I am asking the Government to investigate the fraud at the University of Toronto. But, they do not want to investigate. What should I think of the Government that is giving me answers blatantly misstating the law and even misstating my complaint itself to avoid investigation? Why do they use the absolutely forbidden tactics - prejudging the evidence? They just say that... there is nothing in my documents...
The Honourable Dianne CunninghamMinister of Training, Colleges and Universities Mowat Block, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario Canada M7A 1L2
September 4, 2002
Dear Minister,
I am asking you to take necessary actions against the University of Toronto. The grounds for my request are as follows:
1. The University of Toronto has committed and continue to commit educational fraud and the fraud on the law in Ontario in the following acts:
a) fraudulently terminating my Ph.D. program with the intent to steal/plagiarize the scientific research which I had conducted for 5 years.b) stealing/plagiarizing my research; falsifying the authorship of my research and transferring this authorship to other persons in an invented fraudulent scheme of "salvaging" of research, c) fraudulently denying academic credit for 5 years of my Ph.D. research, d) concealing the above fraud, obstructing justice and conspiring to do so.
2. The Administration of the University of Toronto has converted this publicly funded educational institution into a fraudulent organization which is:a) acting contrary to the interest of a student, b) fraudulently taking away the opportunity to earn degree, c) lowering educational standards to the level where a degree program became a slave labor scheme that yielded false academic credentials to the staff of the University and completely ruined the student's reputation and life, d) falsifying established and universally recognized academic rules, standards and custom, e) falsifying the purpose of Ontario graduate scholarship and using public funds for corrupt purpose.
More than twenty years of my life were destroyed by this fraud. I am now 62 years old. Due to this fraud I was not able to earn living for sixteen years; I have no pension. I will not agree to settle on the present state of affairs. My research shall not remain under the authorship of thieves.The Government without any doubt, has power and unconditional duty to stop the fraud, punish the perpetrators and eventually restore justice for me. I believe that your Ministry is working to ensure adequate protection of the interests of students. I request the Ministry to prosecute the University of Toronto to the full extent of the law.
The grounds for my request are detailed and proven in the attached here documents:1. "Continuing Fraud at the University of Toronto" 2. Document file.
Yours truly,/signature/ Michael Pyshnov.
The answer:
October 3, 2002
Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
Thank you for your letter about your dispute with the University of Toronto over the status of research conducted while you were a graduate student.
I must inform you that universities in Ontario are legally autonomous institutions, fully responsible for academic and administrative matters, including decisions about policies governing university research. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has no authority to intervene in your dispute with the University of Toronto.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Sincerely,/signature/ Kevin Costante Deputy Minister
My second letter:
Mr. Kevin CostanteDeputy Minister Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Mowat Block, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario Canada M7A 1L2
October 8, 2002
Dear Mr. Costante,
I have received your letter of October 3, 2002.You did not say that my complaint is about educational fraud and other similar matters as they are stated in my letter of September 4, 2002, addressed to the Minister. You even failed to mention this letter in your response. But you say that my letter is about "dispute" over "status of research". This is not what my complaint is about.
Your argument of universities' autonomy in academic matters, when made as a response to the complaint of fraud and similar wrongdoing, has been proven useless before, in court. This argument, put forward by the University of Toronto, but rejected by court, should not be repeated by your Ministry. No matter where it is made, it is not a valid argument in this case.
I would like to know how the Ministry came to the conclusion that my complaint is about "academic and administrative matters" and "decisions about policies governing university research", all the details of this process. Your letter is too short; it does not give a clue of how my complaint was reworked and misrepresented by the Ministry. In fact, not a single allegation in my letter is considered in your letter and vice versa - not a single item addressed in your letter and quoted above can be found in my complaint.I must remind you that in my letter I did not ask the Ministry "to intervene" in any "dispute". Therefore, your denial of the Ministry's "authority to intervene" (i.e. the conclusion of your letter to me) is, so far, not even relevant. But, I am asking the Ministry to take action against this University because they broke the law. You were given the documents and it is your duty to act. That is clear.
I insist that the Ministry must investigate my allegations that the University of Toronto has used the power to grant degrees and the power to operate as a bona fide educational institution, for illegal purpose, for fraud. Granting degree means recognition of academic achievement. I allege that my academic achievements were fraudulently attributed to other people (stolen from me) and that this violates the law of post-secondary education.The implied presumption in your letter that the University of Toronto had acted in good faith always and for a legitimate purpose only, I believe, goes against the due process. My allegations must be taken seriously and investigated.
After such investigation is conducted, the Ministry should consider what actions (intervening on my behalf, referring the matter to prosecution, etc.) must be taken. The investigation of my complaint must begin without further delay.
I, hereby, also request a meeting with you.
Sincerely,/signature/ Michael Pyshnov.
The answer:
October 29, 2002
Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
Thank you for your October 8, 2002 letter about your allegation of fraud committed by the University of Toronto in the matter of research conducted by you while you were a graduate student.
Unfortunately, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has no authority to investigate your allegations or to take actions against the university in the circumstances alleged by you. The University of Toronto is an independent legal corporation which is responsible for its own governance, management and control, particularly in academic matters. If, as you assert, any law has been broken by the university and it continues to be impossible to resolve your concerns with them, you will have to seek your own legal advice regarding your legal remedies.
Sincerely,/signature/ Kevin Costante Deputy Minister
My third letter:
Mr. Kevin CostanteDeputy Minister Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Mowat Block, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario Canada M7A 1L2
November 4, 2002
Dear Mr. Costante,
I have received your letter of October 29, 2002.
1. You now have admitted that my complaint is, indeed, about fraud committed by the University of Toronto and, so, amended your first letter and I thank you for this. However, you continue making room for "matter of research" and "academic matters". But, these matters can not be treated by you as purely academic or research matters once I gave you my complaint of fraud for investigation. (Does police treat allegations of rape as "love matters"? This would be equally ridiculous.) The alleged fraud is right in the very process of graduate education and obtaining a degree, not separate from it. When I say that the U of T has turned this process into a fraud, you must investigate my complaint and to go into each and every adjoining matter needed to reach a conclusion. Please, don't make this mistake again, because, so far, it looks like you have taken the side of the U of T before investigating my complaint. Such approach to investigation is prohibited.
2. You are continuing telling me that your Ministry will not investigate the alleged fraud violating the laws of higher education. Your words: "If...any law has been broken by the university...you will have to seek your own legal advice..." are misleading me, because the laws in question are laws that give the U of T its status, power to grant degrees and recognition by your Ministry that in turn gives the U of T money, scholarships, etc. Your Ministry must investigate if these laws have been broken.
3. You certainly know how Government operates. You know that you can not give any more money to the U of T if my allegations are true, but you are holding my documents and saying that you can not investigate. Your Ministry can not stop the U of T from using the public money for fraud? Are you telling me that the University of Toronto can continue this fraud and any fraud on public as much as they please and continue to receive public money through your Ministry? Obviously, this is not how Government operates.
4. You refuse to see documents showing that your largest University is run by criminals, while you should have been grateful to me for giving these documents to you and for my courage and endurance.
5. You do not quote specifically any law or rules that prohibit the Ministry to investigate the alleged fraud. There is no such law. I conclude that you do not follow the law and the rules related to my complaint truthfully and completely and that you avoid the investigation. I must ask you what are the relationships between this Government and the U of T? Are they too close politically, monetarily or in other ways? I warn you of the dire consequences that inevitably follow when there is a collusion between government and any criminals who might have procured governmental funding of many millions of dollars.
6. You will have to amend your letters further, start the due process immediately and investigate the U of T for all three central points of my complaint: a) fraud, b) breaking the law and c) misuse of public money. You will have to inform me immediately of the steps taken, your procedure and the people involved.
Sincerely,/signature/ Michael Pyshnov. Copy: The Honourable Dianne Cunningham, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.
The answer:
December 4, 2002
Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
Your letter dated November 4, 2002 which was addressed to the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has been referred to me for response.
There is nothing in the voluminous set of materials that you have previously provided that would give the Ministry any grounds upon which to take any of the actions you have requested in your letter of November 4, 2002 or in any of your previous letters.
If you are dissatisfied with the Ministry's response, you may make a complaint to the Ombudsman of Ontario who has the jurisdiction to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a governmental organization. You may contact the Ombudsman by calling (416) 586-3300, by accessing the Ombudsman website at www.Ombudsman.on.ca or by contacting the Toronto Office at 125 Queen's Park, Toronto M5S 2C7.
Sincerely,/signature/ Kevin French Director Universities Branch
My fourth letter:
Mr. Kevin FrenchDirector, Universities Branch Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Mowat Block, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario Canada M7A 1L2
December 12, 2002
Dear Mr. French,
Thank you for your letter of December 4, 2002 which I received yesterday.
1. You offered an opinion saying that in my documents there is nothing "that would give the Ministry any grounds upon which to take any of the actions you have requested". I remind you that the action that I have requested from the Ministry is, first, to conduct the investigation.2. The grounds upon which an investigation must be ordered are my allegations and complaint given in my letters to the Ministry. 3. My documents are given for the investigation, not for an opinion. 4. Your opinion is arbitrary. Your opinion is not a duly conducted process. Moreover, your opinion is prejudicial to the extreme, so as to endanger the objectivity of the investigation. You can not deny the due process by offering a prejudicial, arbitrary opinion on some evidence. Sorry, this is an outrage. 5. This is the third time your Ministry is supplying a bogus pretext for not doing its legal obligations.
I demand that the investigation be ordered without further delays and that this letter be answered promptly.
Yours,/signature/ Michael Pyshnov Copy: The Honourable Dianne Cunningham, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.
This letter was not answered. I don't know how I was able to sustain this for sixteen years, but I have to continue writing letters.