Falsifying Research [DHS Radiation Portal Monitor Project (RPMP)] to Conceal Defrauding Small Business
Battelle-PNNL top-secret (Q) clearance holder Dorow and DOE-funded counsel Miller are materially misrepresenting
RPMP-funded research to conceal key evidence of misusing DOE’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP], withholding the
In 2002-03, the Mobile Data Manager [MDM] software was funded and developed via DOE’s Technical Assistance Program [TAP] based on specifications provided by small business owner Pulver [Plaintiff]; PNNL scientist Dorow developed the software. Pursuant to policy and the TAP Agreement, DOE specifically funded Battelle to develop the MDM software on the condition that all the research work performed [e.g., software developed] would be provided to Pulver’s small business. [Note, Battelle renamed MDM to “PDAC” in 2002 and “RDADS in 2005.]
On 8/29/03, Battelle delivered to Pulver a non-working version of MDM that Battelle has admitted (i) was operable and functional in May 2003 and (ii) was being marketed to Fortune 500 Ecolabs [signed non-disclosure agreement] in August 2003 and later. Battelle documents and PNNL scientists’ 2008 deposition testimony consistently confirm (i) Battelle marketed the working TAP-funded MDM version to commercial firms and nominated it for technology commercialization awards [e.g., R&D 100 - R&D Magazine] and (ii) Starting in January 2004, the Dept. of Homeland Security Radiation Portal Monitor Project [RPMP] funded enhancements to the working MDM/PDAC version, resulting in follow-on [derivative] versions adapted to other devices including BlackBerry used by the installers of radiation monitors at US ports and borders.
Battelle & DOE-funded counsel Miller continue misrepresenting RPMP-funded research and misleading the court into blocking production of smoking-gun evidence, i.e., RPMP-enhanced versions of the 2003 TAP-funded MDM [PDAC/RDADS] software exclusively licensed to Pulver.
Namely, they falsely state RPMP rejected the 2003 TAP-funded MDM developed for Pulver and instead [in 2004] funded “new and different” software [RDADS] that’s irrelevant to the case and thus “must” not be produced, i.e., concealed from examination [comparing MDM with RDADS]. , these and other misrepresentations are repeatedly refuted by Battelle’s own documents/testimony cited in many exhibits below:
Crt. Doc. #196 [Dorow 4/1/08 Declaration Re: Plaintiffs’ 2006 Motion To Compel Production Of Documents]
“MDM/PDAC development ended when Mr. Pulver’s funding ran out which was in the September/October 2003 timeframe. In December of 2003, I demonstrated PDAC to the RPMP team—they were interested, but had new requirements that could not be satisfied by PDAC[MDM]. These new requirements were discussed and funding was provided by RPMP to create a new product that would satisfy them. The development started in January of 2004 and continued through January of 2005 (and continued on after that), when an invention report was filed for this new product, RDADS” [Dorow] [See Depositions for other Dorow perjured statements refuted by PNNL scientists and documents.]
Crt. Doc. #195 [4/1/08 Memo In Opposition To Plaintiffs’ 2008 Motion To Compel Production Of Documents]
“In Dec. 2003, Mr. Dorow was asked to work on a project for the Radiation Portal Monitoring Project (RPMP). PDAC[MDM] were considered but rejected as not meeting the needs of RPMP...Dorow created a new product using those funds which came to be known as RDADS... This new software is ...different from MDM/PDAC...Accordingly, documents relating to software developed after December 2003 are in fact not relevant to any issue in this case and should not have to be produced...the program [RPMP]...wanted to focus on Blackberry...
Mr. Pulver has absolutely no rights regarding this software.” [Miller]
Crt. Doc. #71 [7/28/06 Memo in Opposition To Plaintiffs’ 2006 Motion To Compel Production of Documents, Pg. 12]
“During the past four years since the License Agreement was entered into in 2002, 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[Pulver] or their lawsuit.” [Miller]
By withholding this critical evidence, Battelle is blocking examination of RPMP versions of MDM [PDAC] and comparison to Pulver’s 8/29/03 non-working version that’s missing DOE-funded critical functionality that Battelle certified to DOE as having been developed for MDM.
Examination would also reveal the federally-funded research [software] that Battelle had withheld from TAP recipient Pulver [for whom DOE had specifically paid Battelle to develop] and thus confirm that Battelle misused PNNL’s Technical Assistance Program; as Pulver told the court, such withholding violates the False Claims Act [31 USC §3729]. In a July 2008 declaration to the court, Battelle did not produce any evidence to refute that
they withheld the federally-funded research from Pulver’s small business when it delivered the 8/29/03 non-working version.
The Congressional Record & NBC News document Battelle’s prior violation of the False Claims Act.
Exhibit 3-1A: Excerpts of Miller’s RPMP Misrepresentations to Court [Refuted by Battelle Documents & PNNL Testimony]
[“Battelle cannot change the fact that only one version of the licensed software exists”]
[“RDADS (software) 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 [Pulver] or their lawsuit”]
Exhibit 3-1B: Excerpts of Dorow’s False/Perjured Declarations & Testimony [Refuted by Battelle Documents/Testimony]
["MDM/PDAC development ended when Mr. Pulver’s funding ran out which was in the September
October 2003 timeframe...funding was provided by RPMP to create a new product."]
[Dorow re: 12/11/03 email: "PDAC [MDM] was not adequate. We needed to create something different, something new, something with different functionality to satisfy the requirements"]
[“Was any part of PDAC[MDM], any one of the three components, used in RPMP?” Dorow Answer: “No”]
Miller’s representations and Dorow’s testimony refuted by Battelle evidence showing RDADS is MDM:
Exhibit 3-2: 2005 Email from RDADS Patent Inventor Shoemaker [MDM is an “old name” for RDADS]
Exhibit 3-3: Color Screens of 2003-04 Software Versions Confirming that 2004 PDAC is 2003 MDM.
with January RPMP Monthly Report Showing: 2004 PDAC = 2003 MDM + 10 labor hours
Exhibit 3-4: 2005 Patent [USPTO] application screens side-by-side with MDM: → Identical Control Panels [RDADS is MDM]
Exhibit 3-5: 2008 Depositions of PNNL Scientists Confirming the 2004 Versions are Follow-on to 2003 MDM
Exhibit 3-6: Battelle 2004 Emails & Dorow Lab Book Confirming that RPMP Enhanced/Customized the
2003 DOE-TAP-Funded MDM to BlackBerry and Web Client [Browser]
Exhibit 3-7: DOE Time Audit Records Proving that DHD-RPMP Funded 2004-05 Enhancements to 2000-03 MDM/PDAC
Development Hours: 486–(2002-03 MDM); 100–(PDAC Web MDM Version); 37–(1st BlackBerry MDM Version).
Exhibit 3-8: 2-Page Color Flyer of Radiation Portal Monitor Project [DHS Office of Customs & Border Protection]
Exhibit 3-Appendix: Entirety of Pages of Miller’s Filings to the Court [Re: RPMP Misrepresentations]
Note: The Derivative[RDADS=MDM] exhibits section further confirms DHS-RPMP funded the BlackBerry MDM version and other follow-on versions of MDM/PDAC which Battelle in early 2005 suddenly called “new code” [“RDADS”] to evade Pulver’s exclusive MDM license.
Dorow’s and other official Battelle depositions are downloadable at the Depositions section.