crooks, in the universities (which are given the right to investigate their own fraud) and in the NSERC now spit on the law, the academic rules and on the science in general. They should be put on public trial. A public inquiry must be instituted. I cannot do this alone.
No, Dr. Pinto, you cannot continue concealing the fraud for 20 years, continue concealing it right now, and tell me that my case is old and closed.