Thomas Brown wrote:
You're welcome, Louis. It was my pleasure to be of assistance to you. I am
aware of the distinctions between the Churchill case and the Poehlman
case. Churchill is not writing on federal grant money, and so he is not
subject to federal fraud charges. Had he published any of the works in
question while supported by a federal grant, he would be subject to fraud
charges.
However, the CU regulations still mandate that Churchill must abide by the
federal rules governing research misconduct, regardless of his funding
sources. Thus in CU's eyes, Churchill violated the same federal law that
Poehlman did. The significant difference between the two cases is in the
sanctioning authority--CU in Churchill's case, the federal courts in
Poehlman's case. And CU does not have the power to imprison, obviously.
I have a piece on Churchill's smallpox fraud coming out in the next week
or two that will cite the relevant law for you. I look forward to your
comments.
yrs, t
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I have been following
the Ward Churchill case closely and there has not been a single reference
to violating federal law. But since I am willing to learn from everybody,
including a fanatic like yourself, I look forward to your utterances on the
"relevant law" even though you had to confess that you were "no lawyer"
after a previous outburst.
