President Obama, Thank you for your letter dated August 3, 2016. I am looking forward to your support and the support of other leaders and journalists to provide visibility and to unveil Crawford’s attempt to use the excuse of blaming others of harassment in order not to do his job and to cover up corruption among scientists.
I particularly appreciated your words: “…These acts of clemency are important steps for families like Sherman’s and steer our country in a better direction, … we need a … reform that will allow us to more effectively use taxpayer dollars to protect the public. I hope you’ll take a minute to read and share Sherman’s letter. The more we understand the human stories behind this problem, the sooner we can start making real changes…”
The Judge’s words: “This case is an illustration of the difficulties and problems that result from the application of mandatory minimal sentences. This man doesn’t deserve a life sentence, and there is no way that I can legally keep from giving it to him”
The judge’s action reported on April 22, 2016, in the Washington Post: “A compassionate judge sentences a veteran to 24 hours in jail, then joins him behind bars.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/22/a-judge-sentences-a-veteran-to-24-hours-in-jail-then-joins-him-behind-bars/
I appreciate yours and the Judges considerations of cases that go behind unjust laws, rules and prison sentences, and I hope that you will have the same consideration for the following injustice that is affecting taxpayers by wasting tax dollars and the loss of 8.2 million cancer deaths per year.
Yesterday, in response to a cease and desist email(?) from DOE Security, I sent an email stating: “Please could you let me know the consequences I will encounter if I do not follow your order below?” I received these intimidations and threats(?) in an email which stated: “I have to advise you to cease and desist with all forms of communication to employees, contractors and representatives of the department” (Department of Energy – DOE). This followed a phone call conversation with DOE Security confirming that the order was placed by Dr. Glen Crawford from the Office of Science.
How many more billions of dollars of taxpayer money must be wasted, how many millions of lives lost needlessly and how much more sacrifices are needed to defend the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients before underhand, subtle corruptions carried on by people like Dr. Crawford are brought to justice instead of allowing them to falsely accuse me of harassment when I am legitimately requesting him to do his job?
Should I pursue what is right for taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity and being thrown (as a consequence of DOE intimidations and threats) to the criminal justice system (which needs to be fixed) because everyone watches and does not take action?
I am encouraged by your and the two Judges’ human considerations of cases that go behind the unjust and outdated laws, rules and prison sentences and I hope that you, journalists and many others will have the same human consideration for the millions of people who die needlessly every year from cancer because people like Crawford are crushing innovations and denying public scientific procedures to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge.
My inventions have been recognized valuable by several scientific reviews (see pp. 56-74), have been endorsed by many scientists and experts in the field (see pp. 51-55 & 75-83), and have been proven feasible and functional in hardware. During the past 20 years the scientists belonging to a circle of friends splitting taxpayer money behind closed doors a) denied funding my invention to completion, b) rejected my articles, c) took away the microphone while I was asking question to keynote speakers at conferences, d) rejected my proposals for workshops where young and senior scientists could present their ideas/projects and question each other for hours and not 2 minutes after a talk that many times falls into the category of advertisement rather than a presentation in a scientific forum, e) rejected my request for funding without providing scientific evidences supported by calculations and comparison to other more cost-effective systems and f) have crushed my inventions by ignoring them or with false accusations like those of Crawford.
Failure of the scientists competing with my invention/project is undeniable because for example in High Energy Physics applications Wesley Smith led scientist to build a CMS Level-1 Trigger system costing over $100 million, with 4,000 electronic data processing boards that did not find the Higgs boson-like particles and had to be discharged. In medical imaging applications, Craig Levine led a group building a submillimeter, very low efficiency PET block detector that is less efficient than the current 6,000 PET and it does not have a chance to significantly reduce cancer deaths and healthcare cost but most likely is improving it and it is best for NIH to discharge the project to avoid wasting more money.
My requests are not harassments but legitimate questions on behalf of the interest of taxpayers and cancer patients, pertinent to the job description and responsibilities of professionals like Crawford whose answers are long overdue. Crawford signed up for the responsibilities of his position and then does not do his job; there are many honest professionals who can have his responsibilities.
One way to prevent Crawford to continue his underhand, subtle corruption and falsely accusing me of harassment while I am asking to do his job then is if my questions are asked by President Obama or journalists on behalf of millions of taxpayers. This will place pressure on Crawford to do his job by providing answers consistent with his job description and science or leave his job to someone else if he provides the inconsistent 8-line answer of his email dated May 19, 2016. (See http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1866)
Examples of my professional legitimate questions to Crawford, his reviewers and NIH reviewers on behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients are:
- – Why has my 3D-Flow OPRA invention proven feasible by 59 quotes from industry, with 9 electronic data processing boards providing staggering improvement in performance that can replace the DOE Level-1 Trigger System made of 4,000 electronic data processing boards, costing 1000 times more (or the most recent 100 SWATCH electronic data processing boards) been prevented from being discussed scientifically, analytically, based on calculations and scientific evidence with DOE experts and reviewers assigning taxpayer money to research projects and DOE continues to waste money on less efficient and more costly systems?
- – Why knowing that my TER/DSU instrument costing $50,000 providing the functionality of the $50 billion LHC apparatus has been rejected as not sound or feasible although I have three quotes from different companies who can build it? The TER/DSU instrument would provide the possibility to compare performance and cost of the 4,000 electronic data processing boards Level-1 Trigger system, the 100 SWATCH boards and my 9 electronic data processing boards. Denying the construction of the $50,000 TER/DSU instrument will allow more expensive and less performant level-1 Triggers to be built without making scientists who receive taxpayer money accountable. Is Crawford protecting this circle of friends of scientists from checks and balances so they can continue to spend the money pursuing their own agendas rather than maximizing advancement in science?
- – Why is National Institutes of Health (NIH)funding million dollar projects to Craig Levine for detectors that are more expensive and less efficient than current PET, giving him the power to become deputy Chairman of the 2013 IEEE-MIC Conference, have 17 articles approved by his circle of friends (including the development of the million dollar detector more expensive and less efficient than the 6,000 existing PET) and my only article describing the 3D-CBS technology, hundreds of times more efficient than current over 6,000 PET rejected.
– Why is NIH funding the Explorer project for $15.5 million which is a copy of my ideas from authors who together with their circle of friends have obstructed my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) inventions by rejecting articles and proposals for the past 15 years?
My problem solving question to Crawford, his reviewers and anyone who has a project in applications for the detection of subatomic particles or Medical Imaging applications that will create a public debate comparing different approaches to determine which one is more cost-effective for both applications is the following:
“How do you accurately capture as many signals as possible satisfying the characteristics of a particle predicted by the theoretical physicists or tumor marker at the lowest cost per valid signal captured?”
Looking forward to your support and the support of other leaders and journalists to provide visibility and to unveil Crawford’s attempt to use the excuse of blaming others of harassment in order not to do his job and to cover up corruption among scientists.
From: President Barack Obama [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2:21 PM
Subject: This letter Sherman sent me:
Today, I’m commuting the sentences of an additional 214 men and women who deserve a second chance.