His ‘recommendations’ comprise a one page letter stating that the thesis is ‘worthy’ because the external examiners say so, and they are ‘well qualified’ (sic). So why did this process take nearly a year, and what took him 5 months?

No report has been released or even mentioned.

It has recently transpired that Crawford has admitted the enquiry didn’t examine the large number of ‘inaccuracies’ (to be charitable) in the thesis, just the examination process.

However that wasn’t the basis of the complaints (there are two complainants).

Gillian Spry Lawyer also told me that my complaint against Dov Bing, co-supervisor of the thesis, would be part of the enquiry. But nothing. Bing had threatened me with $300,000 litigation in October to try and pre-empt the enquiry. I was supposed to publish in the media a so-called retraction saying that he had ‘done a most professional job of supervision’ (sic) etc. If I didn’t he threatened to take me to court.

In the process Bing sent me weird e-mails concocting a stupid lie about how the Uni. Lawyers had asked me to delete material about Bing on a website, that I’d agreed, and that he had been told of this by the Uni. Asst. to the VC.

I did the obvious and asked for details about this. Of course, nothing of the type had taken place. Bing had lied not just to me, but about the Uni law firm Norris Ward McKinnon, and the Asst. to the VC.

However after six requests to the law firm for information about this Bing escapade, I eventually got a letter from the firm in re. to Bing’s lies, but only after TWO requests from the Ombudsmen’s Office.

Myself and the other complainant have proved through over 100 pp of documentation that Van Leeuwen had lied all the way through his thesis, including knowingly citing me as the author of publications that were not mine, and faking a reference in regard to Mormonism. Dishonesty is the one ground by which a degree can be revoked. Van Leeuwen has, we contend, been dishonest – not just in error – throughout the entirety of the thesis. Why should be permitted to proceed onto an academic career on such a flawed basis?

The other complainant is Mr G Wilson, who is credited by Van Leeuwen in his thesis for assistance. Mr Wilson is appalled that his name has been associated with nothing but a smear sheet posing as scholarship, and graded by so-called ‘scholars’ too inept to have even minimally checked any references.

The matter is not finished despite what Crawford states, and is before the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commission.