Evidence: Battelle Perjury and False
Declarations to the Court 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 software [MDM] from
small business, violating False
Claims Act and making False
Statements to patent office [USPTO].
Click here for 2nd
set of perjured statements. Background 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 Dorow’s and other official Battelle depositions are downloadable
at the Depositions section. Dorow’s declarations
[in their entirety] are available upon
request [info@BattellePerjury.us] or thru
the federal court
PACER system. |
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Perjury Summary Page