Source: http://whistleblowersupporter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/10/index.html
Timestamp: 2018-04-22 06:31:53
Document Index: 207565158

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1214', '§1214', '§1216', '§2302', '§1216', '§1204', '§1201', '§1214', '§1214', '§1214']

WhistleblowerSupporter: October 2008
ICO Seeks $949 Million Punitive Damages From Boeing
By Elizabeth Amon- Oct. 29 (Bloomberg)
ICO Global Communications Holdings Ltd., which last week won a $370.6 million verdict against Boeing Co. over a failed agreement to build a satellite network, asked a jury for an additional $949 million in punitive damages.
Lawyers for ICO yesterday asked jurors in Los Angeles Superior Court to award $477 million against the Boeing Satellite Systems unit and $472 million against the parent company. The jurors last week found Boeing acted with malice, oppression or fraud, allowing ICO to seek punitive damages.
The amount should be substantial enough to ``punish Boeing and Boeing Satellite Systems and deter future misconduct,'' ICO lawyer Barry Lee told the jury. ``It shouldn't be a routine cost of business that can be passed on with little or no discomfort.''
The jurors on Oct. 21 agreed with ICO's arguments that Boeing unfairly demanded additional money to finish and launch the satellites, which Reston, Virginia-based ICO ordered to create mobile-phone connections to remote locations worldwide. The verdict was the fourth-largest in the U.S. this year, according to Bloomberg data.
Posted at 10:35 PM in No-Bid Contracts and Contract Fraud | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Joe Carson's Letter Regarding OSC Case Article
Ms. Elaine Kaplan, Esq.
Senior Deputy General Counsel in, NTEU
1750 H St, NW
Mr. Tim Hannapel
Office of General Counsel, NTEU
Subject: Critique on your recent article
"Reinvigorating OSC: Suggestions for Next
Administration" and request for your active
assistance in advancing the objectives of OSC Watch
Dear Ms. Kaplan and Mr. Hannapel,
You are the former Special Counsel and Deputy
Special Counsel. You are licensed attorneys and
long-time employees of a government employee
union. I have closely read your recent 15 page
issue brief "Reinvigorating the US Office of
Special Counsel: Suggestions for the Next
Administration" which is issue brief of the
American Constitution Society for Law and
Policy. It is available on the internet at
< http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kaplan%20FINAL.pdf>.
I also read the recent article in "Government
Executive" that mentions the recent removal of
former Special Counsel Scott Bloch and summarizes
your suggestions for OSC. It is available on the internet at
< http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?
articleid=41273&dcn=todaysnews >.
As you know, I contend OSC is, relatively
speaking, the most corrupt and corrupting agency
in our Country's history. It was created, along
with Merit Systems Protection Board, by the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978. I contend that its
now 30-year long lawbreaking failure to protect
federal employees from agency violations of the
merit system principles (i.e., "prohibited
personnel practices (PPP's) and other agency
violations of law, rule or regulation under OSC's
investigatory jurisdiction has resulted in many
dysfunctional and corrupt federal workplaces, a
battered federal civil service, and a much
diminished and more threatened America.
OSC's lawbreaking has also created thousands of
direct victims - loyal, patriotic federal
employees who put professional duty to the public
welfare before their personal economies and who
were betrayed by OSC lawbreaking failure to
protect them from agency retribution.
OSC's lawbreaking has not occurred in a vacuum,
it was enabled by 30-year long lawbreaking
failure of US Merit System Protection Board to do
the statutory required oversight of OSC's
compliance with law in protecting the federal
employees who sought its protection.
Basically, OSC and MSPB nullified themselves, at
their creation in 1978, by
OSC's (mis)interpretations of its key duties to
protect the federal employees who sought its
protection and MSPB (mis)interpretation of one of
its primary duties to conduct "special studies"
focused on OSC's compliance with law and performance in protecting
These fundamental misinterpretations include
(using the law's current numbering, which was
changed by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989):
1. OSC's claim that the reporting
requirements of 5 U.S.C. §1214(e) do not apply to
laws, rule, or regulation under OSC's
investigatory jurisdiction, meaning OSC never has
an unqualified requirement to formally report its
determinations of violations of law, rule, or
regulation under its investigatory
jurisdiction. It also means OSC has yet to make
a report per §1214(e), not in over 20,000
investigations it has conducted since 1989.
2. OSC's claim (one which is contrary to
Supreme Court precedent) that there is no such
thing as a "civil service rule." As a result,
OSC does not investigate or even consider if
agency directives (i.e. "civil service rules")
such as workforce discipline procedures,
grievance procedures, performance evaluation
procedures, etc were violated as part of a
PPP. By 5 U.S.C. §1216(a)(4), OSC has
jurisdiction over any agency "activities
prohibited by any civil service law, rule or regulation."
3. OSC's policy of not considering or
investigating, as part of its investigations of
PPP's, whether any agency "activities prohibited
by any civil service law rule or regulation" also
occurred. When OSC is conducting an
investigation of an alleged PPP, it only
considers whether a violation of 5 U.S.C.
§2302(b) occurred, unless the PPP complaint
specifically alleges violations of laws, rules,
or regulations under OSC's jurisdiction per
§1216(a)(4) occurred as part of the PPP or
separate complaint of "other prohibited activity" alleging them is
4. MSPB's claim that the "special studies"
it conducts per 5 U.S.C.§1204(a)(3) need not
focus on "whether the public interest in a civil
service free of PPP's is being adequately
protected." MSPB claims to have no opinion as to
whether it is, despite its statutory requirement
to regularly report its determination on this
point to the President and Congress. Since OSC
is, by law, the primary bulwark to protect
federal employees from PPP's, MSPB should have,
for the past 30 years been doing what it has yet
to do - conduct reviews of OSC's compliance with
law and performance in protecting federal
employees from PPP's. Had it done so, OSC
misinterpretations of law would have been exposed
and corrected almost 30 years ago - and the
federal civil service and America would be in a
much different and better place today.
Why Has This Gone On For 30 Years? Follow the Money!
Many people and organizations benefit, directly
or indirectly, from a broken, lawbreaking OSC and
an MSPB that enables it. This includes:
1) Government employee unions benefit -
their major selling point to their dues-paying
members (who are frequently only 10-15% of the
members of the bargaining unit) is dues-paying
members get more support in a negotiated
grievance procedure. Since by "election of
remedies" of 5 U.S.C. 7121 (added to the law in
1994), a federal employee must choose between an
OSC complaint, an MSPB appeal, or a negotiated
grievance, if OSC is not credible, the relative
attractiveness of the union negotiated grievance
process (and voluntarily paying union dues) increases.
2) Private sector attorneys who specialize
in federal employment law benefit. A broken,
lawbreaking OSC emboldens abusive federal
managers and results in more federal employees
seeking them out, cash in hand, to pursue remedies at EEO, MSPB, or
3) "Good government groups" benefit as
concerned federal employees go to them with their
concerns about agency wrongdoing, because they
know they will not be protected from agency
retribution if they use established
channels. "Information is power" to these groups
and they trade their insider information with
Congress and media for access and influence,
which they need to secure you are age a person
funding from the relatively few foundations that provide much of
their funding.
4) Mainstream media benefits for the same
reasons the good government groups do - concerned
federal employee go to them with their concerns,
because they cannot trust OSC to protect them if
they use established channels.
I created OSC Watch < http://www.oscwatch.org> <
http://whsknox.blogs.com/osc>, with some others
who largely perceive things as I do, with three
limited objectives: 1) expose OSC's lawbreaking
and MSPB's enabling lawbreaking; 2) stop it; and
3) obtain some measure of justice for the
thousands of feds directly harmed by it - feds
who did not receive the nondiscretionary protection OSC owed them.
To return to your article - while I agree with
much of it, your analysis of OSC goes seriously
awry on page 9. Frazier v. MSPB, 672 F.2d (D.C.
Cir. 1982) was, in large part, legislatively
overturned by the Whistleblower Protection Act of
1989. OSC is no longer an "ombudsman" or
advocate for the merit system principles - it is
now specifically charged to "act in the
interests" of the employees who seek its
protection. It has a specific mandate to "that
employees should not suffer adverse consequences
as a result of PPP's." The law directs OSC
that "the protection of individuals who are the
subject to PPP's remains the paramount
consideration." See 5 U.S.C. §1201 "note,"
quoting from the "findings and purpose" section of the WPA.
While I agree that OSC does not have an
attorney-client relationship with complainants
and that OSC has discretion as a prosecutor in
seeking corrective action and/or disciplinary
action, I contend that OSC does not have
discretion as an investigator - it must
determine, for all the complaints it receives,
"whether there are reasonable grounds to believe"
the violation occurred and, if so, formally
report them to the involved agency, via a
permanent, public record, per §1214(e). It must
do this, unless OSC additionally makes the
discretionary determination that the violation is
one "which requires corrective action" and
formally reports both determinations per
§1214(b)(2)(B), thereby satisfying the §1214(e) reporting requirement.
While I do not consider you blameless in the
federal workplace disaster at OSC, you did
inherit OSC's now 30 year-long misinterpretations
of its key duties, which was enabled by MSPB's
misinterpretation of one of its key
duties. Regardless, there should be no
reasonable question about OSC proper
interpretation and full compliance with its
nondiscretionary duties to those who seek its
protection. There is now plenty of question and
the questions go back to OSC's creation.
You can help get these questions answered and, if
OSC has been, as I contend, fundamentally remiss
in its nondiscretionary duties to the 20,000 or
more federal employees who sought its protection
since 1978, you can help obtain some measure of
justice for those directly harmed. Or you can
ignore these claims and concerns and continue, in
the eyes of many, to defend the undefendable at
OSC, including your records there.
You have positive professional duties as
attorneys. As I understand the position of OSC
attorneys, because they consider OSC to be their
client, they are prohibited from "blowing
whistles" on their and OSC's lawbreaking by legal
ethics. On the other hand, I contend that they
are betraying both their oaths as attorneys and
their oaths as government employees by not
implementing the laws they are responsible to
implement, to protect federal employees who try
to do their duty, ethically and competently,
without fear or favor. I suggest you consult
with ethical experts in your profession in
deciding how to proceed in this matter.
I was raised Catholic and while I did not
personally experience abusive priests, I was
lucky because I was around some as a youth. The
scandal at OSC has some similarities to the
Catholic priest scandal - vulnerable people are
betrayed by those charged to protect them and the
system tries to stonewall. But the outrage of
those betrayed would not be deterred and the
stonewalling failed. I suggest the sense of
betrayal many feel to you and OSC should not be minimized.
Chair, OSC Watch Steering Committee
10953 Twin Harbour Drive
Knoxville, TN 37934; 865-300-5831; jpcarson@...
Posted at 10:33 PM in OSC & MSPB | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
McCain and Use of Taxpayer Money; Navy Retribution for Whistleblower
McCain's Bermuda Triangle
A Navy Whistleblower is Shipped Off to Psychiatric Ward
Just six months after being rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he interfered with federal regulators on behalf of a wealthy donor, Senator John McCain engaged in activities that may have constituted an abuse of his office for personal gain.
In August 1991, McCain hosted a family reunion at the Bermuda Naval Air Station (BNAS) for at least seven days at taxpayer expense. McCain's entourage of eleven included his wife, Cindy, and several of his children. The trip took place as Washington was still dealing with the fallout from the Keating Five scandal, an episode that involved other improper luxury Atlantic-island trips for McCain.
McCain's junket to BNAS was first reported by ABC's Primetime Live in a postscript to a December 1992 story on Senior Petty Officer George Taylor, the whistleblower who exposed the use of the Navy base by top officials for nongovernmental purposes.
A March 1993 Navy Inspector General report, precipitated by the Primetime Live segment, as well as a BNAS log record and a new interview with Taylor corroborate and amplify the substance of ABC's story.
The Navy IG report, obtained by The Nation and never before made public, redacts the name of the "one U.S. Senator" who used BNAS as a "vacation site." But in an interview with The Nation, Taylor, who was stationed at BNAS from May to November 1992, confirms that the senator in question was John McCain. A log book from BNAS, also obtained by The Nation, lists McCain as the only senator to have stayed on the island between 1989 and 1992.
In his interview, Taylor now recounts a conversation he had with a military psychiatrist who examined Taylor in 1992 for a psychiatric evaluation ordered by his supervisor in the wake of the Primetime Live show, in an apparent act of retaliation for his whistleblowing. The anecdote raises the disturbing possibility that McCain's Senate office attempted to influence the outcome of Taylor's psychiatric evaluation.
In his 2002 memoir, McCain declared that he had learned from his mistakes in the Keating Five affair, writing, "I have carefully avoided situations that might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office." But this most recent disclosure casts doubt on that claim.
"It was a family reunion...and the guests included grown children from a prior marriage...and minor children...a baby and a nanny," the IG report says of the McCain family vacation--some aspects of which may have violated the law.
Taylor, who had been highly decorated for his service aboard the USS Antietam, was the chief of military police at BNAS, commanding a staff of about seventy MPs. Shortly after his arrival at BNAS, he came to recognize that rather than serving a strategic military purpose, the base functioned mainly as a taxpayer-subsidized vacation spot for high-ranking officials.
"We're not running a military installation," Taylor told ABC. "We're running a Howard Johnson's."
In accordance with Taylor's claims, the IG report counted an inordinately high number of officer and VIP visits for a base that had one plane and no ships, and that was, according to ABC, "a cold war military relic that has outlived its usefulness."
"The tally for our two-year period was 80 flag/general officers [admirals and generals] and 99 0-6's [captains or colonels]," the IG report said, in addition to a number of other VIP visitors, one of whom was McCain.
According to the report, McCain's trip was likely also the largest to the installation, as it was "the only identifiable case in which a visiting VIP...and guests required accommodations over and above the quarters" normally made available to visitors.
The operation at "Club Fed," as it was called by the MPs, was not cheap. The IG report estimates the cost for military flights to the island at about $6,000, but Taylor and other MPs say this doesn't account for indirect costs like maintenance, salaries and hangar space, which they believe bring the expense closer to $40,000 per flight. Taylor also learned that funds were diverted from security operations and poured into hospitality, and the Primetime Live segment reported that $53,000 was used to redecorate one of the guest cottages on the base in 1992.
Both the IG report and the Primetime Live segment make clear that military officers or military retirees--like McCain--and their dependents had been entitled to stay in BNAS guest quarters on a space-available basis. But their visits crossed the line when other military resources were used for nonofficial purposes.
And that's what happened on just about every trip, according to Taylor. "Once they arrive they have the government vans here, which provide the transportation. They have the drivers, maid service," Taylor told ABC in 1992.
"Sailors had been assigned to be [Cindy McCain's] driver, and they carried her bags after she went shopping at the expensive shops on the island," says Taylor now. "It's like they were her servants." Taylor, who was not at the base when McCain visited but had been extensively briefed about it by subordinates, said this situation was not unique to Mrs. McCain. "That was the case for admirals and generals and other high-ranking officials that were coming into the installation for supposed military and governmental purposes."
Taylor believes that this use of military resources violated the law. According to Title 31 USC 1349 Section B, it is illegal if an officer or employee of the US government "willfully uses or authorizes the use of a passenger motor vehicle or aircraft owned or leased by the United States Government (except for an official purpose...)."
Taylor told The Nation that he spoke up in part about the waste and abuse in Bermuda because he had seen a disturbing pattern. "They were closing all these bases stateside--like in Alabama, where I'm from, and good people were losing their jobs. And then, here's one that everyone's using, going to do their golfing weekends."
The conclusions in the IG report are also redacted, and it is not clear what the consequences of the report were or if McCain faced any reprimands or sanctions. Calls to McCain's campaign were not returned. But because of Taylor's disclosure and the ABC report, BNAS was shuttered in 1995 after the Navy conducted another investigation that showed that the base was not serving any military purpose.
There was other fallout as well. Shortly after Taylor blew the whistle, he was removed from his duties on the island. One month before the Primetime Live episode aired, he was ordered by his commanding officer to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
Taylor had been a stellar serviceman, having received multiple commendations and superior evaluations and having exhibited no symptoms of psychological distress. He believes that the psychiatric evaluation was a punitive measure. "I don't think it's a coincidence at all," he told ABC. But his commanding officer, Capt. James Arnold, denied this to ABC.
In fact, the military had used psychiatric evaluations to discredit and stifle whistleblowers before. At the time, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) had been pushing Congress for years to address this type of abuse. According to GAP lawyer Tom Devine, "Taylor's ordeal was the straw that broke the camel's back"; in late 1992 Congress passed the Boxer Amendment to curb the use of mental health evaluations as retaliation against whistleblowers, though the practice still occurs.
In November 1992, Taylor was packed onto a jet and ordered to appear at the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia, to see psychiatrist Peter True and undergo a "fitness for duty examination." Dr. True evaluated Taylor on November 13 and arrived at the following diagnosis: "No psychiatric diagnosis at this time.
1) Patient is psychiatrically fit for duty.
2) He is fully responsible for his actions.
3) This is not a psychiatric problem. This is a problem between this member and his employer and needs to be worked out as such. There are no psychiatric contraindications to any administrative or legal action.
4) No psychiatric follow-up indicated."
According to Taylor, True also told him at the time, "You've really upset a lot of people." When Taylor asked the doctor what he meant, True replied, "I've been contacted before, but never in advance by a fleet commander's staff, a senator's staff and the secretary of the Navy's staff to try and influence my evaluation."
Neither McCain's office nor True responded to The Nation's requests for an interview to determine whether McCain's staff contacted True and attempted to influence the outcome of Taylor's psychiatric evaluation. But it was McCain's office that had reason to intervene.
According to the official "VIP Log Book" on the island, McCain was the only senator to have stayed on the island between 1989 and 1992.
McCain had also been a classmate at the Naval Academy of Adm. Henry Mauz, who was heavily implicated in the BNAS scandal. Admiral Mauz had used the excuse that he'd been conducting official business on the island, but a Pentagon official said of one of Mauz's junkets, "It was a golfing trip. That's why he got in trouble. It was allegedly a training trip, but they ended up golfing the whole time."
Tom Devine, one of Taylor's lawyers from the Government Accountability Project, speaking in an independent capacity, hopes for a more comprehensive and transparent inquiry into McCain's involvement in the matter.
"It was Senator McCain who made character an issue for the election. He says that Senator Obama should answer questions about associations from his distant past so that we can make a fair assessment about his character. But Senator McCain has some troubling questions to answer about his own behavior," says Devine. "It's one thing to go on a junket. It's another thing to have taxpayers finance a family reunion."
Navy Drops Charges Against Sailor Who Complained of Base (March 29, 1994)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110/tuttle
Navy Drops Charges Against Sailor Who Complained of Base
The Navy has dropped 48 misconduct charges against a sailor who had described a Bermuda air station as a vacation playground run by the American military for the Bermuda government.
Rear Adm. David J. Nash, commanding officer of Port Hueneme, said in a statement on Saturday that he had ordered the charges dropped against Master-at-Arms Senior Chief George Randall Taylor because "allegations have recently been made that question the motivation for prosecution." The charges were to have been heard on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Chief Taylor was accused of having acted negligently and improperly when he arrested a man believed to have been a deserter and a drug dealer.
But in papers filed last week, his lawyers said the misconduct charges were a retaliation for a report that Chief Taylor filed in 1992 about the Bermuda base, which he described as a resort for politicians and senior military officers.
"The base had no military mission," Chief Taylor has said. "We were basically running the airport for the Bermuda government pro bono."
Chief Taylor said that when he reported his views to an internal affairs officer retaliation began.
Chief Taylor, 33, also made his criticisms publicly, on the ABC television program "Prime Time Live," in December 1992. In January 1993, Chief Taylor, a 17-year Navy veteran who was twice named sailor of the year, was transferred to Port Hueneme as deputy director of public safety.
He said he was frequently harassed at the California base and that a superior had asked Admiral Nash to relieve Chief Taylor of his duties in September 1993. Admiral Nash declined to act on the request.
Although the Department of Defense investigated operations at the Bermuda air station, it did not acknowledge a problem. Congress voted in September to close the Bermuda base by 1995.
Posted at 08:46 PM in Corruption in Gov. and/or Industry | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
What Broken Oversight Looks Like to Whistleblowers
Broken Oversight, Investigations & Justice Dept. Affect Whistleblowers
I recently, received an email from the group administrator of a
Whistleblower group I belong to chastising the group members about
only sending in posts of direct implication and interest to
whistleblowers, not notes on general corruption etc. This post is
about the problem of focus and scope of the focus and why the
patterns of corruption we see are indeed most germane to every
whistleblower, and everyone else who cares about integrity in
Advice from effective investigators: keep a broad focus while
digging for the details; follow the money, search for patterns and
connections. The problem may be bigger than you think.
One has to wonder about the true depth of manipulation of the various
arms of our Justice Department. It appears that there has been quite
a lot of this lately. I mean by that, finding that the FBI and
others have been turned away from certain cases, or types of cases,
and put onto selected other more convenient lines of investigation.
Another part of the pattern of operations by the current
Administration or their minions appears to be effective use of a "red
herring" as it gets investigators off chasing other demons, and helps
divert public attention from dangerous ground.
I have heard from some DoD whistleblowers that their experiences have
included, having initial response of shock and indignation over the
merits of the cases taken to law enforcement/ investigative personnel
(Justice and others) agencies. That followed by investigations
purposefully initiated with great energy and resolve by field
personnel accompanied by check backs and good communication, only to
have those law enforcement/investigative personnel inexplicably after
a few weeks become quite mute. These whistleblowers have further
explained that they have discovered the following kinds of things
a. Investigators were told to stop by higher ups, sometimes
quite a bit higher levels of management.
b. Investigators were loaded down with other work and told their
priorities, which did not include the whistleblower case of concern.
c. Investigators were removed from the case and another
investigator, in one case a very senior investigator are put on it
instead, one who appeared to be on marching orders to drag it out,
obstruct the investigation and make it "go away."
d. The whistleblowers have also reported that even though well
developed cases were turned over to the appropriate three or four
letter acronym agencies for criminal investigations, including lists
of people to be interviewed, deposed, or subpoenaed, no contacts by
the investigator now in charge to interview or communicate with those
witnesses with further evidence whatsoever.
e. In one case, the investigator ignored a list of a dozen
witnesses, and spoke instead to an employee in an involved
department, who was new, and obviously had no history and no
knowledge of the case, which many other employees with more seniority
and experience did have knowledge of, and were listed in the
witness/source list that the investigator chose to ignore. The
investigator in this case was quoted, as saying the reason the case
was not going anywhere was that "No one will talk to me." In the
mean time, the whistleblowers were informed by the witnesses on the
list waiting to tell what they knew, that no one had contacted them.
They understandably expressed frustration that the case was not being
It seems that many view things a bit myopically. This is somewhat
understandable due to the level of stress and pressure most
whistleblowers feel, and the lack of energy and time may have to
research and reflect while in the slowly heating pot surrounding
their own particular situation. Good communication and a broader
view are necessary. This is not about just one whistleblower.
The problems we are having are not limited only to one agency or
area. The stories that do break are symptomatic of a much bigger
problem. A problem created not in small part by the corruption and
excesses of those who have been in powerful positions of influence
and control, and position to profit from those corruptions and
excesses. Justice and law enforcement are not being allowed to
function like they are supposed to and that is affecting all of us,
particularly "whistleblowers." -GFS
From Brasschecktv.com:
The FBI ties up loose ends
After seven years of destroying evidence and intimidating witnesses,
the FBI has finally "caught" the individual responsible for the 2001
anthrax attacks. Or so they say.
Bruce Ivins may or may not have been involved in the anthrax attacks.
Now that he's dead, we'll never know because it will be "case closed."
What we do know for sure is that the anthrax attacks, right on the
heels of 9/11: 1) terrorized Congress and 2) gave Bush/Cheney a
reason to stop the FBI investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
That's right...The FBI stopped the 9/11 investigation before it even
got started. Look it up.
The FBI STOPPED its 9/11 investigation just weeks after 9/11
and "focused" all of its resources on finding the source of the
anthrax attacks.
Seven years later, their heroic efforts have finally born some fruit.
A lone gunman. Dead by his own hand. With the noble G-Men hot on his
sinister trail.
Cased closed. Move along. There's nothing to see here folks.
See related videos here: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/392.html
Posted at 09:12 PM in Corruption in Gov. and/or Industry | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Boeing: Yeeeeaaaaahhhhhh, I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday....
financial crisis, the company's chairman and chief executive
Posted at 09:24 PM in Corruption in Gov. and/or Industry | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
FBI Whistleblower, Bernardo M. Perez, Speaks
Whistleblower Alert:
Bernardo M. Perez
Perez, et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Meeting of October 23, 2008
Madame Chairperson, and Members of the EEOC Commission.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today on ‘The Realities and Barriers Faced by Hispanics in the Federal Sector’.
September 30th marked the 20th Anniversary of the Federal Court decision in the landmark class-action civil rights case, entitled Bernardo M. Pérez, Plaintiff v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al., Defendants.
Sam Martinez, a retired FBI Agent, and leader in that fight is here today --- and so is my friend, Nelson Hermilla, Department of Justice Attorney, who boldly took me up to Capitol Hill, after I filed the lawsuit, to seek support for the battle.
Senators Joe Biden and Orin Hatch helped us --- along with John Conyers and other members of Congress. Some Congressional leaders such as former Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez were afraid to get involved. And America’s two largest national Hispanic organizations – LULAC and MALDEF – refused to help.
Federal Judge Lucius D. Bunton, heard the case -- and ruled that the FBI systemically discriminated against me and 310 other Hispanic Special Agents. He also found, separately, that the FBI retaliated against me for filing nine EEO Complaints.
He then ruled that then FBI Director William Webster’s EEO Program and the FBI promotion system were “bankrupt”. Webster was not punished… and subsequently became Director of the CIA. No one was held responsible, ultimately for the FBI’s failures. And the consequences went beyond the lawsuit class members…
Richard Yerby, Leo Ramos and George Rodríguez, my Attorneys in the unsuccessful EEO hearing, before the trial, went unpaid. The EEO Judge found no discrimination.
My successful trial Attorneys Hugo Rodríguez and Antonio Silva –- after a long and intense legal effort – suffered devastating family turmoil – and went bankrupt.
The Bureau forced my then fiancée, Yvonne Shaffer, to submit to illegal polygraph examinations to elicit information they hoped to use against me. She quit the FBI. Director Webster ordered me not to date her. I married her and the FBI came after me in different ways as part of their campaign to force my resignation.
I had investigated Klan cross-burnings in Florida, police brutality cases in Texas, and other civil rights violations… But I refused to accept and admit that discrimination existed at “my” beloved FBI. I even argued with my own father and insisted that the FBI was “incapable” of discrimination: But, I finally came to understand a painful truth – He was right, I was wrong.
My brave wife, a former FBI stenographer was the catalyst for that fight. She made me realize that by ignoring discrimination against Hispanics at the FBI, I was sacrificing my ethics to justify continuing my career.
My career was dying and when I finally filed my first EEO Complaint. That was the “last straw” for the FBI who had graciously allowed this Latino into the world’s ‘premier’ investigative organization.
I was among the elite when I became an Agent in 1963 under J. Edgar Hoover. There were fewer than ten Latino Agents out of approximately seven thousand FBI Agents.
Filing an individual EEO Complaint against the Bureau was unheard of. To follow it with a class-action lawsuit from 310 of the 452 Latino Agents in the FBI outraged Bureau executives and most other Agents. Many FBI Officials demanded that Director Sessions not let this case go to trial. This demand was made in my presence. I was called disloyal because we had openly charged the FBI with discrimination. We knew our rights as American citizens were meaningless unless we stood up and demanded equal treatment under the law and the right to be promoted fairly.
It was not a matter of loyalty; it was a matter of justice.
After we prevailed in Federal Court in El Paso, Texas, I was “promoted” to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C. and, reluctantly, the FBI complied with Judge Bunton’s Order to promote me to an SES 4 position. My boss had to be promoted first, because he was only an SES 3.
After a year and a half at Headquarters, where I was the ‘invisible man’, I threatened to sue the FBI again for continuing discrimination and retaliation against the class members. We were worse off than before the lawsuit. I was involuntarily demoted to SES 3 (can this happen?) and transferred to the field as the Special Agent in Charge of the Albuquerque Division. Other FBI Officials returned to the Field with their SES rank intact.
Five years later, in 1995, after 33 years of FBI service, I retired but I still feel the sting of recrimination for having filed suit against the FBI. My story is not unique, but tragically, it is representative of what happened to most class-action members and their careers.
Because we prevailed in the lawsuit, open retaliation accelerated with a vengeance and to this very day we are punished. Class-members were denied court-ordered rightful place seniority and subsequently we retired at lower grades than those ordered by Judge Bunton, who died in January, 2001.
The FBI internal affairs office, known as the Office of Professional Responsibility, conducted more than sixteen investigations against San Antonio Supervisor Gil Mireles (one of my brave EEO Counselors); but couldn’t find any wrong-doing. Gil was added to the long list of those Agents forced out of the FBI for demanding their rights as Americans. Ironically, the FBI is responsible for investigating violations of civil rights laws in the United States. Who guards the guards? Is it you, the EEOC and Congress, or does the FBI answer to anyone? Apparently, not.
After the trial, FBI leaders deliberately disregarded Judge Bunton’s orders to fix the ‘bankrupt’ EEO process and the Promotion System in the FBI.
Predictably, those Hispanic Agents who testified at trial – falsely- that the FBI did not discriminate… were among the first to be promoted after the ruling.
Shortly after my assignment to the FBI Lab, I made eighty-eight (88) allegations of perjury and wrong-doing by top FBI Officials during the trial. Director Sessions was unaware. The subsequent two-year investigation into these charges by Inspector Dennis Curry and John Shiman has been lost by FBI. Those FBI Officials who testified falsely and retaliated against us were promoted, given plush assignments and retired at high SES levels. Director William Sessions had been fired in part for letting Pérez v. FBI go to trial.
The lead members of the ‘successful’ battle against discrimination are all retired now and we loyal Americans pay every day for defending our Constitutional rights. Would we do it again? YES, we had no choice. Latinos in the FBI continue the battle that we started. Regrettably, this battle is far from over. It continues in the FBI and throughout our Federal Government and our Nation. Just listen to the news!
You conduct studies and wonder why more Hispanics don’t pursue careers in the Federal service. Perhaps this will give you some insight into ‘The Realities and Barriers Faced by Hispanics in the Federal Sector’.
http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/meetings/10-23-08/perez.html
Posted at 08:35 PM in Links to Stories About Whistleblowers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Bloch is Gone; Federal Workers Vindicated
Contact: Danielle Brian, Executive Director, POGO, 202-438-8859
WHITE HOUSE OUSTS SPECIAL COUNSEL BLOCH:
FEDERAL WORKERS ARE VINDICATED
Washington, D.C. – After months of intrigue-- including hidden thumb drives, computer files destroyed, staff retaliations and firings and misfires directed at his critics -- Scott Bloch was finally forced to resign today in a meeting with White House officials, according to several sources. He has been placed on administrative leave, effective today, until December 12, 2008, when his term ends.
Bloch had announced his own plans to leave in January in a letter he released on Monday. http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2008/Letter%20to%20the%20President%2010-20-08.pdf. But this morning, federal agents from the FBI and/or Federal Protective Service were stationed at the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) while Special Counsel Scott Bloch was called to the White House meeting. Meanwhile, OSC employees were informed of an all hands meeting at four o’clock today. All requests for comments from the OSC are being referred to the White House. The President has designated William E. Reukauf, long-time OSC career civil servant currently serving as Associate Special Counsel, to be Acting Special Counsel.
According to Debra S. Katz, an attorney for former and current OSC employees and non-profit whistleblower groups, including the Project On Government Oversight, “after bringing Scott Bloch’s serious misconduct to the attention of the White House for almost four years, we are pleased that the Bush Administration has finally acted to remove this rogue Presidential appointee. Unfortunately, President Bush’s action comes far too late for OSC employees and other federal workers who have been denied a safe outlet to report fraud, waste and abuse throughout his disgraceful tenure. Bloch has allowed federal workers to be subjected to retaliation with impunity and has done great damage to the agency’s mission and the public that it was established to protect.”
In July, 2008, POGO wrote to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, directly calling for the firing of Bloch. http://www.pogo.org/p/government/gl-080717-osc.html
Danielle Brian, Executive Director, POGO, said today, “This is a victory for federal workers. It would have been obscene for this man to be able to walk away under his own terms. He has left the agency in shambles. It will take a lot of work to repair the damage Bloch caused. It will also be necessary to fix the systemic flaws which have long hampered its effectiveness.” POGO has been investigating Bloch’s mismanagement of OSC since 2004. http://www.pogo.org/p/government/OSCcompendium.html.
POGO will be releasing a report soon that will point to systemic flaws that will remain at the OSC even after Bloch’s departure, as well as recommending reforms.
Bloch is currently under federal investigation for possible obstruction of justice for destroying computer files sought by investigators in a prior probe into whether he retaliated illegally against whistleblowers in his office.
POGO is an independent non-profit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and honest federal government.
Posted at 08:32 PM in OSC & MSPB | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
OSC: Scott Bloch Fired by White House
Today The White House Fired
Scott Bloch as Special Counsel!
Special Counsel Scott Bloch is being forced out of office, according to sources close to the agency.
Employees say Bloch was fired by the White House earlier today, and he’s gathering staffers for an all-hands meeting this afternoon to announce his departure from the agency.
On Monday, Bloch announced plans to resign from the agency Jan. 5, 2009.
He’s under federal investigation for allegedly destroying data on a computer linked to a whistleblower retaliation case in the office.
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3785460
Posted at 08:17 PM in OSC & MSPB | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Boeing Slapped Silly.... Again
Here's yet another one... I hear there are more cases coming down the pike, just not public yet. The fraud and corruption just keep getting worse. Wish I had better news. -GFS
ICO Awarded $371 Million In Fraud Case Against Boeing
By Tricia Duryee - Wed 22 Oct 2008 02:47 PM PST
ICO Global Communications, which is working on building a satellite and land-based wireless network that aims to provide interactive media services, such as navigation, roadside assistance and the mobile video, was awarded $371 million in damages in a fraud case against Boeing. A jury late yesterday found in favor of ICO. The award includes $279 million for breach of contract and fraud with regard to satellite pricing by Boeing Satellite Systems International and another $91.6 million for fraud related to satellite launches, Barron’s reports. The jury will decide on Oct. 28 whether to decide whether to award any punitive damages.
Posted at 07:50 PM in No-Bid Contracts and Contract Fraud | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Many Are Caught, but Few Suffer for U.S. Military Contract Fraud
Link to Original: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D81E38F931A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Twenty-five of the 100 largest Pentagon contractors have been found guilty of procurement fraud in the last seven years, some more than once. Yet not one has been barred from Government contracting, and the renewed debate over how to discourage such fraud has produced no easy solutions.
The number of convictions and guilty pleas has accelerated in the last two years, with 16 cases involving 14 of the largest weapons makers. They include Boeing, Grumman and Teledyne, which made payoffs to obtain confidential Pentagon documents; Rockwell International and Emerson Electric, which overcharged the Government, and Fairchild Industries and Northrop, which failed to test certain weapons components or falsified the test results.
Prosecutors, members of Congress and Pentagon officials have long wrestled with how to punish contractors guilty of wrongdoing, trying to balance the extreme difficulty of cutting all ties to companies that build the nation's most sophisticated weapons against the need to find an effective deterrent to fraud. The recent cases have focused more attention than ever on the topic, setting off a debate over whether the contractors should be permitted to continue doing business with the Government and whether there might be effective alternative sanctions. 'Need to Find a Middle Ground'
"Debarment is such a draconian penalty that it's almost never used," said Representative Charles E. Schumer, the Democrat of Brooklyn who is chairman of the House subcommittee on criminal justice. "We need to find a middle ground so that thousands of jobs and the national security won't be jeopardized but strong enough that it will serve as a deterrent."
Spurred by the increase in fraud cases, Congressional committees have held numerous hearings in the last several months, and lawmakers are considering several proposals. One would ban a contractor from all Government business, a process known as debarment, for several years after a second fraud conviction. Another would prohibit companies from earning any profit on their Government work for a specified period. A third would call for a court-appointed "special master" to oversee all of a contractor's operations. Congress adjourned without taking action on the proposals, but legislators said they plan to address the subject in the next term.
"Congress has allowed this issue to fester for too long," said Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who is a member of the House subcommittee on legislation and national security. "We're going to be bulldogs on this now, and there's no question there's bipartisan support." Fines and Penalties for Fraud
In fraud cases contractors already face court-imposed criminal and civil fines and penalties, sometimes of millions of dollars. In some cases, the Pentagon has tried to discipline contractors through behind-the-scenes pressure to make management changes. Pentagon officials have long argued that it is impractical to go further, because in many cases a company is the sole builder of a weapon and it could take years, and enormous expense, to find alternative suppliers.
Many members of Congress and some prosecutors, however, are increasingly arguing that only the threat of being barred from Pentagon contracts for several years, or similar sanctions, is a sufficient deterrent.
Mr. Schumer has proposed what he says is a realistic middle ground. Under his proposal, the courts would be required to appoint an outside representative to oversee the activities of a contractor convicted of fraud twice within a specified period. The special master would have broad authority to insure the company was operating ethically and that it made full restitution for past crimes.
Mr. Shays said another alternative that deserves consideration in Congress is allowing existing contracts to be completed but barring any new contract awards for a period of several years if a company is convicted or found not to be cooperating fully with a Government investigation.
Small contractors are often barred by the Pentagon from doing business with the Government for several years. But the large contractors, on which the Pentagon relies most heavily, have never faced anything but temporary suspensions of their right to compete for contracts. The suspensions usually last a few months and inflict little, if any, financial pain. Suspensions are almost always limited to a specific company division.
The Pentagon, when faced with a big procurement scandal and pressure from Congress and the public to act against a contractor, sometimes quietly presses a company to make changes in its operations or in its management. After a series of scandals involving the General Dynamics Corporation during the late 1970's and early 1980's, the Pentagon put pressure on the company in various ways, including a brief suspension. The company brought in an outsider, Stanley C. Pace, as its new chief executive with a mandate to clean up its operations and image. Pentagon Policy
The Pentagon says its policy is to use suspension and debarment only to protect the Government and the taxpayer from further fraud, and not as punishment. Punitive action, it adds, is properly limited to the judiciary.
"The current system is working," said Eleanor Spector, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Procurement. "We have the tools to suspend or debar the companies involved, and anything that smacks of punishment should be the role of the courts."
While the fines imposed in court cases are often substantial, many legislators and experts contend they do little to insure that contractors will not continue to cheat.
"Corporate executives who persistently engage in this kind of theft from taxpayers ought to know they will not just pay a fine that often doesn't cover the cost of correcting the fraud, or throw an underling to the prosecutors," said Representative George Miller, a California Democrat who has proposed legislation that calls for debarment for a company after two convictions in five years.
Mr. Miller and other supporters of stricter sanctions point to a recent case involving the Northrop Corporation. Northrop's False Test Results
Northrop was indicted last year on charges of falsifying test results on missile and aircraft components. The Pentagon suspended the division of the company responsible for the tests. But because the suspension applied only to direct purchases by the Government, it did not interrupt the division's work supplying a component to the companies that assemble the Harrier jet for the Marine Corps.
Although Northrop pleaded guilty to the test-fraud charges earlier this year, the Pentagon is now considering rescinding the ban altogether. Record of the Last Two Years
In half of the 16 cases involving large contractors in the last two years, the Pentagon took no action against the company. In the other cases, companies or their divisions were suspended for a period of months from receiving new contracts while the Pentagon sought assurances that they were operating responsibly.
In some cases, the companies lost a chance to win large new contracts during their suspensions.
As often as not, however, the suspensions had little effect. Teledyne Inc.'s electronics division was suspended last year for six months, after it was implicated in a Pentagon bribery scandal. Despite the suspension, the company was allowed to continue making its products and shipping them to the Government under existing contracts. Suspension's Effect on Boeing
After admitting to trafficking in confidential Government documents, the Boeing Company's office near Washington was suspended for three months starting last November, and personnel from that office were barred from dealing directly with the Pentagon.
Boeing assigned people from other offices to deal with the Pentagon, and, since the suspension did not affect any manufacturing plants or specific programs, there was no direct impact, a Boeing spokesman said.
Some companies do not even suffer the inconvenience of a suspension. The Emerson Electric Company pleaded guilty in May to four felony counts related to overcharging the Pentagon for some electronics components. The company paid a $40,000 criminal fine and a $14 million civil settlement but was not suspended.
Correction: November 16, 1990, Monday, Late Edition - Final
A front-page article on Monday about military contract fraud misstated the charges to which the Boeing Company pleaded guilty this year. Boeing admitted having illegally obtained two classified Pentagon budget documents, but the company did not admit having made payoffs to obtain them, and prosecutors said during the case that there was no evidence of monetary payoffs.
Posted at 09:32 PM in No-Bid Contracts and Contract Fraud | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)