List of documents.

In the Petition to the U of T President, Dr. R. Birgeneau, a request was made to show any document that may contradict the evidence of the fraud (perpetrated before his term, but continuing now) in the documents which I have presented. I have the Affidavits given under oath by Larsen and the U of T representative, producing, as they say, all relevant documents. I know that evidence to the contrary does not exist and can not exist. Yet, the public must know that such chance had been given to the perpetrators of the crime.
No such document was presented.
The petition was ignored.

Document # > Description > Comments.

1A > The article that I published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology in 1980. > This work was done in Athens when I stayed there as a refugee. The article has set out principles governing proliferation of cells in the organism. It answered the questions: What is the spatial pattern of cell division in the tissue? How the stem cells divide to produce the mature cells? How the cells multiply and replace dying cells without destroying the overall structure of a tissue? Although this article considered one tissue, other proliferating animal and even plant tissues contain the same basic structure (a cylinder closed at one end) and must function on the same principles. Subsequently, in my Ph.D. research at the U of T, I used the logic of this work to answer the similar questions related to embryogenesis. However, in the absence of cultural, intellectual and moral values at the U of T, my work was doomed. The fate of science there is in the hands of the corrupt officials and the corrupt President. Ellen Larsen who stole my research, could not even understand it (see her letter in Document 1B, next below).
1B > Letter from E. Larsen.
1 > My Ph.D. program requirements and thesis proposal. > All courses were finished long before 1986; computer graphics were replaced by another course. It can be seen in Larsen's own documents (see below) that all my research for the thesis, mentioned here, was done. Here, items of the research were, in fact, only the predictions from my theory (again, admitted by Larsen); they later were all proven true.
2 > Recommendation for NSERC scholarship, written by Larsen. > It was written four months after I came to the lab. What she speaks about was "weeks at a time" of my work with the "extensive Drosophila literature" which resulted in my "entirely novel approach". At the time, she was stunned by the theory, later - stole it.
3 > Same as previous, written by the Department. > As I understand, this opinion was formed from Larsen's words and from my published articles.
4 > E. Rapport's (as E. Larsen then was) recommendation for MRC scholarship. > She, in her Affidavit, puts it in 1983. Scientific details could have been written up better. Again, her admissions of what was done by me make her subsequent plagiarism an insane act; well, if not for her power to subvert justice.
5 > The report of the Graduate Committee, 3d May, 1985.
6 > Letter from Dr. Elinson, Graduate Affairs of the Department. > This is October 18, 1985. Confirmed - I have one more year. Yet, some people now tell me that his talk about difficulties with extensions is unusual, especially, when "evidence of substantial progress" was so obvious.
7 > Letter from E. Rapport to me. > Given to me by her, agitated, some half an hour after I read letter from Elinson. This was totally unexpected, my thesis was never before in doubt. But, again, confirmed - I have one more year.
8 > Report of the Graduate Committee. > At the time, they were saying: "You are out. But don't panic now, you can come back some time later." Since then, the U of T has given two versions of the reason for my departure. One is that my "graduate student status was changed to "lapsed student"", because I "became unable to do more research". The second is that I "abandoned Ph.D. program amicably" when my "funding run out". All three members of the Committee were members of the U of T "chapter" of the pro-communist organization "Science for Peace". On the evening of this same day I had a meeting, arranged by Larsen, with Prof. Anatol Rapoport, the President of this organization, who, Larsen said, was, as a mathematician, interested in my work. Yet, he spoke only about my need to join their organization. I had politely refused. (This paragraph is continued at the end of this page.)
9 > E. Rapport's letter to the journal. > The handwriting from the secretary to me: "Please, indicate whose name should appear under "Yours truly", yours or Dr. Rapport?" I did not sign this letter and E. Rapport said something like: Well, that's your business.
10 > E. Larsen's letter to another journal. > This was sent without my knowledge and further steps for publication were pursued secretly till the last moment when my signature was needed.
11 > The manuscript #483-87, unpublished. > (Abundant editor's corrections, mostly illegible even in my copy.) This MS was given to me by Larsen with the request to sign the Copyright Transfer. I put it in my bag, closed the bag and called her a thief. Still, she was demanding the signature and I went to see the Chair of the Department.
12 > A reviewer's comments to the MS. > The copy of it was given to me with the MS, together with the next three documents.
13 > Another reviewer's comments.
14 > Letter from the Editor to E. Larsen.
15 > Copyright Transfer. > The signatures of the authors are required. Larsen had already put hers.
16 > My letter to the Chair of Zoology.
17 > Letter from Prof. Dunham to the Chair of Zoology. > This I found in the Affidavits. Apparently, it was an "independent investigation" of the allegations in my letter. I was not contacted, nor the results or even a fact of this investigation were communicated to me, - so great was the fear of the entirely different evidence, showing that Larsen, having removed me, was in the process of stealing my research. So, from August 6, 1987, they all knew what they were doing.
18 > Letter from Larsen to the Editor. > She is lying that there are "difficulties with the revisions", not with her authorship. She is not promising the Editor new experiments and ideas, but a... "revised copy" after she will "get everything in order". And that means: Michael now thinks that I will not steal the research. No, I will!
19 > Letter from Larsen to the Editor. > One of the most revealing documents.
20 > Letter from the Chair of the Department to me. > Was I just bothering a very busy people? When I read this letter, I thought: at least, I prevented Larsen from stealing the work. Documents 17, 18 and 19 were not given to me.
21 > The article published by Larsen and her undergraduate student. > This is one of the four articles that were making her career (together with travels and seminars and private talks, etc.) for years. In "Ruthless Science Fraud.." I speak mostly about this article because this one had a history in previous documents and because the U of T "investigations" consider only this article, all of which is showing the fraud and the cover-up without going into scientific details. On the other side, in the article, she only skimmed the results of my research; science also fell the victim of fraud.
22 > My letter to the U of T President R. Prichard. > After I found the Larsen's articles, it took me four months to compose myself, to make photocopies of the articles and to write this letter. I had no idea who Prichard is and what the U of T is. I had no doubt that after this letter justice will be restored.
23 > Letter from President Prichard.
24 > The investigation by Ian Orchard.
25 > The Larsen's explanation. > The most revealing document.
26 > The letter from S. Desser, Chair of the Department. > I received only this answer, documents 24 and 25 were not given to me. As he said that Larsen did not plagiarize my work, I had to go to court. Inviting me to present my thesis to Larsen (?), to this Department (?) or to this University was a cunning invitation for failure. And, actually, in the following documents the U of T has stated that my research was worth nothing. Moreover, he was lying wildly that I "abandoned" Ph.D. program when my funding run out!
27 > The investigation by D. Dewees. > This report is written completely fraudulently, the issues are intermixed and his findings of facts are hardly separated from his attack on the very principles of authorship of research. He and Orchard intentionally played foolish bureaucrats who are unfamiliar with scientific research. In "Ruthless Science Fraud.." I tried to put the items of his argumentation in a meaningful sequence. This man is the author (together with Pres. Prichard and two others) of the remarkable book "The Choice of the Governing Instrument", giving the Government an instruction on how to manipulate people.
28 > My letter to Vice-Provost, Paul Gooch. > Upon receiving the Dewees's report, I requested a meeting with Gooch; he refused to see me.
29 > Answer from P. Gooch. > One of the lies: Guidelines, you see, were not adopted at the time. Why, then, Dewees is quoting these Guidelines in the first paragraph of his report?
30 > Expert letter from the President of The Canadian Genetics Society, Prof. A. Hilliker, and Prof. S. Blecher.
31 > Answer to my complaint from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
32 > My letter to NSERC. > It was not answered - this matter was just closed!
33 > Second letter from Prof. S. Blecher and Prof. A. Hilliker. > When I received the NSERC letter I spoke to Prof. Blecher on the phone, he said: no, NSERC is wrong, they are still on my side. (See more on this.)
34 > Appeal for Michael Pyshnov, from the Graduate Students' Union. > This was issued on March 31, 1998. My previous complaints to the GSU were not followed. Even in this Appeal, Larsen's name was not mentioned. The Appeal was posted on the GSU web site and sent to every professor of Zoology in a letter. Professors did not answer. Code of silence (plainly, the intimidation of potential witnesses) was imposed on them a couple of years before this, when I, myself, sent them my letter. On September 22, 1999, one U of T newspaper (The Independent) published a vague account of the case, saying that I was "forced" to leave, but omitting the word "fraud" and Larsen's name. The Independent quoted the GSU as saying that they were "unable to pursue the case" and saying: "[Pyshnov] is not a student, and we had pressing issues that arose."
35 > My Statement of Claim in court. > I could never get a lawyer to help me, so this is written by me as also every other document signed by me.
36 > Statement of Defense.
37 > My letter to the Attorney General of Ontario. > The same letter was sent to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Anne McLellan, but I did not receive any answer.
38 > The answer from the Ministry of Attorney General.
39 > My second letter to the Attorney General. > I pointed out here that my first letter was "misunderstood", in fact, its content was perverted intentionally, in order to give a totally irrelevant answer.
40 > The answer from the Attorney General. > Here, Attorney General is denying that one of his functions is "to restore the rule of law", i.e., to look at the cases where previous attempts to start prosecution failed, especially where the crimes are alleged against individuals in the powerful institutions. Attorney General does have power to order criminal investigations. He says: "This Ministry has examined and reviewed your concerns" and he refers to my meeting with T. Shaw which lasted.. 10 minutes. No one wants to look at the documents, period. Interestingly, before Mr. Flaherty became the Attorney General, I contacted his law firm and gave the documents to Catherine Zingg who subsequently told me that I should not even come close to this firm because of the conflict of interest situation.
41 > My letter to the U of T President, Dr. Birgeneau, Sept. 7, 2000.
42 > My letter to President Birgeneau, April 24, 2001.
43 > Response from President Birgeneau, May 17, 2001.
44 > My letter to President Birgeneau, May 22, 2001.
45 > Exchange of messages with The Canadian Association of University Teachers.
46 > Letter to the Police Chief of the U of T.
48 > Exchange of letters with the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.
49 > Exchange of letters with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

To document #8:
Am I saying that it was just a political persecution? No, I am not. Political structure has always been a weapon used by communists for private goals. There was a bad case of envy here. In Summer of 1985, at my home, Larsen said to my wife: "I am not a scientist, Michael is a scientist." There were other outbursts, later - with hatred completely unexplained. I don't know whether the other two members of the Committee who signed this "academic decision" knew that Larsen was about to steal the research; I can suppose that they did not. But, only now when she managed to silence the press, her influence is becoming to reveal its true dimensions.
As the marihuana generation of scientists came to power, fraud in science should be a thing expected. The propaganda has painted an image of a scientist curing your deadly disease and leading you personally into the era of progress. Meanwhile, the system is making daily announcements of one breakthrough after another, made, understandably, by the role model scientists in the progressive institutions. Although, I never belonged to any political group and never desired a political activity, it would not be difficult for Larsen to persuade the friendly administration that my presence was undesirable. She did this at the very last moment; had I remained at the University, my research would have become known. At the time, the conclusions from my theory expanded into several important areas; for instance, the behavior of stem cells, both - in time and space, was predicted in 1977 and 1980 in my articles. (No, don't make a parallel with the fascists, - they never stole the discoveries of the scientists whom they expelled.) It is not a joke, but a fact: the "Science for Peace" was co-sponsor of a conference on ethics in science; see: "Ethics in Science and Scholarship: the Toronto Resolution", published in "Accountability in Research", vol. 3, 1994; then, Science for Peace published a "sequel" in vol. 4, 1995, - "Do Scientific and Scholarly Codes of Ethics Take Social Issues into Account?".

On my records of research, that I had destroyed.
After I had received the letter from the Chair of the Department (September, 1987), I hardly could do anything. My life and my work were rendered meaningless. I published my first work on the subject in 1968. What happened at the University of Toronto was a thing unimaginable and unbelievable. I looked at my things, in the drawers, I was finding things which were useless and showed my complete failure in life. I could not bear the burden of looking at them. I threw into the garbage, with anger, one after another, my papers. One day, my M.Sc. diploma followed. I still kept a few photographs, transparencies from my seminar at Physics Dept. and the bundle with the manuscript that Larsen gave me in 1987, together with a couple of documents which I demanded a day later from the Graduate office. My letter to the Chair of Zoology, 1987, the handwritten copy, disappeared.
But, in 1993, discovering (by a mere coincidence) the Larsen's articles, I said I will present them to the "scientists". I actually had only her articles and that manuscript and the answer from the Chair. I expected that the U of T, starting to investigate the allegations in my seven-page letter to Prichard, would demand my original records, but I was not worried because I did not believe that they could deny everything. But, they never wanted to investigate and never asked me to present the records. They were afraid that I will present these records to them. The first time I had to mention and explain the absence of the records, was in my Affidavit of documents. The Larsen's and the U of T documents, however, supplied practically all admissions that I needed. The criminal power, U of T, had concentrated on perverting the law and the custom of science (inventing the "salvaging" operation), rather than denying the facts. Larsen's defense now (supported by Orchard and Dewees) is that she didn't do what her article says in the title, and she didn't claim what her abstract is claiming.
Paragraph 32 of the Statement of Defense says: "The defendants further deny that Pyshnov has suffered mental distress and put Pyshnov to the strict proof thereof." I still have a tiny bit of hope that the strict proof can be avoided. And with this hope I am delivering these documents to the public.