Supreme Court denies certiorari to allow public access to
US government funded research
Supreme Court
denies certiorari to allow public access to US
government funded
research
Released by: Thomas
Prevenslik 2005-10-16 13:25:52
Summary:
The False Claims Act
(FCA) lawsuit was dismissed alleging Kadanoff of
the University of Chicago made false claims to
perpetrate the hoax of high bubble temperatures
in sonoluminescence (SL)
Before the
Supreme Court is perhaps the greatest hoax in
the history of science funded by the US taxpayer
- that collapsing bubbles produce temperatures
of millions of degrees and initiate nuclear
fusion - when in fact the bubbles collapse at
ambient temperature. To expose this hoax of high
bubble temperatures, a FCA action may be
brought.
But FCA precedent presumes that
only a person within an organization privy to
the fraud has the knowledge to plead the fraud
with particularity pursuant to Rule 9(b), when
in fact a third party can prove the fraud of
high temperatures on scientific or other grounds
alone. But proof of a scientific lie does not
mean the hoax was actually presented to the US
government for funding.
Discovery would
provide proof that the false claim of high
temperatures was in fact made to obtain US
government funding, but the FCA case is
invariably dismissed prior to discovery for
failure to satisfy Rule 9(b). Indeed, FCA
actions brought by the petitioner pro se and in
forma pauperis have been dismissed prior to
discovery both on motion and sua sponte. The
questions presented for Supreme Court review
were:
(1) Whether allowing access to
detailed US government funding agency records to
prove the false claim was in fact both made and
presented to obtain US government funding would
satisfy Rule 9(b) pleading requirements in FCA
actions prior to discovery, and
(2)
Whether FCA actions brought pro se and in forma
pauperis may be dismissed sua sponte without
first granting the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis.
HOAX OF HIGH SL
TEMPERATURES
SL is known to produce light
from bubbles in water under ultrasound, the
mechanism accepted by US science and government
funding agencies being the high temperatures
that accompany the adiabatic compression heating
of air during bubble collapse.
However,
the bubbles are not filled with air, as there is
no time at ultrasonic frequencies for the air
dissolved in the water to diffuse into the
bubble, and therefore the bubbles are filled
only with condensable water vapor. By Le
Chatelier’s principle, decreasing the volume of
the vapor bubble does not increase the
temperature because of 2-phase equilibrium with
the liquid walls, i.e., the vapor condenses at
ambient temperature. Depending on the collapse
velocity, however, the vapor is placed in a
non-equilibrium state where the temperature may
increase by vapor compression. However,
Hertz-Knudsen simulations show the vapor
temperature increases less than about 50 C, and
therefore the bubble collapses almost
isothermally at ambient temperature.
High
bubble temperatures are therefore a hoax as some
yet unknown mechanism at ambient temperature
produces the SL light.
FCA
VIOLATION
By his standing in the US
scientific community, Kadanoff knew full well
that vapor bubbles collapse almost isothermally,
and therefore knowingly perpetrated the hoax of
sonoluminescence at the expense of the US
taxpayer. Indeed, at the Physics Department
lecture at the University of Pittsburgh on 18
March 2004, Kadanoff claimed bubble temperatures
of 100,000 degrees, and therefore by his
endorsement of high temperatures caused others
in the SL community to present false claims in
violation of FCA statute 31USC § 3729 et seq. To
wit,
“Any person [ Kadanoff ] who
knowingly … causes to be presented , to an
officer or employee of the United States
Government…. False or fraudulent claims of [high
bubble temperatures] for payment or approval.”
See 31 USC § 3729 (a).
SUPREME COURT
DECISION
On 3 October, Supreme Court
Judges Roberts, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia,
Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, and Breyer
denied certiorari to hear the petition. See
Thomas Prevenslik, Petitioner v. University of
Chicago, et al., 2005 US Lexis 6423; 74 USLW
3204.
In Question 1, my scientific
argument showed Kadanoff by his position
knowingly lied about SL temperatures in public,
however, FCA precedent only allows proof of
allegations of fraud from a colleague at the
respective research organization. In my FCA
case, proof of allegations would be Kadanoff’s
research proposals accessed by someone at the
University of Chicago, and not a third party
like myself who is not privy to the proposals
and relies on the public record and scientific
argument alone. The Supreme Court judges erred
in denying the petition to expand the FCA by
allowing the public access to the research
proposals of SL scientists in general, and
Kadanoff in particular to establish whether they
made false claims and if so presented same to
the US government for funding. Unlike a third
party, it is highly improbable that anyone at
the University of Chicago with proof that
Kadanoff lied would jeopardize his job by
bringing a FCA action, and therefore the FCA as
it now stands is virtually powerless to reduce
fraud in current scientific research.
In
Question 2, Judge Schwab of the Pittsburgh
District Court dismissed sua sponte my case
against the University of Chicago, thereby
denying my due process, although this is somehow
justified in US statute 28 USC § 1915 et seq
provided the plaintiff is proceeding pro se in
forma pauperis. However, Schwab refused to grant
my motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
therefore lacked jurisdiction to dismiss sua
sponte. What this means is that District Court
judges now have precedent to dismiss sua sponte
even though a plaintiff is not proceeding in
forma pauperis, i.e., the Supreme Court is no
longer interested due process, but rather in
granting certiorari to petitioner Playboy
Centerfold - Anna Nicole Smith.
The
Supreme Court decision shows the power of the US
scientific community to protect itself against
any and all cuts in funding. This is
unfortunate, but only another example of the US
taxpayer funding scientific
boondoggles.
