The Future is in Our Hands
Blog
Information, Awareness, Prevention / United to End Cancer

Dear Dr. Alexander Morris, Director of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act),

  1. I would like to respectfully request the name of the person(s) who gave this order to diverge all my emails addressed to DOE employees/offices to DOE Security.
  2.  
  3. I would also like to request you provide all the records (both internal communication between DOE employees and communication between DOE employees and external people) that mention a) my name, b) United to End Cancer, c) my application #0000222704, d) the 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Recognition Algorithm), e) the 3D-CBS, f) the evaluations of my proposal, g) Crawford’s reasons why in his opinion (or his reviewers’ opinions) my proposal is not sound and feasible or any evaluation they might have made.

 

I am a scientist/inventor who is working in the public interest.

 

I worked for more than 20 years at CERN experiments and was invited to join the Superconducting Super Collider project in Texas in 1991. Beginning the year 2000 I have been working in the field of medical imaging applying my inventions in particle physics. My basic invention was formally and officially recognized valuable after a major scientific review in 1993 (see pp. 56-74), was proven feasible and functional in hardware in 2001, and most recently, my new 3D-Flow OPRA invention was proven feasible in 59 quotes from several reputable industries and can replace 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards housed in hundreds of crates of the CERN-CMS Level-1 Trigger with 9 electronic 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards in one crate at 1/1000 the cost of the CMS 4,000 electronic boards with a staggering performance improvement. In Medical Imaging applications, the 3D-Flow OPRA allows my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) lifesaving technology to be built which is hundreds of times more efficient than the over 6,000 existing PET devices. Based on its increased efficiency, the estimated cancer death reduction achievable with my 3D-CBS is 33% in 6 years and 50% in 10 years from funding.

 

After being solicited verbally and in writing from May 5, 2015 to formally submitted a proposal of my inventions to the Department of Energy from my former supervisor, Dr. Jim Siegrist (when we were both working at the Superconducting Super Collider and now Dr. Siegriest is the Director for the Office of High Energy Physics -HEP- at the Office of Science of the Department of Energy), I worked hard for four months with several reputable companies who prepared 59 quotes showing feasibility of a 8,192-chanels Level-1 Trigger for LHC in 9 electronics data processing 3D-Flow OPRA boards replacing at 1/1000 the cost the CMS Level-1 Trigger system made of 4,000 boards or the most recent SWATCH made of 100 boards.

 

When I first provided this information on September 10, 2015, I began having difficulties to send email to DOE that I did not have before. On July 25, 2016 I was intimidated and threatened by DOE Security, Mr. Bill Johnson who informed me that someone at the upper floors of the DOE building blocked my emails to all DOE employees and offices  with instructions to diverge my emails to DOE Security, falsely accusing me that I continued to send emails after they have told me the reason why I am not allowed to.

 

In my previous email I provided the recording of my conversation on July 25, 2016 with other DOE officers and four days before who agreed to receive emails from me and to call them. No one gave me any reason why I should not send emails to DOE officers on professional issues. In my email I also provided the recording of the intimidation and threats from Mr. Bill Johnson.

 

On July 26, 2016 I filled the form at the DOE Inspector General providing the information you can read in the email dated July 26, 2016 following this email.

 

Today I spoke with the DOE agent at IGHOTLINE and I received a message stating: “Please note that your complaint to the Office of Inspector General does not preclude you from pursuing other remedies that may be available to you.”

 

Because I am working in the public interest with the mission to provide inventions advancing science and significantly reduce cancer deaths and costs, I am sharing this clarification process to make the scientific truth emerge through analytical procedures based on calculations and scientific evidences with other organizations who work in the public interest and who can help to give maximum transparency to this process.

 

I would appreciate if you could provide the information requested in the form below:

 

 

Copy of the form filled at the DOE Headquarters FOIA Request

July 29, 2016

 

Dear Dr. Alexander Morris, Director of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act),

 

Yesterday i spoke with an FOIA officer at 202-586-5955 explaining the problem I have that I cannot communicate electronically with any DOE staff or office because all my emails to any person at DOE are diverged to DOE Security. I am receiving the confirmation that my email was delivered, however, when I call the office or the DOE employee he/she tells me they did not receive my email. I just verified this with DOE IGHOTLINE (800) 541-1625 earlier today. I received their email, but they did not receive my email back. I do not have this problem with NIH, IEEE, or any other destination.

 

On July 25, 2016, I was informed over the phone by DOE Security, Mr. Bill Johnson (202) 586-6601, that someone on the upper floors of the DOE building has blocked my emails to all DOE employees and offices with instructions to diverge my emails to DOE Security, falsely accusing me that I continued to send emails after they have told me the reason why I am not allowed to.

 

This is not true because on July 25, 2016 and four days before I spoke on the phone with DOE officers who agreed to receive emails from me and to call them. No one gave me any reason why I should not send emails to DOE officers on professional issues regarding the most cost-effective technology to capture and accurately measure the characteristics of a desired particle with a thorough Object Pattern Recognition Algorithm at the lowest cost per valid signal captured.

 

Here are my requests:

 

  1. I would like to respectfully request the name of the person(s) who gave this order to diverge all my emails addressed to DOE employees/offices to DOE Security.

 

  1. I would also like to request you provide all the records (both internal communication between DOE employees and communication between DOE employees and external people) that mention a) my name, b) United to End Cancer, c) my application #0000222704, d) the 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern Recognition Algorithm), e) the 3D-CBS, f) the evaluations of my proposal, g) Crawford’s reasons why in his opinion (or his reviewers’ opinions) my proposal is not sound and feasible or any evaluation they might have made.

 

Apparently DOE employees who are authors of these actions do not want do discuss the evidence described in the 413-page proposal #0000222704 that my 3D-Flow OPRA system made of 9 electronic data processing boards housed in one crate supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries is feasible and is more performant at 1/1000 the cost of the CMS Level-1 Trigger, replacing their 4,000 electronic data processing boards housed in hundreds of crates developed by DOE for the CMS Level-1 trigger, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and over 20 years work of thousands of scientists because the Level-1 Trigger did not work.

 

This is not just my opinion but is stated by seven universities and major research centers in a scientific article presented on June 6, 2016 at the IEEE RT2016 conference published at CERN-CMS CR-2016/121. The article report: “The legacy Level-1 trigger system is composed of approximately 4000 data processor boards, of several custom application-specific designs [2]. These boards have been controlled and monitored by a medium-sized distributed system of over 40 computers and 200 processes. The legacy trigger was organized into subsystems. Only a small fraction of the control and monitoring software was common between the different subsystems; the configuration data was stored in a database, with a different schema for each subsystem. This large proportion of subsystem-specific software resulted in high long-term maintenance costs, and a high risk of losing critical knowledge through the turnover of software developers in the Level-1 trigger project.”

 

This paper states that they replaced 4,000 boards with 100 boards; however, my 9 board 3D-Flow OPRA system is providing a staggering efficiency and performance improvement at a fraction of the cost. The 4,000 boards were proven not to work by experimental results because the 40 Higgs boson-like particles announced on July 4, 2012, were found by analyzing trillions of events recorded casually and not by merit of the Level-1 Trigger.

 

In addition, my 413-page proposal #0000222704 submitted to DOE describes the LHC TER/DSU unit costing $50,000 which generates recorded signals from LHC allowing to test on a test bench different Level-1 Trigger projects (with 4,000 boards, 100 boards, or 9 boards). This would be equivalent for everyone to have an LHC apparatus costing $50 billion in their lab generating the same signals at the same speed to test their equipment. This experimental test will eliminate any doubt on which Level-1 Trigger system perform best at a lower cost.

 

DOE actions apparently want to silence and crush my breakthrough invention that was formally and officially recognized valuable by a major open public scientific review held at FERMILAB, paid by DOE in 1993 and want to cover up corruption at DOE in funding research projects with taxpayer money that are less efficient and 1000 times more expensive.

 

The damage to society by this cover up is much greater than the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted for the Level-1 Triggers at High Energy Physics experiments, because it has deprived and continues to deprive Americans and humanity from the benefits derived using my invention in different applications. One very important benefit of my 3D-Flow OPRA invention is when used in applications for medical imaging devices such as the 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) which has the potential to save millions of lives with an effective early cancer detection and will reduce healthcare costs.

 

I am asking to discuss my invention with DOE experts in particle physics handling taxpayer money described in my 413-page proposal supported by 59 quotes proving it to be feasible and providing the most powerful tool to execute complex programmable experimenter’s algorithms to capture the desired particle (or tumor marker in medical Imaging applications) at the lowest cost per valid signal captured.

 

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Dario Crosetto

President of the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

 

Type of requestor

Select a description of yourself and the purpose of the request to help determine your category for assessing fees

An individual seeking information for personal use and not for commercial use.

Affiliated with an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, and this request is made for scholarly or scientific purpose and not for commercial use.

Affiliated with a private corporation and seeking information for the use in the company’s business.

A representative of the news media and the request is made as part of news gathering and not for commercial use.

 

Fees and waivers

Your request must include a statement that (1) you agree to pay any fees that may be incurred to process the request; (2) stipulates an amount you are willing to pay; or (3) requests a specific waiver or reduction of fees.

Please select the statement that applies *

I agree to pay all applicable fees.

I agree to pay up to a specified amount for fees.

I request a waiver or reduction of fees.

 

Waiver factors

If you request a waiver or reduction of fees, we will consider the following six factors to make a determination. Please provide information that addresses these factors.

 

If you request a waiver or reduction of fees, we will consider the following six factors to make a determination. Please provide information that addresses these factors.

The subject of the request

My request concerns operations and activities of the government

Whether the subject of the requested records concerns “the operations or activities of the government.”

 

The informative value of the information to be disclosed

The information requested would help everyone to understand government rules and/or inconsistent statements made by some employees. It will be useful for everyone to know and suggests they always ask government employees the reference to the rule they stated in the event their statement sounds contradictory or inconsistent.

Whether the disclosure is “likely to contribute” to an understanding of government operations or activities.

 

Contribution to an understanding by the general public

I will be a contribution to an understanding by the general public of how taxpayer money is assigned to research projects and how a fair scientific review is conducted

The contribution to an understanding by the general public of the subject likely to result from disclosure, taking into account your ability and intent to disseminate the information to the public in a form that can further understanding of the subject matter.

 

The significance of the contribution to public understanding

The disclosure would significantly contribute to public understanding of government operations and activities

Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute “significantly” to public understanding of government operations or activities.

 

The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest

No

Whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure, and, if so

 

The primary interest in disclosure

Benefitting humanity for the advancement in science and a for a significant reduction in cancer deaths and cost

Whether the magnitude of the identified commercial interest of the requester is sufficiently large, in comparison with the public interest in disclosure, that disclosure is “primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.”

 

Expedited processing

Justification

an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual exists or

an urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity exists (this option available ONLY for requesters primarily engaged in disseminating information).

I request expedited processing of the request and provide a justification below. I believe a compelling need exists to warrant expedited processing because there is:

Please provide your specific justification for expedited processing

Because every day of delay means more taxpayer money continues to be wasted building Level-1 Trigger systems for High Energy Physics using 4,000 electronic data processing boards, then 100 electronic data processing boards, while I proved with 59 quotes from reputable industries that a Level-1 trigger system can be built with my 3D-Flow OPRA in 9 electronic data processing boards, housed in one crate providing a staggering performance improvement at a fraction of the cost.

 

Because every day of delay means another 21,660 people in the world (1,600 in the U.S.) will die of cancer and many of them could have been saved (experimental results prove that over 50% can be saved with an effective early detection).

 

159,194,600 people died from cancer from when my invention was crushed (11,793,600 were Americans), many of them could have been saved with my 3D-CBS invention effective for early cancer detection because it has the capability to accurately capture as many signals as possible from the tumor makers at the lowest cost per each valid signal captured.

 

It is hundreds of times more efficient than current over 6,000 PET (Positron Emission Tomography), thus enabling an effecting early cancer detection, requiring administering less than1/50 the radiation to the patient at a much lower examination cost. A single four-minute examination is all that is required to cover all organs of the body; therefore individual screening on specific parts of the body like mammograms, PAP-tests, colonoscopies and PSA will not be necessary.

 

################ end of the FOIA form filled on July 29, 2016 ######################

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:48 AM To: ‘The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov’ <The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov>; ‘sc.science@science.doe.gov’ <sc.science@science.doe.gov>; ‘president@whitehouse.gov’ <president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@barackobama.com’ <info@barackobama.com>; ‘Barack Obama’ <democraticparty@democrats.org>; ‘vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov’ <patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>; ‘The White House’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@mail.whitehouse.gov’ <info@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘vice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘kim.laing@science.doe.gov’ <kim.laing@science.doe.gov>; ‘Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov’ <Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov>; ‘adam.kinney@science.doe.gov’ <adam.kinney@science.doe.gov>; ‘Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov’ <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; ‘Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov’ <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘kev@cbsnews.com’ <kev@cbsnews.com>; ‘scitimes@nytimes.com’ <scitimes@nytimes.com>; ’60m@cbsnews.com’ <60m@cbsnews.com>; ‘executive-editor@nytimes.com’ <executive-editor@nytimes.com>; ‘syndication@washpost.com’ <syndication@washpost.com>; ‘info@ap.org’ <info@ap.org>; ‘ilab@investigativecenters.org’ <ilab@investigativecenters.org>; ‘ighotline@hq.doe.gov’ <ighotline@hq.doe.gov> Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <info@crosettofoundation.org>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com>; ‘scsc@science.doe.gov’ <scsc@science.doe.gov> Subject: RE: Today, Monday, July 25, 2016, I was falsely accused, intimidated and threatened

 

Dear Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, President Obama, Vice President Biden, leaders at the U.S. DOE, Inspector General for Investigation at DOE, Dr. John Hartman, Dr. John Dupuy, Dr. Dustin Wright, Dr. Angela Sigler and the media working in the public interest.

 

Thursday, July 21, 2016 I was asked by DOE Executive Office to call back next day or today because they were investigating in their email problem. I have been told this since Sept. 2015. Today, Monday, July 25, 2016, I was falsely accused, intimidated and threatened (please listen the audio. The threat is from minute 34:50).

 

This action apparently wants to silence and cover up corruption at DOE in funding CMS Level-1 Trigger composed of 4,000 data processor boards, of several custom-application-specific designs housed in hundreds of crates, costing hundreds of millions of dollars which did not work in finding the Higgs boson-like particle and had to be trashed. Despite DOE knew the existence of my more powerful 3D-Flow solution that could be built during the past 25 years and now can replace the 4,000 electronics data processing boards with 9 boards housed in one crate costing 1/1000 less.

 

Despite DOE people responsible in this field do not want to admit the scientific truth, there are scientific evidence and even articles such as the one presented by seven universities and research centers at the Real-Time Conference on June 6, 2016, stating on the first page that their SWATCH system is replacing the 4,000 CMS Level-1 Trigger with 100 electronic data processing boards. The second paragraph of their article is describing many limitations of the 4,000 boards CMS Level-1 Trigger system (4,000 data processor boards, 40 computers, 200 processes, organized into subsystems, high long-term maintenance costs, high risk of losing critical knowledge through turnover of software developers,…).

 

  1. My request to discuss the approach/invention that provides the most powerful tool to execute complex programmable experimenter’s algorithms to trap the desired particle at the lowest cost per valid signal captured is a legitimate question to DOE experts in particle physics and not to DOE security.

 

  1. My request to address the evidence of corruption in assigning taxpayer money to research projects in the 8lines of the Crawford’s email that essentially incriminated himself are legitimate questions to DOE leaders in science and not to DOE security.

 

################# 8lines Crawford email ####################

We will honor your request to withdraw application #0000222704 as a matter of professional courtesy. The withdrawal will be made effective upon the completion of the technical merit review you consented to by submitting the application. We plan to take no action on this application: it will neither be declined nor recommended for award.

All current and future funding opportunities will be published on our website and the Government-wide portal at www.Grants.gov. In the interest of fair competition, we do not meet with potential applicants to discuss the details of potential applications: our processes are described in each Funding Opportunity Announcement.

The work described in your application and in your correspondence is not technically sound and feasible, as required by 10 CFR 605.10. Any further submissions of substantially the same work will be declined without review.

Sincerely

Glen Crawford

**************************************

Glen Crawford glen.crawford@science.doe.gov

Director, Research and Technology Division

Office of High Energy Physics

Phone 301 903 4829

################### end Crawford email ##########################

 

Why is taxpayer money being wasted by funding less efficient and more expensive projects (1000 times more expensive) and medical equipment that does not save lives, while my 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries could have saved and still can save taxpayer money and millions of lives but is not addressed analytically, based on calculations and scientific evidence in a PUBLIC scientific review as was my previous invention at FERMILAB by a major scientific review panel?

 

On behalf of the taxpayers and cancer patients who are damaged more than myself for these actions of silencing science and crushing innovations, I respectfully submit these requests to DOE experts in particle physics and I ask Bill Johnson (202) 586-6601 to apologize for his intimidation and threats on the phone today. I asked him to repeat in writing the false accusations, intimidations and threats he made over the phone and he promised to send them before the end of the day on Monday, July 25. I waited to write this email until after midnight and I did not receive Mr. Johnson’s email. I understand that he might have been misinformed by someone, however, he can provide the names of the people who provided him false information as proven in the attached email that I was asked to call beck on Monday, July 25, 2016 and also the name of the DOE people who gave the order to divert all my email to DOE security while making me believe that it was a technical problem.

 

To fulfil my professional and ethical duty toward taxpayers and cancer patients, in the event my emails will continue to be diverted to DOE security without providing a reason of the scientific illegitimacy of my questions and comments I will be forced to post my email on the blog so that those who care to make the scientific truth for the benefit of humanity emerge and prevail could be informed.

 

############### from my previous message #######################

 

Dear Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, President Obama, Vice President Biden, leaders at the U.S. DOE,

 

Please provide a status update of Case No. EXEC2016003098; first assigned from the Office of the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz on 7/8/2016 to Dr. Jim Siegrist to address:

 

  1. Crawford’s 8-line email to Crosetto in which he revealed corruption in assigning taxpayer money to research projects, and essentially incriminated himself. What Crawford states at the beginning of a sentence in his email is the opposite of what he states at the end of the same sentence and in following sentences, where he refers to non-existent DOE rules to deny implementing a scientific procedure based on analytical thinking, calculations and scientific evidence.  (See Crawford’s 8-line email on page 7 and the facts related to his email on pages 2 to 6 in PDF format at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5b0FydURNeHRfSlE/view?usp=sharing)

 

  1. The wasted hundred million dollars of taxpayer moneyby building the CMS level-1 Trigger (and others) with 4,000 electronic data processing boards housed in hundreds of crates, knowing from the official report dated January 31, 1994, of FERMILAB  (see  56-74), that my 3D-Flow invention would have provided higher performance at zero dead-time and that many opportunities have been lost in the past (see pp. 102-117),

 

  1. The continuing wastage of millions of dollars of taxpayer money after I have proved with the 3D-Flow OPRA invention supported by 59 quotes from reputable industries (see  1-36, and  pp. 125-271), that the 4,000 electronic data processing boards housed in hundreds of crates (or the new 100 SWATCH electronic boards installed on February 26, 2016) of the CMS Level-1 Trigger can be replaced with 9 electronic data processing boards housed in one crate of the 3D-Flow OPRA system with a staggering improvement not only in performance but at 1/1000 the cost of the 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards.

 

  1. My legitimate request to organize a major PUBLIC scientific review of my breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions (…and let science happen) similar to the major scientific review of my basic 3D-Flow invention requested in 1993 by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (see  56-74)who appointed Andy Lankford to define the “charges to the reviewers” and then charged Joe Butler to organize the PUBLIC scientific review at FERMI National Laboratory on December 14, 1993.

 

Dr. Siegrist sent back the case the same day to the Secretary of Energy, copying me, stating: “I am not authorized to speak for the Secretary’s office”.

 

The office of the Secretary of Energy therefore made a second assignment of the same case with the same case number, to Ms. Laurie Hakes at (202-586-0505) on 7/13/2016 requesting who would be the right office and person to address the above issues with, and one additional issue involving the DOE IT department to investigate why, after sending one email from one of my accounts, any subsequent emails will not reach any office at DOE but do reach other recipients at NIH, IEEE, etc. When I want to communicate with DOE, I now need to use a new account every timeI have had this problem since September 10, 2015, when I sent material requested by Jim Siegrist. Ultimately, to receive confirmation that my material was received by DOE, I had to send it via the U.S. Postal service. Since May 16, 2016, I have been addressing this issue with Dr. Daniel at the DOE IT department at scsc@science.doe.gov; however, to date, he has not provided an explanation to the communication problem, and so it has not been resolved.

 

My several requests to Ms. Hakes to provide information in this regard have so far not resulted in any specific date or person responsible to address all the above issues.

 

On behalf of taxpayers and cancer patients who I serve with my work and inventions, I look forward to addressing these issues with DOE as soon as possible.

 

Thank you,

 

Sincerely,

 

Dario Crosetto

 

From: United To End Cancer [mailto:volunteers@u2ec.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:18 AM To: ‘The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov’ <The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov>; ‘sc.science@science.doe.gov’ <sc.science@science.doe.gov>; ‘president@whitehouse.gov’ <president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@barackobama.com’ <info@barackobama.com>; ‘Barack Obama’ <democraticparty@democrats.org>; ‘vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vicepresidentvice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘camurray@seas.harvard.edu’ <camurray@seas.harvard.edu>; ‘patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov’ <patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov>; ‘The White House’ <reply-ff3317757467-15_HTML-20605917-6229366-14560@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘info@mail.whitehouse.gov’ <info@mail.whitehouse.gov>; ‘vice.president@whitehouse.gov’ <vice.president@whitehouse.gov>; ‘kim.laing@science.doe.gov’ <kim.laing@science.doe.gov>; ‘Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov’ <Ray.Irwin@science.doe.gov>; ‘adam.kinney@science.doe.gov’ <adam.kinney@science.doe.gov>; ‘Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov’ <Sherry.Pepper@science.doe.gov>; ‘Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov’ <Vera.Bibbs@science.doe.gov>; ‘Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov’ <Jim.Siegrist@science.doe.gov>; ‘kev@cbsnews.com’ <kev@cbsnews.com>; ‘scitimes@nytimes.com’ <scitimes@nytimes.com>; ’60m@cbsnews.com’ <60m@cbsnews.com>; ‘john.womersley@stfc.ac.uk’ <john.womersley@stfc.ac.uk>; ‘chiefexecutive-stfc@stfc.ac.uk’ <chiefexecutive-stfc@stfc.ac.uk>; ‘dymphie.voortman@stfc.ac.uk’ <dymphie.voortman@stfc.ac.uk>; ‘Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com’ <Alberto.J.Verme@citi.com>; ‘Richard.Evans@citi.com’ <Richard.Evans@citi.com>; ‘Mary.McDowell@citi.com’ <Mary.McDowell@citi.com>; ‘Vikram.Pandit@citi.com’ <Vikram.Pandit@citi.com>; ‘Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com’ <Michael.L.Corbat@citi.com>; ‘James.A.Forese@citi.com’ <James.A.Forese@citi.com>; ‘Jane.Fraser@citi.com’ <Jane.Fraser@citi.com>; ‘John.C.Gerspach@citi.com’ <John.C.Gerspach@citi.com>; ‘Deepak.Sharma@citi.com’ <Deepak.Sharma@citi.com>; ‘Stephen.Volk@citi.com’ <Stephen.Volk@citi.com>; ‘Paco.Ybarra@citi.com’ <Paco.Ybarra@citi.com>; ‘Stephen.Bird@citi.com’ <Stephen.Bird@citi.com>; ‘Don.Callahan@citi.com’ <Don.Callahan@citi.com>; ‘peter.henry@stern.nyu.edu’ <peter.henry@stern.nyu.edu>; ‘jes138@columbia.edu’ <jes138@columbia.edu>; ‘ernesto.zedillo@yale.edu’ <ernesto.zedillo@yale.edu>; ‘citicards@info.citibank.com’ <citicards@info.citibank.com>; ‘citicards@info3.citibank.com’ <citicards@info3.citibank.com>; ‘citicards@info4.citibank.com’ <citicards@info4.citibank.com>; ‘citicards@info9.citibank.com’ <citicards@info9.citibank.com>; ‘alerts@citibank.com’ <alerts@citibank.com>; ‘citibusinesscreditcards@info4.citi.com’ <citibusinesscreditcards@info4.citi.com>; ‘citibusinessThankYou@info.citibank.com’ <citibusinessThankYou@info.citibank.com>; ‘wendy.j.braught@citi.com’ <wendy.j.braught@citi.com>; ‘presidents@ieee.org’ <presidents@ieee.org>; ‘executivedirector@ieee.org’ <executivedirector@ieee.org>; ‘k.bartleson@ieee.org’ <k.bartleson@ieee.org>; ‘hmichel@umassd.edu’ <hmichel@umassd.edu>; ‘parviz.famouri@mail.wvu.edu’ <parviz.famouri@mail.wvu.edu>; ‘s.ramesh@csun.edu’ <s.ramesh@csun.edu>; ‘SSH10@cornell.edu’ <SSH10@cornell.edu>; ‘eekman@cityu.edu.hk’ <eekman@cityu.edu.hk>; ‘moura@ece.cmu.edu’ <moura@ece.cmu.edu>; ‘president@ieeeusa.org’ <president@ieeeusa.org>; ‘lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov’ <lubenowa@occ.nci.nih.gov>; ‘shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov’ <shannon.wooldridge@nih.gov>; ‘johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov’ <johnsonr@dea.nci.nih.gov>; ‘LowyD@mail.nih.gov’ <LowyD@mail.nih.gov>; ‘rpettig@mail.nih.gov’ <rpettig@mail.nih.gov>; ‘shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov’ <shadi.mamaghani@nih.gov>; ‘izzardt@mail.nih.gov’ <izzardt@mail.nih.gov>; ‘info@nibib.nih.gov’ <info@nibib.nih.gov>; ‘cooperca2@mail.nih.gov’ <cooperca2@mail.nih.gov>; ‘Collinsf@od.nih.gov’ <Collinsf@od.nih.gov>; ‘grantsinfo@nih.gov’ <grantsinfo@nih.gov>; ‘donna@brazileassociates.com’ <donna@brazileassociates.com>; ‘chris@brazileassociates.com’ <chris@brazileassociates.com>; ‘robinsobi@mail.nih.gov’ <robinsobi@mail.nih.gov>; ‘nciilo@mail.nih.gov’ <nciilo@mail.nih.gov>; ‘executive-editor@nytimes.com’ <executive-editor@nytimes.com>; ‘syndication@washpost.com’ <syndication@washpost.com>; ‘contactholmember@parliament.uk’ <contactholmember@parliament.uk>; ‘england.ce@nhs.net’ <england.ce@nhs.net>; ‘england.contactus@nhs.net’ <england.contactus@nhs.net>; ‘taskforce@cancer.org.uk’ <taskforce@cancer.org.uk>; ‘huntj@parliament.uk’ <huntj@parliament.uk>; ‘icbp@cancer.org.uk’ <icbp@cancer.org.uk>; ‘b.spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <b.spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘nicola.harley@telegraph.co.uk’ <nicola.harley@telegraph.co.uk>; ‘sarah-kate.templeton@sunday-times.co.uk’ <sarah-kate.templeton@sunday-times.co.uk>; ‘Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk’ <Jonathan.Ungoed-Thomas@Sunday-Times.co.uk>; ‘guardian.letters@theguardian.com’ <guardian.letters@theguardian.com>; ‘observer.letters@observer.co.uk’ <observer.letters@observer.co.uk>; ‘info@ap.org’ <info@ap.org>; ‘Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk’ <Ben.Spencer@dailymail.co.uk>; ‘jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk’ <jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk> Cc: ‘unitedtoendcancer@att.net’ <unitedtoendcancer@att.net>; ‘Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths’ <info@crosettofoundation.org>; ‘unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com’ <unitedtoendcancer@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Breakthrough invention: 3D-Flow OPRA (Object Pattern real-time Recognition Algorithms) -a revolutionary electronic instrument for multiple applications: advancing science, saving lives, fighting terrorism, …,

 

See this document in pdf form at: : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5Uzc0c0JJanBWRDQ/view?usp=sharing or at the Blog: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1815

 

See the last 3 abstracts/Summaries on the breakthrough invention at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5OEowTjZMN1J5dzA/view?usp=sharing

 

To:

Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz

President Barack Obama,

Vice-President Joe Biden,

Director of the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Cherry Murray

Deputy Director for Science Programs, U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Patricia Dehmer

Director of the Office of Science for High Energy Physics, U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. James Siegrist,

Director of National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins and of National Cancer Institute, Dr. Lowy Douglas,

Dr. John Womersley, CEO of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) in U.K.

Mr. Simon Stevens, Chief Executive of NHS England

IEEE Board of Directors,

  1. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Le Monde, CBS 60 minute, and social media.

 

July 12, 2016

 

Dear President Obama, Vice President Biden, leaders at the U.S. DOE, NIH, NCI, IEEE, Citigroup, at U.K. STFC and NHS,

Glen Crawford, Director, Research and Technology Division of the Office of Science, in his 8-line email reveals corruption in assigning taxpayer money to research projects and his words incriminate himself.

I would like to report documents and facts to leaders and journalists who serve the public interest which show Crawford’s actions violating government rules and abusing his power, and request that his supervisors fix the inconsistencies.  He has referred to and applied a non-existent rule to deny my legitimate request for his service, and was complicit in the cover up of corrupt scientists who sought grants from DOE without following a fair scientific procedure and who want to continue splitting taxpayer money among themselves behind closed doors.

What he states at the beginning of a sentence in his email is the opposite of what he states at the end of the same sentence and in following sentences, where he refers to non-existent DOE rules to deny implementing a scientific procedure based on analytical thinking, calculations and scientific evidence.  (See Crawford’s 8-line email on page 7 and the facts related to his email on pages 2 to 6 in PDF format at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxWfo2ViJ6r5b0FydURNeHRfSlE/view?usp=sharing)

The Media who serve the public interest should inform taxpayers about:

 

  1. Crawford’s actions that have caused hundreds of millions of wasted dollars and deprived taxpayers of the benefits from advancement in science and the benefits of the derived applications of my invention, including one that provides a superior early cancer detection able to save millions of lives.

 

  1. The actions/reactions and answers I have received or have not received from the leaders responsible for addressing the inconsistencies that are damaging taxpayers, cancer patients, and humanity, depriving them all of the benefits of my inventions, and wasting taxpayer money on less efficient and more costly approaches, knowing full well that my basic invention was formally and officially recognized valuable after a major scientific review in 1993 (see pp. 56-74), was proven feasible and functional in hardware in 2001, and most recently, that my new 3D-Flow OPRA was proven feasible in 59 quotes from several reputable industries and can replace 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards housed in hundreds of crates of the Level-1 Trigger (and the new 100 SWATCH boards installed at CERN-CMS experiment on February 26, 2016.  See two slides and the related documents) with 9 electronic 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards in one crate (see two slides and pp. 3-4) at 1/1000 the cost of the CMS 4,000 electronic boards with a staggering performance improvement compared to both alternative approaches. In Medical Imaging applications, the 3D-Flow OPRA allows my 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) lifesaving technology to be built which is hundreds of times more efficient than the over 6,000 existing PET devices. Based on its increased efficiency, the estimated cancer death reduction achievable with my 3D-CBS is 33% in 6 years and 50% in 10 years from funding.

 

  1. The legitimate request to organize a major PUBLIC scientific review of my breakthrough 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS inventions (…and let science happen) similar to the major scientific review of my basic 3D-Flow invention requested in 1993 by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (see pp. 56-74), who appointed Andy Lankford to define the “charges to the reviewers” who then charged Joe Butler to organize the PUBLIC scientific review at FERMI National Laboratory on December 14, 1993.

Following is a summary (and/or the most recent communications) with links to the actions/reactions and answers I have received or have not received from the leaders responsible for addressing the inconsistencies that are damaging taxpayers, cancer patients and humanity:

  1. President Barack Obama – In 2009, President Obama launched a new effort to defeat cancer, and on January 12, 2016, at the State of the Union Address, he announced the cancer moonshot program. I wrote him a letter on December 12, 2014, and received a reply on September 25, 2015 (see excerpt from President Obama’s letter at page 244). On average, I receive 6 emails per day from President Obama, his wife, the Vice-President and his office. After receiving such emails almost every day since March 17, 2016, asking for my support in requesting U.S. Senators do their job and give Judge Merrick Garland a fair hearing, I began writing to him almost every day filling out the forms provided at the White House website https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact. I received a second letter from him on May 31, 2016.

 

I agree with President Obama in his use of the statement “It’s common sense,” and I think it is common sense, logical, appropriate, fair and rightful for taxpayers and humanity who are expecting a solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, and maximize advancement in science with tax-money, to address funding a breakthrough invention recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers after a major scientific PUBLIC review that was based on analytical thinking, calculations and scientific evidence, proven feasible and functional in hardware, that will provide staggering benefits to advance science and reduce cancer deaths with a leader who launched an effort to defeat cancer.

 

Status update: I fill in the message form that has a 2,500 character limit to President Obama almost daily on the webpage https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact providing in the first line a link to a longer document at the blog: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?cat=20  

 

  1. Vice-President Joe Biden, – He was charged by President Obama to head the Cancer Moonshot Task Force. I hand-delivered a letter with 413 pages of my invention/project to the U.S. Delegation at the World Economic Congress in Davos, Switzerland. I received a letter from him on February 17, 2016.

 

I agree with President Obama in his use of the statement “It’s common sense,” and I think it is common sense, logical, appropriate, fair and rightful for taxpayers and humanity who are expecting a solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, and maximize advancement in science with tax-money, to address funding a breakthrough invention recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers after a major scientific PUBLIC review that was based on analytical thinking, calculations and scientific evidence, proven feasible and functional in hardware, that will provide staggering benefits to advance science and reduce cancer deaths with Vice-President Joe Biden who committed to lead the Cancer Moonshot Task Force.

 

Status update: From time to time I fill in the form with a 2,500 character limit to Vice-President Joe Biden, and he is on the list of email addresses to the leaders who receive my updated information.

 

  1. U.S. Department of Energy – Office of the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, and of Dr. Jim Siegrist, Director of the Office of High Energy Physics of the Office of Science, who are handling taxpayer money to advance in particle detection, the basis of my invention.

 

I agree with President Obama in his use of the statement “It’s common sense” and I think it is common sense, logical, appropriate, fair and rightful for taxpayers and humanity who are expecting a solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, and maximize advancement in science with tax-money, to address funding a breakthrough invention based on particle detection recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers after a major scientific PUBLIC review that was based on analytical thinking, calculations and scientific evidence, and proven feasible and functional in hardware, that will provide staggering benefits to advance science and reduce cancer deaths with leaders from the Department of Energy who are handling taxpayer money to advance in particle detection, to advance science and who were committed to defeating cancer at the first meeting of the Cancer Moonshot program on February 1st, 2016.

 

Status update: The U.S. Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, appointed Dr. Siegrist (see  http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1807) to address Crawford’s inconsistencies regarding the problem and violation of DOE rules (see http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1745) to Case No. EXEC2016003098; however, Siegrist sent it back stating: “I am not authorized to speak for the Secretary’s office”.

 

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) – NIH has an annual budget of $31 billion to improve healthcare, while NCI is spending $6 billion per year in its attempt to reduce cancer deaths and cost; therefore, it is appropriate to address my 3D-CBS invention enabling an effective early cancer detection to save millions of lives.

 

I agree with President Obama in his use of the statement “It’s common sense,” and I think it is common sense, logical, appropriate, fair and rightful for taxpayers and humanity who are expecting the solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, and maximize advancement in science with tax-money, to address funding a breakthrough invention, the 3D-CBS, effective for early cancer detection, based on the 3D-Flow architecture recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers in a major scientific PUBLIC review that was based on analytical thinking, calculations, and scientific evidence, proven feasible and functional in hardware that will provide staggering benefits to advance science and reduce cancer deaths, with leaders from the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute who are handling taxpayer money to reduce cancer deaths and costs, and who were committed to defeating cancer at the first meeting of the Cancer Moonshot program on February 1st, 2016.

 

Status update: Dr. Gretchen Wood, Office of the NIH Director, indicated who at NIH is responsible for addressing analytically and scientifically the project that has the highest potential to improve healthcare and reduce cancer deaths and costs, and provided their names and contact information: Dr. Michael Lauer, Director for Extramural Research, and Dr. Richard Nakamura, Director of the Center for Scientific Review.  Dr. Melanie Showe (NIH/OD) set a conference call between Crosetto and Laurer on Friday May 20, 2016 for 15 minutes that was extended to 35 minutes. See the agenda of their discussion at:  http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1809. I will prepare a full, detailed report of our meeting.

 

  1. U.K. Science Technology Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) in UK. In response to the July 19, 2015, articles in The Sunday Telegraph, The Sunday Times, etc.  “Cancer reforms to save 30,000 lives per year…”, “NHS plan to slash cancer deaths…” and because my breakthrough invention is related to particle detection I would like to discuss the work supported by STFC who are the experts in particle detection in the U.K.

 

I agree with President Obama in his use of the statement “It’s common sense,” and I think it is common sense, logical, appropriate, fair and rightful for taxpayers and humanity who are expecting the solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, and maximize advancement in science with tax-money, to address the breakthrough invention based on particle detection, recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers in a major scientific PUBLIC review that was based on analytical thinking, calculations and scientific evidence, proven feasible and functional in hardware that will provide staggering benefits to advance science and reduce cancer deaths with leaders from the U.K. Science and Technology Facility Council (STFC) and with the STFC authors of the article presented at the IEEE Real-Time Conference in Padova, Italy, on June 6, 2016, to discuss the advantages of my 3D-Flow OPRA Level-1 Trigger compared to their SWATCH CMS Level-1 Trigger based on FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), and with the U.K. NHS leaders in healthcare who informed the media on July 15, 2015, that they plan to slash cancer deaths.

 

Status update: I requested a meeting to discuss with STFC leaders of the project CMS SWATCH and authors of the article presented at the RT2016 Conference in Padova, Italy, on June 6, 2016, and at several conferences (e.g. CHEP2015, RT2016) which is summarized in the two attached slides for the STFC_SWATCH.pdf and my two slides for the 3D-Flow-OPRA.pdf. (See pp. 3-4). My new 3D-Flow OPRA was proven feasible in 59 quotes from several reputable industries and can replace 4,000 CMS electronic data processing boards housed in hundreds of crates of the Level-1 Trigger (and the new 100 SWATCH boards installed at CERN-CMS experiment on February 26, 2016.  See two slides and the related documents) with 9 electronic 3D-Flow OPRA data processing boards in one crate (see two slides and pp. 3-4) at 1/1000 the cost of the CMS 4,000 electronic boards with a staggering performance improvement compared to both alternative approaches. See a copy of the latest correspondence at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1811. Previous correspondence with U.K. NHS is available at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1730. And previous correspondence with STFC is available at:  http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1726

 

  1. IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the world’s largest technical professionals of over 400,000 members dedicated to advance technology for the benefit of humanity.

 

I agree with President Obama in his use of the statement “It’s common sense,” and I think it is common sense, logical, appropriate, fair and rightful for taxpayers and humanity who are expecting a solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, and maximize advancement in science with tax-money, to address the breakthrough invention based on particle detection, recognized valuable by academia, industry and research centers, in a major scientific PUBLIC review that was based on analytical thinking, calculations, and scientific evidence, proven feasible and functional in hardware that will provide staggering benefits to advance science and reduce cancer deaths with the experts of the world’s largest technical professionals having over 400,000 members who will take responsibility to publicly discuss my new 3D-Flow OPRA invention, using calculations and scientific evidence, comparing it to any other existing invention/approach that they might know, to …let science and innovation happen!

 

Status update: On July 5, 2016, I sent this message at http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1797 to the Board of Directors of IEEE requesting the name(s) of those members of the over 400,000 IEEE scientific community who are professionals competent in electronics, parallel-processing, Level-1 Trigger, ultra-high speed data acquisition and processing, particle detection, biomedical engineering, medical imaging, cancer deaths and cost reduction, who will take the responsibility to PUBLICLY compare my new 3D-Flow OPRA invention, using calculations and scientific evidence, to any other existing invention/approach that they might know, asking questions and giving me a chance to answer and explain my invention as was done for my basic 3D-Flow invention at the open, PUBLIC scientific review held at Fermi National Laboratory on December 14, 1993.  The next day, I called and sent a copy to Dr. Patricia Stevens, Sr. Executive Assistant to IEEE Executive Director & COO who promised an answer from the Board of Directors by Friday, July 8, 2016. However, as of today, Tuesday, July 12, I have not heard back.

 

On July 07, 2016, I submitted the following question/request via email and at the blog: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1799 to remove the “Misrepresentation from IEEE officers at the IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD website”. I am still awaiting a response.

 

On July 12, 2016, I submitted the following question #1 via email and at the blog: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1801  “Are any of the IEEE leaders in favor of an OPEN, PUBLIC workshop where young and senior scientists may express the analytical thinking of their ideas and can question each other on calculations and scientific evidence?”

 

On July 12, 2016, I submitted the following question #2 via email and at the blog: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1803, “Please can anyone of the 400,000 IEEE members provide an answer consistent with science of how two instruments can provide different measurements of one phenomenon in nature? Crosetto asked this question at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC Conference but the microphone was taken away from him.”

 

On July 12, 2016, I submitted the following question #3 via email and at the blog: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1805,  “Are any of the IEEE leaders in favor of an OPEN, PUBLIC workshop where young and senior scientists may express the analytical thinking of their ideas and can question each other on calculations and scientific evidence? And would IEEE leaders agree to ask these same questions to their 400,000 IEEE members?”

 

  1. Citigroup – Leaders at Citigroup have the power derived from over $3 trillion transactions per day to have access to the culture and top professionals in science and in different fields from the best experts in technologies from Intel, Apple, ASIC design house, Silicon Foundry, scientists at the major research laboratories in the world such as CERN in Geneva, FERMI National Laboratory in Chicago, Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, Berkley in California, to top research in medicine working in collaboration with U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, STFC and HHS in UK, and in other countries in the world, etc. I do not fear to defend the claims of the benefits of my inventions 3D-Flow OPRA and 3D-CBS (3-D Complete Body Screening) before a public scientific review as I did in 1993 in the auditorium of the FERMI National Laboratory before hundreds of scientists who tested with their questions the solidity of my analytical thinking, my calculations and scientific evidence. I satisfied and clarified all their concerns. I trust leaders at Citigroup who have access to the culture and top professionals in the world will provide a considerate answer in line with the mission and values stated on their website.

 

I agree with President Obama in his use of the statement “It’s common sense,” and I think it is common sense, logical, appropriate, fair and rightful for humanity who are expecting a solution to the most deadly and costly calamity, cancer, and maximize advancement in science to enable growth and economic progress, to explain the benefits of my invention to fulfill Citigroup’s mission and values “to strive to earn and maintain the public’s trust by constantly adhering to the highest ethical standards. …make a positive financial and social impact in the communities”. Because my inventions continue to prove to be sound and feasible, even being copied by the same people who have obstructed them in the past, it is “common sense” that I submitted a request for a grant of $40,000 per year for the number of years required to explain the technological advantages and benefits of my inventions to decision makers. Without this contribution my inventions would be delayed or ignored forever because there is no one else who can fully implement all of my inventions in a prototype.

 

After facing corruption in funding research projects by a circle of friends of scientists meeting behind closed doors to split taxpayer money (as you can assess reading the 8lines of Crawford’s email), it is “common sense” to ask a grant to large groups such as Citigroup that has $1,095 trillion transactions per year and the sacrifice will be less than 0.000000365% of the income. This is negligible compared to the sacrifice of 99% of my time and resources. However, together this effort and contribution will provide an invaluable benefit to Citigroup employees for their children, grandchildren and humanity by giving the opportunity of the scientific truth for the benefit of mankind through an open, public scientific procedure with experts of the world’s largest technical professionals of over 400,000 IEEE members, with world leaders such as President Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, and Government Agencies such as Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, etc. The most difficult part to explain to decision makers like Citibank is that I am working for them and for humanity and if they contribute $40,000 per year, it is not me, but they who join me and contribute to the same cause that I give 99% of my time and resources to.

 

Status update: It is disheartening to report that my first request to Citigroup was denied on June 29, 2016; however, I believed the reason was because I was not able to adequately explain the advantages and benefits of my breakthrough invention for humanity, and I was confident with more effort I would be able to explain it. However, it was not only disheartening but shocking to receive a phone call from Jody at Citibank who said that if I do not stop sending emails trying to explain my invention to the Board of Directors and Citibank employees, she will involve Citigroup Security Team. I do not consider this answer “common sense” given the circumstances of all information that I have provided on the case, and I respectfully request Jody to withdraw this THREAT as soon as possible. Thank you. See more details at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=1813.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Site Overview
Please visit our
Site Overview for help in navigating the site.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Upcoming Events
December 2020
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
November 30, 2020 December 1, 2020 December 2, 2020 December 3, 2020 December 4, 2020 December 5, 2020 December 6, 2020
December 7, 2020 December 8, 2020 December 9, 2020 December 10, 2020 December 11, 2020 December 12, 2020 December 13, 2020
December 14, 2020 December 15, 2020 December 16, 2020 December 17, 2020 December 18, 2020 December 19, 2020 December 20, 2020
December 21, 2020 December 22, 2020 December 23, 2020 December 24, 2020 December 25, 2020 December 26, 2020 December 27, 2020
December 28, 2020 December 29, 2020 December 30, 2020 December 31, 2020 January 1, 2021 January 2, 2021 January 3, 2021