PART II:
A CURRENT CASE OF SYSTEMATIC MANIPULATION IN AUSTRAIN INSTITUTIONS OF SCIENCE AND LAW - THE "SFB MODERNE"1
1. THE "SFB MODERNE"
To get an answer to the question "What is the "SFB Moderne"?", it would be good to study
the research work "Who did X?"2 Nevertheless, in
this part an answer will be given in terms of a description of the basic facts
and violations of law starting with the contract and the research work on
demand, the violation of copy-right and the contract, the use of strong
repressive means, then the way through the court, the false statutory
declaration and false statements, and so forth.
Finally, this description ends
with the statement by the responsible Minister of Education and Science
Elisabeth Gehrer who claims (letter from July 27, 2000 – and the ministry did
not return the scientific work on this issue – about pp. 700) that she has been
informed by her staff that it would not be possible to criticisea decision made
by the supreme court, and therefore, that she cannot do anything to get the
case investigated. However, according to Austrian law §§ 191 and 530 (Abs 1)
ZPO each decision based on false statements or a false statutory declaration
can cause the reopening of the case, and according to § 288 (Abs 1) and (Abs 2)
STGB a false statutory declaration causes a civil law case to be interrupted in
order to be investigated by the criminal law. In the case that public
authorities are involved in the torts § 288 (Abs 1) and (Abs 2) STGB it can
also be investigated by a disciplinary process according to Art 53 B-VG. The
damage is about several millions of ATS, but the whole damage still cannot be
counted. The project itself is supported by the Austrian Ministry of Science by
about 70 000 000 ATS. Minister Gehrer will have to justify why she omitted to
let the case be investigated (a) by a disciplinary process, or (b) by the Austrian
Staatsanwaltschaft, or (c) by the Austrian Verfassungsgerichtshof because
of the violation of basic rules of law such as human right according to the
EMRK. The reasons, the impact, and the consequences of such an obviously
anti-constitutional action by public authorities within public institutions
based partly on incompetence that violates Art. 83. Abs 1 of The Austrian
Federal Constitution3 will not be investigated here due to the need first for a short description of the most basic facts.
Step 1; The thesis adviser (according to the Austrian Bundesgesetz über geistes- und naturwissenschaftliche Studien and the Universitätsorganisationsgesetzes (UOG 1993)) makes a contract with his Doctorate-student with regard to the concept for a long-term
research-project and its interdisciplinary connections based on the scientific
work of the Doctorate-student in May 1992.
(1) The contract included the honorarium for the work, the facilities, and further
institutional conditions. The contract was offered within the framework of
being the thesis adviser of the Doctorate-student. Whether or not this fact
already violates §§ 302 and/or 313 StGB is worthy of investigation, because the
responsible Professor denied in court that he would have been allowed to make
such a contract, although in fact he made this contract.
(2) Institutional facts: During the first years of the 90ies in the last century new interdisciplinary research programs were constituted in Austria by the FWF (Fond zur Foerderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung). The FWF is a public institution that is controlled by the Ministry of Science and Research (the name of this Ministry changed often during the
last years, according to the government in power).
Step 2; The elimination of the author's
name and offering the work to somebody else; violation of § 20 Abs 1, § 21
Abs 1, § 14 Abs 1, and § 16 Abs 1 and 2 UrhG. The Doctorate-student submitted the work according to the contract. However, after that the responsible Professor misused his position as official authority of an Austrian University (violation of §§ 302 or/and 313 StGB) in the following ways:
(3) Professor Haller provided a third person, namely Sonja Rinofner-Kreidl, with the print of the original work (a violation of § 14 Abs 1, and § 16 Abs 1 and 2 UrhG). That person was aware of being committed to the violation of §§ 302, 14, and 12 StGB with that act. And Professor Haller gave Sonja Rinofner-Kreidl the order to plagiarize the original work. Sonja Rinofner-Kreidl obeyed.
(4) In his position as a public authority the Professor deleted the name of the author
(violation of § 20 Abs 1, § 21 Abs 1 UrhG) and let the original documents
officially disappear (violation of § 229 Abs 1 StGB).
Step 3; Since the author did ask for her right and an explanation
of the mistakes Professor Haller used the following means of oppression and
threatening:
(5) Blackmailing and fraud: Professor Haller shouted across a street that he (in German:) "hat die betreffende Person erledigt", and at the University he claimed "..., dass er
sie überall vernichten wird", "..., und dass sie nicht glauben sollte, dass es
an ihm einen Weg vorbei gibt". (Violation of § 145 Abs 1 and
Abs 2; StGB.)
(6) Professor Haller promised the author of the original work to correct his mistakes: To give Sonja Rinofner-Kreidl the command to plagiarize and to continue on the basis of the faked document and acts of institutional malpractise. Violation of §§ 302 or/and 313, 164 StGB.
(7) Professor Haller did not keep the promise to correct his mistakes.
Step 4; Instead of the correction of the mistakes, Professor
Haller motivated the following:
(8) Professor Haller let one of his assistants use schwere Drohungen against
her; violation of § 106 StGB.
(9) He let his co-thesis adviser Professor Keith Lehrer exclude her from competition for research grants; violation of Article 14 Human Rights Act, and § 152 StGB.
Step 5; March 1994: Violation of Article 4, 6 and 14 Human
Rights Act, § 24 UrhG, and § 147 StGB by the authorities of the "SFB
MODERNE"; due to their positions as public authorities.
Step 6; Frequent public activities of Professor Haller with
respect to the research project in question, violation of §§ 21, 24, 26 UrhG:
(10) Professor Haller very often presented this work as his own all over the world -- for example, in the final hearing with the referees, in a radio production in the Salzburger
Nachtsudio, at the Frankfurter Buchmesse, at several Austrian
Centers in the USA, and so forth, as well as representations in the
internet.
(11) In addition to that, because of the substantial research funds the project has gotten, Professor Haller could invite professors from all over the world, from Princeton,
Buffalo, and so forth, to give the project at least the face of legality in the
terms of international acceptance.
Step 7; Public authorities within the Austrian scientific institutions omitted to apply §§ 302 or/and 313 StGB, and therefore, each of them has
committed a tort according to §§ 302 or/and 313 StGB and § 8 UOG 1993.
(12) The following institutions were involved (in the year 1993, 1994, and 1995; later torts are not mentioned here):
(13) The institutional structure of problem solving became circular with respect of avoiding the problem. It can be described according to the analysis in part I as systematic manipulation in terms of violation of §§ 302 or/and 313.
(14) The ultimate solution was to fire the scientist without justification, and to continue violating basic rules of law including some most elementary human rights. Among many such acts the responsible group deleted again the name and declared that the
scientist would never have done anything at all, violation of § 297 StGB.
(15) Question: Why did the responsible authorities even fear to face the facts about the violation of basic rules of law and of science? If they really believed that they were
right, they would at least have been able to face the problem.
(16) The use of different kinds of strong oppressive means continued. One of them consisted of violation of § 118 Abs 3 StGB by the head of the Department of Philosophy at the Karl-Franzens-University of Graz.
(17) Besides that, the representative of the Union of the students of philosophy Maria Reicher supported the misuse of rules of scientific and law by Professor Haller,
because she could profit from it. In the meantime she finished her studies and
got a contract from Professor Haller to work exactly on a part of the draft
originally formulated by the scientist who was the author. Maria Reicher is
quite aware about this fact; violation of §§ 302, 164 StGB and § 18 Abs 1
Hochschülerschaftsgesetz 1998 - HSG.
Step 8; Within the "Provisorialverfahren" Professor Haller provided the court with a false statutory declaration (violation of § 288 Abs 2 StGB) and induced some of his colleges to support him by false statements (violation of § 288 Abs 1 and § 164 StGB). Due to his
position as a public authority, Professor Haller's false statutory
declaration was taken to be true, and also the false statements of the witness.
Step 9; The responsible lawyer refused to interrupt the civil case
according to §§ 191 and 530 (Abs 1) ZPO and § 288 (Abs
1) and (Abs 2) STGB to let the case be investigated by the criminal law court.
The responsible lawyer committed malpractice.
Step 10; The "Provisorialverfahren", the decision and the justification by the Austrian
Supreme Court (violation of Art 3, 6 and 14 Human Right Acts) based on
false statements by the witness'and the false statutory
declaration by Professor Haller.
In the following the strategies applied by the responsible judges will be described, whereby
their claims are based on false statements by the witness and the false
statutory declaration such that the decisions and claims of the different
judges including those of the Supreme Court are of no value at all:
(18) Degradation: The court started its justification of the false decision by denying that the scientist had a distinctive degree and professional qualification, such that she could not have done the work she did.
(19) Denying the responsibility of Prof. Haller for the illegal actions in question by referring to him as a public authority in being a Professor at an Austrian public institution.
(20) Introducing and creating the fiction of an
impersonal institutional power that Professor Haller had to obey. In
this sense it would have been his duty to eliminate the name of the scientist.
The judges claimed that this had been an act of Professor Haller's
responsibilities, in which he had to obey. The judges never said whom Professor
Haller had to obey.
(21) Denying that the work in question is public. As reason for this
claim the judges pointed out that the research work is just used by a group of
professionals. There is no definition of "public" given in Austrian
Law and there are no scientific works on this issue available in Austria. In
addition to that there is no work available on the notion of public within
scientific institutions where the production of written work is its genuine
task. (This problem is investigated in Papst, J; Who did X? Part VII.
This part is not included in this online publication.)
(22) Declaring the handwriting of the author to
be the handwriting of Professor Haller. (It would be very easy to prove
this fact just by a look.) Based on this the judges inferred the fictional
story that professor Haller would have reviewed the original work twice.
(23) Stating an entirely anachronistic claim according to
which all the young researchers in that institution have to work (for their thesis
advisers) without being honored or paid. (A simple look in the Austrian Bundesgesetz
über geistes- und naturwissenschaftliche Studien and the existing legal
contracts and institutional practice would falsify that claim.)
(24) Denying the aim of the work as the reliable scientific basis for the long-term-ten-year research programme. According to the rules of the FWF the funding is given for exactly
the proposal for the research program that went trough the process of
evaluation. In the case that in this interdisciplinary project one central part
would have been deleted officially, the whole project would not have got the
funding at all. Neither would it have been acceptable to change the aim of the
research program. The Austrian Supreme Court denied this very elementary
structural fact by the claim that the professors did need the work in question
simply to get the (public) money from the FWF. In this way the Supreme Court
rejected the rules of the FWF and changed the aim of the original work. The
latter purpose counts as a misuse of the funding by the FWF.
(25) Nevertheless, whatever the Austrian Supreme
Court states is said to be true. The question remains: With regard to which
fiction or ideology?
Besides that fact, some general questions about the Austrian constitution and its legal system arise. Even in the case that there were no objective facts at all, the claim that
people who do professional work have to do this work without being honored or
paid for it might have been accepted in the 19th century, but
nowadays such a claim sounds prima facia simply anti-constitutional: it
contradicts human rights. (Art 3, 4, 6 and 14 Human Rights Act 1998.)
Furthermore, instead of investigating the facts the judges ignored or rejected
them by creating fictional or ideologically motivated versions and by referring
to nonexistent authorities. They thus misused their positions as authorities of
public institutions.4
Contrary to the official task of the Court, including the Supreme Court, it did not investigate the case and the clearly documented facts of fraud - scientific and repeated as court fraud.
Step 11; The different versions with respect to the authorship and the contract formulated by Professor Haller are the following:
I mention in chronological ordering the six versions that are documented and accessible.
(26) First version: Recorded document
of the research meeting on July 29, 1993; Professor Haller to J. Papst: "Ich
möchte das Projekt, das im Vorstadium deiner Beschreibung ist, ...".5
"Wenn ich mich richtig erinnere, und da ist meine Erinnerung ziemlich gut, hast
du zu dem Zeitpunkt, als ich dich aufgefordert hab, ein kurzes Konzept
auszuarbeiten, Weiniger noch nicht gelesen gehabt."6 Here, Professor
Haller himself states (a) that J. Papst is the author of the conception of the
long-term research project, and (b) that he made the contract in May 1992.
(27) Second version: In a letter dated September 29, 1993, Prof Haller himself writes that he (a) offered J. Papst the contract for the project, and (b) that J. Papst is the author of the research-project "Ich-Problematik und Egologie in den verschiedenen Zirkeln und in der
Psychologie des Fin de Siecle in Wien" and "Ich-Konzeptionen in der Philosophie
und Psychologie des Fin de Siècle in Wien sowie ihre Diskussion in den
verschiedenen Zirkeln", and (c) that she also worked on the whole conception of
the interdisciplinary research project "Moderne".7 Here, Professor Haller himself states (a) that J. Papst is the author of the conception of the long-term research project, and (b) that he made the contract, and (c) that he will keep the contract and correct the mistakes.
(28) Third version: In a letter to the lawyer of the Austrian Union of the students, Thomas Höhne, and to later lawyer of the doctorate student, Michel Walter (July
1995 and Spring 1996), Professor Haller wrote that he never used a work by the
original author and that he would never do such a thing in the future. Here,
Professor Haller denies the fact of the violation of copyright and the breach
of contract.
(29) Fourth version: In the Provisorialverfahren
at the Austrian Court, faced with the documented facts, Professor Haller
said that he was not responsible for the elimination of the name, but it had
been done by the secretary Dr. Manfred Lechner. Furthermore, Professor Haller
claimed that he was not responsible for the different steps during the whole
procedure of getting the research funded. He claimed that he even would not know
who the responsible authority was, and how such procedures were structured and
performed. He just did what he was told to do by the FWF. In this sense
Professor Haller confirmed that there was an original author and that the
original author worked out the research project mentioned above and was working
on the whole conception. In addition to that, he claimed that usually nobody is
paid for the work. (Compare Haller's statements in the document from Dez. 1996
at the Landesgericht Graz.). Here Professor Haller partial declares that it is
not he himself who is responsible for the violation of copyright and breach of
contract.
(30) Fifth version: In the first volume of
the series of the book Studien zur Moderne "nach Kakanien." Annäherung an die
Moderne" 1996, on p. 21, the following version can be found: "...Auf dem Boden
solcher Überlegungen haben sich zunächst die Vertreter von sechs geistes- bzw.
kulturwissenschaftlichen Fächern der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der
Universität Graz zusammengefunden und gemeinschaftlich über zwei Jahre lang
über die Möglichkeit des Aufbaues eines interdisziplinären Forschungsprojektes
"Moderne" diskutiert. Schließlich haben sich mehr als dreißig Mitarbeiterinnen
und Mitarbeiter aus den Fächern Zeitgeschichte, Österreichische Geschichte,
neuere deutsche Sprache und Literatur sowie Österreichische Literatur,
Kunstgeschichte und Musikwissenschaft, wie schließlich der Philosophie dem
Projektantrag angeschlossen." (Gezeichnet von R. Haller). This quote can be
found in the preface where usually people express their thanks to all who have
contributed to the work. This volume contains the first results of the research
project after a period of about two years.8
Here, Professor Haller denies the fact of violation of copyright and breach of
contract, and he denies that not just the author of the project mentioned above
was working on the conception of the whole project, but also that in other
disciplines other young researchers were engaged in the process of working out
the interdisciplinary project "Moderne".
(31) Sixth version: In the Arbeits- und
Ergebnisbericht 1994-1997 which was to send to the founding research
institution, the FWF, Professor Haller states on p.5 the following: "Das
SFB-Projekt 1 (Philosophie) beinhaltet zwei Teilbereiche, deren Laufzeit nicht
parallel verlief, die jedoch untereinander wie insbesondere mit einer Reihe von
anderen Projekten (insbesondere österreichische Geschichte, Literatur-, Kunst-
und Musikgeschichte wie auch Zeitgeschichte) eng kooperieren. Blieb auch das
Forschungsziel des Teilpunktes 1.2 (...) gleich, so konnte für die vor Beginn
ausgeschiedene Projektmitarbeiterin kein Ersatz gefunden werden, um den vollen
Umfang des ursprünglichen Entwurfes zu bearbeiten. Wohl aber steht seit Herbst 1996
mit P. Giampieri eine Psychoanalytikerin zur Bearbeitung der Ich-Problematik in
zwei Kreisen (...) zur Verfügung."
Here, Professor Haller
confirms (a) that J. Papst is the author of the conception of the long-term
research project, and (b) that she was the former Mitarbeiter, (c) that
she left (without reason), and (d) that he therefore had to engage somebody
else who could not achieve the goal of the project, because (e) the former Mitarbeiter
left. In this sense Professor Haller himself confirms that he violated
copyright and breached the contract.
(32) All these versions are created by Professor Haller at different places at different times. What Professor
Haller says, writes, and claims does not depend on his beliefs and the evident facts, but on what he expects the hearer/reader to believe, and furthermore he makes use of his position as a
public authority to present his claims as true. Whatever Professor Haller tells
people or institutions, he knows the facts, has access to them, and is well
aware of the existence of the documents.
Step 12; Why do some scientists and institutions of science and law fear the facts so much?
(33) Probably because it could turn out that their fictions are mistaken and that the whole enterprise of systematic manipulation could become public.
(34) However, it seems to be a hard job to keep obvious falsities alive over a long period of time when it is not possible to delete the facts entirely including the victim of that crime.
(35) Probably, all verbal and written versions or the so-called quasi-facts are much more attractive. This seems to be the basis of all new kinds of ideological material that
supports oppressive institutional structures.
(36) The name for the new type of a scientific and political oppressive ideology could be NEOMODERNISM, founded in Austria in 1994 by the former teacher of neo-positivist tradition Rudolf
Haller.
(37) Furthermore, there is no lack of documents and proofs to investigate the episode and establish the facts.
(38) The institutional processes and investigations that took place based on some versions formulated by Professor Haller were simply attempts to eliminate all the documented
genuine facts and to destroy the scientific and everyday social relations of
the victim of that systematically structured offense.
Step 13; Further acts of repeated malpractice by the responsible lawyer Michel Walter.
Step 14; Violation of human rights, fraud; Violation of § 297 Abs 1 StGB and of Art 5 Human Rights Act
1998.
Step 15; Why do institutions and public authorities of science and law refuse to investigate the case, although such conduct counts as anti-constitutional within Austrian Law and violates European standards of law?
Step 16; The repeated use of oppressive means against a Doctorate-Student who criticised the practices of Professor Haller,9 violation of § 1 Abs 2, 1 UOG 1993 etc.
2. WHAT HAS AN EMERITUS FROM PRINCETON TO
DO WITH THE "SFB MODERNE"?
In an interview in 1994 Carl E. Schorske said: “Wenn man andere mundtot machen
will, dann klinke ich mich aus.”10 Are these simply some rhetorically uttered words that should be read as a political commitment to
an open dynamic democratic social structure to earn symppathy? In fact Schorske did not
“ausklinken”, on the contrary he is theoretically one of the supporting figures
of the “SFB Moderne”, and based on that in Austria he is the prize-winning figure and historian with regard to some questions about the "Moderne in Wien zur letzten Jahrhundertwende" . Because of his supporting role concerning the "SFB Moderne" and because of his book Geist und Gesellschaft in Fin de Siècle Schorske is somehow the motivation for the "SFB Moderne" in the following way: The Austian scientific policy runs with the claim "If an Austrian historical issue is of interest for Americans, then it is proofen that it might also be lucrative for Austrians regardless correctness and quality, which in fact nobody is interested in".
Based on this the final question arises: How can he justify his
purely rhetorical criticism on the contemporary government as some kind of politics of instincts11,
when in fact he supports an oppressive research program based on acts of crime at the
same time? Is it the rhetoric to earn the goods: money, fame, and at least power within the scientific community - if there exists any?
[1]This part of the paper is taken from Papst, J.; Who did X? Graz,
1999; (unpublished research work); Part IV: What
is the “SFB Moderne”?, pp. 25 – 33. Rudolf Haller
himself formulated his motivation for this project in Rudolf
Haller; „Zurück auf den rauhen Boden der Sprache“. And
his declaration can be read as his personal motivation for his commitment to the crime he is responsible for.
[2]This short description of the case does not include all details that are legally
relevant, it contains only the most elementary facts.
[3]I quote from The Austrian Federal Constitution, second edition,
translated by Charles Kessler; Wien, Manz, 1983. “Art. 82. (1) The Bund is
the source of all jurisdiction. (2) Judgments and decisions are pronounced and
drawn up in the name of the Republic. Art. 83. (1) The constitution and
competence of the courts is laid down by Federal law. (2) No one may be
deprived of his lawful judge.” In this sense obvious systematic incompetence
based on the violation of the principle of carefulness and trustworthiness of
the court, lawyers, public authorities within the public institutions of
science, law and the Ministerium counts as anti-constitutional. The
reason for this assumption is that in the case that the court and public
institutions fail to fulfil their task according to the principles of the
Austrian B-VG and the Hochschulgesetz it becomes obvious that
“competence” does not mean anything at all if there is no intellectual capacity
available to fulfil the task a public institution is responsible for. The
problem of systematic incompetence and carelessness of public authorities that
results in systematic manipulation is partly discussed in Part I of this work.
With regard to the aim of Universities in Austria this case violates § 1 Abs 1,
2 Bundesgesetz über die Organisation der Universitäten BGBl. Nr. 805/1993 (UOG
1993). This basic paragraph did not change during all the changes of the UOG
during the last years. The case violates also Art 17 of the Austrian Staatsgrundgesetzes
über die allgemeinen Rechte der Staatsbürger, RGBl. Nr. 142/1867.According
to § 8 UOG 1993 the Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung und der
Rektor der Universität are responsible for the achievement of aims and
respecting the rules of the University. In the present case both public
authorities – the minister of sciences and the rector of the university –did
fail to fulfil their duties consciously according to § 8 UOG 1993.
[4]Compare
also Josephine Papst: Stellungnahme zum Beschluß des Obersten Gerichtshofes
vom 1. Dez. 1997 (13. Oktober 1998, unpublished).
[5]Compare Papst, J; Who did X? p. 188.
[6]ibid p. 198.
[7]ibid. Anhang AI, pp. CLXXXIV – CXCI.
[8]Compare also Josephine Papst; Kurze Notiz zu den Forschungsergebnissen des „SFB Moderne“, 10. Oktober 1998, unpublished.
[9]The oppressive acts by members of the Department of Philosophy at the
University of Graz and Salzburg are documented.
[10]Schorske, Carl E.; Über das rasche Verschwinden des Liberalismus in Wien, Wien, Der Standard, 31. Oktober/1. November 1994 p. 18.
[11]Schorske, Carl E.; “Analyse eines Einfühlsamen”, Wien, Der Standard, 8. Juni 2000, p. 15.
|