District attorney/defense lawyer concealed false accusation of sexual harassment and scientific wrongdoing at a Swiss university

posted in: General | 0

Staatsanwalt/Verteidigungsanwalt verbergen sexuelle Belästigungsanklage und wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten an einer Schweizer Universität

 

District attorney/defense lawyer concealed false accusation of sexual harassment and scientific wrongdoing at a Swiss university

 

Compelling evidence suggests that an accusation of sexual harassment and the concealment of employment contracts at a Swiss university served the interests of a chemistry professor who covered up his scientific misconduct thereby. The legal system in that jurisdiction subsequently obfuscated the accusation of sexual harassment, which had not only been false, but had violated university rules on the promulgation of such an accusation. A defense lawyer and a law professor prevented the evidence from appearing in court, thus whitewashing serious violations of ethics and law.

 

The concealment of wrongdoing does not protect an institution; it merely leads to a lowering of standards until a point of implosion.

 

The concealment of evidence is not uncommon in American courtrooms, skewing court verdicts to favor the prosecution. Political considerations and status quo maintenance readily take priority. If the example that follows is illustrative, Swiss legal system counterparts may well practice law similarly.

 

These considerations, among others, gave rise to the new book Lawyers Broken Bad (www.lawyersbrokenbad.com)

 

The following infractions of law/ethics took place at a Swiss university/legal jurisdiction. The evidence in support thereof was intentionally concealed by a defense lawyer/others throughout the proceedings and at a trial for libel. This conduct mirrors patterns of legal system abuse and concealment of evidence well known in the USA.

 

  • Failure of a university administration to adhere to published university guidelines for an accusation of sexual harassment, thereby empowering professors to remove an employee/scientist improperly, with implications of moral turpitude permitted to circulate without allowing defense. The public remain reassured regarding fairness, while internal politics are safeguarded and prevail;
  • Deliberate “disappearance” (blackballing) of a university scientist/employee; prohibiting all department contact with the banished employee under professorial threat, thereby jeopardizing ongoing scientific projects and terminating a scientist’s career;
  • Improper handling of science publications (authorship, information);
  • Intentional concealment of university employment contracts, spurred on subsequently by courtroom false witnesses (perjury), including a professor of law;
  • Exploitation of a woman through a false accusation of sexual harassment; deliberate violation of published university guidelines governing such;
  • Concealment of a false accusation of sexual harassment by a district attorney, thereby implementing a “switch,” obfuscating negligence and misconduct by three Swiss university professors (German professors, to be precise);
  • Improper scientific conduct, misrepresentation respective a world-class, foreign research institute and their intended, scientifically and financially lucrative research collaboration in Switzerland (possible concealment of anomalies in scientific publications/claims);
  • Concealment of improper transfer of university assets to a foreign country;
  • Permitting an accusation of libel to reach a Swiss courtroom without allowing the accused to question the accusers before or at trial;
  • Refusal to allow witnesses in court who were not affiliated with the university (under university control) to testify at a trial;
  • Refusal to permit a journalist, who had investigated a threat to a student by a media chief/professor and extreme violations of university guidelines, to testify at a trial;
  • Failure of all accusers of libel to appear at a trial for libel;
  • Judge refusing to hold a defense lawyer, who abandoned his client just prior to trial, professionally responsible;
  • Judge refusing to hold a defense lawyer professionally responsible for threatening his own client with “punishment,” if the client went forth to trial and exposed evidence against a university;
  • Judge refusing to allow a new lawyer time to prepare for trial, after she had allowed the original lawyer to terminate representation just prior to trial. (The original lawyer betrayed his client and failed to provide evidence given to him by the client, thus sparing the university criticism);
  • A judge in-part assuming the role of the prosecutor (who also failed to appear for trail), making accusations without permitting defense and demanding the defendant defend against a criminal charge not leveled by the prosecution and not at issue at the trial;
  • A defendant forced to testify at a trial without legal counsel, despite having hired two lawyers for such.

The above, wrongful acts were of deliberation and commission, not omission. The result was “fake news” and public deception, while retaining internal, delimited political power for actions aside the rules promoted in public.

In a chemistry department at a teaching university, science, scientific professionalism and ethics did not take priority. The public believes they take priority. There is a problem.

There are those who believe that a public institution is not flawed if the public does not become aware of the flaw. In this case students and employees were frightened and confused by, among others, employee “disappearance.” The improprieties were grossly evident to all. The flaw was by no means “concealed;” instead, wrongful power of authority made itself clearly felt.

What is it that Goethe said? “We are not deceived, we deceive ourselves.” But we do have the right to expect that university and local officials will not blatantly deceive the public and the scientific community.

How did a situation deteriorate to the degree illustrated here? Via pragmatism raised to the level of cultural ideology and the complete absence of a value system: disequilibrium in power and influence dictated that the victim could be vanquished without revealing misconduct at higher levels.

Implementing published rules, values and the law would have stopped this account dead in its tracks before harm was done. But sensed power seduces beyond reason.

As a Zurich lawyer in the case pointed out, evidence is besides the point here; the weakest link in the chain of authority should have expected to take the blame, to spare the institution. Suicide on the part of that weakest link, he speculated, would not have been unwelcome. This callous, insensitive, highly tribal remark– this idea that, today, the law can be used as an extension of the means of natural selection and we can rid ourselves of the mentally unfit, motivated Lawyers Broken Bad perhaps above all other experiences with morally unsuited lawyers.

The practice of law today has become a test of nervous systems rather than a search for truth, while prevailing in court relates more to the observations of physiologist Ivan Pavlov than to evidence or books of law.

 

 

This account will be continued…

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.