How Luis Serrano, CRG Director, lied to Catalan/Spanish Court

1. A year ago they ignored conciliation officer's suggestion to accept that the dismissal was illegal and make things done: i.e. to pay out a small fine (~ one month wage) to me and give me a paper confirming that dismissal was illegal, their representative also told then that they need the decision of the Court to make that small payment.
   Now they've started with their style of menaces again, urging me to accept the following proposal: before the Court they admit that the dismissal was illegal and pay me that money, but in turn© I have to purge all materials on them I put online. They pay that ridicule fine, I clean, they go scot-free, as if nothing happened, as if they did nothing wrong and as if I am doing here even something criminal. If I do not accept this — they're going to carry out their threats.
   I don't.
   I said no lies.
   
   What did kinda surprise me — that this Catalan/Spanish Court did not find anything abnormal in their menaces^*), neither noticed any contradiction in their proposal with its own decision at the end. The judge had a look rather petulant by me declining their menaces (thus he had to proceed with hearing, get himself busy).
   And all that looked really quite medieval to me…
   
   
2. On the Court hearing Luis Serrano, CRG Director, came to witness me «constantly refusing» to talk to his favorite, M Lluch Senar.
   That was yet another sheer lie (unless just comical):
   I've updated the DropBox with the copies of correspondence which happened a month before my dismissal when I had to explain to M Lluch Senar, biochemist, (© L. Serrano) how mass-spec really works (she tries to show up herself as if she understands it but pretty dumb to get a simple point). Finally, from the 3rd attempt, she gets it and even thanks me, reminding me one more time that I'd be fired anyway. She's been obsessed repeating that in near every second her email with cc to Luis Serrano. I bet that seemed so sexy to her patron.
   Chat between me and her is mentioned in the beginning of that correspondence. So the meeting was with me and her alone, at my initiative because in that case that did make sense.
   Luis Serrano was well aware of the meeting, he was in cc.
   In fact, I refused no meeting with his favorite. I've been just asking for assistance as she used to be damn blind, aggressive and incompetent, sabotaging any communication with the lab people and the colleagues involved in the project.
   Only once I refused her manipulations «if you want to talk… we can discuss» — I said I don't, she lied as if she looked at the app (all I was doing for them she kept calling «webpage» :)), there were nothing to discuss, she was unable to set a task and was reiterating what was already done (they both got hysterical after I said «I don't» then, although I could wait weeks for them just to look on what was going on with the project… — «ha-ha, Katerina wants to work!»). Another time it was «if you don't understand — come and ask». I said I have nothing to ask, I refused to recognize a scientific authority of the made-up biochemist which they had started to claim after I complained to a set-up of Conflict Resolution Committee — I was fired.
   
   That wasn't the only lie he told to the Court, also he lied about me unrelated to his starring in «I think what maria proposed does not make any sense» — that was in fact said after me trying to explain Maria the same, but not that way directly. I just did not discarded her suggestion completely (that'd be too risky! but minding now Serrano's confession to the Court — see in DropBox Court's decision: his favorite reported on me unsuitable for her right around the same time!)
   The related email is now in the DropBox too (my actual boss was in cc of course and Luis Serrano was surely reacting on this correspondence).
   
   
3. The third lie:
   The CRG representative told the Court (and Luis Serrano repeated it) that I was given 3 months to follow discipline I allegedly violated.
   In fact, next day after Serrano told me that his favorite M Lluch Senar is my boss (yet another one, as I still had to ask my official boss for holidays and the like), less than 3 months before my dismissal, I've got a letter from her, that she had «talked with Luis and he said me that he has given you the opportunity to work for three months in the lab and to finish the project». That is I was told I'd be fired anyway. Serrano was in cc in that email (it is in DropBox too).
   No way he didn't know, I was pointing on that assertion (that I'd be fired anyway) to the HR, Conflict resolution Committee. They didn't care, they served to M Lluch-Senar and her henpecked one like the dogs, despite the law — «it'll be illegal and you can go to the Court then». Well, we'll kill you, what's the matter? — your relatives can go to our Court then (the Court won't find anything wrong in that).
   Luis Serrano, CRG Director, lied his face off to the Court.
   
   Not to mention the repeated falsehood about Conflict Resolution Committee, implying that they called for it — yet another lie: who could think that my call for Conflict Resolution Committee they'd unscrupulously use for themselves….
   Not to mention the lies about the reason of my transfer to Serrano lab: in order to mob and fire actually, as he explicitly confirmed himself — his favorite reports on me that she's unhappy to work with me (meanwhile, after her discussion with me he writes to several colleagues that her proposals make no sense) — and voilá — he transfers me to his lab and coerces me to talk to Sra. Lluch only alone. Later Luis Serrano, CRG director (its very true caudillo) refers to this intrigue as if they had transferred me for the sake of discipline I allegedly violated. Nice, isn't it? Oh, yes, no word about corruption, let alone innoble conduct of a person who knows no decency. True modern scientific leader although with quite questionable practice, but who cares when it comes to money laundering, right?
   
   Needless to say now that this Spanish Court did not give me the floor unless defendant party would have asked for it. And of course they were not interested to ask.

So this Catalan/Spanish Court has taken CRG Director's words as they are along with their dismissal notice as a proof of my disobedience and made decision that my dismissal was legal. You can enjoy reading on DropBox their decision: nothing from my part is even mentioned…
— yet another achievement of Spanish science and Social Justice ⚖️ in Spain/Catalunya… But thank Providence and post medieval (neo-fascist?) world: otherwise I'd have been put on fire literally, in the Auto-da-fé (or shot dead by these franquists).


Cherry on the cake:

I had to make waiting the reverend scientist and the Court for about an hour
as I insisted on the interpreter being assisting me on the hearing, that was my right they had failed to lock in on their own — thus that utterly corrupt fascist Spanish/Catalan Court did not give a damn whether I could even understand them. At the end the Judge had rudely interrupted my attorney: no use to get into the subject, really. Everything was so clear in advance.
Otherwise it was just routine Spanish way of showing their respect, no worries.

Story archive in Dropbox

---

*) artículo 169 del Código Penal of Spain: «Amenazas son un delito o una falta… el anuncio de un mal futuro ilícito que es posible… con la finalidad de causar inquietud o miedo…» = «Threats are a crime or a fault ... the announcement of a bad illicit future that is possible ... with the purpose of causing concern or fear ...»

Style of doing science: FAQ on CRG, Barcelona and EMBL-EBI connection

After having known/read my experience in working for science (not real one, but so to say, science), my friends and colleagues keep asking me mainly these two questions: 

I. What happened at EMBL-EBI and why are these cases connected?

— Serrano lab used to be a part of EMBL System Biology Unit, apparently they foster phenotypes like that.

II. Why didn't you quit on your own once you realized that the environment in CRG, Barcelona, was so toxic?

— I did want to, my mistake was that I relied too much on a snitch, was mislead by a «good cop» (Luis Serrano's left hand, whereas his work-wife was a «bad cop») — they all were just a perfect match for each other.
I just could not believe I saw it all real and not in my sleep. 

I could not accept the idea that the guy was just a cad.

Here are the answers elaborated.

1. In April of 2013 my boss at EBI-EMBL reported on me to HR after I had used capital letters in one word of the working correspondence: that was the exclamation-like «WHAT?», — he said then that I was rude and impossible to collaborate with (indeed I wasn’t much collaborative in some sense, see below p.13).
   HR explains me that writing one word in email using capital letters is equal to shouting. But on the other hand she looks confused and keeps asking me whether I have something more to tell her. I don’t want to tell more.
   However, the project coordinator, who was the addressee of that my email, says in the presence of HR that she hasn't considered me rude and inconvenient to collaborate.
   Meanwhile I'm excluded from acknowledgement in inner EBI meetings concerning the project: up to the extent that they later say «all right, they took your results and presented them as their own, but they’ve had you acknowledged as they thanked Systems Microscopy consortium and you are a member of it» (nice, isn’t it?).
   
   
2. In June of 2013 all of the sudden my Dad falls down in a swoon and cannot walk well after getting back, I’m urgently coming home from the UK. My bosses are apprised.
   
   
3. On 25/06/13 my Dad passes away on my arms in a hospital after having tremendously suffered from the acute AAA rupture.
   
   
4. Staying at home on my vacations (they were approved) that summer and busy with documentations following the funeral I’m getting a quite boorish email from the project coordinator at EBI that I have to correct something in the code ASAP as she's preparing a paper (in fact the project wasn't ready then for the paper yet and that paper was later written by myself with the help of my boss of the later time). Also she writes me that my talk on the ISMB conference was prepared badly (it was very soon after the funeral, though she lied, the same talk was also done for the SM consortium spring meeting, later I could bring several references from both conferences proving her falsehood). She doesn't forget to note that she understands that I'm in a hard life situation.
   
   
5. I tell her to fuck off: not that words directly, of course, just that I won't read her emails until I’ll come back to work from my legit vacations.
   
   
6. When I come back I'm told that my contract is suspended for insubordination and unauthorized leave. The custom was that folks at EBI, including bosses, didn’t care much of vacation paperwork, spoken agreement was usually enough. I’m advised to leave the campus ASAP.
   
   
7. Being in the state of a catatonic stupor I do nothing for about a week, but a colleague meets me and brings EMBL-EBI’s docs and proves me that their actions against me were in contradictions with their own legislative papers. He urges me «Catherine, don’t stay like that, do something, go to a lawyer».
   
   
8. I go to the Cambridge Citizen Advice Bureau, they ask me questions like «Did you hack them? Did you steal something from them? Who is this employer?» and advise me to write and to call to the EMBL-EBI Head Office in Heidelberg, they also give me a list of lawyer addresses to visit.
   I follow their advice.
   
   
9. Next day after my contact with EMBL-EBI HO the Head of Administration at EBI calls me, apologizes for the suspension of the contract and invites me back to work.
   
   
10. All my email/servers etc credentials are withdrawn, I spend some time to get some of that back, but not everything. I’m implicitly hinted that they are prepared to give me an EOC agreement (End of Contract).
    I write to EMBL-EBI Head Office again.
    
    
11. Administrative Director of EMBL (Keith Williamson at that time) comes to the UK to talk to me. It turns out that he’s mislead about the project which they declare as accomplished (it was just a stupid lie, I wonder how further they’d report about it).
    After my talk with him I’m fully restored in my rights.
    They recognize that everything is fine with my holidays, I was wrongly accused in insubordination and unauthorized leave, though no apologies now, except spoken ones from Keith (he was the one who seemed a gentleman in all that story).
    
    
12. I’m invited for the chat in the EBI Director office (Ewan Birney) along with my boss and his proxy on R&D tasks. I’m told that I have «questionable personal qualities» (btw, ad hominem is the most beloved fallacy and trick of rogue scientists — Birney repeats the same after my boss) and this is me, who had a lesson now and must comply with their way of doing R&D.
    
    
13. I write another email to the EMBL Head Office with cc to my boss and Birney where I ask (at last) why is that me who has «questionable personal qualities», why was I bullied, why did all this happen after my boss didn’t have me responsive to his invitation to private bike rides (and to have a look together on concert posters, — I don't mention that), I claim for fair employment practice — that was completely ignored, I also ask to change the person who authorizes my leaves — that was accepted after the investigation, see below.
    
    
14. I get a response from Director General of EMBL, Iain Mattaj, where he implies that the bullying was alleged but that I dared to accuse my boss in sexual harassment and that all needs to be investigated.
    
    
15. I reply that I didn’t say that the conduct of my boss was a sexual harassment per se, all I asked: the explanations of the bullying and I mentioned him hitting on me in that context.
    This my reply was ignored.
    
    
16. I’ve never got any explanation. I was told off that I brought forward the accusation of sexual harassment with no reason. I was made guilty for the mention of the fact that my boss had hit on me and then bullied me.
    
    
17. However, Iain Mattaj apologized for the bullying itself, he even used a word «harassment» in his apologies. After the investigation I’ve got the apology letter from him where he enlightens me that I took the suspension of my contract, accusation of unauthorized leave and removal of all my credentials at work for the bullying because my father passed away right before that.
    All the rest was just fine.
    Basically, he didn't apologised for the damage itself, he apologised that I felt damaged.
    Yet better that way, than nothing.
    He also generously spared me from a discipline sentence for my alleged accusation in sexual harassment™ of my boss.
    Nice, isn’t it?
    Although they’ve swapped my boss for his proxy and that was the second gentleman in all that story (minding top level).
    
    
18. After getting that hysterical email from Maria Lluch-Senar—Luis Serrano tandem at CRG (I was surprised, really: Luis himself never was that verbose with English that poor, although this doesn't matter: NB — they use ad hominem again) in reply on my rebuttal to her manipulations and lies, I asked Luis Serrano to behave fairly and that I wouldn’t be just silent and shocked, I’d been prepared by this case at EMBL. Serrano lab used to be a part of System Biology unit of EMBL, they had to follow their rules:
    «maintaining a culture based on the principles of good scientific practice, throughout the Laboratory and in their respective Units».
    I believed that they had to follow that at least to the degree that EMBL was able to.
    But Luis Serrano, once Head of EMBL Unit and CRG Director, president of SOMMa (some local Spanish Network of Excellence™) said me that he didn't care. Literally:
    «I don't care, we are at CRG here, we have nothing to do with EMBL».
    All right.
    Those were their good scientific practice. 
    
    
19. Shortly after that I apprised Luis Serrano that under the conditions he put on me I’d quit on my own at the end of the year.
    They ignored that, apparently that was not a way to bring them satisfaction (however they did try to fire me first as if following my wish: they prepared papers for that by the end of October to fire me in a couple of weeks after that, see below their lies about 3-months term to make me obeying to the Director's favorite).
    
    
20. But then, in the end of September'2016, they were just about to go to their lab retreat, Serrano told me that my presence there would be «awkward»  and it’s up to me to go or not, I did not want to go to their retreat, I was preparing to quit anyway.
    But a colleague asked me to come, she also assured me in her support (instead, she was coercing me to lies, hypocrisy and simulations, allegedly she was suffering from Maria domination and turned out to be just a snitch for Serrano).
    Better I’d never seen that part of their specific culture at that retreat (so freaking lowbrow level even ignoring complains of the guests of the resort).
    That was awkward.
    Indeed, shortly before the retreat Luis Serrano accused then me that I can work with no one, whereas I had no communications and collaborations with his people by that time — his Maria just cut communications with Serrano lab's folks by any means.
    No one in my lab confirmed the falsehood of me unable to collaborate: I was working in another lab and Serrano—Lluch-Senar were about to move me to their lab, allegedly for better collaboration.
    In fact I was alienated from any collaboration in Serrano lab: instead Serrano had been forcing me to talk to his favorite only alone.
    Later Luis Serrano lied to the Court that they had transferred me to make me follow the discipline I have allegedly violated.
    If they feel better on the way they have chosen: lying, threatening, making their research labs the places of so toxic ambiance with no respect, no open discussion, licking asses, making folks leak asses, humiliating them, snitching on each other, where even their own written code of good scientific practice is violated,
    — it's up to them.
    
    
    Below are the other parts of the story.
    
    

CRG, Barcelona, Spanish/Catalan science: yet another way to carry out research activity (and lies even to the Court)

Update after Court hearing:
Luis Serrano, CRG Director, lied to the Court

Here are the threats of legal persecution I've got from CRG, Barcelona, signed by Managing Director Bruna Vives on behalf of the Centre and Luis Serrano, CRG Director, of course. Look at the Centre for Genomic Regulation at their finest in intimidating and disrespect.
My notes are below the copies (clickable to enlarge).

Spanish version:

1. Here we have a classical actus reus.
2. This threatening from CRG, Barcelona under the claim to keep «professional secrecy» (are these people even sane?) and «confidentiality», i.e. the claim to keep silence about their excellence in research misconduct, followed by these threats where I'm named as «and / or» doing even something «criminal», — look like fit of anger unless just laughable. They are supposed to represent a Spanish intellectual elite, aren't they?
3. Solely this claim to keep their threats confidential (see also the bottom of the pages) should be enough to launch the investigation on the activity of the top employees of CRG, including here-below mentioned favorite of Luis Serrano, CRG Director (ah, all right… she's supposed to be on the top anyway…).
4. NDA (appendix to the work contract) I signed, concerned the contract in force or expired.
   My contract is not expired or in force: it was interrupted (terminated — as they've recognized it themselves in their threat) by CRG, Barcelona due to alleged disobedience to another employee who was not even my immediate superior, the latter was silently dismissed from being such, excluded from the working process and substituted by incompetent, but badly ambitious and passively aggressive Director's favorite, Maria Lluch Senar, as a «co-leader» of the project with so peculiar correspondence style (how come that such individuals can even get MS and even PhD in Spain?)
5. I was slandered and mobbed by this M Lluch-Senar, CRG staff scientist (intensively supported by her patron, Luis Serrano, CRG Director in whatever she's been saying about me) several times, she announced me that I'd be dismissed anyway the very next day after she was set as my boss by Luis Serrano. Luis Serrano was persistently coercing me, in written too, to talk only alone with his favorite (who by the way is craving for a PI position and her henpecked is desperate to help her). I called for CRG's Conflict Resolution Committee, which has completely ignored my complains and followed Luis Serrano's non-negotiable instructions forcing me to recognize scientific authority of his favorite, who persistently lied about my personality, aggressively refusing to get or accept any technical reasoning out of her competence.
   Moreover. She was misleading me with data sources and urging me to work with erroneous data concocted by herself.
   I said no.
   I was given «24 hours» to confirm my response.
   I was fired by the end of the same week.
6. CRG was already clearly told off about the neglect of their duty and reputation — they have completely disrespected the words of the conciliation officer, they have even refused to present themselves directly on the hearing.
   They had given no care to their reputation then and now suddenly they have recalled and decided to take care about it, starting with threats, apparently from the bottom of their hearts and their notion of what the (academic) culture is. Surely they don't just perform only a bare money laundering using their positions in Spanish science.
   Now they claim that one of their former, thrown out on the streets, employee is damaging their «honour» or «reputation» even «with the intention».
   
   Dear CRG, Luis and Bruna,
   
   • If it's possible for you to put a word «or» between «honour» and «reputation» which you claim you have (after you have lied so dishonourably) — then, obviously, only an upper authority could explain you something about what honour and reputation are: it seems you're still uncertain about these entities. No wonder you have failed to keep them intact.
     You did it on your own.
     No one has forced you to behave like you have.
     Paraphrasing Bertolt Brecht («Vertrauen wird dadurch erschöpft, daß es in Anspruch genommen wird»), your honour and reputation begin to vanish the very moment you claim you have them damaged the way you do it, — especially after you were utterly unable to display at least a minimum respect to your employee, let alone the kind of integrity you have shown as pertinent to you.
     My story is just a shadow on the sand in the background of your behaviour and culture. I'm too small comparing to your own self-exposure.
     «We trust that your knowledge, skills and experience will be among our most valuable assets» — remember the text of your offer? — you gave no respect to any of thus enumerated (by your own) qualities. That's why the only point you could use to attack me with your misconduct was a «discipline».
     Which is ridiculous since you do not have any notion of what it is.
     Not to mention work ethics.
   • I don't damage your «honour or reputation» as you claim «with the intention».
     I speak out, that's it.
   And of course I would only greet an independent open investigation of your professional activity and of its compliance with your own Code of Good Scientific Practice.
   Even then I doubt that it could depreciate your significance and self-worth acquired with such diligence by your so creative advertising of your excellence, with your passionate appeal for money throughout your much more conspicuous networking, connections, pulls and of course… well… social network accounts. Just don't stop disseminate food & drinks for your subscribers and sponsors as you used to do it: to make sure they would love your excellent science.
   And, Bruna, seriously… I am so sorry, but having known now the story of your appointment, this your threatening burofax speech looks like a sincere coming out, especially when it's read in Spanish. But of course, of course, it's not how it looks like.

Given the whole story I reckon that the above text is not too harsh and I apologize if someone's sensitive feelings are touched, —
Katerina aka Catherine

Story archive in Dropbox

Plain summary of what happened in CRG, Barcelona

Firing for disobedience from scientific institution: how scientists demand obedience and recognition of their scientific authority, some very certain scientific authority: after having claimed to recognize the scientific authority of his favorite, Director of CRG, Barcelona, Luis Serrano, got refusal (in particular, because his favorite used to concoct data for processing).
But the resistance to filthy data manipulation and concoction was oppressed — inconvenient for them rebel computer scientist was fired.

Here are some notes of a computer scientist's experience (Mar'2016 — Dec'2016) who was very near to get a TBI^*) while working with Maria Lluch, CRG's staff scientist.
The latter has been promoting her scientific career servicing to Luis Serrano, CRG's Director for his private needs, which, however extraneous or ugly it may look like, hands down should not be whoever else's business unless the research integrity and well-being of another persons were drastically affected and put in a shambles.
In previous posts you can see mainly inside description (with the copies of emails and other documents) of the working and firing process performed within the walls of «an international biomedical research institute of excellence» — i.e. CRG, EMBL outstation in Barcelona: the torture of mobbing and lies with yet hardly believable outcome lasted for several months.
(Court hearing was scheduled for the end of Jan, 2018 as this was in Spain, so very apt country for misconduct being unabated).
The only excuse for so direct summary of what happened is that the nature of Maria Lluch-Senar's job at CRG and peculiar success is of no secret within those walls, also due to quite open demonstration of her deep connection, way far to be really intellectual, with her patron accompanied by «the closest person, his right hand, she can fire anyone» (indeed! not to mention full access to CRG director's desktop…), so forth interesting confessions and blatant research misconduct.

It's worth to mention, that all this shame is silently supported and even sponsored with millions of € grants both by EMBL (European Molecular Biology Laboratory) and ERC (European Research Council)

Story archive in Dropbox

Luis Serrano and Maria Lluch reject conciliation under a weird pretext; Luis Serrano, CRG director, lies to the Court

«Academia is full of rogue scientists doing their own shit using public assets»

These people turned out to be unable to stand up to their own deed.

On 06 Feb'17 in Barcelona there was a conciliation meeting with the CRG's legal representative about legitimacy of a computer scientist's dismissal from this Spanish research institution.
CRG's legal representative was a young girl from a lawyer firm, so they decided to spend money for the legal service, having their own legal department.

This girl has burst into tears after being told off by the official in the conciliation office (Department de Treball, Afers Socials i Families, Generalitat de Catalunya).
She had nothing to do with these people and she took it hard.

Conciliation officer (Maria Bachs) told that she met such disrespect the first time in her practice: when a public organization (scientific one!) which can't help admitting the breach of the law is so disrespectful to it, also clearly demonstrating no care about its public reputation and lack of responsibility.
So unless the following is signs of corruption and rogue science, there should be another reasonable explanation.

They had to admit that the dismissal was illegal, but they said that they want to bring the case to the Court because they are «accountable for the money».

How is it consistent with the payment to the off-site company for a legal service, having it their own on site?

But there were a lot of weird inconsistencies in this case, please see below.

Update: Court hearing is scheduled for 31 January 2018. This is Spain.

Update, Feb 2018:

1. A year ago they ignored conciliation officer's suggestion to accept that the dismissal was illegal and make things done: i.e. to pay out a small fine (~ one month wage) to me and give me a paper confirming that dismissal was illegal, their representative also told then that they need the decision of the Court to make that small payment.
   Now they've started with their style of menaces again, urging me to accept the following proposal: before the Court they admit that the dismissal was illegal and pay me that money, but in turn© I have to purge all materials on them I put online. They pay that ridicule fine, I clean, they go scot-free, as if nothing happened, as if they did nothing wrong and as if I am doing here even something criminal. If I do not accept this — they're going to carry out their threats.
   I don't.
   I said no lies.
   
   What did kinda surprise me — that Spanish Court did not find anything abnormal in their menaces^*), neither noticed any contradiction in their proposal with its own decision at the end. The judge had a look rather petulant by me declining their menaces.
   And all that looked really quite medieval to me…
   
   
2. On the Court hearing Luis Serrano, CRG Director, came to witness me «constantly refusing» to talk to his favorite, M Lluch Senar.
   That was yet another sheer lie (unless just comical):
   I've updated the DropBox with the copies of correspondence which happened a month before my dismissal when I had to explain to M Lluch Senar, biochemist, (© L. Serrano) how mass-spec really works (she tries to show up herself as if she understands it but pretty dumb to get a simple point). Finally, from the 3rd attempt, she gets it and even thanks me, reminding me one more time that I'd be fired anyway. She's been obsessed repeating that in near every second her email with cc to Luis Serrano. I bet that seemed so sexy to her patron.
   Chat between me and her is mentioned in the beginning of that correspondence. So the meeting was with me and her alone, at my initiative because in that case that did make sense.
   Luis Serrano was well aware of the meeting, he was in cc.
   In fact, I refused no meeting with his favorite. I've been just asking for assistance as she used to be damn blind, aggressive and incompetent, sabotaging any communication with the lab people and involved in the project colleagues.
   
   That wasn't the only lie he told to the Court, also he lied about me unrelated to his starring in «I think what maria proposed does not make any sense» — that was in fact said after me trying to explain Maria the same, but not that way directly. I just did not discarded her suggestion completely (that'd be too risky! but minding now Serrano's confession to the Court — see in DropBox Court's decision: his favorite reported on me unsuitable for her right around the same time!)
   The related email is now on the DropBox too (my actual boss was in cc of course and Luis Serrano was surely reacting on this correspondence).
   
   
3. The third lie:
   The CRG representative told the Court (and Luis Serrano repeated it) that I was given 3 months to follow discipline I allegedly violated.
   In fact, next day after Serrano told me that his favorite M Lluch Senar is my boss (yet another one, as I still had to ask my official boss for holidays and the like), less than 3 months before my dismissal, I've got a letter from her, that she had «talked with Luis and he said me that he has given you the opportunity to work for three months in the lab and to finish the project». That is I was told I'd be fired anyway. Serrano was in cc in that email (it is in DropBox too).
   No way he didn't know, I was pointing on that assertion (that I'd be fired anyway) to the HR, Conflict resolution Committee. They didn't care, they served to M Lluch-Senar and her henpecked one like the dogs, despite the law — «it'll be illegal and you can go to the Court then». Well, we'll kill you, what's the matter — your relatives can go to the Court then (the Court won't find anything wrong in that).
   Luis Serrano, CRG Director, lied to the Court.
   
   Not to mention the repeated falsehood about Conflict Resolution Committee, implying that they called for it (yet another lie — who could think that my call for it they'd basely use for themselves…), and about the reason of my transfer to Serrano lab, in order to mob and fire actually, as he implicitly confirmed himself: his favorite report on me that she's unhappy to work with me (meanwhile, after her discussion with me and he writes to several colleagues that her proposals make no sense) and he transfers me to his lab coercing me to talk to Sra. Lluch only alone.
   
   Needless to say now that this Spanish Court did not give the floor to me unless defendant party would have asked for it. And of course they were not interested to ask.

So this Spanish/Catalan Court has taken CRG Director's words as they are along with their dismissal notice as a proof of my disobedience and made decision that my dismissal was legal. You can enjoy reading on DropBox their decision: nothing from my part is even mentioned…
— yet another achievement of Spanish science and Social Justice ⚖️ in Spain/Catalunya… But thank Providence and post medieval (post-fascist?) world: otherwise I'd have been put on fire literally, in the Auto-da-fé (or shot dead by these franquists).

---

*) artículo 169 del Código Penal of Spain: «Amenazas son un delito o una falta… el anuncio de un mal futuro ilícito que es posible… con la finalidad de causar inquietud o miedo…» = «Threats are a crime or a fault ... the announcement of a bad illicit future that is possible ... with the purpose of causing concern or fear ...»

Luis Serrano, CRG, forces to talk alone with Maria Lluch Senar and… a certain «indicator, a precursor and a result of» corruption

(yes, that was spooky!)
…whereas what Maria Lluch proposes «does not make any sense» © Luis Serrano, CRG director
(and that was very true)

This is all about scientific institution. This is where your tax money goes to…

How much money, for instance? — see here (H2020) in general,
more exactly: €2,454,522: ERC-2014-ADG grant [1]
So the DB for Mycoplasma project should have been funded from this money…

First, ask yourself: what would you do if a blatant liar aggressively required from you recognition of her scientific authority (whereas it's way far to be even necessary)?
And what if she were supported by her patron?

CRG is «an international biomedical research institute of excellence»

CRG mission, vision and values:
«Integrity, ethics and social responsibility»

Oops! Really??

Dictation to process concocted data, coercion to talk only alone (that was felt very awkward) with someone allegedly responsible, but utterly incompetent, work without necessary collaboration, repeated threats, bullying, slandering, repeated lies, and dismissal at the end — was this all included in that «integrity», «ethics» and «social responsibility»?

«Now I did a job. I ain't got nothing but trouble since I did it... not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character. So let me make this abundantly clear» © Firefly

Luis Serrano Pubul: «I think what maria proposed does not make any sense»
A few months later the very same person fired the main addressee of this letter for refusal to recognize the same maria's scientific authority — interesting, isn't it?

On 06/07/16 18:39, Luis Serrano Pubul wrote:
> Dear Katerina
> Could we meet next week [...]?
> I think what maria proposed to connect directly to the MS raw data or sequencing data does not make any sense.

All right. Very true. But wait, what?

Luis Serrano Pubul: «You need to leave the lab if you do not talk with her alone»

On 15/11/16 10:26, Luis Serrano Pubul wrote:
> Katerina I can try to be there, but remember what we discussed if you cannot work with Maria and you cannot talk with her alone you need to leave the lab end of December. She is your boss for the project.
> Thanks
> Luis
>
> From: Katerina Kirsanоvа
> Sent: martes, 15 de noviembre de 2016 10:21 a.m.
> Cc: Luis Serrano Pubul
> Subject: Re:
>
> Dear Luis,
> I wouldn't like to discuss it with Maria tete-a-tete, please.
> I just need the doc file with specification on the formats.
>
> Cheers, -
> Catherine
> El 11/15/16 a las 07:45, Maria Lluch Senar escribió:
>> Hi Katerina
>> We can talk about MS files at 16,30. Is it ok for you?

Of course they perfectly knew that Katerina could talk alone with Maria.
But when you're threatened and coerced to talk alone with someone no matter what is going on and no matter whether your job requires work collaboration — this feels flat out wrong, at very least it makes you just sick. Moreover, if you're already absolutely certain: you cannot give them what they are eager to get from you — and that is not your job and professional skills.

K. was doomed anyway, Luis was playing here as by the time of this his email, several weeks before it, M Lluch-Senar already wrote K. that K. would be fired anyway:

On 28/09/16 14:23, Maria Lluch Senar wrote:
> I have talked with Luis and he said me that he has given you the opportunity to work for three months in the lab and to finish the project.
[NB: K. had 5 years contract signed by Luis Serrano on behalf of CRG, it turned out to be just a sheet of paper. No respect to a person whatsoever, neither to their own legislation]

Maria wrote that (with cc to CRG Director, i.e. Luis Serrano Pubul) the very next day after K. was told that Maria is her boss: the day before this email, on 27/09/16, Luis told K. in his office that for K. to save her job he gave her 3 months to get along 1) with Maria and 2) with the people in the lab — as at the same time K. was falsely accused that she can work with no one, — so if K. gets along with no one then K. is fired.
In reality both these two so nice «warrants» were put away almost immediately.
«There's no honor among thieves» (even «end of December» was a lie… — turned out the middle of December)
K. had no problems whatsoever with the folks in the lab, that was too obvious, but certainly did not matter: apparently Maria was already promised that after 3 months «the toy» would be discarded.

From Library of the European Parliament, «Conflicts of interest in public administration», 05/02/2013:

[1] Isn't it piquant:

Chair of Women In Science/Gender Balance Committee at CRG,
Isabelle Vernos is at the same time…
— Director's (Luis Serrano's) wife & member of the ERC Scientific Council!

Hence the party looks even more languishing: there is a certain «indicator, a precursor and a result of» corruption.
CRG Director's wife, his favorite or other closed to him more than others women-in-science — all of them surely have gotten the unquestionable scientific awards and perks: panels, committees, conference trips, etc — you know how creatively and productively modern scientists spend public money, — having such kind of a pull is apparently normal for Spain or Spanish science. But for an outside observer the question remains: what exactly those Women In Science™ were awarded for?

But otherwise. What was that?
Franco style (á la féminin) of management in science?
Hard to bring up other allusions...

All right, in reality Franco was adhered to the family values otherwise, more traditional way.
This case was an advanced modern version of Spanish neo-franquist modus operandi. Kinda harem way (or alfonsish way.. depending on the perspective.. lol) , surely with the greatest respect to the wives, so worth women with their financial or otherwise depending servants at their also very traditional service. But traditional otherwise. Epitome of women in science and men at women, in their ways to serve. For science, of course. You'd rather dream to join them!

More picante details on the family bounds (see the thread)…

Timeline of the project for the Mycoplasma DB at CRG

«You should realize that Maria can get fired everyone, even me» [HR]

K. made this schema (updated with last events) for Conflict Resolution Committee at CRG.

Later the CRG Administration dishonourably implied (see below) that this Committee was allegedly called to make her follow the discipline. But that was the other way around: the Committee was called for by K. to resolve the issues with Maria Lluch's professional misconduct and incompetence.

All fairly appropriate Committee's suggestions (transfer K. to another lab, Luis Serrano supervising project as its real leader) were rejected by Luis Serrano, who was forcing K. to recognize his favorite's (i.e. Maria Lluch's) scientific authority: that was his «non-negotiable requirement» (see below)

[click to enlarge]

Working ambiance at CRG, the research institution

K.: It's already more than a month when I've been doing almost nothing…
M. Lluch-Senar [chuckles, to Luis Serrano]: Luis, Katerina wants to work!

A few weeks later Maria Lluch, being unable to set a proper task for several months before that, is announced as a boss for K.. The next day after that Maria Lluch writes to K. with cc to Luis Serrano that K. is going to be fired in 3 months (she was indeed fired in 2 months and a half).

«…this is not England or Europe, here there is no honor or ethics, just pure corruption»
[a colleague]

Luis Serrano, CRG director, led by Maria Lluch-Senar: negotiating

The most funny thing in the doc below is their «in turn» after the claim for recognition which they were utterly unable to get the decent way. You recognize someone's so shamefully unsatisfied scientific authority and direct supervision and… ta-dam! — «in turn» they allow you to do your job!
NB: scientific authority here is an exclusive right for Maria Lluch to fuck your brain being alone with you and then to lie about you whatever shit she invents — her patron Luis Serrano would support it by any means.
You have to talk alone with her: this is what they repeatedly claimed, whereas having Maria's ambitions together with incompetence in the subject and aggression, there is no other word than «brainfucking» for what she was doing with you tet-à-tet.

Interestingly, «Relocation of Catherine's workplace outside of Serrano's group should be considered» was firstly suggested by the Committee, but then stroke out by those claiming for recognition of the «scientific authority»… Introduced again, but no: «recognize or perish!» — see p. 6 in first version of the Committee below, p. 5 was also rejected: no collaboration, shut up! No witnesses for what we'd force you to do!

Juan Valcarcel was contacted by K. in private: she asked him to save her from bullying and she called for Conflict Resolution Committee to protect her from M Lluch Senar's bullying as it was fully supported by CRG Director and looked as a mobbing. Instead J. Valcarcel actually had joined the party: K. was fired for refusal to accept «non-negotiable requirement from Luis, i.e. that Catherine must recognize the scientific authority of Maria» since the behaviour of the latter looked as a sheer research misconduct.
James Sharpe (recently appointed Director of the EMBL's outstation in Barcelona) also joined to this mobbing, K. asked him for assistance as well, but on behalf of Luis Serrano he claimed the same from her: K. asked for protection, instead she was coerced to recognise scientific authority of the person she asked to protect her from! — nice, isn't it?
Still… it feels better to believe that at least James sincerely wanted to help.

The claim of this «scientific recognition» was at very least unnecessary (though ridiculous!) unless yet another sign of the Spanish(?) corruption which at no point K. could accept as appropriate to follow. It's worth to mention that to the meeting on this so called Conflict Resolution Committee, M Lluch Senar came along accompanied by her patron — «because she's his co-leader of the project» (Juan Valcarcel) — so much ridiculous again: rather her professional qualities and culture just could not guarantee the adequate reporting.

This is first (rejected) version of the here-above mentioned document:

— «absence of threats from all parts» is put quite sneaky, as K. never menaced anyone, that was other way round and she just asked for stopping to threaten her (though she had to recognize fascist-style authority of whoever had threatened her).
But we can forgive this Juan Valcarcel as he's been benefiting from ERC grants á merci of Director's wife…

Luis Serrano, Coordinator of the Systems Biology Programme at the Centre for Genomic Regulation in Barcelona, Spain, and recipient of a €2 million ERC Advanced Investigator Grant for five years, said the requirement of keeping time sheets is at best a waste of time and worst an insult to the high-level researchers. “Time sheets do not make much sense, to be honest. If you want to cheat, you can always cheat,” he said. He said other grants he receives from the Spanish government and the Human Frontier Science Programme do not require time sheets [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933871/]

— looks like here, Luis, there was that sure case when you were not cheating… and you were right about yourself: secured by your position, if you want to cheat, you can always cheat.