The AsystBio Conspiracy

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#101

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:59 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 6:13 pm
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#102

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:07 am

realist wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:02 am
Somerset wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:04 am
Slartibartfast wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:50 pm


I am listening to my lawyer -- the one I am paying, Sara -- and this is what she says about the significance of the situation:


Have you shown Sara this thread?

If not, you probably should.
And if the communication of hers you posted was a communication to you, you have likely waived your attorney/client privilege.
I solicited that communication from her (read: paid for it) specifically to post it on the Fogbow. My correspondence with my attorneys, Stern included, is devastating evidence against the defense counsel. But not as bad as their own case file. Which is legally the property of their client, AsystBio. I've been willing to disclose every single thing I've written for the last four years. Ever since I first talked to Stern.

Unfortunately, my former colleagues didn't have Admiral Akbar to tell them it was a trap. My secret is that I don't have any secrets, I'm exactly what it says on the tin. Why do you think I'm not worried about all of the information I'm releasing?
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#103

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:22 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:31 am
I believe that this entire thread should be deleted. It was unwise to start it and it's unwise to continue it.
Wrong again. And you will continue to be shown wrong until you listen and consider the situation on the evidence and its merits. It was never unwise to start and my attorney specifically told me that I could make 1,000,000 copies of anything in the court record and drop it out of an airplane, so I had her explicit approval. When you begged me not to post I stopped -- not because I was at risk, but because it was tactically and strategically advantageous. And didn't say much at all until the case was settled. After which I was completely free to talk about it.

But then Dennis threatened to do "everything in his power to destroy" James and me. Which brought whistleblower retaliation into the mix. Plus Adam had improperly prevented me from getting Sara's counsel since August -- and you blew me off as well -- so I had to work to convince her that my complaint against Adam and Bill was serious. Which took time. Now that things are in place, I'm starting to tell the story, but it is so complex that any assumptions completely blind you to the truth. This is by design as my story is an information weapon. Five people are caught in its area of effect. We will see what happens to them. Because finding out you are wrong may be the best part about being a scientist -- try it! you'll like it! -- but experiments are the fun part.
:towel:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#104

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:29 am

jmj wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:44 am
From the point-of-view of a semi-disinterested observer, this thread reminds me of a particular greek word.

I hope this doesn't end as badly for you as I fear it will.
I am trying to show that I am a pioneering visionary genius. The only way to do that is by doing your best to prove that you are a principled fool. This isn't going to end badly for me, but if it did end up with me being proven wrong, I would learn something amazing, confident that I had tried my best and wasn't able to achieve the lofty goals I set for myself. To me, that is true happiness.

And the other option doesn't suck either.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#105

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:36 am

RoadScholar wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:43 am
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:31 am
I believe that this entire thread should be deleted. It was unwise to start it and it's unwise to continue it.
Indeed. A great idea.
You have an early version (I think it is under 300 pages) of the dossier. Read through the section on "email". Everything in that (and much more) is in the court record -- I gave it to the defense in discovery. Along with a whole bunch of information that they could not possibly assimilate but I can now document that they were aware of but for their own negligence.

The moral of the story is... Beware of Slarti bearing gifts of information.
:towel:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34804
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#106

Post by realist » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:55 am

Slartibartfast wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:07 am
realist wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:02 am
Somerset wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:04 am



Have you shown Sara this thread?

If not, you probably should.
And if the communication of hers you posted was a communication to you, you have likely waived your attorney/client privilege.
I solicited that communication from her (read: paid for it) specifically to post it on the Fogbow. My correspondence with my attorneys, Stern included, is devastating evidence against the defense counsel. But not as bad as their own case file. Which is legally the property of their client, AsystBio. I've been willing to disclose every single thing I've written for the last four years. Ever since I first talked to Stern.

Unfortunately, my former colleagues didn't have Admiral Akbar to tell them it was a trap. My secret is that I don't have any secrets, I'm exactly what it says on the tin. Why do you think I'm not worried about all of the information I'm releasing?
Your attorney/client privilege is yours to waive (and obviously you have, and it is not just that above communication which will be subject to waiver), but it is never a good idea to do so. I know you feel you know more about litigation than anyone here. You don't, but that's your problem and your choice to believe you do, but you should really, on legal issues and litigation, temper your arrogance. I know that's a lot to ask, but ...

I wish you no ill, Slarti. In fact, quite the opposite. But just sayin'.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#107

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:37 am

Reality Check wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:57 am
I have mixed feelings on the deletion. If anything posed a legal threat to the Fogbow or any member other than Slarti there would be no question.

There would be no question because I never would have done it. There is a slight danger to Stern because he is professionally involved and he keeps saying things that are wrong due to his ignorance. So I may need to prove that his advice was crucial in August but had to be totally disregarded by November. Which I could do if I had to and really don't want to. But talking about it openly should diffuse the danger until he realizes that I know what I'm talking about: this is nothing like he (or anyone else) has seen before.

I can see a case could be made for protecting Slarti from what some consider to be self destructive behavior.

How dare anyone claim the authority to judge my actions to be incompetent. I am Dr. Kevin Kesseler and stand behind everything I've ever said here. Anyone who thinks I've been acting incompetently will be PROVEN wrong (and I don't use the P-word lightly). And the price for questioning my reputation is to put your own on the line. Ask Bill, Dennis, Adam, and Bill if they think that is a good idea.

However, he is a grown up with a PhD and hasn't violated any of the rules as far as I can tell.

Yup. I don't violate the rules. I just engage in dialogue until someone is wrong and then I learn something. And then I do it again.

Certainly any of those who have replied haven't done anything to deserve having their posts deleted.

As a data scientist, I take any deletion of posts seriously, but this whole thing started when Gene Howington deleted the posts of Mike Spindell on his blog, Flowers For Socrates (Mike D commented on it for a bit). That act, while completely legal, was also totally unethical and unacceptable for the President and Chief Operating Officer (Gene's title at the time) of a tech company. I'll ask Mr. Brolin to weigh in on this, as he is the information security expert, but this led -- through a very convoluted but well-documented web -- to everything described on this thread.

As a member of the Fogbow, I think that there should be a clear policy on what rights, rules, and regulations (i.e. laws) will be enforced via the deletion of posts and a pledge that it will not be used in any other circumstance. But it's Foggy's call.


This is where the topic ignore option would be nice but that's apparently not a feature in PHPBB yet.

What are you all so afraid of? I'm sorry that the misconceptions resulting from reasoning based on incorrect assumptions are causing you anxiety and suffering, but that's your problem, not mine. I'm doing something that is important to me with people I like to spend time with. I'm not putting myself or others at any risk -- and I have sufficient personal knowledge as well as outside perspective and expertise to know this to be true -- and it is liberating to me to finally be able to talk about this and bring the most severe consequences possible for scientists down on Bill and Dennis. Because Sara was right. I must do this if I am an ethical person. And that makes me happy. I don't understand why all of you choose to hang on to incorrect assumptions that are causing you suffering.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow. And falsehoods at the heart of your own assumptions are the very worst kind. I am happier than I ever conceived possible and have been for a while now. I know my mission and my life's work and I'm eager for the test (I've always been good on tests). Do I sound irrational? Have I said anything you can point to as illogical? Have I made any accusations that I am unwilling or unable to back up? Am I full of baseless worry that is causing me needless suffering?

No.


That's my $0.02 but I will go with whatever the El Supremo Dick Tater chooses to do.

And, the wise and powerful Soup-Ream Richard Spud has chosen to honor my request. Which means the show goes on. And we're getting towards Mr. Gneiss. So I'm about to pull out the big guns.

Math.

My opinion may be (and is) worth the same as yours, but my expert opinion trumps any non-expert opinion -- i.e. the opinion of someone unwilling to stake their reputation on it -- including any lawyer not commenting under their name and bar number. Because that's what an expert opinion is: an opinion from someone willing to stake their reputation on it and who will acknowledge the stain if and when they turn out to be wrong.

But none of that matters when the subject is math -- no one CAN disagree with things I (or someone else) know can be proven.

It isn't hubris when you can prove it.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Somerset
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#108

Post by Somerset » Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:34 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:14 am
Somerset wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:04 am
Slartibartfast wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:50 pm


I am listening to my lawyer -- the one I am paying, Sara -- and this is what she says about the significance of the situation:


Have you shown Sara this thread?

If not, you probably should.
Oh, god no. Do you know how much that would cost? She bills at $375/hr.
My guess is less than $750. It shouldn't take more than a couple of hours to read the thread and draft a letter telling you that if you ever again do anything this stupid she will terminate her representation of you.

As Realist said, attorney-client privilege is yours to waive. But in my experience attorneys get really annoyed when you do it without their knowledge, and do it in a way that jeopardizes their ability to represent you.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#109

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:12 pm

Realist, you are saying things you don't think I want to hear -- that means you are now someone I trust. I wish you and President Maru nothing but to keep enjoying your lives as much as you have been when I've seen you. In time, you will see that I'm doing the right thing at the right time and am only in the position to be able to do so at great personal cost and through extraordinary perseverance and ingenuity. But I'm still having a lot of fun. And I'd like to take you and the Princess out to dinner on July 17th or 18th. What do you think?
realist wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:55 am
Slartibartfast wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:07 am
realist wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:02 am


And if the communication of hers you posted was a communication to you, you have likely waived your attorney/client privilege.
I solicited that communication from her (read: paid for it) specifically to post it on the Fogbow. My correspondence with my attorneys, Stern included, is devastating evidence against defense counsel. But not as bad as their own case file. Which is legally the property of their client, AsystBio. I've been willing to disclose every single thing I've written for the last four years. Ever since I first talked to Stern.

Unfortunately, my former colleagues didn't have Admiral Akbar to tell them it was a trap. My secret is that I don't have any secrets, I'm exactly what it says on the tin. Why do you think I'm not worried about all of the information I'm releasing?
Your attorney/client privilege is yours to waive (and obviously you have, and it is not just that above communication which will be subject to waiver), but it is never a good idea to do so.

All of my communications with my attorneys (or anyone else for that matter) were designed to be revealed. In particular, my communications with my attorneys are weapons that can be used against my former colleagues. They should be particularly effective in combination with their own words. But it is an experiment, so failure is always an option. We shall see.

I know you feel you know more about litigation than anyone here.

It is objectively true that I know more about this case than anyone. To a ridiculous degree. I've been obsessed with it for over three years (for good reason and to good effect, but still obsessed).

I also know more about the legal issues in play that anyone. Sara will catch up (and surpass me) quickly once I am able to distill the essence for her. Anyone here that takes the time to understand the issues can do the same thing. But, so far, once anyone gains more relevant expertise than I have, they agree with me. Although usually that happens long before. Please let me know when you stop your unnecessary suffering on my behalf -- it will make me happy. Happier, anyway, I'm already more happy than I could have ever possibly asked for, but as far as I can tell, I can still get happier.


You don't, but that's your problem and your choice to believe you do, but you should really, on legal issues and litigation, temper your arrogance.

Mathematical certainty is not arrogance. I probably have more mathematical training than anyone else on this planet. Plus I am a pioneer who's expertise is on expertise. I am certain about any number of things that you think are my opinion -- and aren't even aware that I have significant and unprecedented expertise. I understand that this comes off as some pretty extreme arrogance, but it really isn't.

I know that's a lot to ask, but ...

Bet you a dollar that everything you saw as arrogance on this thread is justified.

I wish you no ill, Slarti. In fact, quite the opposite. But just sayin'.

It's all good. Love you, man. Don't worry, this is going to be great! Would seeing the court documents make you feel any better? Because the only reason I haven't given them to Jack Ryan is laziness and not wanting to bury Mike D. Or I could give you the transcripts for the depositions and you could thank Jeebus you weren't the SECR who had to transcribe all that technobabble...
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#110

Post by Slartibartfast » Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:24 pm

Somerset wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:04 am

My guess is less than $750.

I once commented on Sara's line items "review lengthy email from client" (which were frequent) and she said she only put in the "lengthy" to amuse me. Let's just say Sara isn't going to skim anything that she is giving a professional opinion on and I have a pretty good idea about what it costs to have her read my stuff. And that's the much clearer, more detailed, and on point stuff.

For the record, Sara described me as "brilliant and interesting" (which certainly calls her judgement into question, but doesn't seem to indicate that she thinks I'm stupid) and she certainly read the portion of this thread that appeared in the defense discovery materials.


It shouldn't take more than a couple of hours to read the thread and draft a letter telling you that if you ever again do anything this stupid she will terminate her representation of you.

Are you kidding? I don't think you understand -- she is my lawyer. It is her job to deal with stupidity so I don't have to, not to judge behavior that she told me was completely legal and my choice. If you actually read my posts on this thread you would understand that this case is a really big deal for a lawyer and she would probably kick my ass if I took it away from her. But you are trapped by your false assumptions and so all of your conclusions are flawed.

As Realist said, attorney-client privilege is yours to waive. But in my experience attorneys get really annoyed when you do it without their knowledge, and do it in a way that jeopardizes their ability to represent you.

More assumptions: that this case is comparable to those in your experience. That I am doing anything without Sara's knowledge. That this in any way jeopardizes Sara's ability to represent me. How could it? I told the truth about things she told me I was free to talk about. I can call Bill Kaufmann a plagiarist or talk about Adam Brody's malpractice all day long. What are they going to do? Complain that I'm telling people about the crimes they committed? That I can prove they committed? Or maybe they will lie. Or incriminate themselves and others. Or they can say nothing at all. But those are their choices. Because of the record that Sara and I have established.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#111

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:38 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:17 am

We agree because we prefer to not watch you do things that carry a possibility - and not necessarily a small one - of causing anguish and loss.

Actually, there is no possibility of either anguish or loss. Anguish, or needless suffering, goes away when one gives up assumptions, and, as a friend pointed out recently, the antidote to grief (and loss) is gratitude — gratitude for whatever or whomever you loved. [he continued to say that forgiveness — for yourself — is the antidote to guilt (accepting that you have done wrong to someone, doing what you can to right it, and then letting go of the guilt by forgiving yourself and moving on) and compassion is the antidote to fear — compassion for the unknown[1]thing you fear. Only love is real. He says things like that. So do I, I guess...]

Anyway, I’ve decided not to make assumptions that cause needless suffering or to take anything personally. If you choose to feel negative emotions you choose to feel negative emotions. I don’t. If you want to know how, check out the link in my sig. It’s annoying when the Buddhists are right. Anyway, I’m really trying to help all of you choose to feel good, but I can’t do anything for people like W4 or Mr. Gneiss who are unwilling to participate in a dialogue. Hopefully they will come around eventually, but, personally, I am very happy that you gave me a substantive answer. You’ve always been in my top 5 of people that I like to engage with on the Fogbow. As has Mr. Gneiss.


Your lawyer is familiar with the case.

Yes she is. Do you know why? Dozens of lengthy emails explaining every detail of the case with comprehensive analyses. From me. She, more than anyone else, knows how well I understand this case. Which, I would add, is far better than she does. But she wants to understand it as well as I do. So I’ve got to learn how to teach her — without wasting her time — which I’m going to do out in the open right here. Then I will explain it to her and she will explain the situation to UNC and Varnum in “lawyer”. At some point along the line, you will say, “Jeebus Chris Slarti! You were serious!” I have a phrase for those types of situations: “it’s annoying when the Buddhists are right”.2

She's also got an outstanding rep as a developing talent.

Yes, she’s MY lawyer. I have really good lawyers. Stern is my lawyer. Sara is my lawyer. Elliott is my lawyer. I hope one day you will be my lawyer. Elliott was my initial contact with Kreis-Enderle and a brilliant IP lawyer and a genius at networking. At events where he facilitates, everyone is always introduced to at least one potentially useful contact. The first time I met him, Elliott introduced me to an Oracle Sales Engineer, which led directly to an opportunity to pitch a plan to effectively cure cancer to the VP for R&D for Eli Lilly with Oracle’s full support. That happened simply because I asked Jordan if I could get a meeting with Eli Lilly (an Oracle client).

Which, in addition to me bragging on my lawyers, points out that Eli Lilly and Oracle are both victims of my former colleagues’ crimes and both UNC and Varnum owe them a formal apology in my opinion. And owe me the resources to get the plan to effectively cure cancer tested on its merits. With Eli Lilly and Oracle if they wish. Now, I’m not sure what all I can get out of this, so I really wish I had a top-notch young lawyer with a reputation for integrity to negotiate for me. But I might want to find a way to allow her to understand and communicate the magnitude of the wrongdoing here. Like by trying to explain it to a group of friends that happened to skew heavily towards lawyers and liked picking through novel legal issues. Hmm... how could I do that? I wonder...
:confused:

Dude,

Sara will look at this thread if and when I think looking at this thread will help her understand better than reading a lengthy email from me. Writing lengthy emails are now above my pay grade. I want to do easy things like getting a plan to effectively cure cancer tested on the merits or trying to help Aziz win another Nobel prize. Which is exactly what Sara has been bugging me to do. So as soon as someone besides me understands this mishegoss I can do just that. Would you like to help effectively cure cancer? Then help me suss this out and explain it all to the real expert.

Although I just realized in writing this that I need Elliott on the negotiating team as well. Because... well, that’s need-to-know until you believe that I really do know what I’m doing. But thanks, that really helped.


She's also practicing in multiple areas of law,

Yeah, and she graduated from the same law school as my mother3. MSU undergrad and law.

SPARTANS WILL


What do you think of her methodology of “advocacy, diligence, practicality, and communication”? I used it in my analysis that I did for my recent meeting with her and decided to steal it for my company, AdderStone. I think it is a really useful paradigm.

and, by your own statements, has not vetted or reviewed your wording in any of the posts here.

I told you that she has been out of the loop since August (due to malfeasance by Adam) and was only recently convinced that there was wrongdoing. But there is another aspect of this that I should disclose if we’re going to talk about my relationship with Sara.

I was enjoying myself at Gene’s deposition in NOLA. Sara had been laying a minefield in her questioning and Gene was throwing people under the bus left and right oblivious to the record of incompetence and ignorance he was creating. I had been amusing myself by writing the answers to the questions Gene was getting wrong on the pad I had to communicate and showing Sara — who would roll her eyes and mouth “I know” and I would give her a look to say “I know you know but I’m screwing with Gene because he doesn’t know” but had lapsed into looking like I was bored or asleep trying not to make eye contact with Gene — I would have burst out laughing.

Sara, who had been carefully laying groundwork all morning, and an exchange with Gene and then glanced over at me with a kind of consternated look on her face, grabbed the pad, and scribbled on it “I just killed him right there, didn’t you notice?” Of course I did notice — I noticed how she had set him up, I noticed how she had gotten him to say any number of idiotic things, and I noticed how she had been lining him up like Kari Byron snuggling a Barrett 50 cal. But what I noticed most of all in that moment was that I had feelings for Sara.

Which, of course, were inappropriate to mention while we were lawyer-client. So I didn’t. Nor did I talk to her about the shenanigans that Adam and Bill played around the time of the depositions — I did talk to Elliott, however, and, after having him give me some references on ethical issues, found my way to the website of the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission and started looking over the MRPC, which led... well, you know.

After signing the settlement agreement in early January, there was a window where we weren’t lawyer-client and I sent her an email telling her how I felt. Which may have been a tad long. And had five appendicies. Including one on game theory and another that was an unsent email to Gene. And one laying the groundwork for the meeting where I convinced her that Varnum had committed serious malfeasance. Her response to that was where she called me “brilliant and interesting” and, long story short, we are now friends. Which is even more fun now that we are working together again. As you noted, Mike, Sara is really good at her job. And so am I. And we like working together.


In this thread, you have many decades of experience, including at least several people who, between them, have many decades of civil litigation-specific experience.

Which means bupkiss here. There is no pending litigation and the defendants have completely breached the settlement agreement — which doesn’t matter because they have no assets and they already gave up a couple of things they shouldn’t have: the legitimacy of our removal for cause and control of AsystBio. They did, however, in their mediation statement, argue that AsystBio had standing to sue them for breach of fiduciary duty. Not to mention the issues arising out of AsystBio’s status as a client of Varnum. So they’ve got that going for them.

What there is is a extremely complex and detailed record which is extremely problematic for various individuals. And I know far more about what is in it than anyone else does — Sara depended on my analysis, not the other way around. You see, Mike, I might be an amateur and a noob, but I landed the White Whale when everyone thought I was delusional. That simple fact invalidates all of your assumptions. So all the anxiety here — not just yours, but everyone’s — is completely unnecessary.

Just sayin’.
:towel:

One last word on Sara and the anonymous people who think I should take advice they are not willing to risk their career on — Sara has the highest ethical standards, which she showed in the quote I shared. If I did not speak up and blow the whistle — on both the academic and legal malfeasance — she would think me unprincipled. And she would be right. If you don’t understand that, Mike, then you don’t belong in either science nor law.


Litigation, from what little I've seen, has a strong focus on predicting and preventing potential catastrophe.

Litigation would have been a disaster for the defense as all of their malfeasance would have come to light. Which it now has. In the court filings and discovery of Kesseler v. AsystBio. Which is now a disaster for Adam, Bill, Bill, and Dennis. But they have to deal with their employers and government and professional oversight agencies. And they are all irrelevant to my future plans. Which don’t include litigation unless someone else thinks I’m bluffing.

In which case the goal is to destroy their ability to fight, preferably in the first strike. That’s part of Von Clausewitz’s theory of total war, by the way. How would you recommend I protect myself if Varnum or UNC should support the threat of their rogue employees to do everything in their power to destroy us? Are you wiling to put your bar number on that recommendation? Your reputation as a PhD candidate? My reputation has been on the line for three years and I stand behind everything I’ve done. And I can document it.

Are you ready to give up your false assumptions and listen with an open mind as a lawyer and a scientist? Because that’s all I’ve been waiting for. And if you don’t cry “uncle!” soon I’m going to have to cheat.

I’ll use math.

And then I’ll really start having fun.

Bwa-ha-ha-HA-ha!!!!?!!?!!


It employs, in this regard, something that I think is somewhat akin to the method of multiple working hypotheses in geology*, but with a focus on identifying and eliminating possible outcomes in a somewhat more active manner.

Yeah? I’m using this case as an aid in developing computational Bayesian epistemology (a quantitative theory of knowledge) and karmic math (a framework in which Buddhist concepts can be expressed mathematically and systems level models of the interactions of individuals, groups, organizations, and societies can be created). I’ll demonstrate the former in my response to Mr. Gneiss and show the quantitative evolution of the scientific confidence level in the hypothesis that this is nothing like you’ve seen before (vs. the null hypothesis that it is nothing, like you’ve seen before). All it takes to stop all this (and get to me simply trying to explain the legal situation, which is confusing enough) is a sincere, “sorry Slarti, we didn’t know”. Although, if you like math, then you can just enjoy it. I do.

Or we could just look at everything from the point of view of game theory. The defendants and their lawyers are in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma where they can cooperate at some payout/cost, or compete and face some effect and then repeat the dilemma with a reduced payout/increased cost. At this point they have pretty much lost everything, although cooperation could still improve their situation greatly.

I call this “Slarti’s game”. These guys are really bad at it. How confident are you that you understand the underlying mathematics of this situation? Because pioneering innovative mathematics, using it to foster scientific innovation, its technological implementation, and successful commercialization is my job. And I’ve spent three years analyzing this case. With math. How much time are you willing to put into it?


Right now, you see talking about the events that hurt you in the past here as step on the pathway to what you want to feel - be - whole again.

Do you understand what it means for me to be made whole? It has nothing to do with how I feel (which is happier than I’ve ever conceived possible all the time — seriously). It means a test on the merits for a plan that could effectively cure cancer if it is successful. Because that’s what I lost. And it is what I am doing my best to achieve. Can you give me advice on how best to do this, Mike? That you would stake your reputation is based on greater relative relevant expertise than mine? Because, as Sara told me, lawsuits are a zero sum game. In my world, there are win-win solutions that include potential Nobel prizes and no one dying of cancer anymore. These aren’t vague ideas I’m talking about Mike, they are things I can document in court if necessary. Or just do.

I think everyone appreciates that.

No Mike, no one here appreciates the situation. Yet. But you will, because I will keep patiently explaining until you do. And events will unfold and demonstrate that everything I’ve said is the simple truth as I’ve seen it at the time. And I’ll probably turn out to be right. But, if not, I’m always happy to learn something. It’s the best part of being a scientist.

But it's also a critical step on several different pathways, each of which could easily result in an end state that is substantially worse than the one you want.

In “karmic math” terms, my current internal location (the projection of my internal self into each of the 10 worlds) is in the treasure tower. Let me tell you, it isn’t a bad place to be. There are still many various possible roads that this could go down, but in every single one of them, everyone reaps what they’ve sown. And I have no fear of that. Or anything else for that matter. Which doesn’t suck.

Under the circumstances, don't you think it might be advisable to consider alternate routes to your desired destination, even if they might be a bit more circuitous than the one you've plotted?

Nope. I know exactly what I’m doing and what I hope to accomplish. I’m going to show that I’m a visionary genius or prove that I’m a principled fool. Either way, I win. Really, I never had any choice about what I was going to do because I am an ethical man. My choice was how to do it and here we are. With me trying to make a point about overcoming false assumptions. Under the circumstances, don’t you think it might be advisable to carefully think about who is making more sense here and what the evidence is going to show? Especially considering that none of you have seen any of the evidence and I have been pouring over all of it as a pioneering data scientist for three years?

None of you have ever seen me in my professional role. Don’t be so quick to assume I can’t back up every single thing I say. And, if you are, please don’t bet anything you don’t care to lose on it.


*I'm a big fan of both TC Chamberlin and GK Gilbert's work in this area, which predates Karl Popper by a considerable margin. Every now and then I do some work on a course plan for a legal research/writing class I'd like to teach someday. Grove Karl Gilbert's very readable and not overly technical papers in which he carefully tested and rejected meteor impact as the explanation for the formation of the Canyon Diablo Crater** are on my tentative reading list for that class.

Once I get the basics (at least the definitions) of computational epistemology written down I’ll send you a copy. Basically the idea is that instead of “justified true belief” (what epistemologists tal... huh? What was that?) we consider “perceived justified true belief” which is measurable and objectifiable (made that one up — I get to do that as a pioneering semanticist — would you like the definition?). It gives you a quantitative framework in which to use Bayesian inference to determine how given evidence should effect your confidence in a hypothesis. Head spinning yet? Because I’m just getting warmed up... PRO TIP: Don’t ask Slarti for examples of ANYTHING he says unless you want him to answer — he is capable of providing them and will and you might not like them..

There is another whole can of worms that I open by asking you if you’ve read Causality by Judea Pearl (or The Book of Why, the version without the math). Because I believe I have figured out how to use the mathematics of causality, graph theory, and the law (plus, you know, logic) to prove that Varnum had an irreconcilable conflict of interest in their representation of their clients, including my company, AsystBio. Have you ever tried to fight a proof in court Mike? You can’t do it according to the laws of logic. But what do I know?


**Now known as "Meteor Crater."***

And what should we name the hole the Fogbow dug for themselves here? Would you like some help starting to climb up? Then I’ve got one hell of a story to tell you all.

***In other words, I think everyone understands the possibility that we are wrong, in part because we have inadequate information. That's been factored in to the various winces and waveoffs.

I’ve come up with a theory to automate scientific discovery. Based on being able to computationally evaluate the effect of evidence on the confidence in a hypothesis. Are you sure you know who’s playing checkers and who’s playing multi-dimensional chess? Because if you think you are capable of factoring in your ignorance on this matter, you are overestimating your expertise.

Which is the Dunning-Krueger effect. It is why I am fighting my own tendency to overestimate all of you too. Also.

But don’t worry, I’m coming up with an objective way to measure expertise so that the D-K effect doesn’t matter. Because I do the math so you don’t have to.

Or just because I like to.

:towel:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5522
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#112

Post by Maybenaut » Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:09 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:52 pm
Mr. Gneiss,

Would you say the same thing if a rape victim wanted to tell her story and name her attackers? And had video?
As a criminal defense attorney, I have found a rape victim’s social media posts to be a veritable gold mine of impeachment material. Prosecutors usually advise them not to post until the case is over.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#113

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:14 pm

Um... Maybenaut? The case is over. It has been since January 11th. I'm talking about things that are a part of the record in a closed case. I can, however, get the settlement agreement thrown out if I choose, but there is no reason to do so. I'm testing out the information weapon of mass destruction that I've built on Adam, Bill, Bill, and Dennis. If I'm right about how I've designed it, the only way that these people can possibly mitigate the situation is to come on this thread, tell the truth, and ask for my help. Which I will give. If not, then Bill and Dennis are already in the process of losing everything and Adam and Bill will be as soon as I document my whistleblowing.

None of this is being done lightly. I've met Bill's wife -- a scientist that will have her entire career put under scrutiny because of her husband's malfeasance -- they've been to my house, I've been to theirs (I was scolded for not wearing a hat -- to be fair, we were in a group studying melanoma, but I didn't know it was going to be a yard party). They have a daughter. I've met Dennis' daughters. I've stayed at his house. Until this all started our relationship was clearly the longest and best professional relationship I'd ever had. Now James wins on quantity and Mr. Brolin wins on duration. Dennis just loses.

And I do mean "loses".

HE THREATENED JAMES AND I WITH RETALIATION FOR WHISTLEBLOWING. BILL PLAGIARIZED THE WORK OF JAMES TO GET A $220K GRANT WITH A $50K SUPPLEMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE WORK DETAILED BY THE PLAGIARIZED MATERIAL.

That is seventy years spent researching cancer that they just threw down the drain. More when you count the work of their innocent colleagues (like myself) who will face additional scrutiny as an inevitable result.

All because they wouldn't talk to me.

Why won't you guys just talk to me and find out what's going on here?
:towel:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5522
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#114

Post by Maybenaut » Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:50 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:14 pm
Um... Maybenaut? The case is over. It has been since January 11th. I'm talking about things that are a part of the record in a closed case. I can, however, get the settlement agreement thrown out if I choose, but there is no reason to do so.
Um... Slarti? So can they. Based on what you post here.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6022
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#115

Post by neonzx » Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:00 pm

Slartibartfast.
The attorneys here have not offered their experience to you with some expectation of getting paid.

You are arrogant and you think you know better than seasoned attorneys. They don't need to know all the details to see that this is a tornado in a bottle. You may be 110% right, but that doesn't matter at trial. I pray for you, brother, that you take the advice you have been given for free here at the Fogbow.
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

boots
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#116

Post by boots » Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:09 pm

Stern can be a bully.

But he's right.

Especially about the fact that this thread shouldn't exist and should be deleted. And the person who would benefit most by that is the OP

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#117

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:03 pm

RoadScholar wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:08 am
No. It is not. Unless the Court of Bun Dogs were a real thing, which it isn’t. So your rants can have no negative legal nor positive pedagogical effect on the antagonists in your story, but might (according to the FogBar) assist them in escaping being punished for their perfidy.

Seems like a lose-lose for the protagonist whom we do care about, i.e. you.
Roadie,

Read what I've written. If you care about me in any way then phrases like "I'm happier than I've ever conceived possible" should mitigate any anxiety, but if you choose the fear, you will also get a bigger payoff from the realization at the end, so if you like scary movies, go ahead an pretend that what you are seeing is nasty, viscous monsters sneaking up on a defenseless, unknowing ingenue.

P0rtia and Listeme know what comes next. *I'll edit in the Buffy theme later for everyone else*

My name is David Angell and I'm here to help.

How can I help you, my friend?
:towel:

How about if I prove you wrong? Would that do it? Being wrong is the best part about being a scientist, and I'm going to give that gift to you. Because it's a day ending in "Y". [You don't want to know what I do on the other kind of days...]
realist wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:04 am
Slarti wrote:This is absolutely an appropriate place to bring a literal conspiracy to justice, is it not?
Roadie wrote:No. It is not. Unless the Court of Bun Dogs were a real thing, which it isn't.
In the magic words of Adam Savage, quoting Jefferson of course,

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

And that's really all there is to it. The determination is made, the cause has happened, the effect is inevitable.

The effect, in this case, or Roadie's falsification condition, if you prefer, is Roadie posting something like, "Slarti, you were right, the Court of Bun Dogs is a real thing." After which we will see how the Court of Bun Dogs rules and what effects, if any, that has, since if my friend Roadie says that it is real, then it must be real. Although, as Jefferson also said, ``Failure is always an option''. Which is a good thing -- maybe the best of things.

Without that option, success has no value.

After I succeed we'll start talking about how to fund the 1929 Shop/Museum. If I fail, we'll try one of your hair-brained schemes -- like a working Woodwright workshop from Wo... 1929 that is also a museum -- and see if we can make that happen.

Who wins, who loses, who cares?

'Tis almost morning, I would have thee gone--
And yet be at my side in cherished thought,
Good company in precious memory,
While you, not a wan-ton's bird, free and alone,
Soaring through life, your adventure your own.
Dreaming of sharing, in this life or next,
The victories and losses that make us.
You see, my friend, parting is not sweet sorrow,
as parted brings joy long past the morrow.
And should fortune's hand bind our paths once more,
New experience enriches us both.
And should fortune's hand procrastinate,
I'm grateful for the joy of memory.


I think Jefferson must have said that, but it's awful dusty in here...
:towel:

The past is prologue, the curtain is going up, and while Slarti is performance art, Dr. Kesseler stands behind everything he has ever said. I may need some time to make a formal pleading to the Court of the Bun Dogs -- and it's the week of the Fourth and all -- but I'll leave you with the wisest of Jefferson's words:

Be excellent to each other!

and, of course...

Party on, dudes!

:towel:


p.s. Never give me a tool if you don't want me to use it.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#118

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:24 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:50 pm
Slartibartfast wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:14 pm
Um... Maybenaut? The case is over. It has been since January 11th. I'm talking about things that are a part of the record in a closed case. I can, however, get the settlement agreement thrown out if I choose, but there is no reason to do so.
Um... Slarti? So can they. Based on what you post here.
1. Who cares?
2. Why would they do that?
3. What would it accomplish?
4. How would they pay their lawyers?
5. How would they resolve the conflict of interest?
6. Who would represent AsystBio?
7. How will Varnum and UNC prevent their institutional power from being used against us by their rogue employees?
8. When will NIH oversight step in?
9. Ditto for the audit...
10. Who is starting to get curious about exactly what cards Slarti is holding?

Maybenaut,

No one can beat me at the "I know that you know that I know..." game here. Information weapons are complex things and require a deep understanding of the data/information/intelligence and the pipelines in which it flows.

Please pay me the respect of assuming that I know exactly what the potential risks of people reading this are.

You know very well that I am not stupid.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5522
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#119

Post by Maybenaut » Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:16 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:24 pm
Please pay me the respect of assuming that I know exactly what the potential risks of people reading this are.
OK. Good luck to you.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7960
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#120

Post by RoadScholar » Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:37 pm

Yeah, that. Hope it works out for you, buddy.

Even if all your friends have said posting about this is “probably” a bad idea, and they may in fact have a good bead on your situation, that doesn’t mean a lower-probability positive result cannot ensue.

And I do hope it does. Sincerely.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#121

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:57 pm

neonzx wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:00 pm
Slartibartfast.
The attorneys here have not offered their experience to you with some expectation of getting paid.

That is not strictly true. Stern explicitly told me that if I wanted his advice (or wanted him to review anything) then I should pay him. Which was absolutely the right thing for him to say. And, if I could have gotten as good or better advice from him than I could have elsewhere at a reasonable price, then I would have done so. But I wasn’t going to pay him literally tens of thousands of dollars to research something that he already told me he thought was nothing. I was illegally prevented from telling Sara, the lawyer that I paid almost $90K for, and was only able to convince her after the case had ended and I could speak freely to her. Which I then did.

Prior to that, I followed the suggestions and links of the other lawyer for whose advice I am paying, Elliott, which is what led me to the discovery of what I believe are violations of at least 13 sections of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct by Adam Brody and Bill Rohn as well as the appropriate procedure to deal with that complaint: to file a request for investigation with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission.

The other issues in the case concerned the Small Business Technology Transfer grant and the threat and continuing damage to our reputations, none of which Stern understood. I would have been negligent to even ask him for advice on those topics, let alone consider taking it. I certainly wasn’t going to pay for that.

In general, free legal advice is worth what you pay for it. It is true that I was able to get about three years of outstanding advice from Stern that didn’t cost me a cent — although he’s got a $5K contingency if there is any kind of settlement — but I am a professional consumer of expertise (my company supplies highly expert and custom technical and professional help) and I wasn’t just taking Stern’s advice, I was stealing his methodology. Which is a thing I do.

What do you want Neon? To exterminate all life? A new plunger for your battle armor? How is sticking to increasingly unworkable assumptions about me going to get that for you? Because someone who’s icon is a Dalek should probably be careful around someone who is sometimes referred to as the Doctor...

Just sayin’.

At least I’m not River Song.


You are arrogant

Not even a little. Well, okay, a little. Maybe more, but it’s hard to tell until I’ve been tested on the merits, after which I won’t have to be arrogant or humble, just honest. But nowhere near as much as you think. Because arrogance, according to Google, is having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.

Where have I exaggerated my own importance or abilities? I’ve made extraordinary claims, sure, but, sometimes, in extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary claims are true. So am I extraordinary? Judge for yourself. Do you know anyone else like me? 100,000 years of education, with my primary focus being on mathematics for over half of that, or 10,000 years. I discovered a new biological phenomenon in my thesis research, got an uncharacteristically glowing letter of recommendation from a future Nobel laureate in my postdoc, and I’m working to get a plan to effectively cure cancer that came out of my research and had Oracle’s full support and Eli Lilly’s interest tested on its merits.

Do you think that is ordinary? Because, ordinary or not, it’s my life.


and you think you know better than seasoned attorneys.

In this case I know I know better than attorneys who lack both relevant subject matter expertise and specific knowledge of the facts of the case. Attorneys with sufficient expertise and knowledge all agree with me. The question is, why do you think the other members of the boogle know better than me?

Because they don’t.


They don't need to know all the details to see that this is a tornado in a bottle.

This is exactly what I have been saying it was: an information weapon. As I said, I call it “Fat Man”. The analogy breaks down with Little Boy, as that isn’t a weapon, but it’s pretty good here. When I gave the defense a 300-page hard copy version of my dossier in August, that was like a Trinity test. To see if it could be used against me. We won’t know just how badly the dossier damaged the defense until we get Varnum’s bills for the entire case and see what the result of that stunt was, but it clearly put an undue burden on the defense as well as putting a whole bunch of stuff in the record that Adam and Bill, as AsystBio’s attorneys, had an obligation to do their due diligence and read (in my opinion, anyway — maybe they did nothing wrong legally, but their entire representation stinks to high heaven and there’s the malpractice, irreconcilable conflict of interest, and knowingly lying to the court, which I doubt will help much...). Anyway, I’m hoping that it will be much more powerful than a tornado. We’ll see.
:towel:



You may be 110% right, but that doesn't matter at trial.

I’m 100% right — that is an absolute. I can use that much more than most people because of the number of things that I know to mathematical certainty. Which, most of the time, is nice. However, if this ever came to trial, or, Jeebus have mercy, someone deposing me on this thread, knowing things to mathematical certainty is devastating. Because that means I can PROVE them and not even the judge can dispute it. A few hard points like that are like bollards in front of a building or mines in the water. It might not seem like much, but if you try a frontal assault, you’re gonna have a bad time.

But I’m pretty certain that there isn’t ever going to be a trial. Which is kind of a bummer because I really wanted to meet the judge. She sounds like an interesting woman.


I pray for you, brother,

I’ll chant for you, Dude, to get actual proof that I know what I’m doing. Afterwards we can compare notes and see which worked better once the High Court of the Bun Dogs is deliberating. I call people “Dude” now. You of all people should know why. No disrespect intended — quite the contrary.

that you take the advice you have been given

It is appreciated, but it is bad advice and I know better than to take it. You all mean well, but you don’t understand the magnitude of the situation.

for free

In Stephen R. Donaldson’s Thomas Covenant series, Lord Mhoram believed that the value of the thing purchased was equal to the price that was paid for it.

I agree.

Mostly.


here at the Fogbow.

Which is what this is all about. I’ve missed posting on the Fogbow and, probably more quickly than you would guess, my life is going to change again and posting here will probably become, at best, a rare treat. If the High Court of the Bun Dogs agrees to hear my case, then I will have a reason to at least keep abreast of things and socialize. Plus... other stuff.
In his famous speech, Richard Feynman warned of the dangers of cargo cult thinking — it isn’t limited to science, but also encompasses groups like the birthers, SovCits, Flat Earthers, truthers, and Moon landing deniers. Even so, there are prime examples of this dangerous fallacy in fields like cosmology, where concepts like the Big Bang, dark matter, and dark energy just keep getting more epicycles when evidence of their existence doesn’t quite turn up like they expected. And more examples than can be listed by an infinite number of monkeys sharing an infinite amount of DNA with Shakespeare. Or something.

But the flip side — and the truly pernicious thing about cargo cult thinkers and conspiracy theorists like the birthers — is that strong advocacy of the counter-orthodoxy is essential for scientific progress. Because scientists need to make mistakes to learn things. They need to argue things that are wrong to learn how to learn that they are wrong and how not to say things that will later turn out to be unsupported. And sometimes, the counter-orthodoxy is right. And that is where breakthroughs and innovations occur. That is where you have to be if you want to be a pioneer.

Which I do.

The birthers muddied the water so bad on the NBC issue that there was no way the legitimacy of Ted Cruz could have been contested, even if, as Stern suggested, SCOTUS might have ruled against a generic person with those circumstances. Which would have been a problem if Cruz had won the nomination. Or if President Obama really had been born in Kenya.

When anything that does not accept the orthodoxy as correct is shouted down in a knee-jerk reaction, scientific progress stops. Which, if you do the math, is what Feynman was saying. This is a piece of performance art to demonstrate exactly what I just said. I’m using all of the trappings of the cargo cult, the bamboo antennae, the facades and runways, the mock radios with “Roger” at the mike doing the chatter. But I’m also using a scientific methodology. And applying it to a case with strong merits. And substance. In which myself and my associates have been grievously wronged. By the abuse of institutional and professional power by the people I’ve named.

An alternate (read: equivalent) formulation of Clarke’s law is that any magical effect can be obtained with sufficiently advanced technology. I am attempting to show that the birthers failed (as does other conspiratorial thinking masquerading as the counter-orthodoxy) not because of a failure of their methodology or a fundamental flaw of the counter-orthodoxy, but because their premises were false and their cases lacked merit. So while there might be a lot of superficial similarities to the birthers in my actions — which I may have subtly encouraged with some of the things I said — underneath it’s pure chaos science and mad math. Or something like that. But the point is the merits. Keep your eye on the merits, because if you don’t, you’re going to have a bad time. And if you make assumptions and never recheck them then the only thing you can be certain of is that you will be wrong.

Anyway, this is about Nobel laureates and new biological phenomena and scientific and technological innovation. And that’s just the beginning.

Literally.

:towel:
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#122

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:54 am

From September of 2015 until last summer I listened to everything Stern said, thought about it carefully, and took it to heart. Which I can document -- I can document every single thing I have said on this thread, the evolution of my understanding and intent first and foremost. It was outstanding advice from an incredibly skilled lawyer -- I have no trouble believing that he was Heinlein's model for Jubal Harshaw -- that he gave me for free when I could not have possibly gotten good paid legal advice had I been able to take it.

I know this because when I did get paid legal advice (on a stipend for startups from the State of Michigan), right after my "removal" from the management board, it took me a frantic two weeks of work before I could justify disregarding some very bad legal advice (not the fault of the lawyers -- they could not possibly have understood the complexity of the case or the level of malfeasance that had been committed, let alone what would follow). Because those lawyers didn't understand that the significance of my discussions with Oracle (literally an opportunity to get a plan to fight cancer tested on its merits) or the perfidy of my colleagues. The lawyers said that my former colleagues wouldn't do what I was worried about -- which was exactly what they did -- because, if they did, they would owe us $5,000,000. Each. Which is exactly what we ended up suing them for. A case which we unquestionably could have won on the merits (the size of the judgement was irrelevant -- you can't get blood from a stone).

But I managed to dodge that bullet with a pancake breakfast in Ann Arbor with my Oracle contact. Which I can't do again because Stern got his friend Vinnie to con me into trying no sugar, no grains and now I've got to lose another 60 pounds to finish screwing Vinnie out of ten bucks because... reasons. But that means it is Stern's fault I can't have another pancake breakfast. I brought documents to the meeting showing the asshattery that I couldn't "officially" share, but were helpful in communicating how idiotically my former colleagues were behaving (and "idiotic" really is appropriate here -- except for the places they crossed into "unethical" and "illegal" as well).

Anyway, fast forward to last year and filing the lawsuit. Towards the end of last July, I discovered that I had been mailed bills from Varnum LLP to Asystbio LLC (second line on the address was Tom Powers, the CEO that will be fired for cause as soon as I make the consent resolutions and sign them) for their legal services in the months of May and June of 2018.

I had a document reprinted below that I attempted to get introduced into evidence at my deposition. Bill Rohn prevented this from happening, which accounts for some but not all of his alleged violations of the MRPC. At least that's my opinion. Stern saw the photos of the original documents. Sara still hasn't seen this. Ever since Stern saw these documents, his insight has been accurate to the bounds of his understanding which he makes clear, but his advice has simply been wrong. Demonstrably. And the reason why is easy to understand -- even to prove.

After telling me about block billing -- I think noting that in the header is what annoyed Adam enough to write the paragraph in his cover letter for the defense responses to the interrogatories (which were a joke, by the way) reproduced below -- he told me, more or less, that he didn't think the content of the bills (the information in the line items) was significant. On the other hand, as a data scientist, I knew that the data we had was high quality, the information we could mine from it very useful, and the intelligence that could be (and later was) developed from analysis of it was both valuable and actionable.

One of us was necessarily wrong -- it turned out to be Stern, which is exactly what anyone should have expected -- and, therefore, was basing their professional opinions on a contradiction. I had a professional obligation to my client -- both myself and AsystBio, to which I have a fiduciary obligation -- to take the best advice possible given the knowledge available. I was nearly certain -- and eventually became certain -- that Stern was wrong, so I could no longer take his advice at face value, even though I knew that he was completely sincere and simply didn't know things that there was no reason for him to know (unless I was paying him to read them -- like I was Sara). That's why I stopped paying attention to Stern. In my position, Stern would have done exactly the same thing.

So here's where the fun starts. Below is an excerpt from my 934 page dossier (with some light editing and most of the LaTeX scripting removed) that contains confidential information belonging to the client of Varnum LLP. The "client" being the defendants in this case:

Bill Kaufmann
Dennis Simpson
Tom Powers
Gene Howington
Asystbio Laboratories LLC
AsystBio LLC

The last one is my company. So not only is this document mine (and I am free to publish it like I am doing here), but the entire case file is mine and I mean to have it. And give it to Jack Ryan or otherwise make sure that it is completely disclosed. Which I know will uncover more malfeasance and will probably uncover things I don't know about as well.

That is kind of how whistleblowing works. Keep in mind that there is an active NIH investigation -- maybe two -- into the grant as well.

All of the blue notes were added for this comment.


Billing AsystBio for May and June 2018 Legal Services

Dr. Kesseler received two bills from Varnum (addressed to “AsystBio LLC”), one for legal services rendered in May 2018 and the other for services rendered in June. Below is a transcription of each of the line items and notes regarding its significance, if any. In May, the defendants were billed an average of $420 per hour and in June that went up to $457 per hour. In addition, the bills contained instances of what appeared to be “block billing” – a practice known to increase billable hours by 10 to 20%. And they apparently wanted the plaintiffs to pay these bills.

Plaintiffs contacted Kreis-Enderle and informed them of the bills that had been received (late July or early August of 2018) and mutually agreed that Attorney Church would contact the Michigan State Bar ethics hotline, which he proceeded to do. At their advice Varnum was informed and, pursuant to their request, the physical letters were mailed to former AsystBio CEO Tom Powers, the person at “AsystBio LLC” to whom they were addressed.

05/03/18 0.50 Review Summons and Complaint.
Seth B. Arthur

Notes:

05/07/18 1.00 Review and analyze Complaint. Analyze issues re research to be conducted with respect to asserted claims. Review and analyze Operating Agreement. Begin review of response prepared by clients.
Adam J. Brody

notes: First, it would be interesting to know what the review and analysis of the Operating Agreement turned up, second, the defendants’ (likely meaning Mr. Howington) apparently wrote the first draft of the response to our complaint.Their "research" was either negligent or ignored by the author(s) of their pleadings -- I suspect the latter as all of their pleadings appeared to be written by someone with the incompetence, ignorance, and lack of integrity demonstrated by Gene in his deposition. As CEO of AsystBio, I want to hear Adam's report on the Operating Agreement. I am certainly entitled to any records that he made in his review and analysis, right?

5/08/18 0.50 Continue review and analysis of materials received from client, including response to allegations contained in Complaint.
Adam J. Brody

notes: More work on materials “received from client”. I’m guessing Gene was busy between being served and Varnum’s first involvement in early May. I'll try to get the basic court documents to Jack Ryan as soon as I can -- my response to their response will take a little longer... which is probably a good description of just about everything I write.

05/08/18 1.00 Review pleadings and client responses to allegations. Preparation for meeting with client
Steven T. Buquicchio

Notes: Steven B. bills below $420/hr and Bill Rohn and Adam Brody bill above $450 on average. At least that's what the totals on the bills imply.

05/09/18 0.75 Telephone conference with clients re complaint claims and potential defenses and counter claims.
Steven T. Buquicchio

Notes: Since they had no viable defenses or counter claims, one wonders why they needed 45 minutes for this meeting.

05/09/18 2.75 Review and analyze complaint, operating agreement, and other exhibits. Review and analyze Michigan case law and statutes re minority oppression and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Prepare for and conduct telephone conference with clients re status of litigation and strategy going forward.
Adam J. Brody

Notes: If they had done their due diligence reviewing and analyzing the complaint they would have found out that "the grant follows the PI" was illegal nonsense. Both the Operating Agreement and Bill's email speak for themselves -- and not well for their authors. Re breach of fiduciary duty, they ultimately argued, in the mediation summary, that only AsystBio had standing to bring a case for lack of fiduciary duty. And then signed an agreement that made clear that I had control of the company. Oops.

05/10/18 0.50 Review and analyze correspondence re date of service issues. Draft and edit correspondence re same. Continue review and analysis of Michigan law re breach of fiduciary duty and minority oppression claims.
Adam J. Brody

Notes: None of this research apparently ever bore fruit, because it never appeared in any pleading.

05/11/18 0.50 Continue review and analysis of Michigan case law and statutes re claims asserted by Plaintiffs. Outline answer and affirmative defenses.
Adam J. Brody

Notes: Again, if Mr. Brody's "outline" was used, it speaks poorly of him as a lawyer, given the defendats' answer to the complaint.

05/11/18 0.20 Review Complaint. Meeting with Adam Brody re same
Seth B. Arthur

Notes: Probably another lawyer billing under $420/hr.

05/14/18 0.75 Review, analyze and edit answer to complaint and affirmative defenses. Review and analyze Michigan case law and statutes for use in drafting answer.
Adam J. Brody

Notes: Again, none of this seemed to find its way into pleadings.

05/14/18 0.45 Office conference re potential counter claim issues re indemnification clause. Miscellaneous review re same.
Steven T. Buquicchio

Notes: Their interest in the indemnification clause confirmed one of the tells we saw in their response to the complaint: language about their acting in "good faith". To bad we can demonstrate that they acted in bad faith pretty much throughout.

05/16/18 1.00 Review draft answer and affirmative defenses. Miscellaneous follow up re same. Review materials re same.
Steven T. Buquicchio

Notes: For all the reviewing by supposed "real" lawyers, the answer to the complaint wasn't exactly a polished legal masterpiece.

05/16/18 2.25 Review, analyze and edit answer to complaint and affirmative defenses. Review and analyze Michigan case law and statutes for use in drafting same. Draft and edit correspondence to client re same. Review and analyze correspondence from clients re potential changes to same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Most likely any correspondence was with Gene -- or possibly Tom, who had some connection to a partner, but that's less likely, in my opinion -- it will be interesting to see what happened in the bills for July and onward. Especially August when they were given my 300-page dossier.

05/17/18 0.75 Review, analyze and edit answer to complaint and affirmative defenses. Analyze issues re potential for indemnification. Analyze issues re additional discovery to be conducted.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Again, no indemnification defense was ever raised -- and their discovery backfired badly. Although it didn't damage the defendants as badly as what we got in discovery. I'm not sure their lawyers will be able to say the same though.

05/20/18 0.25 Draft and edit correspondence to clients re answer and affirmative defenses. Review and analyze correspondence re same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: All of this correspondence is the property of AsystBio as far as I'm concerned.

05/21/18 0.75 Review, analyze and edit answer to complaint and affirmative defenses. Review and analyze correspondence re same. Telephone conference re potential changes to same. Attend to issues re finalizing and filing of same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: I have a feeling that pretty much all of the research in the first two months turned out to be a dry hole. Not that it mattered, since I doubt Gene was listening anyway and Adam and Bill were apparently rubber stamping his work with their P numbers. Is that bad? it seems bad.

05/21/18 2.25 Review final form of Answer and related e-mails. Moderate edits to same. Office conference re same.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: "Moderate edits" I wonder what it looked like before. Because I have 67 pages of notes on those answers in my dossier and if whomever wrote those answers is a lawyer, they really suck at it. Hi Gene!

05/23/18 0.50 Attend to issues re discovery to be served, including interrogatories, document production requests, and potential notices of deposition. Draft and edit correspondence re same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: The amount of incriminating evidence they improperly withheld in discovery was staggering. But I think Dennis was already being set up by an internal NIH investigation last fall -- in which case he obstructed by withholding the evidence of Bill's perjury. Among a long list of improperly withheld materials, in my opinion.

05/24/18 0.25 Attend to issues re potential discovery to be served, including interrogatories and requests for production of documents.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Do you want to know what they were fishing for in discovery? What they thought the magic bullet would be? This is just my speculation (i.e. the most expert opinion available), but I think they were looking for me getting help from someone here -- or a lawyer that I didn't have privilege with. I avoided Bill's questions along that line in my deposition because he specifically excluded lawyers I had privilege with and Stern specifically told me I had privilege with him.

I believe I pwned Bill in that deposition. Anyone want a copy?


05/24/18 1.75 Review e-mail chain re client responses to allegations in Complaint as part of preparation of initial round of discovery. Related brief office conference.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: Want to get my hands on that e-mail chain -- quality data. And quite a bit if it took almost two hours.

05/29/18 0.25 Review and analyze correspondence from client re e-mail issues. Analyze issues re discovery to be conducted.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: One can only ponder what value is created by 15 minutes of Adam's brainpower.

05/30/18 2.00 Begin review of 300 page e-mail exchanges between client and litigation adversary.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: It would be interesting to see what isn't in here. There are a few things from James that would be very significant. I'm sure that the email threads in my dossier are better curated, more on point, and likely more complete for the really damning stuff -- at least that's the way things went with any kind of records for meetings. These guys had a cargo-cult understanding of regular order. I believe it is probably about to bite them in the ass. Our discovery requests were written specifically so that this would be responsive to them. We never saw it.

05/30/18 1.00 Review and analyze documents received from client. Attend to issues re discovery to be completed and timing with respect to same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Do you think that I, as a fiduciary and stakeholder in AsystBio, got nearly $500 (estimated) in value for this? I don't.

05/31/18 0.50 Office conference re discovery strategy. Analyze issues re research to be conducted, including with respect to derivative claims. Telephone conference re same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. I walked it for a long time. Tactics without strategy was is the noise before defeat. Which is a perfect description of any aspect of the defense. In particular, I believe that you would have to consider their discovery strategy a colossal failure. Although that doesn't account for the federal investigations, which I'm sure will help...

06/01/18 0.50 Draft and edit correspondence re additional research to be conducted, including with respect to derivative claims. Review and analyze correspondence re same. Analyze issues re potential depositions.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: If Adam Brody was handling deposition strategy then I kicked his ass. Then Sara annihilated him.

06/06/18 0.50 Review and analyze correspondence re issues surrounding research to be conducted. Analyze issues re potential counter claims.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Since no counter claims were ever mentioned, the issue with the counter claims could be presumed to be their lack of merits.

06/08/18 0.25 Telephone conference re case status and strategy, including with respect to discovery. Analyze issues re potential motions to be filed.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Again, the potential motions were never filed.

06/08/18 2.50 Continue review of e-mails and additional documents re discovery.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: And what, exactly, would those additional documents be? And why didn't we receive them?

06/10/18 0.25 Review and analyze correspondence re status of research and additional tasks to be completed. Draft and edit correspondence re same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: What did Adam do to earn all of the money he charged my company? Besides malpractice and knowingly lying on documents.

06/12/18 0.50 Review and analyze order rescheduling conference. Office conference re additional research to be conducted with respect to Counts III and IV of complaint. Analyze issues re potential motion for summary disposition.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Again, no motion for summary disposition was filed -- although we probably had grounds... and then some. The scheduling conference is interesting. Like the mediation session, two PARTNERS from Varnum (Adam and Bill) showed up. Justin, the cheapest lawyer on my team and the one attending the pro-forma hearing, was gobsmacked. I would have liked to meet Judge Dragynchuck, though.

06/13/18 1.5 Brief office conference and continued review and marking of selected e-mails.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: Bill spent a lot of time on those emails -- I'm sure Sara spent far less time and understood their significance far better. Of course, she had me to explain the nuances and highlight the important points.

06/14/1 2.25 Review and analyze Michigan case law and statutes re derivative claims brought on behalf of a dissolved LLC. Analyze issues re additional research to be conducted. Review and analyze research memo re potential claims. Analyze issues re potential motion for summary disposition based on research results.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Adam, you ignorant slut. Did it ever occur to you to check and see if the LLC was dissolved? Also, along with the interest in the indemnification clause, the strategy they intended is pretty clear. But they never tried it -- I'm sure it was because they were saving it for when they really needed it. And they did a lot of work for motions for summary disposition that were never filed. Why is that?

06/15/18. 0.50 Draft and edit correspondence re upcoming conference with court. Continue review and analysis of research memo re potential motion for summary disposition re Counts III and IV of complaint.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: A lot of lawyer fees spent on "potential" motions, but nothing that actually saw the light of day. In the end they just argued that only AsystBio had standing to bring those complaints. And then signed a settlement which gave me documented cause to fire them -- and therefore control of AsystBio. Which I thought was a pretty stupid move at the time, but what do I know?

06/15/18 2.50 Final preparation for pretrial scheduling conference. Related office conferences. Adjustments to initial discovery memo. Review memo re outstanding legal issues.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: Some more of the block billing. I wonder how much their show of force at the scheduling conference cost. And what they were trying to achieve. But I just can't wrap my head around what they were thinking.

06/18/18 4.00 Review and analyze complaint, answer, and background documents in preparation for status conference. Conduct status conference in Lansing court. Analyze issues re tasks to be completed in light of schedule established by court, including written discovery and deposition of Plaintiff Kesseler. Analyze issues re additional research to be conducted, including with respect to NIH regulations.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: With five months to prepare, you would have thought they could have done a better job of deposing me. More block billing. And the first mention of NIH regulations -- which demonstrates malpractice. Not only should any lawyer doing their due diligence have known that "the grant follows the PI" was nonsense that would harm their clients from the moment he consulted his first expert, but he should have realized (if he was competent) that the regulations he was reviewing didn't apply to the type of grant his clients had. And he might have read the beginning of my statement in our response to their interrogatories and discovery requests -- which told them that US Code 2011, Title XV, Chapter 14A, Section 638, "Research and Development" covered STTR grants. Before he knowingly lied about it on the mediation statement.

Just sayin'.


06/18/18 4.25 Finalize e-mail review. Prepare for and attend Pretrial Conference in Lansing. Conferences with Court and opposing counsel. Office conferences re same.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: My company was charged about two grand for this crap. Is this typical of how Varnum operates or just Adam and Bill?

06/19/18 1.25 Follow up re Pretrial Conference. Docket dates and deadlines provided by Court. Outline and first draft of memo to client representatives re same.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: After seeing the work product produced by Varnum over the course of this case, I would very much like to see how the level of billing continues after the month of June.

06/19/18 0.25 Analyze issues re additional research to be conducted, including with respect to NIH regulations. Draft and edit correspondence re same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Another 15 minutes of being unaware that he was looking in the wrong place. D'oh!

06/20/18 0.25 Attend to issues re discovery to be completed, including interrogatories and document production requests.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Let's say that I'm not impressed with anything about how they handled discovery. I think that we triggered one NIH investigation and we certainly got evidence that allowed us to instigate another. Plus plagiarism too. also. The birthers were right, discovery is the promised land. Unless Adam and Bill are your lawyers, I guess.

06/21/18 0.25 Review and analyze correspondence re case status and strategy going forward. Telephone conference re same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: As I said, there is no evidence whatsoever of strategy by the defense, so I'm not sure what they are charging for there.

06/21/18 1.25 Finalize memo re pretrail conference.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: An hour and a quarter to finalize a memo? Were you sitting too close to the time dilation device Bill?

06/22/18 1.00 Office conferences. Final edits to client memo. Review Pretrial Order.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: A lot of effort sure went into producing... a very unimpressive body of work. And quite a number of ethical and legal violations, I suppose.

06/22/18 0.25 Draft and edit correspondence to clients re results of status conference and strategy going forward, including with respect to discovery.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Adam. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

06/25/18 0.25 Review and analyze notice of pre-trial conference and trial. Review and analyze correspondence re same.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: Quite a bit of effort focused on the pre-trial conference. One wonders why. Other than to run up the bill of myself and my former colleagues, of course.

06/25/18 0.50 Review Interrogatories.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: My comments on the interrogatories run about 40 pages in the dossier. Spoiler: I'm not impressed with Bill's work.

06/26/18 1.50 Conversations with Adam Brody re Interrogatories and further work on same. Finalize review of selected email documents related to Interrogatories.\\
William E. Rohn\\

Notes: ibid but costing three times as much.

06/27/18 1.00 Research re NIH regulations re transfer of grant. Review and analyze governing regulations. Analyze issues re strategy with respect to potential motion for partial summary disposition.\\
Adam J. Brody\\

Notes: And, the last we saw of our intrepid lawyer, he was utterly failing both due diligence and competence. And had Sun Tzu rolling in his grave at an unprecedented rate. But he wasn't done...

Below is the response of Adam Brody, a partner of Varnum LLP, to my trying to include evidence of his malfeasance to the record in my deposition. Attorney Rohn tried to tell me that using "Mr. Kesseler" (presumably instead of "Kesseler") on the books at my deposition was a sign of respect. I'm not sure if he was that naive or just thought I was. I hope it is clear that I am NOT using "Mr. Simpson", "Mr. Kaufmann", or "Mr. Brody" as titles of respect. If Adam hadn't written this, I doubt I would have ever looked at the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, much less identifying at least thirteen sections that I believe Adam and Bill have violated.

Nice job!
The following paragraph is from the cover letter from Adam J. Brody on the defendants' response to plaintiffs' interrogatories. It is in response to the above bills being presented at the beginning of Dr. Kesseler's deposition.

Second, I want to address with you the revelation made at Mr. Kesseler's deposition on Wednesday that Mr. Kesseler did \underline{not} forward the envelopes containing Varnum invoices -- which were clearly addressed to my clients, not Mr. Kesseler -- to Tom Powers. Rather, he retained those envelopes, opened them, and reviewed the information inside. I would like to get to the bottom of this situation, particularly in light of your representation in the attached August 24, 2018 letter in which you assert in no uncertain terms that ``[w]e have confirmed that Dr. Kesseler did receive the envelopes, and then forwarded same to Mr. Powers.'' At a minimum, we demand that you obtain any and all copies, including electronic copies, of those materials from your client and ensure their destruction.

Mr. Brody's understanding of both the law and the facts seems inadequate to the point of incompetence here. He seems to share the same unethical, incompetent, and negligent view of other people's data as his clients, Mr. Howington in particular. It was made clear at Dr. Kesseler's deposition that he had done exactly as was represented and as Varnum had asked: he forwarded the mail that he had received at AsystBio's address of record to Tom Powers. Dr. Kesseler was under no obligation to comply, nor was he obligated to refrain from sharing any data/information/intelligence that could have helped Attorney Fazio in prosecuting the case, including the data copied, information derived, and intelligence produced from the billing statements sent to the client of record, AsystBio, at it's address as registered with the State of Michigan.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I, Dr. Kevin Kesseler, am a data scientist and I believe very strongly that the actions of the defendants and Varnum LLP, Mr. Howington and Mr. Brody in particular, illustrate the need for an Amendment to the US Constitution to protect data rights. In my expert opinion, the actions documented here were unethical and I believe they were illegal under current law as well. This is an attempt to communicate both what happened and my understanding and opinion of the data/information/intelligence issues as well.

Dr. Kesseler was and is a manager in good standing of AsystBio as well as the registered agent. The member defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defraud AsystBio and the NIH, threaten the reputations of both Dr. Kesseler and Mr. Knauer, and created ongoing damage to their careers for over three years. Among the acts in furtherance of this conspiracy were the plagiarism and perjury committed by Mr. Kaufmann with regard to the AsystBio Small business Technology TRansfer (STTR) grant which his company, Asystbio Laboratories, was created to, and did, in fact, steal. In the view of AsystBio, which is now solely controlled by Dr. Kesseler, both AB Labs and the new successor entity that the member defendants have created, RTP Genomics, only exist to further the conspiracy of former AsystBio managers that is continuing to plan and commit illegal acts.

Furthermore, AsystBio, client of Varnum LLP, alleges that, in the representation of AsystBio for Varnum by Attorney Rohn and Mr. Brody, not only were there what appears to Dr. Kesseler to be breaches of at least thirteen sections of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, but he believes that Attorney Rohn and Mr. Brody also violated their fiduciary duty to AsystBio as well with their greedy, unethical, negligently ignorant, and outright stupid actions. It is the position of AsystBio that Varnum LLP's case file for Kesseler v. AsystBio, et al. is both the property of AsystBio and evidence of crimes against AsystBio as well as the alleged ethical violations against Mr. Brody and Attorney Rohn.

Attorney Rohn and Mr. Brody have ignored phone calls and emails on behalf of AsystBio by Dr. Kesseler.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is already too late for Bill and Dennis. Adam and Bill can probably only make things worse -- since there is a threat of retaliation for whistleblowing in play.

And I am demonstrating exactly what I said I would: this is nothing like you've seen before.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#123

Post by Slartibartfast » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:49 am

Yesterday evening I spoke with an investigative journalist. I won't reveal this person or their organization, but eventually they will publish something and it will be moot. Or they will choose to post here themselves. Which would be an example of Gonzo journalism, by the way (the topic came up and examples are good pedagogy). Sara wasn't on the call and Elliott (my other lawyer) dropped off just after the reporter got on, but both knew about it and support my efforts. Because they understand that there is an ethical obligation to report malfeasance as well as publicity being an important aspect of protecting my interests.

But, more than that, they understand the importance of what is going on here and what I am trying to do. In addition, I will be notifying the NIH investigators about this thread once I've started posting actual evidence of the crimes they are investigating. I have always hoped that you guys would be asking questions and helping untangle this incredibly complex case, but I have been posting here because there are falsehoods that need to be challenged and that is exactly what's happening.

I am officially notifying my superior at UNC on Thursday (I let him know informally months ago that this was coming, so UNC may have already started an investigation -- or been notified by another investigative body). After that Sara will talk to Varnum. And both will be faced with severing ties with their rogue employees or... they will own all of their bad behavior. Which will be out in public and impossible to put back in the bottle.

Which was exactly the point.

Because this is where we've been headed all along, despite all of my efforts to save my former colleagues and their lawyers from themselves. And Gene.

How will UNC repay James for Bill's plagiarism?

How will they ensure Dennis' threats are meaningless?

How will Varnum repay me for Adam and Bill's malpractice and bullying?

How much will they pay to retain AsystBio as a client?

These questions and more will have to be answered to my satisfaction. But there is no longer any amount they can pay for my silence. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that the $15 million I was asking for in the lawsuit is about to look really cheap...

Foggy,

Lunch at Red Robin at 11am on Friday? I assure you it will be nothing like you've seen before.

Mike, Mr. Gneiss, and Stern,

If you have anything to say to me, please say it in public. If you send any more PMs to me on this matter (and don't delete them before I open them) I will publish them. I stand behind everything I've said here, in my 7,000 posts and in my PMs (I would stand behind the drafts as well, but no one has seen them). I'm sorry that all of you are suffering from your faulty assumptions, but I've told you nothing but the truth, if not the whole truth, as cogently as I've been able. I know it is extremely hard to suspend your disbelief and consider the possibility that I am not really arrogant but rather I am describing the situation as objectively and coherently as possible given my understanding and that my understanding is far superior to anyone else's --- including Sara. Which she understands.

I was at a Buddhist conference at the Florida Nature and Culture Center last weekend and I met a priest (that's a Cohn to you, Rebbi Stern). He was also a priest in the academic sense -- a sociologist from Texas A&M (can someone ask Danraft what "gigging" is?) -- and a senior in the faith of the Soka Gakkai (my Buddhist community -- literally "value creation society"... guess what we do?). Hopefully I'll get the chance to tell the full story at some point, but after the chanting and the breakthrough I told him the situation. At first he was concerned that, although he saw I was doing the right thing (the only thing I can do), I was up against forces that I did not understand and had no way to deal with. But when I said I knew what I was doing he gave me the chance to explain while keeping an open mind and soon he saw that I have done my due diligence and really was in control of the situation -- which is exactly what I told Stern I wanted almost four years ago (strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory). And then I started talking about the bigger picture... which is between me and my priest. But suffice to say we too, also, are on the same page.

Throw out your assumptions and re-read this thread from the beginning taking everything I say at face value. That's exactly what I did a month or so ago. And, while I would still say everything I've posted in this thread, it is clear where all of you go off the rails. And it's clear why. If you have eyes to see. I am happier than I have ever conceived possible. I am about to be tested against an impossibly high standard and I am set up to succeed beyond my wildest imaginations. I am already the richest person in the world in what really matters -- fambly -- and an accomplished mathematician and scientist. I am currently pioneering two new fields of study (computational epistemology and a mathematics of value creation -- a field in which I just found two new colleagues, by the way) and methodologies to automate scientific discovery and rank relative relevant expertise. Did you ever think that your problems may be your problems and not mine? Because I have really cool problems and I'm overcoming them. Which I find to be an inordinate amount of fun. You should try it.

Four people bet against me and slandered and libeled my Buddha nature and put my professional reputation on the line. That put them on ground zero of my karma bomb. Once it goes off, I don't expect to hear from any of them again, nor do I expect they will ever work professionally again (I am certainly going to do everything in my power to see to that). But, once my ethical obligation is fulfilled and my colleagues and I are protected it isn't my concern. And I have more important things to do.

One of which is to get Varnum's file for this case. Which is the property of AsystBio. If Varnum is unwilling to give it to me I can raise a legitimate Constitutional issue that will help me get a data rights Amendment passed and ratified and if they are willing then I will publish it along with Kreis-Enderle's case file. Not to mention all of the court records. And my dossier. Which will all show, in their own words and actions, why the careers of these four people all need to end so they cannot continue harming others of the public good with their lack of professionalism, competence, and integrity. Not to mention understanding. If UNC and Varnum choose to disagree they will do so publicly and if they choose to do so in court they will lose. Badly. Because, as I've been saying, I can document everything.

Like I said, nothing like you've seen before.


Hasn't anyone figured out what I'm giving you here? A situation of great significance with Constitutional implications revolving around novel legal issues in which one side has all the merits and the other side has multiple investigations and audits into their behavior which is thoroughly documented. The problem with the birthers is not that they tried breaking news on their mostly unread blogs, it is that they weren't even breaking wind, they were just passing gas. I'm breaking real news. It doesn't matter where I'm doing it, it is on the record for people to look at later. The whole point is to get people interested in the issue before dumping an enormous amount of high quality data into the mix. So you can help mine it for useful information and analyze it to develop valuable and actionable intelligence.

Which is the methodology my company, AdderStone Predictive Analytics, uses to help foster mathematical, scientific, and technical innovation and facilitate its successful implementation and commercialization.

Which is what I am creating an opportunity to demonstrate because the first opportunity was stolen from me by my former colleagues.

Any questions?
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28339
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#124

Post by Foggy » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:25 pm

Had lunch today with Slarti in a Red Robin, spent about an hour and a half together eating excellent burgers and fries.

We spent less than 10% of the time discussing this lawsuit. :shock:

Bet you didn't see that one coming, huh? Huh, didja? You did NOT see that coming.

We had high-speed, high-level, voluminous detailed discussions about math, science, world history (combined with family history), religion, world affairs, and, last but absolutely not least, presidential politics. Then we took a break and decided to maybe take a minute to look at the menu to see about eating.


For those of you - and I'm sure there are thousands of you - who are now, like, dying from all the curiosity and stuff, I have excellent news: A fully imaginary transcript will be available as soon as I can fake it for the very reasonable price of $4,995.99. Act now while supplies last. Naturally, several three-letter government agencies were surreptitiously recording every word and capturing high-def video for the White House. We'll FOIA that and you can check for word-for-word accuracy against my imaginary version. Do we know any grossly inappropriate lawyers who are known for filing FOIA cases? :confused:
Every locked door has a key. - Emika Chen

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7039
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: AsystBio LLC case

#125

Post by Slartibartfast » Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:57 am

I dunno Foggy, does the transcript back that up? It seems like we probably spent around 15% of the time talking about the case to me.

Just sayin’.

:towel:

Now that the stage is set and I’ve started the whistleblowing process, I can be clearer and freer about what I say.

I am now in contact with UNC and will be requesting that Bill and Dennis are suspended pending an investigation for perjury, plagiarism, and threats of reprisals for whistleblowing. The plagiarism in particular is odious because Bill, an academic, used his reputation to cover up the crimes he was committing and James, without any standing in the academic community had absolutely no recourse to do anything about it. He would never even have found out about it if I hadn’t been obsessed, determined, and skilled enough to spend $90K, write a 1,000-page dossier, and devote over three years of my life to get to the bottom of this. UNC needs to make this right. And they are going to do it out in the open because falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow and I’m not going to allow UNC any cover should they refuse to make James whole.

Personally, all I care about is working with Tim Elston and Aziz Sancar. And others at UNC, but they are my collaborators and my access to them was blocked by Bill and Dennis’ malfeasance... Until last week when I told Tim about the connections between my thesis research and Aziz’s work on NER. Not to mention all of the other things I’m working on (even Foggy got a simplified and reduced version). The restoration of open lines of communication with my postdoctoral mentor and a good faith dialogue going forward is all I’ve ever wanted. And I have finally gotten it. If any of the defendants would have done that three years ago we would all be millionaires by now. But they decided that talking to me was far too dangerous because they knew my arguments were valid and they couldn’t refute them. And said so in writing.

That’s right, Bill, a scientist with over 40 years of experience, wouldn’t talk to me because he admitted that I was right and therefore could not support any of his actions (which later proved to be stupid, unethical, and illegal). And he threatened my reputation and that of James to keep us quiet. While destroying the opportunity to get a plan he BELIEVED could potentially effectively cure cancer (cf. his 40 years of cancer research) from being tested on the merits.

As for Dennis, the direct threat of retaliation for whistleblowing he made on my recorded conference line was a complete overreaction that speaks to me of an awareness of guilt. I have evidence of enough guilt that the question isn’t whether or not Dennis can save his career — I will see that UNC ensures he doesn’t have the slightest chance of making good on his threat. Beyond that, I’ll let the system work. Dennis, in particular, created this situation by completely refusing to communicate with me — even when I was in North Carolina and offered to meet in person without a lawyer. If he had just been willing to pick up the phone, return my call, or answer my emails he would still have a future as a scientist.

All this is going to play out (at least as far as consequences for Bill and Dennis) regardless of what I do. And then I’m going to print Bill and Dennis’ own words and demonstrate their lack of professionalism, incompetence, and unethical behavior. For starters.

Bill and Dennis,

Or should I say “Mr. Kaufmann” and “Mr. Simpson”? If you are reading this, then register, post here, and admit that every single thing I’ve said about you on this thread and in court is true. Then help me deconstruct your own perfidy and that of your lawyers so that the extent of the wrongdoing here is out in the open. Or lie like a dog in the bed you made. With fleas. I’m pretty sure that your second fully fraudulent company, RTP Genomics, is the target of an NIH sting operation and, regardless, when the NIH extramural research integrity officer (Hi Patricia!) looked at your grant she initiated an investigation on her own — no whistleblowing by me needed. You didn’t have any money to pay off the lawsuit I brought even though everyone admitted that you would have clearly lost in court. Badly. What are you going to do when the federal government comes looking for the $270K you squandered?

Was talking to me truly such a terrible option that all of this was preferable?

Did you really think I would let you end my career and get away with all of your crimes? Not to mention violating James in the most disgraceful way possible for an academic: plagiarizing his work and then using your position and institutional power to stonewall any attempts for redress?

All of this mishegoss is just the academic side. Which is all going to come out in the open and I will see that the appropriate process is followed or the appropriate consequences are made public. And I once again have the standing to do this based on the merits of my career and my documented words and actions.

Which brings us to Varnum. Who has a major problem: there is about to be a smoking crater where Bill and Dennis’ reputations used to be. Bill staked his entire career on the claim “the grant follows the Principal Investigator”. Which, in the world of SBIR/STTR is completely ridiculous nonsense. Which led to Bill committing perjury. And plagiarism. Which, admittedly, was his mistake. What wasn’t his mistake is that he told that to his lawyers who repeated it over and over again in court documents (I doubt it makes things any better that Adam and Bill were clearly just slapping their P numbers on Gene’s work, but I’m taking everything in the record at face value — either way, it’s bad for Adam and Bill).

The thing is, if you ask anyone who is familiar with the SBIR/STTR program about the idea that “the grant follows the PI” they will say that the idea is ridiculous (because it is — it is impossible for small business grants to follow the PI, an employee of the small business concern, rather than belonging to the COMPANY that submitted it). Or you could just read US CODE 2011, Title XV, Chapter 14A, Section 638, “Research and Development”. Which is where I told Bill Rohn (a partner at Varnum LLP) he could find the pertinent regulations when he asked about “the grant follows the PI” in my deposition. Which didn’t stop him from putting his P number on that lie again less than a week later.

When you add it the fact that Varnum cannot possibly have a waiver of conflict that protects them (it is mathematically impossible), and that I can document violations of at least 13 sections of the MRPC by Adam and Bill in this case, Varnum really needs to be careful choosing what they are going to do. They are AsystBio’s attorneys. And they have committed malpractice, have a conflict of interest (to put it mildly), and have knowingly lied on a submission to the court (knowingly because I told Bill it was a lie and provided the above reference in my deposition).

Varnum’s biggest asset is that I don’t really care about them — so long as they treat me with respect (the price tag won’t be cheap, though) Or they can continue to bully and disrespect me and I will bury them in court. And with publicity. At some point, Oracle and Eli Lilly are going to find out what Varnum and some UNC professors have done to them. And that I can still provide the use cases that Oracle desperately needs (three years later and I still haven’t seen progress becoming a player in the area of genomics). And I can get the subject matter expertise (now that I have contact with UNC again) necessary to revive the three paragraph plan that Eli Lilly was interested in.

Which probably isn’t necessary as I will be telling my ex-wife about my plans. Who is a director for another large pharmaceutical. If she is interested (and she certainly knows what I am capable of), then I won’t need Eli Lilly or Oracle. Although having more stakeholders involved is rarely a bad thing. But back to Varnum. AsystBio, my company, is either their client or... there is no “or”. They must make good. Or take their chances in court. And in the court of public opinion. And the greed, arrogance, incompetence, bullying, lack of ethics, and malfeasance of their partners, Adam Brody and Bill Rohn, is going to be on full display here no matter what Varnum chooses to do.

Because, as Sara told you all, I am ethically obligated to do so.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”