Fals- Stewart felony complaint

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WIVB) - FELONY COMPLAINT

STATE OF NEW YORK : CITY OF BUFFALO
CITY COURT : COUNTY OF ERIE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
-against-
WILLIAM FALS-STEWART,
Defendant.

Investigator Paul R. Scherf of the New York State Attorney General’s Office, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the defendant, William Fals-Stewart, on or about and between April 20, 2007 and February 17, 2009 , in the City of Buffalo, County of Erie, State of New York, committed the following crimes:
PERJURY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Sections 20 and 210.15 of the Penal Law of the State of New York (3 Counts);
IDENTITY THEFT IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Sections 20 and 190.80(3) of the Penal Law of the State of New York (3 Counts); OFFERING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Section 175.35 of the Penal Law of the State of New York (2 Counts);

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Section 175.10 of the Penal Law of the State of New York (3 Counts);
ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Sections 110 and 155.42 of the Penal Law of the State of New York in that the defendant when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the offense, solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, and
1
intentionally aided another person to swear falsely and when the false statement consisted of testimony, and was material to the action, proceeding and matter in which it was made;
And the defendant when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the offense, solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, and intentionally aided another person to knowingly and with intent to defraud assume the identity of another person by presenting himself or herself as that other person, and by acting as that other person and by using personal identifying information of that other person, and thereby committed and attempted to commit a class D felony or higher level crime and acted as an accessory in the commission of a class D or higher level felony;
And the defendant when, knowing that a written instrument contained a false statement and false information, and with intent to defraud the state and any political subdivision, public authority and public benefit corporation of the state, he offered and presented it to a public office, public servant, public authority and public benefit corporation with the knowledge and belief that it would be filed with, registered and recorded in and otherwise become a part of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority and public benefit corporation;
And the defendant with intent to defraud, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, and his intent to defraud included an intent to commit another crime and to aid and conceal the commission thereof;
And the defendant attempted to steal property and the value of the property exceeded one million dollars.
This felony complaint is based upon information and belief, the source of the information and grounds for the belief being the investigation conducted and records
2
maintained by the State University of New York and by investigators assigned to the Office of the New York State Attorney General, a review of the records maintained by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and the statements of and records maintained by Cynthia Stappenbeck, Charles McKinnivan, Janet Martin, Elaine Heckler, Ray Ammerman, Moira Keenan and Dr. Howard Liddle. These crimes were committed under the following circumstances:
The Offenses
1. On September 28, 2004, Dr. William Fals-Stewart (hereafter "Fals-Stewart"), an employee of the University at Buffalo1 and Research Institute on Addictions,2 was accused of scientific misconduct. It was alleged that Fals-Stewart fabricated data in federally funded studies that he was completing. The misconduct allegations were based upon discrepancies between (a) the number of subject volunteers that Fals-Stewart reported on progress reports that he submitted to the National Institute for Drug Addiction (hereafter "NIDA") relating to grants for which he was the Principal Investigator, and (b) the actual number of consent forms signed by subject volunteers obtained by University at Buffalo investigators.
2. On December 22, 2004, a University at Buffalo Inquiry Panel found the data fabrication charges that had been lodged against Fals-Stewart to be warranted; and recommended that a formal investigation be commenced against Fals-Stewart.
3. Thereafter, a University at Buffalo Investigation Panel (hereafter "the Panel"), comprised of various University at Buffalo officials, began the formal investigation into the allegations of misconduct that had been lodged against Fals-Stewart. As part of this
1 The University at Buffalo is part of the State University of New York system.
2 The Research Institute on Addictions is a research center of the State University

of New York at Buffalo. 3
investigation, the Panel conducted formal hearings, including one on September 4, 2007 (hereafter "the September 2007 hearing"). At the September 2007 hearing, several witnesses testified on behalf of Fals-Stewart, including individuals Fals-Stewart identified as Cynthia Stappenbeck (hereafter "Stappenbeck"), Charles McKinnivan (hereafter "McKinnivan") and Janet Martin (hereafter "Martin"). Stappenbeck had information material to the proceedings as she worked for more than a year as project director on one of the federal grants obtained by Fals-Stewart. Martin had information material to the proceedings as she was project coordinator on one of the federal grants obtained by Fals-Stewart. McKinnivan had information material to the proceedings as he was the Director of Quality Assurance at ADDS and had access to records that were pertinent to the proceedings.
4. According to Fals-Stewart, Stappenbeck, McKinnivan and Martin were out of the area, and therefore were unavailable to testify in person at the September 2007 hearing. It was thus agreed that each of these individuals would be allowed to testify by telephone. A call was made to each of these individuals from the University at Buffalo conference room where the hearing was taking place, and the witness would then be questioned. Prior to each witness's testimony, they were administered an oath by the stenographer who was transcribing the testimony, who was also a Notary Public. Each witness responded affirmatively to the oath. Thereafter, each of the witnesses testified and the hearing transcript of the September 2007 hearing was made a part of the records of the Panel and the University at Buffalo.
5. On May 21, 2008, the Panel issued a report entitled, “Report of a University at Buffalo Panel Investigating Allegations of Scientific Misconduct”. In the report, the
4
Panel determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations set forth in the Inquiry Panel's December 22, 2004 report and recommended that the investigation be terminated. The report specifically cited the testimony of “Stappenbeck,” “McKinnivan” and “Martin” to support their decision to terminate the investigation.
6. In the fall of 2009, I obtained the telephone records for the conference room where the September 2007 hearing had taken place. I was then able to determine that the telephone calls, which were allegedly made to Stappenbeck, McKinnivan and Martin prior to each of their testimony, were in fact made to individuals named Elaine Heckler (hereafter "Heckler), Ray Ammerman (hereafter "Ammerman") and Moira Keenan (hereafter "Keenan").
7. I have interviewed Heckler, Ammerman and Keenan. Each one stated that they are professional actors who were hired by Fals-Stewart to testify during the September 2007 hearing. Each one further stated that they were hired by Fals-Stewart for what they thought was going to be a mock trial training exercise. Ammerman further stated that he was paid $200 for his services, and he has provided me with a copy of the canceled check made out for $200 that was given to him by Fals-Stewart. Keenan allowed Office of the Attorney General investigators to forensically examine her personal computer. Through this examination, we obtained a copy of the script that she was provided by Fals-Stewart. This script matches the transcript of her testimony at the September 2007 hearing. Each of these individuals further stated that they did not know that they were testifying under oath at a real administrative hearing. In addition, they said that they did not know that they were impersonating real people. Finally, they stated that
5
they had previously been hired by Fals-Stewart to act in training videos3 and they thought nothing of performing for him again. In addition to speaking to Heckler, Ammerman and Keenan, affidavits have been obtained from the real Stappenbeck, McKinnivan and Martin. Each one denied testifying at the September 2007 hearing.
8. On September 4, 2007, Heckler testified before the Investigation Panel after taking an oath as Cynthia Stappenbeck. Her testimony was false not only in that she was not the person she claimed to be, but also with respect to almost all the specific information she provided to the Investigating Panel. For instance, the following question was posed by Fals-Stewart to Heckler while Heckler was acting as Stappenbeck:
“Q Okay. Cindy, I’ve kept little notes here. I’m adding up the number of couples you’re saying that you saw us recruit for the Q549 and that you recruited; that you saw me recruit and you saw the research assistants recruit. It seems to range from a hundred and thirty-five to a hundred and sixty couples; five couples by me, thirty couples by you and a hundred to a hundred and twenty-five couples by the research assistants. That would translate to two hundred to two hundred and fifty people. Does that sound about right to you, as you think about this?
A It seems about right.

I think I would have guessed a little higher as a total, maybe a hundred and eighty couples, but the range seems correct.”
9. I have spoken with Cynthia Stappenbeck and she said that the number of recruits, as testified above, was grossly inflated. The actual number of recruits that she obtained was around five and she said the actual number of recruits the research assistants obtained was approximately forty. Therefore, Stappenbeck believes the total
3 Videos of these training sessions were discovered on Fals-Stewart’s web site.
6
number of recruits was significantly lower than indicated in the testimony of Heckler – as Stappenbeck. Since the Investigation Panel was attempting to determine whether discrepancies existed between the number of subject volunteers that Fals-Stewart reported to NIDA and the actual number of consent forms signed by subject volunteers, said false testimony was material to the proceedings.
10. On September 4, 2007, Keenan testified before the Investigation Panel after taking an oath as Janet Martin. Her testimony was false not only in that she was not the person she claimed to be, but also with respect to almost all the specific information she provided to the Investigating Panel. For instance, the following question was posed by Fals-Stewart to Keenan while Keenan was acting as Martin:
“Q Did you ever see consent forms for our studies for Q537 . . .
A Right.
Q -- in the medical records at ADDS [Alcohol and Drug Dependency Services]?
A Yes. All the time. I was in the medical records and that’s where we kept them. That’s where we kept them. I was in their medical records all the time. We kept copies there.”
11. I have spoken with Janet Martin and she said that she never had access to the medical records at ADDS and never kept any study consent forms in any other agency’s records. Besides, she was prohibited from reviewing the medical records of patients at ADDS due to privacy concerns. Since the Investigation Panel was attempting to determine whether discrepancies existed between the number of subject volunteers that
7
Fals-Stewart reported to NIDA and the actual number of consent forms signed by subject volunteers, said false testimony was material to the proceedings.
12. On September 4, 2007, Ammerman testified before the Investigation Panel after taking an oath as Charles McKinnivan. His testimony was false not only in that he was not the person he claimed to be, but also with respect to almost all the specific information he provided to the Investigating Panel. For instance, the following questions were posed by Fals-Stewart to Ammerman while Ammerman was acting as McKinnivan:
“Q Okay. At some point, did I ask you to go through the records to look for copies of the signed informed consent documents for the studies I conducted at FAOS [Family Addiction Outpatient Services]?
A Yes, you did.
Q Did you fulfill that request?
A Oh, yeah, I did. That was a lot of fun I’ll tell you.
Q I bet. If you were to give an estimate, how many records did you go through to fulfill my request?
A I estimate that was about forty-thousand records. So it took me about three weeks to look at all of them. I’d have to say also, some records might have been out at various times at the clinics, because clients come back into treatment. There might have been some. I focused on the records at 291 Elm not the ones that might have been out at the other clinics.”
13. I have spoken with Charles McKinnivan and he said that Fals-Stewart never requested that he search any records to obtain signed informed consent documents and
8
that he certainly did not spend three weeks searching through forty thousand documents to find signed informed consent documents. Since the Investigation Panel was attempting to determine whether discrepancies existed between the number of subject volunteers that Fals-Stewart reported to NIDA and the actual number of consent forms signed by subject volunteers, said false testimony was material to the proceedings.
14. On August 5, 2007, Fals-Stewart initiated a lawsuit (hereafter "the federal lawsuit") in the United State District Court for the Western District of New York (hereafter "the Federal Court"). In the federal lawsuit, Fals-Stewart alleged that he had been wrongfully terminated by officials at the University at Buffalo, and that officials at the University at Buffalo tarnished his reputation in the scientific community by discussing with other scientists the misconduct allegations that had been brought against him. To support the claim that his reputation had been tarnished, according to records maintained by the Federal Court, on April 20, 2007, Fals-Stewart submitted his own affidavit that included an email that was purportedly from a Dr. Howard Liddle. This affidavit and attached email were also sent to the Office of the Attorney General, whose job it was to defend the defendants in the federal lawsuit, including the University at Buffalo. Dr. Liddle is a well-respected member of