NSERC President Pinto, administrative banditism again

On December 30, I sent a letter to NSERC President Pinto, requesting that the incompetent and illegal UofT investigation (by lawyer D. Dewees) be declared null and void, and the NSERC decisions which relied on this investigation be declared null and void.

NSERC, however, is the only game in town. And Pinto found how to circumvent the law: he continued the administrative banditism. But unlike in the previous NSERC one-sentence replies, he speaks at length.

My letter stated that the UofT investigation was conducted illegally, without an investigating committee and by a sole, scientifically incompetent investigator. To this, Pinto answered the following:

“… while the university did not strike an investigating committee as defined in its draft policy (i.e. a policy that was not yet in force), the investigation did respect the spirit of the draft policy, in that the investigation had the benefit of input from a subject matter expert.”

Is Pinto an idiot? Does he not understand why the committee is needed? Does he not understand that the “subject matter expert” who was not available to me, is not a substitute for the committee? Does he not understand that the sole UofT investigator, Dewees, who could not read scientific papers, i.e. the evidence in the case, and could not communicate with me competently, was appointed to make this investigation a mockery? Why on earth this investigation could use “spirit” of the draft policy, but could not use the draft policy which said a) that the committee must be convened and b) that the investigators must be competent?

Even an idiot would understand that using the “spirit” of the policy was an obvious fraud because this “spirit” magically disposed with two central requirements of the policy, which are, of course, the requirements of the administrative law.

He twisted the law, twisted the facts and ended by saying that my letters to NSERC will no longer be answered by him or by his staff.

It is worth to remember the two investigations that were conducted by Concordia University in response to V. Fabrikant complaints. Later, these two investigations were condemned by the Prof. Arthurs Report as “misleading”, “superficial”, “not based on a proper inquiry”, “clearly and seriously deficient” and “inadequate”.

The letter of Pinto is a clear proof of the collusion between UofT and NSERC where they conspired to illegally deny my allegations of fraud and plagiarism.

My letter to Pinto, his answer and my comments are posted on
This is an important reading for scientists and criminologists.


About pyshnov

Scientist in Canada
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s