Dr. Bradley Foerster to University of Michigan SACUA: 150+ Defense Exhibits, Unavailable Witnesses, Disputed Emails, and “Clear and Convincing Evidence” in the University of Michigan 5.09 Proceedings

On March 18, 2019, Dr. Bradley Foerster submitted a written memorandum to the University of Michigan SACUA Review Committee in advance of the May 1, 2019 hearing reviewing his Bylaw 5.09 dismissal proceedings.

The memorandum documented specific objections to the conduct and evidentiary basis of the proceedings, including limited access to University exhibits, the volume and timing of defense evidence, unavailable hearing transcripts, witness access, the attribution of disputed mass emails, the applicable burden of proof, academic freedom, University reporting obligations, and First and Fourth Amendment concerns.

The memorandum also preserved Dr. Foerster’s responses to specific findings of the Ad Hoc Committee before SACUA conducted its review and before the University completed the dismissal process.

Complete March 18, 2019 SACUA Memorandum

The complete memorandum submitted by Dr. Bradley Foerster for the May 1, 2019 SACUA Review Committee hearing is embedded below. Selected excerpts following the document identify the principal issues presented to SACUA.

Open the complete March 18, 2019 SACUA Memorandum in Google Drive

1. Memorandum Submitted for SACUA Review

The March 18 memorandum was prepared for the May 1, 2019 SACUA Review Committee hearing. The first substantive question addressed whether the Ad Hoc Committee had followed the procedure required by Bylaw 5.09.

2. Evidence Available Before the Ad Hoc Committee Decision

The memorandum states that Dr. Foerster formally requested the University’s proposed exhibits before the hearings and received only 2 of 55 exhibits for advance review. Both were unsigned draft Hall Render reports concerning the NIH R01 grant and EPIC.

The memorandum documents the defense evidence submitted during the hearings: more than 150 exhibits containing hundreds of pages on November 17, followed by more than 25 additional pieces of evidence totaling more than 300 pages on November 26.

The submissions included sworn statements concerning hacking and identity theft, materials concerning the VA and court proceedings, a detailed rebuttal to the University’s exhibits, a statement addressing professional conduct and misconduct, and opening and closing statements.

The Ad Hoc Committee reached its decision on November 26, 2018—the same day the final hearing concluded and the additional defense evidence was submitted. The memorandum records that committee members had stated during the hearings that additional time would be required to review the accumulated evidence.

The hearing transcripts were not yet available when that decision was reached. The memorandum records that the transcripts were subsequently provided in December 2018 and that the testimony was necessary to evaluate the documentary evidence in context.

3. Witnesses

The memorandum identifies Dr. Paul Cronin and Dr. Aine Kelly as key witnesses concerning the EPIC and court-misconduct allegations and records that both had expressed fear of reprisal if they testified. The memorandum further records Dr. Cronin’s statement that other faculty had been instructed by departmental leadership not to participate.

The hearings also overlapped with the annual Radiological Society of North America meeting, preventing some Radiology witnesses from attending. The memorandum states that no interrogatory alternative was offered and that the Ad Hoc Committee subsequently cited the absence of Radiology faculty witnesses in its dismissal recommendation.

The memorandum also identifies the absence of direct witness testimony from individuals involved in several of the underlying matters used to support dismissal.

4. AAUP Standards: Professional Fitness, Academic Freedom, and the Rights of Citizens

The memorandum quoted standards articulated by the American Association of University Professors, including the requirement that adequate cause for dismissal relate “directly and substantially” to a faculty member’s fitness as a teacher or researcher.

The quoted AAUP standard continued:

“Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights of American citizens.”

The memorandum applied that standard to matters being used to support dismissal, including reporting suspected misconduct, disputed communications, conduct while on approved medical leave, and efforts to seek judicial redress.

The AAUP standard quoted in the memorandum sets a high threshold for dismissal: adequate cause must relate “directly and substantially” to a faculty member’s fitness as a teacher or researcher. Dr. Foerster’s argument to SACUA was that the matters being used to support his dismissal—including reporting concerns, disputed communications, conduct while on approved leave, and seeking judicial redress—did not meet that threshold.

5. “Clear and Convincing Evidence”

The memorandum separately quoted the AAUP standard governing the burden of proof:

“The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the institution and will be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.”

The memorandum states that no burden-of-proof standard had been provided for the hearings and that Bylaw 5.09(4)(b) did not specify one. The memorandum also states that the dismissal report did not specifically address substantial portions of the rebuttal evidence or explain why that evidence had been rejected.

The AAUP standard placed the burden on the institution and required clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole. The March 2019 memorandum expressly placed that standard before SACUA.

6. Disputed Mass Emails and the NIH R01 Grant

The memorandum contains an unequivocal denial concerning mass emails attributed to Dr. Foerster:

“I never sent the mass emails presented as Exhibits 7 and 8.”

The denial was made under oath. The memorandum states that no objective corroborating evidence had been presented establishing that Dr. Foerster sent the disputed emails.

The memorandum distinguishes the disputed mass emails from communications Dr. Foerster acknowledged making. An email to Dr. Richard Cohan and members of the mentoring committee seeking advice was acknowledged, as were reports of concerns made to the University’s Office of General Counsel.

The disputed issue was specific: whether Dr. Foerster sent the mass emails contained in Exhibits 7 and 8.

The same section challenges reliance on the unsigned draft Hall Render report and addresses testimony obtained from attorney David French concerning the report.

The disputed mass emails were nevertheless attributed to Dr. Foerster and used in support of dismissal.

A separate passage quotes the University of Michigan Code of Conduct and Compliance Program:

“You do not only have a right to report, but as a workforce member with compliance responsibility, it is your duty to report.”

The memorandum states that information concerning possible fraud had been provided by Dr. Cronin and that the concerns were reported through University channels for consideration and investigation.

The documentary distinction is clear: Dr. Foerster acknowledged reporting suspected misconduct for investigation while denying authorship of the mass emails attributed to him.

8. First Amendment Concerns

Under the heading “Violations of First Amendment,” the memorandum addresses the use of civil-litigation outcomes in the employment proceeding and expressly raises a “chilling effect on a faculty’s right to seek redress in the judicial system.”

The memorandum distinguishes participation in litigation from alleged conduct during litigation and states that, if a court order was to be used as evidence against Dr. Foerster’s employment, the underlying evidence should be independently evaluated.

The same section addresses reports of suspected fraud and rejects the characterization that concerns had been presented as established facts:

“I report what I feel and believe to be concerning and ask for someone to look into it.”

Both issues—access to judicial redress and reporting suspected misconduct—were expressly presented to SACUA as First Amendment concerns in March 2019.

9. Fourth Amendment Concerns and the Ann Arbor Police Record

Under “Violations of Fourth Amendment,” the memorandum connects Ann Arbor Police Department searches to civil litigation subsequently used in the 5.09 proceeding.

The memorandum cites testimony from AAPD Detective Spickard during the 5.09 hearing and identifies asserted deficiencies concerning the search-warrant process. The memorandum states that the Ad Hoc Committee did not address those Fourth Amendment objections before relying on the resulting litigation in the dismissal proceeding.

The March 2019 memorandum documents the connection already being presented to SACUA: AAPD searches and seizures, resulting civil litigation, and the subsequent use of that litigation in the University’s dismissal proceeding.

10. The Underlying Court Record

The memorandum addresses the Ad Hoc Committee’s characterization of Dr. Foerster’s conduct in legal proceedings, including its reference to “several independent courts.”

The memorandum identifies the quoted material as coming from a single April 13, 2018 opinion and directs SACUA to additional language in that same order:

“the Court does not believe they (Petrou, Foerster, Hall) sought to deceive it”

and

“the Court cannot conclude that they (Petrou, Foerster, Hall) acted in bad faith.”

The same court order relied upon in the dismissal record therefore contained language stating that the court did not believe Petrou, Foerster, and Hall sought to deceive it and could not conclude that they acted in bad faith. Both statements were expressly placed before SACUA in March 2019.

11. Character Witnesses and Credibility

The memorandum addresses the purpose of the character witnesses presented during the Ad Hoc Committee hearings. The witnesses were presented as character witnesses, not professional references. The stated purpose was to address the basic question of “whether I am truthful.”

The same passage addresses the absence of additional witnesses. Drs. Frey, Pernicano, and Gross are identified as individuals who had agreed to testify but could not be accommodated because of scheduling conflicts. The memorandum again records that Drs. Cronin and Kelly had declined to appear because of fear of reprisal.

The character testimony was directed specifically to truthfulness. President Mark Schlissel’s June 2019 dismissal recommendation later expressly addressed Dr. Foerster’s credibility.

12. The Issues Presented to SACUA

The memorandum closes with five conclusions addressing the principal subjects of SACUA review:

1. whether critical aspects of the Bylaw 5.09 procedure had been followed;
2. whether the hearing had been fair;
3. whether the findings corresponded to the charges;
4. whether the proceeding raised matters of broader University concern; and
5. whether the evidentiary record supported the findings and dismissal recommendation.

These issues were presented to SACUA in March 2019, before the May 1 Review Committee hearing and before the University completed the dismissal process.

The March 2019 memorandum preserves a contemporaneous record of the defense presented during the 5.09 proceedings: the evidence submitted, the evidence available for review, the witnesses sought, the disputed attribution of mass emails, the standards invoked for dismissal, the constitutional objections raised, the underlying court record, and the character testimony addressing truthfulness.

Later hearing transcripts, court records, University records, and records subsequently obtained through FOIA can be read against that contemporaneous record.

5.09 Documentary Chronology
← Previous | Return to 5.09 Documentary Chronology | Next →

5.09 Documentary Chronology
← Previous | Return to 5.09 Documentary Chronology | Next →

Selected Reporting

• Bradley Foerster Submits 140-Exhibit, 1,121-Page Documentary Chronology to FBI for Supervisory Review of the Investigation Involving Dr. Bradley Foerster, Dr. Myria Petrou, and Duaa Altaee
• From One FBI File to a Legislative Proposal: Peter and Maria Foerster Ask Senator Van Hollen's Office and Congressman Jamie Raskin to Consider a Uniform Administrative Framework for Federal Investigations
• Eva Feldman Documentary Chronology: 139 Exhibits on NIH R01NS082304, University Proceedings, and Federal Investigation — No Response Received
• Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Send Ann Arbor Officials Documentary Chronology on AAPD and Related Federal Investigations — No Response Received
• Timothy Lynch Documentary Chronology: 63 Exhibits on University of Michigan Office of General Counsel, University Investigations, and Law Enforcement — No Response Received
• Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Documentary Chronology: 8 Exhibits Document More Than Two Years of Efforts to Trace Bank of Ann Arbor's $1.4 Million Sheriff's Sale Credit Bid — No Response Received

Brad Foerster, MD PhD

Brad Foerster is a FOIA advocate documenting requests, transparency disputes, and accountability investigations involving public agencies, universities, police oversight, and Russia-Gate related inquiries. His work compiles original documents, timelines, and analysis of public records and institutional responses. Brad is also a board-certified radiologist, author of Town & Gown, and has published over 40 peer-reviewed articles. Brad lives in Potomac, Maryland with his family and is a member of the Montgomery County Medical Society and the Takoma Park U.S. & World History Book Club.