Wednesday, September 14, 2011

David Brown, DOI IG Special Agent in Charge of Untruth, or the Trial of Charles M

At the end of the last interview of the Department of Interior's IG Office with Charles Monnett, David Brown, the Special Agent in Charge pin dances with Monnett's lawyer, Jeff Ruch from PEER:

Jeff Ruch: All right. The second thing, I guess, I was unclear of is, you said you were going to -- it was going to become obvious what the charges were with respect to the University of Alberta contract. I still don't know what the criminal --

David Brown: I think I said what it was -- it would be obvious what this is about.

Jeff Ruch: Oh.

David Brown: I never said anything about charges.

Jeff Ruch: So, what is the criminal offense? Why would there have been a criminal referral?

David Brown: Why would there have been a criminal referral concerning the contract issues?

Jeff Ruch: Yes. As your notice stated. Why would you have done that if there was no crime?

David Brown: Well, that's -- you know, that's your opinion as to --

Jeff Ruch: And I ask -- I'm not expressing an opinion. I'm asking what is the criminal offense that would have justified referral?

David Brown: Well, potentially there's lots of criminal offenses when you're dealing with contract issues. There's false statements. There are potential bribery issues. There's false claim issues. So, you know, depending how the fact patterns are is what the -- what a potential crime could be.

Jeff Ruch: And what was the referral based on in this case?

David Brown: I think I -- you asked me that in the beginning, if I was going to provide you with that information and I said no.

Jeff Ruch: Well, actually, you said the opposite. You said it was going to become obvious from the questions, and it didn't become obvious from the questions.

David Brown: That isn't -- that wasn't my understanding of your question. My understanding of your question was, you know, what's this about, what are the issues involving the contract about. I think we -- it's perfectly clear through the questioning from Rich Larrabee as to what our concerns were with that contract. What -- my communications with the US Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice is not -- I'm not going to divulge that.
And Charles M sums it up
Charles Monnett: Well, I'm just surprised you think this is so important that you have created as much chaos in, you know, the marine mammal research program. You really have done a lot of damage.

David Brown: Is there anything else? We can conclude?


J Bowers said...

You're sure this isn't a translation of a North Korean trial?

Tom Curtis said...

I was thinking more of Kafka.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Portions of it read more like Inspector Clouseau!

Anonymous said...

Portions of it read more like Inspector Clouseau!

Let that be a lesson to all scientists -- don't minkey with your data!

Anonymous said...

I'd been thinking Kafka on the strength of Gleason and the earlier Monnett interviews.

After this one. Clouseau it is!

What a bunch of clowns. They've been at this for months and they still don't know what an abstract is. Let alone how it's written or what it's for. And no. Checking a dictionary does not cut the mustard.


David B. Benson said...

Straight out of Kafka.

Anonymous said...

McCarthy-esque, or Monty Python-esque, I can't decide. If not Kafka, then Miller.

Donald Oats.

Anonymous said...

It is definitely Marx-ist (Marx Brothers, of course)


Anonymous said...

I found the link:


Anonymous said...

The farcical nature of this witch hunt simply makes one weep...

So, when it's eventually figured out by the numpty McCarthyists that they were chasing a mirage, will there be any course to redress for the unwarranted persecution of Monnett?

Seriously, there should be heads rolling left, right and centre in the DoI, and elsewhere, after this debacle. To say nothing of compensation to Monnett for the harrassment and undeserved damage to his reputation.

Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII

Horatio Algeranon said...

"Der Process"

-- Horatio Algeranon's versification of the "Interview" of Scientist Charles Monnett ( US Interior Inspector General [IG]'s version of "The Trial", by Franz Kafka)

You said the charges would be clear
After the investigation here.

I think what I said is not what you claim
"Charges" and "focus" are not the same

I never said a single thing
About any charges we would bring.

So what exactly is the criminal offense?
I'm simply trying to make sense

Of why the referral was made to IG
Without a crime for all to see

Why would there be a criminal referral
Concerning the contract issues (plural)??

Yes, precisely, why waste time
If in fact, there was no crime?

Well, you know, that's simply your view

No, it's not. It's a question for you

How can the referral be justified
Without a crime at least implied?

Well, potentially there are many offenses
With the possibility of contract pretenses.

Based on the fact patterns that you see
You decide what a potential crime could be.

And what was the basis for this case?

I already told you to your face

I would not give you those details

Well actually, from these travails

You said we'd know it from the questions
But all we have is vague suggestions.

That isn't -- wasn't my understanding
Of the answer you're demanding.

I took your question as simply this:
"What's this about?, what's the gist?"

I'm really surprised, you think it so pressing
To interrupt science with second guessing

With no real charge and your "fire alarm"
You really have done a lot of harm

I do not wish to come across rude
But if that is all, we will conclude.

Doug said...

BTW, if anybody has a beef with academic tenure, this fiasco ought to serve as a reminder of why it's occasionally vital. This is a nearly perfect example of the ill tenure is intended to redress. No tenure, ultimately no insulation.

I suppose somebody else has already pointed this out.

Anonymous said...

Snow Bunny found another link:

Tenney Naumer said...

Sorry I needed to add something:

The relevant section of the transcript (simply gobsmacking):

Eric May: In the introduction section you mentioned the negative impacts to polar bears such as declination rate of sea ice, warming trends, sublethal effects of reduced sea ice on individual polar bears, and the net effect of global climate changes on polar bear populations, but you never mentioned bad weather or the storm is a potential negative or lethal effect.

Charles Monnett: Well, that's because that's a result, and the introduction is reviewing what's already known, so you don't put something you're describing in the paper in an introduction.

Eric May: Although we just previously discussed the abstract as a summary of your findings.

Charles Monnett: It's a summary of the results, not the introduction. The introduction is a review of literature in the state of knowledge, generally.

Eric May: Do you want me to read the definition of "abstract" again? [he means "read it out to Dr. Monnett"]

Anonymous said...

Just got around to reading Tenney's comment.

Actually, I wouldn't be too hard on Mr May-not-understand in this particular matter.

It's surprising the number of authors who don't appreciate that, from a purely technical perspective, the abstract doesn't form part of the paper. That it just sits at the top of the paper, below the title and above the Introduction, is unfortunate and, of course, very useful.

And the way Nature treats its abstracts somewhat blurs (well, obliterates) the usual technical distinction between an abstract and a paper, too.

I'll leave the why? as an exercise ;-)
Cymraeg llygoden

hankroberts said...

Accused Truckee-Carson Irrigation District official seeks ... May 27, 2009
... to examine what he said was the “extraordinary and outrageous” conduct of Eric May, ...

hankroberts said...

Well, I've been trying to post that one for a week or so -- been odd, had to change browsers and profiles to be able to finally get anything here to post at all. Over the last few days neither Firefox nor Chrome gets past the 'preview' page at rabett.blogspot, not with any of the profiles I have available. An outdated Safari worked here this time with wordpress, but not google, as validation.

David Richy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Richy said...

Special agent virginia curry will be guest speaker for the society. They are working knowledge to soul every problem of the every people.