You are on page 1of 2

D. B. Karron, Ph. D.

348 East Fulton Street

Long Beach, New York 11561
September 23, 2010
Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
United States District Judge
Courtroom: 21A
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

BY FAX TO CHAMBERS at +1 (212) 805 7927

RE: United States vs. Daniel B. Karron, 08 Civ. 10223 (NRB)(DFE)

Motion for Sur-Reply to Government's Reply in Opposition,
Evidentiary Pre-Motion Conference Request

Dear Judge Buchwald;

While we have yet to see confirmation from the court granting the Plaintiff’s extension to
respond by 17 September (and we have no material objection), we desire to inform the court that
it is our intention:

1) to make application to the court for a sur-reply to the Plaintiff’s reply motion.
2) that we have sufficient time to draft a well crafted response,
3) that we have adequate pages in which to respond, which we expect will be somewhat
more than the 10 pages specified by the courts Individual Practices (except with prior

4) We request permission to submit an electronic appendix volume 2 for Dunlevy’s Forensic

Reconstruction. This will provide a full ‘cradle-to-grave’ backup of the NIST ATP grant
project. We note that this is an exceptionally high standard for forensic reconstructions, and we
offer to do so only in response to the Plaintiff’s caviling cover letter remarks. All of this source
material was already admitted into evidence in the Criminal Trial, and we will provide cross
references to Criminal Trial Exhibit GX and DX identifiers and Bates Number stamps as well as
original document imagery recovered from Karrons’ computers seized by the Government. It is
important for the court to be aware of the fact that this level of backup is not normally considered
necessary to support sworn financial reportage. I will write a separate letter to appropriately
shoot down the Plaintiff’s cover letter canards.

5) We are also in the process of obtaining CPA commentary and review, as this is pro-bono
support, this support is on a catch as catch can. So far CPA’s who have reviewed Dunlevy’s
submission have stated that there is no need for CPA certification, and there is no evidentiary
requirement under the FRCP for CPA certification. As such that expense is not required.

6) We will stand ready to brief the court as to the admissibility of Dunlevy’s Declaration and the
electronic supplements in all respects after we submit it. As explained in Dunlevy’s Declaration,
sufficient information is provided for independent validation. We are also prepared to provide
more than sufficient, possibly abundantly excessive backup for validation. We are also prepared
to publish this information in the Internet and subject it to public scrutiny and review. As such
this data set may become a study model for forensic accounting projects, much as the Visible
Human Data was to be the basis for exercising Digital Morse Theory.

7) As such in 6) above, our proposed sur reply will focus only on Constitutional Issues and
Issues of Collateral Estoppal in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

8) Therefore, we request permission to submit an Electronic Supplement on Dunlevy’s

Declaration prior to convening a pre-motion conference on the evidentary issues the Plaintiff
wishes to raise regarding this evidence.

We have been preparing other letters and documentary reports, and collating material alluded
to above, but due to computer and holiday issues, we expect that they will be forthcoming next

This letter discloses our intentions. More specific request letters will be forthcoming next week.
Thank you for your fairness and patience as we marshal yet more abundant evidence to support
our contention that we have, even yet, a possibility of prevailing at trial..


D. B. Karron
pro se

cc: Michael Byars by e-mail to