Document#45

Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is not exactly what the name says. It is a communist organization seeking great university careers for those who "deserve" it only by crookery, communist demagogy and by belonging to fraudulent "disadvantaged groups", not by their intellect.

No doubt, CAUT had to investigate my complaints, - this is what their web site says:
"Delegates to CAUT's 51st Council meeting in November voted overwhelmingly to adopt policy statements asserting the rights of graduate students to be treated as members of the academic community ... the policies assert that academic freedom should extend to graduate students engaged in teaching and research in the university ... The rights of recognition and protection of their intellectual property were affirmed ..."
"The tragedy at Concordia might have been avoided if the university administration had accepted the proposal of the faculty association to include an article on fraud and misconduct in the collective agreement before the Fabrikant incident."
Yes, and this article, in fact - the whole "Model Clause on Fraud and Misconduct in Academic Research and Scholarly Activity", is adopted by CAUT and it's on their web site!
And the famous Arthurs Report on Fabrikant "incident" specifically recommended CAUT to investigate such complaints!
But, my complaint is against E. Larsen, who, unfortunately for me, happens to be of Jewish minority, communist persuasion, a female feminist and a not-too-closeted "bisexual". Here come the real CAUT's interests, goals, and its real policies:
Their committee on equity: "Representing aboriginal people, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, people with disabilities and visible minorities, committee members will assist CAUT in addressing equity issues that are important for academic staff..."
What else, do you think, is important to academic staff? My rights as a graduate student? No, they derive rights from the insane communist classification of disadvantaged: "...White women who are disadvantaged as White women with respect to White men, but advantaged as White women with respect to Black, Aboriginal, Asian and other racial minority men and women..."
I could have written a book of such quotations from CAUT.
And so, having no shame (not in THIS case), they lied that they have no role here.

See the exchange of letters: on the top are the last 4 e-mails; the preceding 19 messages are copied below.

Subject: RE: Please,help! Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:06:37 -0500 From: "James Turk" <turk@caut.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net> CC: <tudiver@caut.ca>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
You certainly are welcome to forward your material to the CAUT Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. As I re-read what you had sent me, I saw your charges as those of fraud more than a violation of academic freedom.
If you wish the CAUT Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to consider your situation, please forward a request plus the documentation you want to put before them to Neil Tudiver (tudiver@caut.ca) who is the Professional Officer for the Committee. They will review the material and advise you of their conclusion.
James L. Turk Executive Director/Directeur general Canadian Association of University Teachers/Association canadienne des professeures et professeurs d'universite 2675 promenade Queensview Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2B 8K2 Tel: 613-820-2270, ext. 322 Fax: 613-820-7244 Email: turk@caut.ca
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:59:15 -0500 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: James Turk <turk@caut.ca> References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
Thank you for your letter. I will write to Dr. Tudiver without delay and will quote this my letter.
I believe that my case must be dealt with urgently by the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. However, you say that CAUT does not have administrative power, it can not restore justice. All you can do is to exert pressure on the various administrations through public disclosure.
And I ask you that exactly the same measures be taken as in other cases of violation of academic freedom at the U of T, i.e. - first, publishing all the main facts of this case on the CAUT web site. This was the way other cases were dealt with at the start and I see no valid reason whatsoever why it should not be done now. What would be the impact of your involvement without public disclosure?

It should be taken into account that the other persons whose academic freedom was violated are working and conducting research, while I am, largely due to the conspiracy to keep this case out of the public view, can not even earn livelihood for the last fifteen years, not to speak of doing research. The others were not deprived of the product of their labours and there was no fraud committed. I went through horrible depression and I am being kept on the brink of insanity largely (and intentionally) by this conspiracy of silence. You should not be closing your eyes on what is really going on.
Please, tell me if any of my requests here seem to you unreasonable.
----------
Below, are the reasons why I believe the matter belongs to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee.
I indeed say - fraud. As a result of the fraud my academic freedom was taken away. Can there be any doubt that after my research was claimed as done not by me but by somebody else and my authorship was denied, then, my freedom to publish this work myself is violated and my academic freedom is violated? When I was thrown out and my research was stolen, my academic freedom ceased to exist.

Moreover, after I complained, the U of T invented a fraudulent legal tool - the concept of "salvaging" of research and so denied my rights in principle, and they set a precedent for abolishing academic freedom of others.
They said that a supposed absence of money in my pocket was the reason why they changed my status to a "lapsed" candidate. Also, that the money spent on my Ph.D. program was one of the reasons why my ideas and work could be freely published by others under their own names. Larsen said that "community" owns my work and she stole it, also mentioning moneys. Repeated statements were made crushing me as a scientist and as a person, sadistically, to cover up this fraud and, indeed, to establish the authoritarian regime in science for the future, which I call The New Science Order.

When academia is riddled with fraud and boundless arbitrariness and the sadistic tyranny is resorting to provocation for violence, does academic freedom still exist? When this University abolished established academic rules, didn't they violate my academic freedom? When the NSERC supported their fraud and abolished the due process in academia, didn't they violate academic freedom?

Didn't they violate academic freedom when my scientific research and my ideas (I was judged as the #1 graduate student in the Department even before I made the important discoveries) were trashed and I was made an outlaw for whom not the corrupt academia nor the law does care?

Did Larsen not violate the integrity of my work and my academic freedom when she, after trashing me and my research, represented my research and ideas in the most idiotic papers and in the most idiotic way, trying to hide some of the meaning just because it would be too obvious a theft?

Furthermore, in response to my complains, the U of T, denying the obvious plagiarism, proposed me to present my thesis and also "to mitigate his damages by having his article published"! Did they hope that I will give my work for judgment to the thief who stole it and to the Department that covered it up (they all of course disqualified themselves) and, then, will start competing with the thief in the journals?

As I understand, there is a parallel with the case of Dr. Healy: his academic freedom was violated when Eli Lilly wanted to avoid the discrediting of their product; my academic freedom was denied when Ellie Larsen wanted to obtain false credentials. Please notice that also in his case (and Dr. Olivieri case), academic freedom was violated not because of political intolerance and censorship (to which the concept of academic freedom in most cases refers).

Given the character of the documents, I suppose that it is very easy to see that my academic freedom was violated.
-------
I have seen some documents on the Internet related to academic freedom and the role of various organizations in the investigation of complaints. Unfortunately, the CAUT's "Policy Statement of Professional Rights, Responsibilities and Relationships" of January 1992 is absent from your web site. However, a number of universities refer to this document and I understand that it speaks of "professional rights infringed". The CAUT policy on the investigating committees defines violations of "academic freedom or other professional rights" as subject of inquiries. Below, are some other relevant quotations:

1) Prof. Arthurs report:
"Academic unions must reconsider their willingness to defend professorial autonomy when it is used not to advance academic freedom but rather for self-aggrandizement. Consequently, national professional organizations, the AUCC and CAUT, learned societies, governments and government-sponsored agencies, such as the granting councils, must accept some responsibility for the present state of academic and scientific integrity in Canada's research culture as well as for its future evolution."

2) Univ. of British Columbia:
"The University endeavours to provide a climate of academic freedom that recognizes scholars' and scientists' rights to receive credit for the product of their work."

3) A "model case" from the U.S. where a professor: a) plagiarized the work of students, b) was investigated by the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, c) was fired. As reported by Dr. Ronald B. Standler:
"Jason Yu. Dr. Yu was a tenured professor of civil engineering at the University of Utah. The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee at that University concluded that Yu had failed to give credit to a co-author, which was one instance of plagiarism. They also concluded that Yu had failed to give authorship credit to two former students at Virginia Polytechnic University, Yu's previous employer, for two publications that "were 90% prepared" by the students, which were two other instances of plagiarism. The University of Utah Committee recommended that Yu be suspended for one year without pay. The president of the University accepted this recommendation, but Yu appealed to the internal grievance committee. The grievance committee remanded to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, which on its second hearing recommended that Yu be permanently dismissed from the University, and the president accepted that recommendation. Yu then filed suit in federal district court, which found that "there was ample evidence to support the charges of plagiarism and that termination was permissible under the university's regulations. The court dismissed the action sua sponte." Yu v. Peterson, 13 F.3d 1413, 1415 (10thCir. 1993). Yu appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court."
--------
I had contacted the lawyer (Mr. J. Mcdonald) from Sack, Goldblatt and Mitchell. I remembered that I had talked to a lawyer there before; J. Macdonald said that the firm, (labor lawyers indeed), works for U of T; the conflict of interest in their case is because they work for the professors and UTFA! If you have someone free of this problem and taking the case with deferred fees or pro bono, please, let me know.
Sincerely yours, Michael Pyshnov.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Request for an investigation. Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:09:45 -0500 From: Michaeel Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: tudiver@caut.ca
Dear Dr. Tudiver,
I am writing to you, on the advice of Dr. Turk, asking to consider my complaint against University of Toronto, three of their professors and against NSERC, by CAUT's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee.

The essence of this case is this:
I was doing Ph.D. research at the U of T for almost 5 years very successfully (1981 - 1986)
At the end of this time my status was changed to a "lapsed" candidate for no valid reason and I was forced out. (1986)
After I left, my research was stolen by my former supervisor, Ellen Larsen, and three other people. (1987 - 1989)
My complaints to the U of T and to NSERC were not investigated properly, instead, they covered up the fraud. (1987 - 2001)

The materials of this case and the documents are on my web site: http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/ My detailed explanation of what happened, with references to the documents is there, titled "Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of Toronto": http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/ruthless.htm The list of the supporting documents is at: http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/list.htm
The rest of the web site describes the more recent events, my attempts to make this fraud known to the public and an insight into the social causes of the cover up and the conspiracy of silence surrounding this case.

If for any reason you will prefer to read the papers and not work with Internet, please, let me know and I will immediately send printed copies.
In addition to the documents scanned on the web site, there are Affidavits of documents (from me and the U of T) in the court case, available, that you may wish to see.

I would like to draw your attention to the two letters containing expert opinions confirming that my research was stolen (Documents 30 and 33). These letters state also that the matter should have been properly investigated. There is also letter from the Graduate Students' Union (Document 34) stating that the matter needs to be investigated properly. These letters were written when there was a hope that the matter will go to the court trial, which now seems almost unachievable: lawyers can not be attracted, I do not have any money and the legal aid is refused to me.

I have no knowledge of your procedure and any of its steps. I ask, though, to be informed when needed. Above all, I expect that at any moment when you disagree with my interpretation of documents, events, etc., you will contact me for an explanation, clarification and give me the chance to prove my point. This may require my pointing to some other place in the documents. I am pretty sure that "Ruthless Science Fraud..." (which is my complaint itself) is written solidly on the basis of documents and therefore is well proven. As I mentioned, the central question of plagiarism, as well as inadequacy of U of T and NSERC investigations, is also confirmed by the experts. I hope you will be sympathetic to my case; I suffered enormously.
I am sending you also the copy of my e-mail to Dr. Turk, where I explain why I believe this should be investigated as gross violation of academic freedom and what I am asking CAUT to do.
Sincerely yours, Michael Pyshnov.
My phone number: 416 733 8936. Address: 325 Bogert Ave., Apt. 370, Willowdale, Ontario, M2N 1L8.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Request for an investigation Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:44:16 -0500 From: ";Neil Tudiver" <tudiver@caut.ca> To: <michael@tht.net> CC: "Ian McKenna \(E-mail\)" <mckenna@uleth.ca>, "Jim Turk \(E-mail\)" <turk@caut.ca>
Dear Michael Pyshnov
I am writing in response to your letter of November 20, 2001, wherein you request that the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee consider your complaint against University of Toronto, three of their professors, and against NSERC concerning your accusations of theft, fraud, and cover-up of fraud.
Professor Ian McKenna (chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure), and I have discussed your request after reading your correspondence and the material that you placed on your website. After careful consideration, we have concluded that there is no role for the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee.
Sincerely
Neil Tudiver Professional Officer, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee Canadian Association of University Teachers/Association canadienne des professeures et professeurs d'université 2675 promenade Queensview Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2B 8K2 Tel: 613 820 2270, ext 329 Fax: 613 820 7244 Email: tudiver@caut.ca
--------------------------------------------------
There was no reason to continue; I did all that I could do.
Below are the rest of the messages, beginning from July 2001:

Subject: Please, help! Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:05:58 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: turk@caut.ca
Dear Dr. Turk,
A terrible fraud is being perpetrated on me in academia. Please, see my web site: http://ca.geocities.com/UofTfraud
I need your help!
Yours, sincerely, Michael Pyshnov.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Please, help! Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:55:24 -0400 From: "James Turk" <turk@caut.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net> CC: "'Rhonda Love'" <rhonda.love@utoronto.ca>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
If you are a faculty member at the University of Toronto, you should approach the Faculty Association there. If you are not a faculty member, CAUT is limited in what it can do because we are an association of faculty associations.
Yours truly,
James L. Turk Executive Director/Directeur général Canadian Association of University Teachers/Association canadienne des professeures et professeurs d'université 2675 promenade Queensview Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2B 8K2 Tel: 613-820-2270, ext. 322 Fax: 613-820-7244 Email: turk@caut.ca
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please, help! Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:55:01 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: turk@caut.ca References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
Your answer to my e-mail is not satisfactory to me. I do not understand why your organization has such limits when it comes to stopping the fraud of one of yours members. This is not a simple misconduct, this is crime. I know that you had spoken on behalf of Dr. Healy, although he is not a member of the association and, indeed, you spoke very unfavorably about those who are the members.
I spoke a couple of years ago to Rhonda Love. She laughed on the phone while telling me that her association is "in conflict".
Can you tell me, please, who is not "in conflict" in Canadian academia? Or can you tell me who is just a honest person in this academia who can speak out? Because I do not believe that the problem with my case is related to any unsurmountable "conflict".
I firmly believe that this "conflict of interest" must be resolved in only one way - upholding the academic integrity and principles while dumping the perpetrators of fraud. No one can argue the opposite, I believe. No one can tell me that CAUT has obligation to support, or even keep silince about the despicable fraud in academia.
Sincerely yours, Michael Pyshnov.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Please, help! Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:12:48 -0400 From: "James Turk" <turk@caut.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
I understand your concern. Even though we would like very much to know the truth in this case, we have no jurisdiction whatsoever. We are not like the Law Society to whom members of the public can file complaints about lawyers. We do not have that right in our constitution or by law. The only real recourse you have is, if you think there has been a fraud and you can prove it, is to go to the police or a crown-attorney. If you are not sure if the kind of fraud you feel has happened is in the definition of the criminal code, you can seek remedy in a civil court. In any event the only professional who could help you is a lawyer.
I hope this information is helpful.
Yours truly,
James L. Turk
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please, help! Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:56:57 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: turk@caut.ca References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
Thank you for your letter and for understanding my concern. You have stated that you (meaning, of course, yourself and CAUT) "would like very much to know the truth", which, necessarily and unquestionably, is expected from CAUT.
You obviously had a wrong impression that I asked CAUT to exercise a criminal or a civil court's jurisdiction; I did not. But, since you are taking my case very seriously, there are things that CAUT can and should do.
1) Putting forward the formula that CAUT does not take complaints from the public (however true it may be) does not change anything and does not entitle CAUT to keep silence and to remain indifferent to the corruption of its members.
Your members serve within universities and the system of public education, where students totally depend on their ABSOLUTE INTEGRITY. This integrity (both, in judging a student and in the attribution of research) is the single indispensable requirement for being a University teacher. A corrupt teacher who used the teacher's powers to the detriment of a student for self-interest, in fact for stealing research, must be EXPELLED from the Association. This is your obligation; it is IMPLIED in your mandate. CAUT cannot have the policy of "closing the ranks" with the crooks and continue to represent them. As soon as documents are made available to you, you can not look the other way.
The only organizations remaining today that are indifferent to the behavior of their members are criminal organizations, all kinds of mafia, to put it bluntly. I don't need to remind you that this country is still in the process of paying for crimes committed, through the decades, by its teachers in monasteries, schools for natives, etc., who abused the teacher's powers. The indifference to corruption in these organizations was the cause of it. I also don't have to remind you that Prof. V. Fabrikant's complaints were finally vindicated and the tragedy would not have happened if his complaints had not met with corruption and/or indifference.
2) The second thing that CAUT can and should do is to provide me with competent people and lawyers. It must be done not only for me, but for your Association that unquestionably needs and, indeed as you say, wants to know the truth.
The CAUT members should support this for still another reason:
In their cover up, the U of T administration has made and put in operation several statements, such as the new concept of "salvaging" of one's research and the statements connecting attribution of the authorship of graduate research to the graduate student's scholarship money. They effectively legalized intellectual slave labor. These statements must be seen by every member of your Association and condemned as fraud. It is the most important case for the future of Canadian university teaching and graduate research.
3) Anticipating your next argument that my complaint was already investigated by others, it is enough to say this. a) In these "investigations" I was never given opportunity to communicate with anybody having expertise in biology. b) There are two letters from two biology professors (and phone conversations) who deny the validity of the "investigations". CAUT can not take the U of T administration's criminal cover up as a basis for the CAUT's decisions. Let's not make a mistake here: your membership represents the intellectual power of Canada. CAUT's action here will depend solely on its willingness to remain an honest Association.
I expect your prompt actions. It is THIS case that shall put an end to the corruption, not the next one.
Yours, sincerely, Michael Pyshnov.
--------------------------------------------------
(I have received an automated message from Dr. Turk office, saying that he will be absent till Monday, August 13, 2001.)
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:17:03 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: turk@caut.ca
Dear Dr. Turk, I am repeating the message that I sent to you July 21, 2001. As you are now back in office, I expect your prompt actions.
Dear Dr. Turk,
ETC.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Please,help! Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 12:45:46 -0400 From: "James Turk" <turk@caut.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net>
Dear Pyshnov,
You are asking CAUT to do things that are not in our power.
We cannot expell individual members because we do not have individual members. Our members are faculty associations. We have three members in Toronto: the University of Toronto Faculty Association; the York University Faculty Association; and the Ryerson University Faculty Association. Each of them, not us, determines who their individual members are.
Secondly, we only make legal assistance available to member faculty associations. You would have to take your request to UTFA and, if they felt it appropriate, could take on the case and ask CAUT to provide legal assistance.
As I said in my last message to you [20 July, 2001], "The only real recourse you have is, if you think there has been a fraud and you can prove it, is to go to the police or a crown-attorney. If you are not sure if the kind of fraud you feel has happened is in the definition of the criminal code, you can seek remedy in a civil court."
Yours truly,
James L. Turk Executive Director
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:06:03 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: turk@caut.ca References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
Thank you for your letter. I do not know why you continue to say that taking my case is not in CAUT's power.
1) While you cannot expel the professors directly, CAUT has leverage over "practices or actions" of U of T Faculty Association if they are contrary to those of CAUT. (Your by-law on Suspension and Termination of Membership, 5.1(c).) They must comply with your by-law (1.1) with respect to maintaining "standards of their professions". These standards include your Policy on fraud, fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.
2) I am presently eligible for membership in CAUT under your by-law 4.6(c). When being a graduate student I was also eligible for membership, and giving it now to me is the right thing to do. Under CAUT's Policy on Inquiry, my case must be accepted as violation of "professional rights" (1.1).
3) But, moreover, CAUT even accepts complaints of "infringement of basic human rights" and other complaints from academia in foreign countries; remedies include "publicity in CAUT Bulletin" and "direct protest to governments and organizations" (Your Policy on Protest, (4)). The right of authorship, beside being considered by your Policy, is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is the rationale behind looking the other way in Canada?
4) As I said in my previous letter, U of T administration made, in the documents, outrageous statements directly contradicting your published rules on fraud and plagiarism. You must take an issue with this outrage, distribute the documents to your members and restore the norms. Likewise, you have an option of publishing these documents of clearly fraudulent nature in the Bulletin (as you would do in case of a foreign country) And, here, no special investigation is even needed, the fraud and abrogation of the right of authorship is on the face of these documents.
5) If you do not want to tolerate fraud and plagiarism at U of T, you can stop it. Nothing prevents you from going with corresponding inquiry to President Birgeneau. If he continues to keep silence, you, again, can publish the letter in the Bulletin. I don't have to list all these and other options that are used by CAUT in its campaigns concerning individual professors, universities and issues of justice and injustice in academia. What on Earth prevents you from doing all of this in this case? I believe that all of the above must be done and it is more than strange seeing your repeated reference to the police when the matter belongs, first, as an urgent priority, to CAUT.
Yours sincerely, Michael Pyshnov.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Please,help! Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:22:44 -0400 From: "James Turk" <turk@caut.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net> CC: "'Rhonda Love'" <rhonda.love@utoronto.ca>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
I have spoken with the President of the U of T Faculty Association, Rhonda Love, who will ask UTFA legal staff to review your material again. We can assess the situation after they complete that review.
James Turk
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:46:28 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: James Turk <turk@caut.ca> References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
It's been almost a month since I received your last letter. No one had contacted me. Clearly, U of T Faculty Association had enough time to change their position or to review the material with which they were already quite familiar. Since they did not change their position, it is clear that they are following the pattern of cover-up and, in fact, are lending support to the crime. This is contrary to what they are expected to do, especially, having received your reminder.
In this case CAUT should go ahead with finally acknowledging this case publicly, breaking the silence and forcing U of T administration to give answers.
I am asking you also to send me papers necessary for my application for CAUT membership.
Yours sincerely, Michael Pyshnov.
-------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Please,help! Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:42:25 -0400 From: "James Turk" <turk@caut.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
I have checked with the University of Toronto Faculty Association today. They confirm that they are looking into the matter and will be corresponding with you soon.
Anyone wishing to apply for Individual Associate membership in CAUT can do so by sending the request in writing to the Associate Executive Director, Gordon Piche. The application has to be brought before Council. Description of this category in in Article 4.6 on our website.
James L. Turk
Executive Director/Directeur general Canadian Association of University Teachers/Association canadienne des professeures et professeurs d'universite 2675 promenade Queensview Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2B 8K2 Tel: 613-820-2270, ext. 322 Fax: 613-820-7244 Email: turk@caut.ca
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:24:00 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: James Turk <turk@caut.ca> References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
Thank you very much. I will write to Mr. Piche.
Yours, Michael Pyshnov.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:37:56 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: James Turk <turk@caut.ca> References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
I have to write to you again. In three weeks no one contacted me from the UTFA.
Is this a repeat of the story with the Graduate Students' Union? The GSU had promised (and, of course, was obliged) to take my case to the U of T administration, but only dragged the time for three years. They finally admitted that their organization, from the start, did not want to do this for political reasons.
Did UFTA have intention to contact me "soon" or they are not telling the truth? Can you now assess the situation? Is UFTA capable at all of approaching this case on the basis of facts?
Sincerely yours, Michael Pyshnov.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Please,help! Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:17:19 -0400 From: "James Turk" <turk@caut.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net> CC: "'Rhonda Love'" <rhonda.love@utoronto.ca>, "'Marion M. Perrin'" <perrin@utfa.utoronto.ca>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
I know that UTFA fully intends to be in touch with you. I suspect, at the moment, they are overwhelmed with several very large cases relating to the Faculty of Medicine and the affiliated teaching hospitals, namely, Olivieri, Healy, and the alternative funding arrangement case.
I will copy this to the people at UTFA as a reminder.
James L Turk
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:43:22 -0400 From: Rhonda Love <love@utfa.utoronto.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net> CC: James Turk <turk@caut.ca>, "'Rhonda Love'" <rhonda.love@utoronto.ca>, "'Marion M. Perrin'" <perrin@utfa.utoronto.ca> References: 1
Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
Mr. Turk is exactly right, and I appreciate receiving the reminder.
It is my view at the moment that UTFA cannot assist you, Mr. Pyshnov. You may remember that we spoke at least once and I read a great deal of material that you had prepared.
I am certain that you understand that we are a labour organization which exsits to protect the interests of its members. To the best of my knowledge, you have never been a member of our organization, thus, we have no jurisdiction or authority to act on your behalf. Indeed, I assume that UTFA could be held liable by its members, if we were to presume to act for you.
Sincerely yours, Rhonda Love UTFA President
---------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:18:13 -0400 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: James Turk <turk@caut.ca> References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
I have received your message and, today, the message from Rhonda Love which she copied for you also. It appears that she dragged the time from August 22 to October 15 but all she had to say was that she did not change her position.
She even, ridiculously, claims that they can be sued, meaning that UTFA has no right to expel a member for conduct incompatible with the title and criminally betraying every duty of a University teacher. She says that they can not act for me, which is another pretext, as clearly they must act to keep the organization within the acceptable borders, rejecting any suggestion of covering up crimes, regardless of who gave the evidence.
As I pointed out in one of my previous emails, this is the strategy for a criminal organization, not for a University, it is a direct clash with the CAUT principles as well.
At this moment, I believe, the UTFA have received enough warnings, consumed enough time and I ask you to act in accordance with principles stated by CAUT.
First and without delay, the conspiracy of silence should be broken. I ask you to acknowledge this case and its main problem - the conspiracy of silence (involving also UTFA) that the U of T has managed to maintain for years. I ask you to publish the information on the CAUT web page and, as with your other cases, to form a committee for dealing with it further.
I dare to think that after several months of exchanging emails we came to the understanding that CAUT shall not remain indifferent and silent and I hope that there can not be further delay in dealing with the disastrous situation at the U of T.
Sincerely yours, Michael Pyshnov.
----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:49:05 -0500 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: James Turk <turk@caut.ca> References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
I have not received anything from you in two weeks. I hope that you had received my message of October 15. In any case, I repeat it here:
Dear Dr. Turk,
I have received your message and, today, the message from Rhonda Love which she copied for you also. It appears that she dragged the time from August 22 to October 15 but all she had to say was that she did not change her position.
She even, ridiculously, claims that they can be sued, meaning that UTFA has no right to expel a member for conduct incompatible with the title and criminally betraying every duty of a University teacher. She says that they can not act for me, which is another pretext, as clearly they must act to keep the organization within the acceptable borders, rejecting any suggestion of covering up crimes, regardless of who gave the evidence.
As I pointed out in one of my previous emails, this is the strategy for a criminal organization, not for a University, it is a direct clash with the CAUT principles as well. At this moment, I believe, the UTFA have received enough warnings, consumed enough time and I ask you to act in accordance with principles stated by CAUT.
First and without delay, the conspiracy of silence should be broken. I ask you to acknowledge this case and its main problem - the conspiracy of silence (involving also UTFA) that the U of T has managed to maintain for years. I ask you to publish the information on the CAUT web page and, as with your other cases, to form a committee for dealing with it further.
I dare to think that after several months of exchanging emails we came to the understanding that CAUT shall not remain indifferent and silent and I hope that there can not be further delay in dealing with the disastrous situation at the U of T.
Sincerely yours, Michael Pyshnov.
-------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2001, at 530 p.m. I called Dr. Turk. He said that he will be dealing with this matter and proposed that it should be taken to the CAUT's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. He also said that he will give me the names of some lawyers. He said he will contact me no later than Monday, Nov. 12.
(Conversation was recorded).
However, on Nov. 14, I received the following message which puts the matter back into the now quite irrelevant discussion about CAUT's "disciplinary" jurisdiction.

Subject: RE: Please,help! Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:58:24 -0500 From: "James Turk" <turk@caut.ca> To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <michael@tht.net>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
I apologize for the delay in responding to your request.
As I indicated in my email of July 20,2001, we have no jurisdiction in a case such as yours. We are not like the Law Society to whom members of the public can file complaints about lawyers. We do not have that right in our constitution or by law. The only real recourse you have, if you think there has been a fraud and you can prove it, is to go to the police or a crown-attorney. If you are not sure if the kind of fraud you feel has happened is in the definition of the criminal code, you can seek remedy in a civil court. In any event the only professional who can help you is a lawyer.
There are a number of good labour law firms in Toronto. I can recommend Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell, 20 Dundas Street West Suite 1130, Box 180, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2G8, (416) 977-6070. They has a large staff of lawyers and do a good deal of work for faculty members and others in the university community.
In my response to my earlier message, you suggested we have an obligation to expel a member engaged in the practices you allege were committed against you. Our members are faculty associations, not individuals. You do suggest that we should expel a faculty association if it fails to take action against a member.
I understand your anger and your frustration. But faculty associations and CAUT are not disciplinary associations. Each university determines who is covered by agreements with faculty associations in their decisions whom to hire. Labour law in Ontario requires unions and faculty associations to provide representation to their members. A case of fraud must be acted upon by the university administration. If it fails to do so, it must be acted upon by either the civil or criminal courts. Only when either the administration or courts have found someone guilty can action be taken against that person.
CAUT is not trying to put you off. We are simply not the forum in which you allegations can be handled.
Again, I urge you to seek legal advice and recommend the firm of Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell as a good one. If you want the names of additional legal firms you might contact, please let me know.
Yours truly,
James L. Turk Executive Director
--------------------------------------------------
My next message was:
Subject: Re: Please,help! Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:02:18 -0500 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: James Turk <turk@caut.ca> References: 1
Dear Dr. Turk,
How about your Academic Freedom and Tenure committee that you suggested in the telephone conversation last week? You said that this committee has a MANDATE TO INVESTIGATE any violation of academic freedom REGARDLESS of who did it. And you agreed with me that authorship of my work is, as you said, WITHOUT DOUBT is such matter.
No any "disciplinary" jurisdiction of CAUT is needed, nor there is any conflict here.
There would be no excuse for not taking my case to this committee; it follows from what you said, not even myself.
Yours sincerely, Michael Pyshnov.
--------------------------------------------------
(continued on the top)