International Committee on
Scientific Ethics and Accountability

We have been notified of the filing of the Forth Amended Complaint by Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli against David J. Skorton, Cornell University, at al., following a Judicial Order by the U. S. Federal Court, Forth District of Tampa, Florida (see the official web site of the U. S. Federal Court, and the partial mirror site Forth Complaint

In reading this Forth Complaint, we have been horrified for the offensive, unlawful and protracted misconduct by David J. Skorton, president of Cornell University, in regard to the disgraceful and illegal discrimination perpetrated under U. S. federal funds by his anonymous employees handling the electronic arXiv.

The reproduction of the main parts of this federal lawsuit appended below speak for themselves. The only way for the American science to initiate the regaining of dignity, credibility and democracy is for David J. Skorton to resign, or have him dismissed by the appropriate authority at Cornell University to avoid [quotation from the lawsuit, paragraph 44]:

....excessively blatant excessive complicity and subservience to his [Skorton's] brothers running the arXiv, rather than loyalty to Cornell University, the United State of America and its Laws.

There is no more to add than a distinct feeling of utter shame for academic greed blinding the minds of the people at Cornell University and their associates elsewhere to the level of self-destruction, rather than at least preserving a mockery of scientific democracy under the watch of the entire scientific world.

William Pound
Chairman
International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability

UNLAWFUL ETHICAL DECAY IN PHYSICS
29. A fundamental rule of scientific ethics is the quotation of all directly relevant prior art in the proper chronological order. This lawsuit has been filed because defendant F. Cardone, R. Mignani and A. Marrani violated this fundamental rule, infringed the copyrights duly filed by the plaintiff decades ago by copying ad litteram copyrighted material since 1992, and carefully avoided the quotation of the originating copyrighted papers by the plaintiff. The copyright infringement is proved beyond doubt by comparing the plaintiff's copyrighted works, such as exhibit D and the infringing works such as that in exhibit F, in which one can see the reproduction ad litteram of entire sentences, notions, concepts, etc. including the use of exactly the same symbols.

30. The knowledge by said defendants of said copyrighted works is beyond credible doubt because said infringing papers were fully identified in the defendants papers prior to 1992 as documented in exhibits E to F. All requests for proper ethical conduct filed by the plaintiff to defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani turned out to be useless since said defendants are clearly aiming at defrauding the plaintiff of the paternity of his most important scientific contributions.

31. The plaintiff then contacted Roberto Petronio, president of the INFN, the Italian funding agency as well as Ferdinando di Orio, president of UdA (Universita¹ dell¹Aquila), the academic conduit, requesting their intervention to compel their employees to stop violating copyrights and other laws. To the plaintiff¹s enormous surprise, rather than implementing the above recalled fundamental rule of scientific ethics and copyright laws, Petronio and di Orio acted in such a support of the suppression of the ethical misconduct by their employees to the extreme of forcing the plaintiff to secure a judgment by the U. S. Federal Court in the plaintiff's favor as a condition for requesting the implementation of said ethical rules by their employees. This blatant ethical misconduct and violation of the law left no other recourse than that in Court.

32. Cornell University electronic archives "arXiv" published several of the copyright infringing papers by Cardone, Mignani and Marrani, some of which have been appended in exhibit G. The publication occurred in the archiv section "hep-th" meaning high energy physics - theory,, namely, the sections squarely and only pertinent for the field of the infringing papers.

33. Alerted by this violation of his copyright works by various colleagues such as Prof. Horst Wilhelm and others (expected to testify in court in due time), the plaintiff attempted to upload in the same hep-th section some of his works so that readers at least had a chance to identify the proper paternity. The uploading was attempted after full compliance with the rules of the arxiv, such as the authorization by a colleagues regularly uploading in that section, Prof. V. Dvoeglazov.

34. To his extreme surprise, the uploading was rejected by the anonymous editors of CU arXiv in a vulgar, offensive and discriminatory way in view of the fact that the plaintiff is a U. S. citizen paying taxes used in part to finance the arXiv, while Cardone, Mignani and marrani are foreign citizens; the plaintiff has a scientific reputation and achievement (including numerous nominations for the Nobel Prize in physics and mathematics, see, for instance, the web site http://www.scientificethics.org/Nobel-Foundation.htm) vastly superior to that of said defendants; and other reasons. It is evident to all in good faith that such a rejection violated a number of U. S. laws, besides being blatantly unethical.

35. At that point, the plaintiff contacted David Skorton, president of CU requesting his intervention so that his employees, the anonymous editors of the arXiv, would stop violating federal and other laws, and implement scientific ethics via the respectful letter in exhibit J, that was ignored also in a vulgar, offensive and discriminatory way by Skorton. Additional attempts to bring Skorton to his duty as CU president were attempted via CU attorney Boystood as per exhibit L resulting in a complete vacuum, thus confirming beyond reasonable or otherwise credible doubt the total complicity of Skorton with the misconduct of his anonymous editors.

36. Cornell University initiated the arxiv in 1992 as a way for physicists to share preprints fairly, democratically and efficiently. Since then it has evolved into an archive of more than 330,000 articles and it is now one of the primary means of scholarly communication and has changed the way scientists work (see attachment S). CU received for its arxiv $\$300,000$ in annual funding from various Federal Agencies and that funding has continued and increased every year (exhibit T).

37. According to the Laws of the Land, the above Federal Funds were given to CU for a democratic access to the arXiv by all scientists without discrimination for race, religion or affiliation. By denying my uploading in the arxiv despite my scientific qualifications identified in my curriculum, exhibit A, and despite the requested authorization by colleagues regularly uploading in arXiv, I was denied my access to a federally funded resource because of my lack of affiliation at the moment to an academic conduit and other reasons. Consequently, I have been the victim of a discrimination under federal funds.

38. An additional violation of our laws caused by the blatantly immoral behavior of CU and its president is given by the use of public funds in committing willful violations of the Copyright Act.

39. The above documented illegal unethical conduct is only a very small part of the widespread decay of ethics in science and consequential illegal conduct that continues to remain unchallenged, let alone unpunished to this day, because of the inability by judges and attorneys alike to understand the background motivations of lawsuits due to their general post P. D. character in mathematics, physics and chemistry. This occurrence is the very reason the plaintiff could not secure representation by a law firm until now. hence, the plaintiff reaffirms with the Honorable Judge Steven D. merryday his plea for leniency due to unavoidable procedural insufficiencies of this Forth Amended Complaint cause by lack of sufficient knowledge by the plaintiff, of course, here referring to fully warranted and proper leniency within the boundaries of the U. S. Constitutions and the federal and local Rules of Coivil procedure.

40. Since this is one of the extremely few scientific lawsuits in existence today, the lawsuits is being monitored by scientists and administrators the world over. Hence, any unwarranted acquittal without due punitive compensation will constitute a patent of impunity for illegal acts by scientists and administrators the world over with very serious consequences for mankind due to the expected ensuing impossibility of solving the serious climactic problems afflicting our planet, since their solution notoriously squires an ethically sound scientific environment.

41. Additionally, the plaintiff prays the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday to take into consideration that this lawsuits has been filed against Cornell University because the anonymous editors of the arXiv routinely perpetrate their immoral, illegal and offensive discriminations under U. S. federal Funds against scores of scientists around the world, most of whom have to supinely accept such abuses, in order not to lose their academic job, or lack of possibility to initiating legal action against CU, o other reasons. Hance this lawsuit is a plea for justice not only for the plaintiff but also for suppressed dignity of the science of the United States of America around the world.

THE ANONYMOUS CHARACTER OF THE ILLEGAl CONDUCT OF CU ARXIV
42. An unlawful and immoral conduct by Cornell University in the conduction of its federal money providing business with the electronic listings in the arXiv, that has caused immense damage to the credibility of the science of the United States of America throughout the world, is the conduction of said business under the total anonymity of the editors legally responsible for the uploading and their denial in said arXiv. Such a conduct is in clear violation of serious,. internationally accepted scientific conduits requesting the physical identification of all editors responsible for decisions.

43. A primary reason for the filing of this lawsuit is to secure all names of all individuals directly responsible for said illegal and immoral acts at the arXiv, securing expected under the Discovery Process of this lawsuit, action at the Federal Agencies funding the arXiv on founds of the Freedom of Information Act, and other lawful mean.

44. The primary responsibility of this vile, unethical, illegal and immoral conduct by Cornel University of a public service in the United States of America rests with the president of Cornell University, David J. Skorton, because of his excessively blatant excessive complicity and subservience to his brothers running the arXiv, rather than loyalty to Cornell University, the United State of America and its Laws, which subservience is a primary reason for listing Skorton as a individual defendant in this Forth Amended Complaint.

45. The only names listed in the arXiv under a somewhat hidden page studiously not listed in the main page and identifiable only by experts in web searches, is that on the "Scientific Advisors" of the arXiv given by the following individuals (exhibit U):

46. Currently listed, general advisory board: Steven Beckwith, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Paul Fendley, Paul Ginsparg, Steven Gottlieb, Joe Halpern, Terence Hwa, Peter Kahn, Greg Kuperberg, N. David Mermin, David Morrison, David Nelson, Nickolas Solomey, Karen Vogtmann, Ira Wasserman

47. General advisory board for physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, and statistics: Andrew Connolly, Bruno Nachtergaele, Gerd Schon, Brian Maple, Debbie Jin, Jacques Distler, Nick Solomey (chair), Paul Ginsparg (staff ex officio).

48. Advisory board for mathematics: Robert Bryant, Bill Casselman, Paul Ginsparg (staff ex officio), Greg Kuperberg (chair), David R. Morrison, Kapil Paranjape, Mark Steinberger, Terence Tao.

49. Advisory board for computer science: Krzysztof Apt, CWI, Amsterdam, Ron Boisvert, Carol Hutchins, Jon Doyle, North Carolina State, Ed Fox, Virginia Tech, Lee Giles, Penn State, Joseph Halpern, Cornell (chair), Carl Lagoze, Cornell, Bernard Lang, Michael Lesk, Andrew McCallum, U. Massachusetts, Steve Minton, Andrew Odlyzko, U. Minnesota, Michael O'Donnell, U. Chicago, Bernard Rous, Jerome Saltzer, Erik Sandewall, Stuart Shieber, Harvard, Jeff Ullman, Stanford, Ian Witten, Waikato, New Zealand

50. Advisory board for quantitative biology: Bill Loomis, Chuck Stevens, Gary Stormo, Diethard Tautz, Terence Hwa (chair), Michael Lässig

51. Advisory board for statistics: Larry Wasserman (coordinator), David Banks, Chad Schafer, Dave Higdon, Rob Strawderman, Susan Holmes, Jim Pitman

52. The vulgar, offensive, and unlawful conduct by Cornell University of its business in the arXiv under public support is sealed, not only by the lack of release of the editors actually responsible for all decisions, but also by the following statement released in exhibit U that studiously voids any legal responsibility by said advisors:

The arXiv advisory board members serve as consultants to the Cornell University Library staff.

in fact, such a statement has evidently prevented the plaintiff from the listing of the above identified advisors as defendants in this lawsuit.

53. The immoral conduct by Cornell University, David Skorton, and the rest of CU administration is finally sealed by the following additional statement also released in exhibit U

Please note that all arXiv policy decisions are ultimately made by Cornell University Library.

which statement studiously and, unlawfully and unethically attempts the diversification of the responsibility for the conduct at the arXiv to "Cornell University Library", namely, a body that by internationally accepted practice has no editorship capacity or qualification, thus. Since the plaintiff cares for ethics, he abstained from listing the director of CU library as a defendant because his/her innocence could be readily proved, thus mandating the filing of this lawsuit with David J. Skorton and CU as temporary defendants for the primary purpose of uncovering the names of the people actually responsible for the unlawful conduct at the CU arxiv and their subsequent listing as defendants at the appropriate time.

FORTH COMPLAINT COUNT 1: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
[against defendant Cornell University (CU)]
54. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all preceding statements. In particular, the plaintiff reaffirms and realliges that CU published in their electronic archives "arXiv" works by Cardone, Mignani and Marrani as per exhibit G infringing the plaintiff's copyrights as listed in exhibit C. Plaintiff states that:

1) The plaintiff is the sole owner of the copyrights;

2) The copyrights were properly filed and secured in 1999, thus years before the indicated infringement;

3) Defendant CU was fully, properly and repeatedly informed of the infringement;

4) The copyright infringement perpetrated by CU was willful, continuous and malicious because intended in support of others, thus implying an additional violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:

5) CU arXiv has a license on all uploaded papers as per document in exhibit V, hence CU publishes all papers for business;

6) Cardone, Mignani and Marrani had to accept the legal statement reproduced in said exhibit V stating that they had the right to publish the papers in questions and grant a license on them to CU;

7) Plaintiff informed CU president (see exhibit J) and the anonymous editors of the arXiv that the papers by Cardone, Mignani and Marrani violated the plaintiff copyrighted works, thus having no right to grant such a license, Additional communications to the same effect were done via CU attorney Boystood (exhibit L), but turned out to be useless.

55. Wherefore, plaintiff respectfully prays the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday to enter a judgment in his favor for statutory damages according to Section 1203(c) of said act, including the payment of all costs incurred for this lawsuit, and all gains, advantages lost by the plaintiff because of said infringement, as well as any other relief deemed just.

FORTH COMPLAINT COUNT 2: CONVERSION
[against defendant Cornell University (CU)]
56. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all preceding statements. This is an action against defendant CU for conversion. Beginning from the year 2004, defendant CU converted for its own financial and other benefits the works by Cardone.,. Mignani and Marrani that infringed copyrighted work by the plaintiff, therefore depriving the plaintiff of his own property.

57. Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act does not prevent the plaintiff's conversion claim because the copyright violation is not limited to one copyrighted page, but encompasses the entire scientific production and body of works by the plaintiff, thus causing the plaintiff serious damages and injuries. Hence, by conversion of the copyright infringing works, defendant CU has caused to plaintiff severe scientific, financial, academic, emotional and other damages .

58. Wherefore, the plaintiff requests a financial remuneration of $\$15,000,000$ (fifteen million dollars) or whatever the Honorable Judge deems appropriate and just.

FORTH COMPLAINT COUNT 3: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
[against defendant Cornell University (CU)]
59. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all preceding statements. CU arXiv is a federally funded resource with related contractual and fiduciary obligations between CU and the individual scientists uploading their works. By wilfully violating the Copyrights Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. with the publication of the fraudulent papers by Cardone, Mignani and Marrani (exhibit G) and by denying the plaintiff the uploading of his own papers in the same section of the arXiv, CU has perpetrated a Breach of Fiduciary Duty toward the plaintiff. An additional breach of Fiduciary Duty has been perpetrated by CU by the publication of copyright infringing works that is prohibited by federal funds. Consequently, CU is liable for damage.

60. The above occurrences prevented the plaintiff from obtaining federal and/or state research grants on his copyrighted works, because the obtaining of said grants is well known to be basically dependent on publications. Consequently, CU has caused a scientific, financial, academic, emotional and other damages to plaintiff via the fraud of the paternity of his most important scientific contributions.

61. Wherefore, the plaintiff requests from CU a financial compensation for damage of $\$15,000,000$ (fifteen million dollars) or whatever deemed appropriate by the Honorable Judge, that is, a value given by the Honorable Judge to the loss of the plaintiff lifetime work.

FORTH COMPLAINT COUNT 4: DISCRIMINATION UNDER PUBLIC SUPPORT
(against defendant Cornell University (CU)]
62. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all preceding statements. As documented above, the plaintiff has been a victim of severe discrimination by defendant CU, which discrimination constitutes a violation of the laws against discrimination when operating under public financial support. This discrimination has caused severe damages to the plaintiff also documented above. By depriving the plaintiff an equal opportunity under federal funds, CU violated the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity, 5 u. s. c. 2302.

63. Wherefore, the plaintiff requests from CU a financial compensation for damage of $\$15,000,000 $ (fifteen million dollars) or whatever deemed appropriate by the Honorable Judge, that is, a value given by the Honorable Judge to the plaintiff lifetime work.

FORTH COMPLAINT COUNT 5: MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
[against defendant Cornell University (CU)]
64. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all preceding statements. In particular, the documented discrimination of the plaintiff in preventing the uploading of his works in the desired section of the arXiv, CU perpetrated a clear misuse of public funds, an act violating Section 112.313 of the Florida Stature which prohibits the use of public funds to favorably treat one person over another.

65. As one can see in Exhibit I, said public funds were granted under the condition of defendant CU verifying the highest possible academic standards, which standards require, first and above all, the strict implementation and verification of the highest possible levels of scientific ethics and accountability, at the basis of which is the avoidance of publications infringing copyrights. On the contrary, defendant CU has perpetrated a number of violations of said requirements, such as:

66. A. CU has allowed the publication in their electronic business of copyright infringing works to the extreme of avoiding any quotation whatsoever of the plaintiff's prior works, which occurrence constitutes a gross violation of the most elementary rules of high scientific standards, to which defendant CU is bound by the use of public funds.

67. B. Additionally, CU has published in their electronic business works by defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani that are catastrophically inconsistent in the sense of violating basic laws in physics, as treated in details in Count 10 below, catastrophic inconsistencies that are expected to be known by experts to qualify as such, thus perpetrating a second gross violation of the most elementary rules of high academic standards, and

68. C. Defendant CU has refused to implement any corrective measures when informed in writing of gross misconducts A and B above, this confirming the perpetration of gross misconduct perhaps originating from an excessive and excessively protracted impunity due to complete lack of federal or state, governmental or judicial control. of their operations to date, despite a world wide chorus of protests.

69. The plaintiff has received severe damages and injuries from the above misuse of public funds by defendant CU, both in reputation as well as financial incomes, and similar dam,ages have been suffered by numerous scientists the world over.

70. Wherefore, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgment for \$15,000,000.000 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Cornell University to plaintiff Santilli as compensation for misuse of public funds, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate and just.

FORTH COMPLAINT COUNT 6: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[against defendant Cornell University (CU)]
71. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all the preceding allegations, and additionally brings to the attention of this Honorable Court, the unwillingness of defendant CU to remove from their archives the fraudulent works by defendant cardone, Mignani and Marrani as listed in Exhibit G.

72. In fact, defendant CU has continued to advertise and promote plagiarizing work as in Exhibit G following the reception of the respectful request as per Exhibit I, and has additionally continued the advertisement and promotion of plagiarized works as in Exhibit G following the filing of the first Complaint as well as of the Amended Complaint.

73. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm and is suffering irreparable harm as a consequence of the copyright infringing works published by defendant CU that continues to defraud the plaintiff of his copyrighted scientific paternity. Since CU university rejected any plea by the plaintiff for corrections, the continuation of the violations of various laws by CU as identified above will cause additional damage to plaintiff.

74. Hence, plaintiff respectfully request the Honorable Judge Steven D. merryday to issue the below identified preliminary injunction because: 1) Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if CU arxiv is continued to allowed copyright infringements; 2) Plaintiff has no other remedy at law; 3) Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 4) A temporary injunction will serve the public interest because it would mandate CU to honor laws on copyrights, public funds and the Millennium Digital; Copyright Act.

75. Wherefore, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday provides a Preliminary Injunction in accordance with Rule 65(a) of th federal Rules of Civil procedure, (see Reed v. Cleveland and Bod Educ. 581 F.2D 570,573) against defendant Cornell University mandating the removal from their archives of all works authored by defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani, and mandating the halting of the listing of any and all additional works by said and other defendants for at least the duration of this lawsuit. Unless this Preliminary Injunction is issued and implemented, the plaintiff will continue to suffer unjust professional and financial damages and his activity will be greatly curtailed, including the inability to apply for research support.

FORTH COMPLAINT COUNT 7: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
[against defendant David J. Skorton]
76. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all the preceding allegations, and additionally claim that, in his capacity as president of Cornell University, defendant David J. Skorton must assume the primary responsibility for the above identified illegal acts under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior that makes an employer liable for the torts and illegal actions committed by its employees unless duty corrected, which Statute establishes the liability of defendant Skorton.

77. Additionally, Skorton supported the illegal actions by his anonymous editors of the arXiv, to such an extent to be vulgar, dishonest and offensive to the plaintiff, a fellow academician his senior, by not even acknowledging the very respectful plea to ethics and laws by the plaintiff (exhibit J), thus establishing his complicity beyond credible doubt, a complicity confirmed by the dismissal of the additional plea by the plaintiff to implement ethics and laws filed via Skporton¹s attorney of the time, Boystood (exhibit L). As a result of such a vulgar, dishonest and offensive complicity with unethical and unlawful conduct, the plaintiff has suffered severe financial and emotional damages.

78. To appraise the gravity of Skorton¹s misconduct, the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday is respectfully requested to consider the fact that this lawsuit and its unreassuring international repercussion would not have been filed in the event Skorton had exercised his authority as president of Cornell University and imposed his corrupt employees to implement indeed democracy in the use of the arXiv as requested by federal funds and allowed the plaintiff equal uploads as provided to other privileged scientists.

79. Wherefore, the plaintiff respectfully prays the Honorable Judge Steven D. merryday to grant a judgment in the plaintiff's favor for a financial compensation from defendant David J. Skorton of $\$30,000,000$ (thirty million dollars) or whatever the Honorable Judge deems appropriate to prevent other college presidents from continuing the ongoing violations of ethics and the law under the current illusion of impunity due to lack of prosecution.