Dr.

Karron Introductory Statement for Judge Buchwald Oral Argument March 7 2010

I thank Your Honor for permitting me extended oral argument, where I will make
case for a jury trial.
I seek a jury trial on the evaluation of civil damages. It is my right. Anything else
is an injustice.
The People of the United States have a right to a fair evaluation of their damages
that resulted from my management of my NIST ATP grant. If I am successful, I
will show them the damages range from reasonable, to small, to inconsequential,
quite possibly, to negative. I owe it to them, the People of the United States.
The evaluation of civil damages is independent of the criminal restitution;
therefore, this trial cannot be estopped by res judicata.
My goal today is to show how I believe we have overcome in our written briefing,
the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment of as much as 5 million dollars.
It is simply staggering to consider that the Plaintiff seeks to win such a judgment
without any examination of the foundation of such a monstrous attempted claim..
A summary judgment for such a 42 times step up is cruel and punishment.
It takes a particular type of mind that refuses to look for light and lives solely in the
darkness.
Your Honor, the Plaintiff is asking you to rely, and rely blindly, on an
unconscionable expansion of the prior criminal jury finding.
The abundant case law (United States v. Mickman, 1993 WL 541683 (E.D. Pa. Dec.
22, 1993)is clear. A criminal jury finding on one bad check does not entitle civil
recovery for 15 more checks. Fraud was not proven in the jury trial; Indeed the
Plaintiff argued, and argued successfully (the second circuit appeal court upheld
the district court ruling), that fraud is not a needed element when it upheld the
conviction on appeal. It is disingenuous for the Plaintiff to argue fraud, and claim
res judicata on issues of fraud, now when the Plaintiff argued against fraud, per
se, on appeal. The criminal trial jury found knowing misapplication, not fraud.
I thought I knew what I was doing, and I was wrong, but it was not fraud.
Fraud, in its all of its particulars needs to be de novo shown here. Not summarily
assumed.

Tuesday, March 08, 2011 at 20:49:07 hours Page 1 of Pages 3

C:\Users\karron\Documents\My Paperport Documents\2011-00-00\2011-03-00\2011-03-
07\dbk\legal\Amended Oral Statement.docx
Dr. Karron Introductory Statement for Judge Buchwald Oral Argument March 7 2010

The criminal judgment is like the Emperor. The Plaintiff says you must not look
too closely at the Emperor’s clothing.
Your Honor, you are being asked to rely solely upon the Emperor servant’s say so.
We are being asked to ignore the plain fact that the Emperor has no clothes.
The Emperor’s numbers don’t add up. With just a little examination, ANYONE
can easily find the numbers are significantly faulty. We attempt to show how in
the little space we had in the written briefing. Even the District Judge noticed
something was wrong. He did not realize just how wrong it was. The Plaintiff is
asking you not to look.
Your Honor, this case and Justice dares you to do so.
If we are working toward the high standard to the overcoming of summary
judgment that is “the likelihood of success at trial”, then you are obligated to look.
The jury finding of fact was that there was some (>$5K) knowing
misappropriation, not fraud. The judge found in sentencing, based on the
“Emperor” exhibits that the misappropriation was $120K.
The Plaintiff wants to convince you that the entire grant was misappropriated. The
Plaintiff wants to convince you that all of these funds were stolen fraudulently.
The Plaintiff points to different evidence, not considered at trial and claims
fraudulent false claims. The Plaintiff seeks to prove statutory 31 U.S.C. § 3731 (d)
Collateral Estoppel False Claims does so without a schedule of specific
transactions and without judicial review. This is against the law.
Your Honor, you are being asked to look at inculpatory exhibits that the jury did
not pass judgment upon, and close your eyes to exculpatory exhibits and potential
exhibits.
Your Honor, you are being recited fragments of testimony that the jury did not pass
on as being true or false. It is pernicious gossip. I overspent my grant; the margin
of error was against myself.
You are being asked to assume that misappropriated funds are solely of
government origin.
You can’t. It was not established by the Jury. Such an assumption has too many
leaps of conjecture, and lands into fallacy, not fact. In our briefing, we present
numerous irrefragable proofs that is visible from the documents presented with a
little summation, adding up the numbers. This is what Dunlevy did..
Tuesday, March 08, 2011 at 20:49:07 hours Page 2 of Pages 3
C:\Users\karron\Documents\My Paperport Documents\2011-00-00\2011-03-00\2011-03-
07\dbk\legal\Amended Oral Statement.docx
Dr. Karron Introductory Statement for Judge Buchwald Oral Argument March 7 2010

Because I do not have a laptop and access to the online corpus of evidence and
cases, I propose that where I make reference to a specific piece of evidence, we
record that reference and I can fax a copy of that citation into admitted or
admissible evidence to chambers and to the prosecution.
I believe I have not and will not make any statements unsupported by admitted or
admissible evidence. My problem is there is so much evidence to keep track of.
Thank you your honor. This concludes my introductory statement.

Tuesday, March 08, 2011 at 20:49:07 hours Page 3 of Pages 3

C:\Users\karron\Documents\My Paperport Documents\2011-00-00\2011-03-00\2011-03-
07\dbk\legal\Amended Oral Statement.docx