Back to
Emails-to-Officials List
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulver July 2010 Email to Commerce Secretary Locke [With Forwarded Emails to/from
Dept. of Energy (2007-2009)] -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip Pulver
Cc: Esther Lee ; JFernandez@eda.doc.gov ; David.Kappos@USPTO.GOV
; Robert.Stoll@USPTO.GOV
; TZinser@OIG.DOC.GOV
; Steven Koonin ; Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 10:21 PM Subject: Response & Concerns Re: Battelle Named to National Advisory Council on Innovation & Entrepreneurship → Council
Tainted by Evidence
of Battelle Misusing Federal Assistance Programs for Small Business
Entrepreneurs (Madoff-Like Feeders for Corp. Ventures) Attachments: 1A-Transcript-Hearing-CourtRejectsBattelleRightToDeliverZero.pdf
; Transcript-DeposTestimony-Morgan-BattellePatentFraud.pdf
; Compilation-ExhibitDocsOverviews.pdf ; 2-BattelleNewCodeTacticToEvadeExclusiveMDMLicense.pdf Information on
Battelle's misusing the DOE-PNNL Small Business Technical Assistance Program
and its implications to small business entrepreneurs
if Dept. of Commerce names Battelle to the National Advisory Council on
Innovation and Entrepreneurship is being provided to
those with the authority & obligation to act in the public interest. Evidence
Site is at www.ccol-inc.com/PvB. CCOL Inc. 2415 South Garfield St. Kennewick, WA 99337 (509) 586-3051
July 26, 2010 The Honorable Gary Locke Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce Dear Secretary Locke, This email is response to the Commerce Department (i) Naming Battelle to the National Advisory Council on Innovation &
Entrepreneurship on 7/13/10 and (ii) Ignoring my 1/31/10 email below [citing evidence of Battelle fraud] that warned such naming would taint the council and embolden Battelle to exploit/jeopardize other entrepreneurs. While impressive individuals are on the council, small businesses will be dismayed/outraged that Commerce selected Battelle when they learn that Battelle's own evidence, deposition testimony, and statements to a federal judge implicate them in misusing federally-funded small business assistance programs as Madoff-like “feeders” for corporate ventures [pocketing research], falsifying inventions to the patent office, and soaking US taxpayers for litigation fraud/perjury [by software scientist accessing [Classified] air cargo explosives research] to conceal fraud against a small business. [See also attached files and links below my signature.] The
looming adverse risks to other small business entrepreneurs, due to Commerce
naming Battelle to the council, necessitate a brief recap of the many red
flags that you ignored [just
as SEC overlooked Madoff & harmed investors]. Namely, the following
key points and quotes of my 1/31/10 email warrant that Commerce’s Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (i) Reconsider its decision naming Battelle to the
council, (ii) Post
advisories for entrepreneurs [re: sharing proprietary info. with council members] that cite this case, thus enabling
them to assess the evidence for themselves: ▪ Battelle Claiming
Right to Defraud Small Business – By asserting DOE’s
Technical Assistance Program entitled them to deliver "zero...less than a Barbie Doll” [Court Transcript] to my small business [after admitting to developing working
software versions], “Battelle has publicly declared its ‘right’
and intention to misuse/exploit federally-funded technical assistance
programs [as
‘feeders’ for ventures] and violate the False Claims Act by
withholding work from small business(s) for whom the government paid Battelle to
develop.” Evidence shows Battelle withheld/kept the working version(s) for which they pursued Fortune
500 firm, nominated for R&D 100 Award,
enhanced, called “new code” [new name] to evade my license, commercialized and patented [violated 18 USC §1001].
[The judge denied their dismiss motion after it
didn’t refute evidence implicating them.] ▪
Commerce/Battelle Repeating
SEC/Madoff – By
ignoring red flags [evidence] and
naming Battelle to a Cabinet-level council for advising the President during
the worst economy since the 1930’s, Commerce is putting entrepreneurs
at risk just as the SEC’s overlooking and naming Madoff to advisory committees harmed
investors whom the SEC is funded to protect.
Its Inspector General report confirmed this: (i) “There is
evidence that POTENTIAL
INVESTORS...uncertain about…Madoff were reassured by the fact that
the SEC had investigated and/or examined
Madoff...and found no evidence of fraud.” [Pg. 425] and (ii) “Bernard Madoff himself
acknowledged “it lent to the credibility of his
firm that he had passed examinations by
the SEC”…had the effect of encouraging additional individuals
and entities to invest with him.” [Pg. 429] Similarly, your naming Battelle to the
council, while ignoring and suppressing evidence, deceptively lulls entrepreneurs into
trusting Battelle, jeopardizes their business, and contradicts the President’s stated intentions to help [not hurt] small business. ▪
Battelle Testifying [Admitting] to Patent Fraud – Cited below [1/31/10 & 11/23/09 (DOE-Koonin)], Battelle testified [admitted] to its practice of renaming old inventions [call
‘new’] to evade statutory filing bars/deadlines and cited my case as
example. As stated below, “you were also sent my 1/29/10 email to USPTO citing evidence of Battelle
misrepresentations to the patent office” that’s likely occurring across
all DOE and DHS labs they manage and earn $millions from patenting taxpayer-funded inventions. Given that (i) Neither USPTO [Kappos,
Stoll…] nor your office replied to my emails/evidence and (ii) Battelle was named to
the council, Commerce has clearly overlooked and rewarded/exempted the patent fraud by granting Battelle unfair advantage over
entrepreneurs who truthfully represent inventions to the patent office. This echoes concerns in a Politico article:
USPTO favoring “technology behemoths” to the determinant of small businesses. ▪
Entrepreneurs Trusting Council Less Likely – “Given this
fraud/misuse of federal small business assistance [shown by evidence
sufficient for Battelle to stand trial], Commerce naming Battelle to this
council would in-effect endorse its
ongoing fraud and thus taint the
council’s legitimacy/ integrity/reputation, especially as more
entrepreneurs learn of this case including Battelle/DOE ongoing litigation fraud/perjury against my small business
that’s cost US taxpayers over $750K thru 2008. Such an appointment would raise the
specter of billion-dollar Battelle being further
emboldened to exploit small businesses, entrepreneurs,
universities and others...”
Commerce’s refusal to disclose this evidence of ongoing fraud and most relevant case to entrepreneurs further compounds
its wrongful decision to appoint Battelle to the counsel. Some will
perceive that you have given Battelle a license to steal from small business, realizing that DOE-Science [taxpayers] will later fund Battelle's litigation fraud/perjury [e.g. hiding ventures or falsifying research] to conceal evidence of defrauding those small businesses suing them, as cited in my 11/23/09 email to Science Undersecretary Koonin below. My closing points relevant to small business entrepreneurs,
Congress and the public are as follows: ▪ Naming Battelle raises concerns that other council
members may exploit entrepreneurs as Battelle did when it misappropriated DOE
technical assistance for corporate ventures and suborned DOE-authorized
perjury by national lab scientists accessing classified air cargo explosives research. ▪ Commerce naming Battelle ensures that USPTO
won’t investigate evidence/admissions of patent fraud by Battelle [high fee source to USPTO and major
customer of IBM (Kappos)] that runs many labs and will be bidding PNNL,
a major constituent during your two terms as WA governor. ▪ Your concealing such material and relevant information
from these entrepreneurs [seeking Commerce Dept. help in good faith] undermines the council,
the Dept. of Commerce and the President’s small business agenda in the worst economy
since the Great Depression. ▪ Your ignoring extensive evidence and instead giving
Battelle a “good
housekeeping seal of approval” by naming it to the council necessitates that I diligently broadcast this ongoing DOE-funded fraud to
other small business entrepreneurs [via blogs,
associations…] who can then find and assess the evidence and decide whether to trust
Battelle or the council itself. Accordingly, this email will be posted to the evidence site
shortly. Sincerely yours,
Philip C. Pulver (509) 528-9212 cell Links by Topic http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB
[Evidence Site - Main - Intro] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/BattelleWithheldDOE-TAP-Research.htm [Dorow Kept DOE
Software from Small Business - Violated False Claims Act] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/MisrepresentationToUSPTO.htm [Battelle
Admitting to Falsifying Inventions to Patent Office to Evade Statutory Bars] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Documents.htm [Summary Detail Outlines by Topic with
Convenient Pop-Open Exhibits] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Depositions.htm [Battelle-PNNL Scientist Testimony
Showing Dorow Perjury & False Declarations, Patent Fraud] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/FalseClaims-Battelle.htm
[Battelle prior false claim case placed in Congressional Record & covered
by NBC News.] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/BattelleConcealingCommInvestmentFromCourt.htm [Dorow
Falsely Denying Commercial Investment to Court] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/LitigationFraudPerjury--Battelle-DOE-SummaryPage.htm
[Perjury Main Page with Links to Ongoing Occurrences] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/BattelleMisrepresentingRPMP.htm [Dorow Perjury & False
Declarations (Falsifying RPMP Research) to Conceal Evidence] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Derivative--RDADS=MDM.htm [Dorow Misrepresentations
Refuted by 3 PNNL Scientists; Confirmed patent fraud.] Email
Chains [2003 & 2005] Showing Battelle’s Defrauding/Evading License
Granted to Pulver’s Small Business http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Ecolabs-2003-HandheldCatalogOpportunity-MDM.htm
[Pursued Ecolabs when delivered non-working version to Pulver] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Emails-NewCode-2005.htm [Dorow Calling MDM/BlackBerry
“new code” to Defraud License - “Pulver is Toast”] -----
Original Message ----- From: Philip
Pulver Cc: Friedman,
Greg [DOE-IG] ; TZinser@OIG.DOC.GOV Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:57 PM Subject: Documented Concerns Re: Battelle Being Named to the National Advisory Council on Innovation & Entrepreneurship; Evidence of
Ongoing Battelle
Misusing/Exploiting Federal Assistance Programs for Small Business
Entrepreneurs [Madoff-like Feeders for its Corporate Ventures] Attachments: 1-BattelleMisused-TechAssist-WithheldResearch.pdf ; 2-BattelleNewCodeTacticToEvadeExclusiveMDMLicense.pdf ; Compilation-ExhibitDocsOverviews.pdf Information on Battelle's misusing the DOE-PNNL Small
Business Technical Assistance Program and its implications to small business entrepreneurs if Dept. of Commerce names Battelle
to the National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship is being provided to those with the authority & obligation to act in
the public interest. Evidence
Site is at http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB. CCOL Inc. 2415
South Garfield St. Kennewick,
WA 99337 (509) 586-3051 January
31, 2010 The Honorable Gary Locke Secretary U.S. Department of
Commerce Dear Secretary Locke, 1. I’m an
entrepreneur who is forwarding my 11/23/09 email [sent to DOE-Science] to notify you of
concerns regarding your possibly naming Battelle to the Commerce
Dept.’s National Advisory Council on Innovation and
Entrepreneurship [NACIE] announced
last September. My company is suing
Battelle-PNNL for misusing/defrauding DOE’s Technical Assistance
Program [TAP] by withholding/pocketing the Mobile Data Manager [MDM] software that DOE had specifically & conditionally funded
Battelle to develop for my small business.
Battelle delivered a non-working MDM version to me while keeping the working
and functional version for its corporate/venture interests. [Background: In 2002, Pulver was granted worldwide
exclusive license to commercially market, sell & develop follow-on versions. In 2003, Battelle delivered a non-working MDM version to him. PNNL documents,
testimony and software experts confirm that Battelle withheld/kept the working TAP-funded MDM version for which
they nominated for R&D 100 Award, further
developed, pursued commercialization and patented. Explicit 2005 emails reveal their “new code” scheme by which
Battelle evaded/defrauded Pulver’s exclusive license and made
misrepresentations [18 USC §1001] to the patent office.
Case details are in emails below, at
the evidence site, and attached.] 2. In 2009, the court denied Battelle’s motion to dismiss, ruling
that, based on the evidence proffered, a jury could find Battelle guilty of
defrauding Pulver’s small business, i.e., [withholding] not delivering the DOE-TAP-funded
MDM software to his company. Note, in a
2008 hearing and after admitting
MDM worked and functional three months before delivery to Pulver, Battelle
actually asserted that DOE’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP] entitled them to
deliver "zero...less than a Barbie Doll" [unworkable product] to his small
business. The judge called that
“ridiculous” and later denied their dismiss motion after Battelle
cited no evidence refuting Pulver’s claim that they withheld the
working software. With this
blatant assertion, Battelle has publicly declared its ‘right’
and intention to misuse/exploit federally-funded technical assistance
programs [as
‘feeders’ for corporate ventures] and
violate the False Claims Act by withholding work from
small business(s) for whom the government paid Battelle to develop. [Note:
On 1/15/10, the court denied Battelle’s second
request to dismiss the case; hence, a federal judge has twice ruled that,
based on the extensive evidence, a jury could find
Battelle guilty of withholding federally-funded software developed for my
small business.] 3. Given this
fraud/misuse of federal small business assistance [confirmed by
evidence sufficient for Battelle to now stand trial], Commerce naming Battelle to this council [NACIE] would in-effect endorse its ongoing fraud [since 2003] and thus taint the
council’s legitimacy/integrity/reputation, especially as more entrepreneurs
learn of this case including Battelle/DOE ongoing litigation fraud/perjury
against my small business that’s cost taxpayers over $750K thru 2008. Such an appointment would raise the
specter of billion-dollar Battelle being further emboldened to exploit small
businesses, entrepreneurs, universities and others who [later sue Battelle] would also incur DOE’s
funding/suborning perjury by top-secret clearance holders [et al.] to
conceal Battelle’s fraud [e.g., pocketing intellectual property, false claims], obstruct justice and protect
Battelle ventures. In sum, those
working with the
council would face a dual threat [Battelle & DOE].
4. These and other concerns regarding entrepreneurs and the
council are highlighted in the 11/23/09 email below: •
Delivering Non-Working MDM Version to Pulver While Battelle Was
Pursuing Fortune 500 Firm to License/Sell Working Version •
Misusing DOE Small Business Technical Assistance Programs as
“Madoff-Like Feeder Funds” for Battelle Corporate Ventures •
Misrepresenting Inventions to Patent Office
to Conceal Fraud Against Small Business [e.g., 2005 “new code”
(RDADS) is 2002 MDM] •
DOE Covering Up Battelle Fraud [Perjury...] and Defying
President’s Public Support for Small Business [White House excerpts cited] •
DOE Funding Litigation Fraud & Perjury Against Small Business; DOE-Funded
Attorney’s Prior Firm Sanctioned/Fined [Record $325K] by
the WA Supreme Court for Wrongfully Concealing Smoking-Gun Drug Toxicity
Evidence [Attorney Misconduct - Discovery Abuse] •
Concealing Battelle’s
Commercial Investment in Follow-on MDM Version [“RDADS”]
Exclusivity Licensed to Pulver’s Small Business [Subsequent evidence confirms Battelle
Ventures invested $15.5M in same wireless
technology.] [RDADS NDA signers misled] •
Business Entrepreneur Undercut [2009 news articles and 2005
“tell me it’s all new code” scheme-to-evade-license are
cited.]
5. Madoff investors were
harmed by the SEC missing and/or overlooking his fraud. Similarly,
entrepreneurs will be jeopardized if Dept. of Commerce ignores Battelle’s misusing federal small business
assistance programs as feeders for ventures and names Battelle to the
National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship [NACIE]. The risk to those
trusting agencies [SEC, DOC, DOE ...] who fail in their oversight to
uncover fraud was acutely
illustrated in a report by SEC Inspector General Kotz;
excerpts below directly correspond to Commerce’s naming Battelle to
this advisory council
that entrepreneurs would approach for assistance and likely share proprietary
information with Battelle. “IX.THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT POTENTIAL INVESTORS RELIED UPON THE FACT
THAT THE SEC HAD EXAMINED AND INVESTIGATED MADOFF IN MAKING DECISIONS TO INVEST WITH HIM...investors who may have been uncertain about whether to
invest with Bernard Madoff were reassured By the fact that the SEC
had investigated and/or examined Madoff, or entities
that did business with Madoff, and
found no evidence of fraud.” [Pg. 425] “Bernard
Madoff himself acknowledged in his
interview that he would inform potential investors about
SEC examinations in order to
provide them with a level of comfort, stating that
“it lent to the credibility of his firm that
he had passed examinations by the SEC”” [Pg. 429] “Accordingly,
we found that not only was the SEC
unable to uncover Madoff’s fraud in the
several investigations and examinations it conducted over a period of
years, the fact that they had conducted examinations and investigations and did not detect the fraud, lent credibility to Madoff’s
operations and had the effect of encouraging additional
individuals and entities to invest with him.” [Pg. 429] [Note: Madoff also served on an SEC advisory
committee while he was defrauding investors whom the SEC is
supposed to protect.] 6. In his State of the Union Address, the President proposed
new measures [tax cuts, $30B (loans/credit)...] to help small
businesses & entrepreneurs who he states as being vital/central to creating jobs and reviving
the worst economy since the 1930’s.
Given the ongoing fraud against my small business, the Commerce
Department naming Battelle to its National Advisory Council on Innovation and
Entrepreneurship would contravene and undermine the President’s
agenda. Moreover, it would necessitate my
further broadcasting this ongoing Battelle/DOE fraud to other small business
entrepreneurs [blogs, associations, etc.] who themselves could review the evidence
and decide whether Battelle poses a clear and present threat. Naming Battelle would also raise concerns
that other council members may exploit/defraud entrepreneurs just as Battelle
did by using DOE’s Technical Assistance Program as a Madoff-like feeder
fund; it may also be perceived as a whitewash prior to DOE rebidding the PNNL & ORNL labs where Battelle [501(c)3] is the incumbent,
receiving billions annually. This email chain with its cited/linked information is a
documented record that you Mr. Secretary were provided with extensive
evidence of Battelle misconduct that’s contrary to the purpose of the
new National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Note, you were also sent my 1/29/10 email to USPTO citing evidence of
Battelle misrepresentations to the patent office that could be occurring
at five DOE national labs and other sites they manage [DHS, DOD...]. If you or your staff have questions or need more information,
please contact me. You can also
contact DOE Inspector General [Greg Friedman] who has requested & received extensive
evidence of Battelle’s fraud since 2003 and has allowed [not stopped] DOE to knowingly
fund/suborn perjury by a top-secret (Q) clearance holder concealing fraud against the
USPTO, my small business and taxpayers.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter that will impact
entrepreneurs nationwide. Sincerely,
Philip C. Pulver (509) 528-9212 cell http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB
[Evidence Site - Main Page] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/BattelleWithheldDOE-TAP-Research.htm
[Pocketing DOE-Funded Software from Pulver’s Small Business] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Emails-NewCode-2005.htm
[Dorow Calling MDM-on-BlackBerry “new code” to Defraud Licensee
[“Pulver is Toast”] & Mislead USPTO] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Ecolabs-2003-HandheldCatalogOpportunity-MDM.htm
[Battelle Pursing Fortune 500 Firm When Delivered Non-Working Version to
Pulver] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Declaration-PulverAwards-CrtDoc221.pdf
[Pulver Background & Entrepreneurial Awards from Battelle] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Depositions.htm
[Battelle-PNNL Scientist Testimony Showing Dorow's Perjury & False
Declarations, and False Statements to USPTO] http://www.ccol-inc.com/PvB/Documents.htm
[Summary Detailed Outlines by Topic with Pop-Open Exhibits or in PDF Format] [Note, text in the 11/23/09 email below, relevant to small business entrepreneurs, is highlighted in blue.] -----
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. As cited below, DOE site offices [ORO & PNSO] are “advising”,
“overseeing” and funding Battelle’s litigation fraud and
perjury, e.g., research misrepresentation to conceal evidence of misusing [skimming] 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 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 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?"
Evidence repeatedly shows Battelle 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 & PNNL 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
and 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 as 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 [Corrupted]. 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] Congress: 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." Congress: 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 Battelle’s
ongoing DOE-funded litigation fraud will trigger bid protests, lawsuits,
media/watchdog scrutiny, and/or GAO investigations when Battelle is
awarded PNNL. Losing bidders, after spending millions competing in good faith,
will conclude that Battelle’s
keeping the lab 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 [ and perjury by
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. · 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 the PNNL Technical Assistance Program [TAP] by
“pocketing” DOE-funded research from DOE’s intended small
business recipients, (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. 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 now face
greater risks, e.g., misappropriation.
Accordingly, for 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 ============================================================== Note: The 2007-2008
email chain was included in all the above emails to all these
government officials. |
