“Please, I Asking the University To Come Back With the IP Addresses”: Dr. Bradley Foerster Asked University of Michigan SACUA for the Electronic Origin of Disputed Mass Emails and Access for Independent Examination
On May 1, 2019, during the University of Michigan SACUA review of his Bylaw 5.09 dismissal proceedings, Dr. Bradley Foerster repeatedly denied sending mass emails attributed to him, requested the IP-address information identifying their origin, and sought access to the underlying emails for independent examination. The transcript also identifies communications Dr. Foerster acknowledged making.
1. Reporting Concerns, Disputed Mass Emails, and the Missing IP Addresses
During his presentation to SACUA, Dr. Foerster addressed the basis for concerns he had reported concerning the NIH-funded ALS grant and EPIC medical billing, while separately challenging electronic material attributed to him and used during his Bylaw 5.09 dismissal proceedings.
With respect to the NIH-funded ALS grant, Dr. Foerster told SACUA that the basis for his concerns was that he had not seen any data analysis by Dr. Robert Welsh and his team during three years and three NIH annual reports. With respect to EPIC, Dr. Foerster stated that the concerns had been brought to him repeatedly by Dr. Paul Cronin and mirrored concerns previously brought to his attention by former University of Michigan radiologist Dr. Paula Novelli.
Dr. Foerster told SACUA that he reported these concerns internally within the University of Michigan and also reported concerns to the FBI. He separately denied sending the mass emails attributed to him:
“I reported my concerns internally within the University of Michigan to the highest levels of the administration as appropriate. I did not send mass e-mails as alleged.”
Dr. Foerster immediately followed that denial by addressing the electronic origin of the disputed mass emails:
“To date, despite repeated requests I have not received an IP address from which the mass e-mails were sent.”
The presentation then identified the University exhibits at issue. Dr. Foerster stated that University Exhibits 2 and 4 were from mass emails he had not sent; University Exhibit 6 was another email he had not sent; and University Exhibits 7 and 10 were web postings he had not posted. He separately described University Exhibits 3 and 5 as personal recordings that he maintained had been obtained through hacking.
Importantly, Dr. Foerster did not dispute every communication in the University’s evidence. For University Exhibit 8, Dr. Foerster acknowledged his involvement and described the communication as having been composed predominantly by Dr. Paul Cronin, dictated to Dr. Myria Petrou, edited by Dr. Aine Kelly, reviewed by Dr. Foerster, and signed by all four. Dr. Foerster stated that the communication was intended for the University Office of General Counsel.
2. “Come Back With the IP Addresses”
Later in the May 1 hearing, SACUA Chair Professor Karen Staller questioned Dr. Foerster directly about the evidence concerning altered emails and the mass emails Dr. Foerster denied sending.
Professor Staller stated that the committee had reviewed Dr. Foerster’s evidence but did not understand how it established hacking. Dr. Foerster responded by asking the University for the electronic evidence identifying the emails’ origin:
“please, I'm asking the University, come back with the IP addresses, show me the IP address of where these e-mails came from.”
Dr. Foerster reiterated that he had not sent the emails and stated that he had made that assertion under oath in multiple affidavits.
When Professor Staller asked why Dr. Foerster had not hired an expert, Dr. Foerster answered:
“if the University is willing to give me access to e-mails, I will -- I will hire a consultant, an expert to come in and do -- do an audit.”
The problem was direct: without access to the received emails, Dr. Foerster could not provide them to an independent expert to examine the available electronic information concerning their origin, including IP-address information. Dr. Foerster therefore asked the University for the IP addresses or access to the emails for independent examination.
Professor Staller then questioned Dr. Foerster about the accounts involved. Dr. Foerster acknowledged uncertainty about the precise accounts and stated that he needed to examine the emails themselves.
Professor Freeman then pressed Dr. Foerster on what he meant by “hacked.” Dr. Foerster again denied sending the disputed material:
“if the University wants to claim otherwise, they need to provide evidence of that fact and they haven't.”
3. The Specific Emails and the Separate Communication Dr. Foerster Acknowledged Sending
Later in the hearing, SACUA Chair Professor Karen Staller returned to University Exhibits 2 and 4, referring to email from July 11 and again from July 12, 2017 that had gone to University colleagues and individuals outside the University with multiple attachments.
Professor Staller asked whether Dr. Foerster maintained that the email had been sent through hacking. Dr. Foerster answered:
“That's correct. I didn't send that e-mail.”
Dr. Foerster then distinguished the disputed mass email from a separate communication he acknowledged sending to a small group that included Dr. Richard Cohan and members of his mentoring committee:
“a different e-mail documenting something different, but I did not send that mass e-mail that went -- went out with all of those documents.”
Professor Staller then asked why Dr. Foerster had not submitted the separate emails he said he had sent to Dr. Cohan. Dr. Foerster answered:
“Because I don't have access to them.”
Dr. Foerster explained that he had asked University Chief Information Security Officer Jack Kufahl whether older sent emails could be recovered. According to Dr. Foerster’s testimony, Kufahl told him that after six months the sent emails were wiped, while emails remaining in an inbox could still be available.
Professor Staller next turned to an attachment to the disputed mass email titled “Brad Foerster's whistleblower statement” and asked whether Dr. Foerster had written it.
“No.”
Professor Staller then stated Dr. Foerster’s position back to him:
“both the e-mail -- e-mail sending was hacked and the statement itself is completely fabricated by somebody else?”
Dr. Foerster answered:
“Correct.”
Dr. Foerster stated that he could not identify who was responsible. When Professor Staller specifically asked whether it was Dr. Myria Petrou, Dr. Foerster answered:
“No, for sure it's not my wife.”
Related Documentary Records
The IP-address information requested by Dr. Foerster was not produced during the 5.09 proceedings. In 2020, Dr. Foerster obtained through the Michigan Freedom of Information Act technical IP-address information from the University concerning the disputed mass emails.
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.