Support Your Local “Occupy Your Town/City” Movement

I received an email today from someone who did not understand why I was not actively supporting the “Occupy” efforts across the country.  I’ve been watching news of these activities with interest. (The real news, not corporate owned media outlets who are NOT reporting it for the most part, and not accurately reporting it for the rest.)   A week or so ago I intended to go down and find out for myself what was going on, but work and several family disasters delayed my expedition down there.  Probably the same excuse, many of you have for not actively helping in some way or another.  

 

When you consider that the Occupy efforts appear to be a collaboration of committed individuals who have various concerns and complaints, many of which are caused by corporations, politicians, bureaucracy, greedy examples of those with more than most, etc.  The problems are social, economic, and political.  I can see my reader’s point

 

These are the same people who are helping to enable corporations and various hands and arms of government that are causing the very situations that are creating whistleblowers.  Greed, power mongering, cronyism, influence pedaling, unethical and criminal contracting activities, fraud, waste, abuse, and a host of other ills are examples.  Honorable people when confronted by this try to change it, report it, fix it and usually get the stuffing kicked out of them for their efforts in the climate we are dealing with in this country today. 

 

I agree that I should help promote the support of those who have the courage, determination and commitment to go be an active part of peaceful protest in events being staged across the nation.  Even if you cannot take part in the sign holding and waving, stop by and talk, find out why these people are down there and what they need to stay well and comfortable.  This is especially true in parts of the country that are now turning cold, wet and inhospitable.  My reader suggested donating supplies that are so critically needed like, warm coats, gloves, hats, food, especially things that can be cooked or heated under outdoor camping conditions.  Waterproof plastic storage boxes, tents, sleeping bags, cooking utensils, first aid supplies, those hand warmer sticks you can buy at sporting goods stores, and anything else that will keep up the volunteer’s spirits and energy.  

 

My reader reported that the Occupy Tacoma (in Washington State, south of Seattle, in a park on Pacific Avenue, downtown, at the cross street with the new bridge across the Puyallup River) is a neat and orderly effort showing a positively motivated cooperative of young and old that demonstrates a stellar example of the best of human effort.  They, who are giving the best they can to make a difference and to help the majority of us break out of our complacency and paralyzed condition, deserve our support and help. 

 

When those with wealth and political control, who continue to take and take, and manipulate things to the detriment of the majority (working class and poor)  in this country are taken to task, and our society balances and rights itself again, we will also be reducing the number of whistleblowers, because there will be less crap and corruption to report,  and to fight against in our work places. 

 

Please take time this week or weekend and do what you can for your local “Occupy ____________” effort.  If you can report on your local Occupy activities, please comment here on this site; you are welcome to voice your observations and opinions. 

As for me, I am going to the coat closet, storage room and pantry right now! 

GFS

 

 

 

 

Judicial Review needed as the courts are rigged against whistleblowers

Douglas has worked tirelessly for a very long time to get the powers that be to address these problems with resulting critical frustration.  I have pasted the document here, as I could not get it to attach correctly.  The formatting is not correct.  My apologies for that.  I hope you will be able to read it.  If not, there is a working link over at my other blog:  http://whistleblowersupporter.typepad.com

GFS

—————————

From: Douglas Kinan [mailto:dougkinan@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:46 PM

Subject: Re: Today’s press release: Judicial Corruption must be stopped!

All: I’m rooting for all of you, but after 13 years of trying, I’m convinced you will not succeed. The court process for whistleblowers is rigged. According to the published April 2008 boast by the Department of Defense, none have gone to trial yet Lawbreaking for cash is standard operating procedure in the courts. Based on my firsthand knowledge, corruption and crime in the courts is the norm and all of you have evidence to prove it. For more evidence, see the attached pleadings. Questions, comments and criticisms are welcome.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DOUGLAS K. KINAN

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 08-10477-WGY

ROBERT M. GATES

 

Judge William G. Young

 

Defendant

MOTION FOR THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE MARK L. WOLF TO INTERVENE

AND FOR JUDICIAL/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW CONCERNING JUDGE WILLIAM

G. YOUNG’S DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS BASED ON SPECIAL AND

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF LAW, THE

EQUAL JUSTICE STANDARD, DUE PROCESS, THE “CLEAN HANDS” DOCTRINE,

ATTORNEY INTIMIDATION, FRAUD ON THE COURT AND THE CODE OF

CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES ADOPTED BY THE JUDICIAL

CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES’

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, pro se, in

CA No. 08-10477-WGY

cross

referenced with

 

 

CA No. 99-11855-WGY and CA No. 99-11465-WGY

and

moves the Honorable Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf to intervene and

 

conduct a judicial/administrative review of Judge William G.

 

Young’s discretionary decisions on the grounds that Judge Young

 

gave every benefit of the doubt to the Defense Contract

 

Management Agency’s (“DCMA”)extensive pattern and practice of

 

verified criminal activity and deliberate acts of continuing

 

retaliation.

 

 

“The Code of Conduct provides guidance for judges on issues ofjudicial integrity and independence, judicial

diligence and impartiality, and the avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance. Judges may not hear cases in

which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case… :’

I

On September

28, 2009,

Judge Young denied Plaintiff’s Verified

Motion and Memorandum dated September

 

 

24, 2009,

without explanation.

 

Judge Young’s decisions preempts the DCMA and the Department of

 

Justice from responding to Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint”

 

and “Combined Verified Motion and Memorandum” filed with the

 

Court on or about June

 

 

14, 2008 and September

24, 2009

 

respectively2.

Judge Young’s denial of Plaintiff’s pleadings bends the law to

protect crime, including the Department of Justice’s

participation in the willful and deliberate frame ups of many

innocent citizens (even one is too many) .

Judge Young’s decision ignores relevant and material facts,

defends the case for the Defendant, allows the DOJ to remain

silent concerning their participation in criminal activity and,

for a second time, demonstrates a bias toward Plaintiff’s pro se

status, which deprives Plaintiff of equal justice, due process

and an evidentiary hearing on the merits. Judge Young has

absolute and unequivocal evidence

􀁾􀁴􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀂷􀁤􀀽􀀭􀁁􀀹􀀮􀁇

to prove a fraud on

the court, which is contained in court records.

 

 

2 Neither AUSA Christine

1. Wichers or the DOl

offered counterarguments or a defense to the verified criminal

activity outlined in Plaintiff’s pleadings except to characterize Plaintiff’s lawful reporting and pleadings as being

 

“irrelevant, repetitive, conclusory, inflammatory, prolix, disjointed, unintelligible, impenetrable, swollen with irrelevant

 

rhetorical flourishes, muddled, personal and vindictive.”

 

Judge Young never bothered to ask AUSA Wichers to explain in open court why Plaintiffs reporting of the DCMA’s

 

continuing violations to include, heinous and violent acts against women (and their children), sexual harassment, well

 

planned discrimination, intentional exclusion of black candidates from working in the Equal Employment Office, quid

 

pro quo promotions in exchange for false and/or tainted testimony or silence, suborning

 

 

􀁰􀁥􀁾􀁪􀁵􀁲􀁹􀀬

fabricating documents

and reports to pretend complaints were investigated when they were not, frame ups, and widespread public corruption

 

and criminal activity subsidized by millions of tax dollars is “irrelevant, repetitive, conclusory. inflammatory, prolix.

 

disjointed, unintelligible, impenetrable, swollen with irrelevant rhetorical flourishes, muddled, personal and

 

vindictive. “

 

 

2

Judge Young’s treatment toward overwhelming evidence of a rigged

promotion and a verified fraud on the court coupled with the

direct threat and intimidation of US Marshal Frank Dawson

3

during

a court proceeding should not be cavalierly overlooked by denying

 

Plaintiff’s motion. (See Attachment #1, Affidavit prepared for

 

Judge Young, which was withheld and/or concealed and Attachment

 

#2, Dawson’s email dated March 27, 2009

 

 

 

4

.)

 

 

Judge Young’s decision embraces the Defendants’ verified criminal

activity, subsidized by millions of taxpayer dollars and ensures

the pattern and practices as outlined in my 30-page affidavitS and

verified complaints shall continue.

The truth, facts and evidence in the pleadings and the official

government record are undisputed and self-evident. Judge Young

ignored the weight of the evidence, which is violative of

Plaintiff’s vested legal right. (See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.

 

6

)

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

􀁌􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾

Douglas K.

 

􀁬􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁾

 

34 Glenburnie Road

Boston, MA 02132

617-323-6171

October 10, 2009

3

Dawson told Plaintiff that the [violations in

Judge Wolfs court] was “none of Judge Wolfs business.” PlaintifT

disagreed with Dawson.

 

 

4

 

Dawson’s told Plaintiff that ifhe reported public corruption to the Public Corruption Officer, Brian Kelly,

that he would prosecute Plaintiff as a “stalker.” Dawson stated that Kelly thinks that Plaintiffs reporting is

 

“bothersome.”

 

 

5

 

Plaintiffs required government participation in the Gerard Francis investigation. See also Plaintiffs

affidavit in the Harrison complaint and the contemporaneous emails in the VireJla frame up.

 

6

 

“Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in United States law. This landmark decision helped define the

‘checks and balances’ ofthe American form of government.” “One ofthe key legal principles on which

 

Marbury relies is the notion that for every violation of a vested legal right, there must be a legal remedy.”

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Douglas K. Kinan, hereby certify I

request, by First Class Mail, prepaid

served the

to:

within

Honorable Chief Judge Mark

John J. Moakley Courthouse

1 Courthouse Way

Boston, MA 02210

L. Wolf

Christine J. Wichers

Assistant United States Attorney

John J. Moakley Courthouse

1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200

Boston, MA 02210

Cornelius J.P. Sullivan

51 Ellison Street

Mattapan, MA 02126

L>-.

{L-.

􀁲􀁊􀁾􀁾

 

Douglas K.

 

􀁾􀁮􀁡􀁮

 

34 Glenburnie Road

Boston, MA 02132

617-323-6171

October 10, 2009

4

ATTACHMENT

 

#1

 

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF MASSACHUSETIS

COUN1Y OF SUFFOLI<

I, Douglas K. Kinan, of Suffolk County provide this affidavit to the Honorable Judge William G.

Young, as a result of a March 25, 2009 effort to retaliate, harass, intimidate, humiliate and

embarrass me, place my job

in

jeopardy and silence me concerning my reporting of public

corruption, verified felony conduct and fraud on the court, condoned by United States Attorney

 

Michael

 

 

J. Sullivan’s office, knowing that this sworn statement is

not confidential.

In the interest of substantial and equal justice and

 

 

in

accordance with the United States Marshals

Service, Judicial Security Division

 

 

aSD),

which “is committed to the protection of the judicial

process – by ensuring the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings and protecting federal

 

judges, jurors and other members of the federal judiciary,” I askJudge Young to inqUire as to

 

who sent US Marshal Francis P. Dawson, Jr. (“Dawson”) and why and whether or not Dawson’s

 

visit was meant to interfere with the judicial process

 

 

in

my federal civil complaint before Judge

Young’s court (08-1047? – WGY.)

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Dawson’s visit was intended to scare, embarrass and silence

 

me and interfere with my civil complaint. Dawson’s visit was a disturbing and menacing act.

 

Dawson had no

 

 

􀁾􀁵􀁴􀁨􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁹

coming to my job at the court and he had no business acting contrary

to JSD responsibilities and his job. No judge or no judge’s clerk in his or her right mind would

 

have sent Dawson to see me. Dawson’s visit demonstrates that someone in the US Attorney’s

 

office, once again, has no difficulty

 

 

in

destroying my livelihood and my reputation in the court.

I hereby solemnly swear and affirm:

 

 

DAWSON’S VISIT TO SUFFOLK PROBATE COURT -10:30 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.

Upon my arrival to work on March 25, 2009, I was informed by employee, Tina Cole that at

approximately

8:15

a.m. a US Marshall called, “looking for you.” The call was forwarded to

Peter Solomon who operates the switchboard.

 

 

Mr.

Solomon informed me that he asked this US Marshall if he would like to be connected to my

voicemail and leave a message. Dawson said, no, that he would come to my job and visit me.

At approximately

10:40

a.m., an individual walked into my office, which is open and public. In

public view and earshot and approximately four feet from the line of attorneys who fue court

 

pleadings with me, Dawson showed a badge and credentials, introduced himself as US Marshal

 

Frank Dawson. (Dawson’s business card is: “U.S. Department ofJustice, United States Marshals

 

Service, Francis P. Dawson,]r., “Frank,” Deputy U.S. Marshal.”)

 

 

2

Dawson told me that his visit to my job was prompted by a letter that I had faxed to Judge

Gertner on February 26,2009

(Attachment

#1) dated February 24,2009, and that he “should

have been here on the 27

 

 

 

th

.”

 

 

The timing of Dawson’s visit, coupled with his comments corresponds more to my letter of

March 24, 2009

(Attachment

#2).

I asked Dawson who sent

 

 

him

to see me. His first version (Dawson gave three versions) was

that Judge Gertner sent

 

 

him

and, “The judge don’t want anymore letters.” I informed Dawson

that I admiredJudge Gertner, I would not do anything to offend her or any judge in any way, I

 

was complying with the federal statute and I had sent Judge Gertner and other members of the

 

federal bench letters in the past, without consequence. Dawson then changed his story and said

 

Judge Gertner’s clerk sent him. In the afternoon during Dawson’s follow up phone conversation

 

he emphatically stated, “I’m doing this on my own.”

 

I informed Dawson that I would not and did not send any threatening letters to anyone, I am not

 

a violent person and essentially I have always had my daughters’ reputation to anchor my conduct

 

to

 

 

all

ethical, moral, legal and civic standards. Dawson said, “Neither was I(acynski” (referring to

Una-Bomber, Ted Kaczynski.

 

Dawson told me that I was

 

 

in

violation of a federal law and that I am not supposed to send

letters to judges. I informed Dawson that I work for the court, that his information was a

 

surprise to me and that judges get letters here everyday. Dawson said that a “2007 federal law

 

 

(“1521

 

or something”) supported his claim but that he did not remember the cite. Dawson later

changed his story and said he was recendy in trairiing and learned of

 

 

this

new law.

I informed Dawson that I was lawfully required to report felony conduct to a “judge” and asked

 

 

him

 

if he wanted to see the statute confirming such reporting. He said he did. I left my

operations office to get the cite and returned with the letter to AUSA and Public Corruption

 

Chief Brian Kelly dated December 24,2007 (Attachment #3) showing the cite

 

 

(18 USC 4

&

 

2(il), which was also footnoted

in

my February 24, 2009; letter, which Dawson claimed had

prompted his visit. .

 

Upon my return I closed the door because there was a line of attorneys approximately four feet

 

away listening to our discussion, which was embarrassing. I asked Dawson to read the Kelly

 

letter and that I(elly had never notified me that my letters offended

 

 

him

or anyone else. Dawson

said he did not want to read the letter, folded it and placed it in his book. We both agreed that he

 

should check with I(elly to see

 

 

if

I was “bothersome” and get back to me.

After Dawson read the footnote requiring reporting to a “judge” he said, it was not the “whole

 

law,” that the law has changed and proceeded to tell me that he was recendy in training

 

 

in

which

he learned of a new law, which prohibits letters being sent to judges. I informed Dawson that I

 

had no knowledge of the new law, informed

 

 

him

that I would respect any law and asked him if

he would send me that cite. He said he would.

 

We continued our discussion and I informed Dawson that I was reporting the frame ups of

 

innocent individuals, other crime and public corruption, to include the current retaliatory frame

 

 

3

up of whisdeblower Ken Pedeleose and that Kelly of the DOJ and Foley of the FBI refuse to

investigate.

I also informed Dawson that Foley thinks the frame-ups are amusing. I

informed

Dawson that unless there is a law that supercedes

 

 

18 USC 4,

my lawfully required reporting

needed to be recognized to prevent more harm to innocent individuals. Dawson again repeated

 

that

 

 

I

should not be sending letters to judges.

Dawson then inquired as to how

 

 

I got Judge Gertner’s fax number. I

informed Dawson that it

was public information, contained

 

 

in the Massachusetts Lawyers Diary (“Redbook”) and/or

I

 

may have called Judge Gertner’s office, using the “Redbook” to obtain her fax number. I asked

Dawson if he wanted to see the Directory. He said he did.

I gave him

a copy of the “Redbook”

pointing out the Federal District Court Directory on Page

 

 

19. He said it was a “2006″

book. I

offered

 

 

him the 2008

version of the Redbook to my right and asked if he wanted to see that

version. He said

 

 

Cl

no.” .

The

 

 

timing

and comments surrounding Dawson’s visit corresponds, not to my letter of February

 

24, 2009

but to my letter of March 24, 2009;

because during our discussion Dawson brought up

the ”Jeffrey Auerhahn” matter, which was previously before Honorable Judge Mark Wolf and

 

told me that Auerhahn’s conduct was “none ofJudge Wolf’s business.”

 

 

I

disagreed with Dawson

and informed

 

 

him

that Auerhahn’s conduct was Judge Wolfs business and that Judge Wolf acted

appropriately.

 

Dawson then informed. me that his job requires

 

 

him

to check on people who are “bothersome”

to the judiciary and to the United States attomey’s office. I informed Dawsonif that were the

 

case then why haven’t I received notice during the approximately

 

 

10

years that I have been

notifying I<elly and others at the US Attorney’s office. I asked Dawson if he would be sure to

 

check with I<elly and with Foley to find out ifmy lawfully requited reporting was “bothersome

 

 

 

7

‘

 

 

and to let me know.

During the course of our discussion Dawson asked if

I had a complaint in court. I told him

I

did. He also asked for my date of birth, twice, but not in succession.

 

 

I

informed Dawson there

was no reason for

 

 

him

to have that information.

Dawson told me that I was “consumed” by this and to “get on with my life.” Dawson said,

 

”You have a good thing going here (meaning my job at the court), don’t

 

 

ruin

it.”

Dawson restated many times that I should not be sending letters to judges and that if there was

 

no remedy from the US Attorney’s office or the FBI that I should

 

 

talk

to the press. Dawson

suggested that I

 

 

talk

with Shelly Murphy or Dave Abel at the Boston Globe.

 

AF!ERNOON PHONE DISCUSSION WITH DAWSON -12:50 -1:08 p.m.

Walking into my administrative office for lunch, my phone indicated that

I

had a message

waiting. It was from Dawson.

 

 

I

returned the call and left Dawson a voice message. He returned

my call.

 

Dawson’s tone was menacing and tough. He began by telling me that he was “extending my

 

message to include no more letters to anyone at the US attorney’s office.” Dawson said that if I

 

sent any more letters that he would, “come and talk to you again and open up a case against you,

 

 

4

then you’ll

go

into a [national] database as an “inappropriate communicator.” Dawson told me

that [Kelly] said I was an “annoyance.” “They don’t want to hear from you. Don’t even send

 

them a Christmas card. They are not your friends.”

 

I informed Dawson that

 

 

all of my reporting to the Chief of Public Corruption, Kelly, was in

the

context of reporting crime, public corruption and verified felony conduct-and reminded Dawson

 

of the frame-ups, including the current frame up of whistleblower, Ken Pedeleose.

 

Dawson told me that lam “fmding out too much” that I have the “propensity to stalk them.”

 

Dawson said, “I’m doing you a favor. I’m trying to nip it

 

 

in

the bud.” I informed Dawson that I

wouldn’t threaten or stalk anyone.

 

Dawson told me that my reporting is nothing but “rumor, speculation, conjecture and hearsay.”

 

I informed Dawson that if the firsthand information

 

 

in

my thirty-page affidavit were false that I

would not be talking to

 

 

him

from a courthouse. I informed Dawson that my affidavit was paid

off to conceal the DCMAE’s verified criminal activity, as were other cases; .

 

I informed Dawson that my letters did not threaten anyone, there was no name-calling and no

 

defamatory statements in my lawfully requited reporting. Dawson told me, “It’s how they

 

perceive it.” Each time I provided a fact to Dawson, he rebutted my facts with a comment about

 

no more letters. Dawson repeated his belief that

 

 

I

was “consumed” by this.

I informed Dawson that his visit to my job was improper. He said he was just “doing his job.” I

 

informed Dawson that I would

 

 

think

about everything he said. Dawson said I could file a

complaint, that he did not care.

 

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury

 

 

this 26th

day of March, 2009.

 

􀁦􀀮􀀾􀀮􀁻􀁌􀀮􀀮􀁾

March 26, 2009

Douglas 1<. I<i.nan

———————————-

ATTACHMENT

 

#2

 

.”.b..x!iOO._

MAIL …….tI: .. It,:!,

Cbsslt

 

: Inappropriate Communication(s)

 

Friday, March 27, 20099:51 AM

 

j

hom:

“Dawson, Frank (USMS)” <Frank.Dawson2@usdoj.gov>

To: dougkinan@yahoo.com, douglas.kinan@jud.state.ma.us

 

 

Mr. Kinan,

I would like to reiterate what we discussed the other day, in person and on the phone. The U.S. Marshals

attention was drawn towards you because you

had originally sent an Inappropriate Communication (a fax) to JUdge Gertner. But during our meeting you

admitted sending letters to other Federal Judges, and

also to several Assistant U.S. Attorney’s.

As an agency that is responsible for the safety and security of the Federal JUdiciary, as well as the U.S.

Attorney’s, the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS) is

advising you that you should immediately cease from any further attempts to communicate with any Federal

Judges or Federal Prosecutors.

If you do communicate with them in any fashion it will be construed as an Inappropriate Communication, and

will be investigated by the USMS..

No Judge or Prosecutor seeks to have any communication with you at all.

Therefore the U. S. Marshals Service is politely advising you to not contact anyone mentioned above by

any form ‘of writing, e-mail, phone call or in any

other manner. If you partake in any Inappropriate Communication(s) the U.S. Marshals Service will be calling

on you to conduct an in-depth

interview, so please comply with this advisory.

Remember I know we specifically discussed Judge Gertner and Assistant U.S. Atto’rney Brian Ke’l1y, but

you are prohibited from trying to communicate

with

any.

Judge or Prosecutor, with the exception of through a motion filed with the Court, and only in regards

to a specific case you may have at the D/Mass U.S.

 

District Court.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

Frank Dawson

 

United States Marshals Service

 

Protective Intelligence Investigator

 

 

(617)-748-2575

 

office

 

(617)-594-7008 Cell

(617)-748-2579 FAX

DSS Director Ignores DoD OIG Report and Recommendations: Why?

I hear through my sources that the DoD OIG completed a Title V investigation (Reprisal Office) and issued a report of findings in support of the federal employee whistleblower.  I have obtained a copy of this report from my sources in the DC area.  I am wading through it as we speak.  It would appear that Stanley Sims, DSS Director and Jay Freaude, DSS Counsel are purposefully refusing to acknowledge receipt of this report and responsibility to take constructive action to make the damaged employee whole, as directed by the DoD OIG. 

Is this how it will work?  Defense Security Service Director, Legal Department and Management will ignore investigative reports and pretend the investigation from DoD OIG simply does not exist and continue on their unethical and illegal path with impunity?  There are some very angry federal employees and civilian citizens regarding this cavalier attitude toward justice.  Not to mention questions about what appears to be DSS malfeasance in managing a federal agency and expenditure of taxpayer funds. 

If Defense Security Service oversight cannot be ethical in its own in-house matters, how can they be trusted to be ethical in doing their oversight job of policing government defense contracting and contractor corporations?

Anybody have more information or perspective? 

GFS

Judges Have Gone Wild Against Whistleblowers

Friends,

We continue our daily press releases. Please send them everywhere! We now have more than 500 web publications of the IAW caucus. We won’t rest until we reach everyone.

 I want to thank coalition member William Perry (Georgia Common Cause) for his quote supporting Judicial justice (a novel concept!) that was published by the AP.

We urge all members to attach responses to the OpEd articles. This makes the more visible. Also, we urge everyone to write articles supporting the meeting. We are on the countdown. Let’s get this out!

Thank God the FBI is finally involved.

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Citizens-United-Demand-Jud-by-Mark-Galen-110913-607.html

Citizens United Demand Judicial Reform Now!

 

By Mark Galen (about the author)

Judges have gone wild against Whistleblowers

“Corruptio optimi pessima.”  “Corruption of the best becomes the worst.” 

Washington-Whistleblower advocacy groups have joined in an unprecedented cooperation to protect Judicial Integrity. These groups, including the International Association of Whistleblowers (IAW), the Atlanta Whistleblower Coalition and Georgians for Justice have joined to hold judges accountable a top priority.

 

 

 

 

In the end, judges are the gatekeepers who frequently deny whistleblowers access to courts. Regardless of laws passed, if courts are hostile to whistleblower rights, society suffers. Whistleblowers may be looking out for society, but who is looking out for whistleblowers?

Leaders of the movement agreed that this is the most difficult challenge that persons of conscience face. Court misconduct can be deadly. When judges permit hospitals or defense firms to cover up, then taxpayers and citizens are left unsafe, and people die.

 

 

In the Godfather, Vito Corleone carried judges in his pockets “like so many nickels.” What chance do average whistleblowers have when powerful corporations are pulling judicial puppet strings?

 

In the most extreme example, Georgia judicial misconduct has led both the Wall Street Journal and Forbes to declare, “Georgia judges have gone wild.” Prime examples include judicial misconduct and criminal conduct in the Georgia / Fulton County Superior Courts. As it stands, more than 24 Georgia Judges have had to resign for violations of ethics, and for even wrongful execution orders.

Just last week, the FBI agreed to intervene. Brian Lambkin, who heads the FBI office in Georgia, has announced this week that it was opening a large investigation into judicial corruption. Larkin elaborated:

“It impacts the everyday system. It’s not just a dirty law enforcement officer that might be shaking you down,” he said. “You’re talking about people that you elect to an office to represent you who try to line their pockets.”

 

The Associated Press GREG BLUESTEIN writes that the situation is serious:

Lamkin will personally sign off on the investigations.

“The reason is a corruption investigation can ruin reputations,” he said. “These are not quick hits. We will use sophisticated techniques and undercover operations to really go after these. That’s why the individuals that work these have to be patient.”

 

Lamkin wouldn’t say how large the team is, but he said he’s assigned about 40 percent of the staff in the bureau’s white-collar crimes unit to the mission.

The move was welcomed by government officials, who believed state and local funding cuts over the last few years have eroded other investigations.

“I just appreciate it. One of the frustrations you hear is that with the state budget cuts, you don’t have the resources to hire more investigators,” said state Rep. Joe Wilkinson , who chairs the House Ethics Committee . “This brings another much-needed level of scrutiny to the system.”

Fulton County Sheriff Ted Jackson , who has asked the FBI to investigate deputies at the Fulton County Jail for wrongdoing, applauded the new oversight.

 

 

The Judicial Qualifications Commission nearly ran out of money in December to investigate judicial misconduct, but state lawmakers gave it a financial boost this year.

 

And the Georgia Ethics Commission , which investigates finance complaints and registers lobbyists, has been rocked by deep funding cuts even as it takes on more duties. The commission’s director resigned after a dispute over the agency’s budget and the status of several cases involving Gov. Nathan Deal . And it went from fielding three investigators in 2008 to none now, said William Perry , the director of Common Cause Georgia.

 

“Our state is cutting back on monitoring elected officials and their ethical behavior, so we welcome the fact that the federal government is stepping up,” he said.

“We don’t take this lightly,” he said. “These are truly the types of investigations that are being done in the back room. And the circle of friends is very small. In order to penetrate that inner circle, you’ve got to have a strong and tenacious group to develop the intelligence.”

 

By cutting fraudsters off from special favors from judges, we can and must protect the United States. People’s lives are at stake. No more profit before patients. We urge newspapers everywhere to reprint this article, and for all citizens to join this campaign. We need everyone! No federal dollars without real accountability. Good faith is the essential prerequisite for public support.

Do we want Vito Corleone to control US justice? Are citizens finally going to unite for justice for all?

 

 

 

The IAW urge all citizens to reprint this article everywhere, and to join the fight for better hospital safety.

Calling all citizens who can describe judicial misconduct. Come to our meeting. Tell us your story. Judicial misconduct cannot be allowed to stand!

Now, do not allow more misconduct. Stand up!

Please contact the following immediately:

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

http://internationalwhistleblower.org/

–

New International Association of Whistleblowers Caucus (IAW) to join GAP and Others at National Whistleblower Conference starting September 18, 2011 in Washington DC.

Here is the website for the IAW.  All Whistleblowers, those who were whistleblowers, or those who may become whistleblowers are enthusiastically invited to join. 

Our website explains what we, the IAW, are about:

http://internationalwhistleblower.org/

Opening day of the conference is Sunday, September 18, 2011.

  The IAW Caucus will be conducting activities at the DC Public

 Library – Martin Luther King Jr. Branch, Room A-5, 901 G

 Street, NW, Washington DC 20001

Some of the activities will include a welcome by co-chairs Mike McCray Esq. And James Murtaugh, MD.

This will be followed by:

-         The Atlanta Whistleblower plenary panel, “Have Georgia Judges Gone Wild?”

-         Tapping the Power of the Media:  “How can we use the power of story, and new internet media, to promote social justice?”

-         Whistleblower support fund – plenary panel, “How can we save priceless documents from the legendary cases of whistleblowers like Ernie Fitzgerald?”

-         “Empty Chair” ceremony honoring whistleblowers who cannot be present due to retaliatory imprisonment  or untimely death.  Statements will be read on behalf of:

o       Martin Salazar, former Dept. of energy employee

o       Bradley Birkenfeld, former UBS banker

o       Mordechai Vanunu, former Israeli nuclear technician

o       Karen Silkwood, Kerr-McGee technician, deceased

-         Waste of Funding within Federal Government Procurement Panel

-         Medical Whistleblower plenary panel, “Can the Patient Quality Care Project Bring Integrity Back to Medicine?” This will include VA whistleblower panelists as well as medical doctors.

For those of you interested in joining the IAW, work sessions will take up the rest of the afternoon on matters concerning planning, charting IAW’s organizational directions, viewing of whistleblower authored books, and continued videotaping of whistleblower story videos for publication on U-Tube.  You will meet a lot of dynamic, creative, and determined people.  It will be well worth your time and effort to get here.

All of this will be concluded with an informal participant dinner at the Dubliner at the Phoenix Park Hotel. 

The rest of the week will continue with events and presentations by various whistleblowers, whistleblower organizations and others.  This will be an exciting and informative week where you will learn a lot and make all kinds of good contacts and build up your supportive networks.

GFS

Whistleblowers Wanted: New International Whistleblower Group Invites You to Participate

Friends,

Please send this everywhere and ask everyone to join the IAW caucus.
We are of the whistleblower, by and for the whistleblower. We want the
largest diversity of whistleblowers possible. We want everyone regardless of
affiliation.

Please circulate the following news item:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/5th-Annual-Whistleblower-C-by-James-Murtagh
-110831-261.html

Our website explains what we are about:

http://internationalwhistleblower.org/

We are expanding our membership, and we are international in scope.
Our articles are appearing today in Scoop magazine NZ and around the world.
We want all whistleblowers to join, and the greater the diversity, the
better. Our signature issues are judicial accountability and medical
whistleblowing, but we are joining with defense and financial
whistleblowers, veterans, environmental. Our focus is to network and mentor.

We also ask all members to register for the entire conference at:

http://makeitsafecampaign.org/news/?page_id=2146

Please ask all members to write articles for OEN. We are running a series of
articles about the conference. I urge every panel to write an article about
their issue. Everyday I would like to run an additional article about each
individual event for the meeting. We are going to U-tube as much of the
conference as possible, and post on OEN and on the IAW website.

We work hard for this conference every year. This year, we can get even more
out of the conference with planning. I challenge every person to get an
article out about their issue. We will work with them, help them with
editing, and get their issue into the press.

We want participation from every single member. By delegating, we can get
everyone involved, and everyone can be heard.

Please send this out, and we will have another article tomorrow.
Ginger, if you have an article about the overall conference, please send it
and we will post it. OpEdNews has a tremendous circulation, and we will get
more attendees if we post articles now. Members still can reserve discounted
airfares.

So, to all MISC members and fans, now is the time. Write and post your
articles! None of us can do this alone, but together we can!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/5th-Annual-Whistleblower-C-by-James-Murtagh
-110831-261.html

Pension Stripping Whistleblower Bill Targeting National Security Whistleblowers, Defeated

From: National Whistleblowers Center [mailto:lmw@whistleblowers.org]

Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:59 AM

To:

Subject: Victory for National Security Whistleblowers

 

 

 

Dear Friend,

I am writing with some great news. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s pension stripping provision was not approved by Congress! This is a tremendous victory.

 

Thank you for your emails and phone calls on this very important issue. We all know how dangerous it would have been to give the heads of the intelligence agencies the power to summarily revoke a whistleblower’s pension if they were simply accused, not convicted, of leaking information. As a result of the thousands of messages that poured in from across the county, that has not happened.

 

On behalf of all the whistleblowers that the NWC helps and for the numerous current and former FBI agents I know personally, thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jane Turner

Former FBI Special Agent, 25-Year Veteran

Member of NWC’s Board of Directors and Director of NWC’s FBI Oversight Program

So, Who is the Senator who killed the Whistleblower Protection Bill?

Here is some good information from Government Accountability Project (GAP) regarding the culprit who put a hold on the Whistleblower Protection Act, and is being aided and abetted by other Senators to evade taking responsibility.  GAP has been asking people to help pressure their Senators to get a definite yes or no on whether he or she was the Senator to place the hold.  Presently they have narrowed it down to three Senators.  Is one of them yours? 

-GFS

 

GAP Announces Results of Campaign to Identify ‘Secret Hold’ Senator

This weekend, GAP (Government Accountability Project) and On The Media will conclude our campaign to identify the senator who placed the anonymous hold on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), effectively killing the bill at the end of the last congressional term. GAP Legal Director Tom Devine will wrap up the campaign and its findings on On The Media.

Since the campaign began in early January, we were able to rule out nearly every senator as being a suspect. After the list of prospective senators was narrowed down to five (as a result of your steadfast advocacy!), over 1,000 people signed our Change.org petition urging these remaining senators to either confirm or deny placing the hold. This increased pressure allowed us to further eliminate Senator McConnell and Senator Vitter, leaving only Senator Risch, Senator Kyl, and Senator Sessions as potential suspects.

Please check with your local NPR station to see what time On The Media will air this weekend, and tune in to listen to Tom Devine speak about the conclusion of the campaign, and where we’re going from here!

Additionally, GAP wishes to extend a heartfelt thank you to all of our supporters who participated in our campaign. Because of your efforts, whistleblower rights for all federal employees are closer to becoming a reality.

Senate Shenanigans

March 14, 2011 · By Shanna Devine

Secret holds are just an anonymous filibuster.

As its opening act this year, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution to restrict–but not eliminate–a maneuver known as the “secret hold.” The rules still allow a single senator to anonymously delay urgent legislation.

Even bills commanding overwhelming support can get stopped in their tracks when they face “unanimous consent,” a procedure that allows for the quick passage of noncontroversial legislation. This is an affront to democratic principles.

Just how do secret holds work? A single senator can request a hold on any legislation–without justification or explanation–to his or her party’s leadership. At that point, the legislation can’t move forward unless the Senate Majority Leader intervenes.

Previously, senators could remain anonymous for six days, after which they were required to either lift the hold or be publicly identified. Now, thanks to a joint resolution led by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Susan Collins (R-ME), the identities of senators requesting holds will be recorded in the Congressional Record after two days.

The rationale for the rule’s creation was simple and reasonable. The Senate gets extremely busy. During high-volume times, several bills and massive pieces of legislation are simultaneously pushed through the chamber. Often senators need extra time to read a thousand-page bill, gather information, thoroughly consider potential ramifications, and vote in their constituents’ best interest. Guaranteeing short-term anonymity makes sense because senators could be wrongfully labeled as opponents of legislation when they simply want to cast an informed vote.

Unfortunately, senators have heavily abused this process. Working in tag-teams, they would often take turns placing holds every five days, because on the sixth day their identity would be revealed. This tactic allowed both senators to remain anonymous while assuring that the bill would not move forward. This is our democratic process at its worst. Furthermore, if senators decided to place a hold with fewer than five days remaining in the congressional session, they got to kill legislation without stepping forward at all. Effectively, secret holds have become an anonymous way to filibuster.

Case in point: in the last hour of the previous session of Congress, one senator placed a secret hold on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which would have have strengthened rights for federal employees when they report waste, fraud, and abuse. This sorely needed legislation was ripe for passage. A similar version of this legislation had passed in the Senate just two weeks prior by unanimous consent. Over the next several days, due to unfounded concerns related to WikiLeaks, the legislation’s scope was reduced to exclude federal intelligence workers.

Other than deletions, not a word was changed from the version the Senate had already approved. Through a rare agreement between former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and then-Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), it also passed the House by unanimous consent. Then a senator–we don’t know who, of course–put a secret hold on it hours later. There’s a strong, ongoing campaign to determine which senator placed the hold. Hopefully, that information will surface.

The overwhelming majority of Congress understands the true value of whistleblowers. Lawmakers came close to strengthening their rights in December. It’s no wonder this legislation enjoyed so much support from both sides of the aisle–it would have curtailed government malfeasance by providing federal whistleblowers with safe channels to speak out. But so far, Congress still hasn’t approved the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

The Senate has faced heavy criticism for using secret holds. This practice is the antithesis of government accountability and transparency. When the amendment reduced the amount of time from six days to two, some senators claimed good government reforms had triumphed.

Unfortunately, even with that change, lawmakers may still place secret holds just hours before Congress adjourns. There’s nothing to stop future good-government bills from meeting an untimely death at the hands of anonymous senators.

Until Congress sets more reasonable standards for secret holds, individual senators, or a group of them taking turns, can secretly stonewall any bill that’s subject to unanimous consent.

Link to original:    http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/senate_shenanigans

Scott Bloch, Former Special Counsel (OSC) Sentenced to One Month in Prison

Someone sent me this comment regarding the Scott Bloch travesty.  -GFS

No one in Washington wants this person to do any serious time. He may get upset and start pointing fingers at who, within our government retaliates against the Federal workers. Congress certainly does not want Whistle Blowers to have protections because the minute they are protected, the floodgates open and the citizenry would then find out who the real crooks are.

 It is only common sense, the politicians must prevent the American public from knowing what they have always suspected, and that is that members of Congress are there for the Graft, Greed and Corruption. Punishing one of their own, like Scott Bloch of the Office of Special Counsel, who so loyally and successfully protected the guilty for all those years, would just not be in the best interest of the members of Congress. 

 –Disgusted in DC

 ———————————————————————————————————————————– 

National Whistleblowers Center

3238 P Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20007

http://www.whistleblowers.org 

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Lindsey M. Williams (202) 342-1903

lmw@whistleblowers.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Former Special Counsel Sentenced to One Month in Prison

 

Washington, D.C. March 31, 2011. Scott Bloch, the former head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), was sentenced to one month in prison, twelve months probation and 200 hours of community service yesterday, after he pled guilty to criminal charges for his misconduct during is tenure at OSC. 

During FY 2008, of the 530 new whistleblower disclosures brought to the OSC, just 25 were reported to the President and Congress, meaning 95% of whistleblower disclosures brought to the OSC were ignored with no determination ever made on their validity. More “highlights” on Mr. Bloch’s tenure at the OSC can be found at civilservicechange.org, courtesy of Charlotte Yee.

Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, said:

Instead of deterring fraud, which was his job as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch promoted it. This will ultimately cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars. It is a shame that Mr. Bloch has been given nothing more than a slap on the wrist for his crimes, while true whistleblowers such as Bradley Birkenfeld are ostracized and imprisoned.

It has now been over two years since President Obama made a campaign promise to appoint a strong advocate for whistleblowers as the new Special Counsel. The National Whistleblowers Center repeats our call for the immediate appointment of someone who is aggressive, competent, independent and will change the culture of the OSC and stand behind whistleblowers.

Links:

“Highlighting the Accomplishments of Scott Bloch” (Charlotte Yee)

http://civilservicechange.org/?p=2952

Highlighting the accomplishments of Scott Bloch, former head of the Office of Special Counsel

Posted in July 19th, 2010

by C Yee in Absurd, Accountability, Current Events, Merit Systems Protection Board Statistics

Tomorrow, Scott Bloch, former head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), is scheduled to be sentenced before Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson. Bloch has pleaded guilty to one count of criminal contempt of Congress for not disclosing the nature and extent of his instructions that a private company erase files from his government-issued computer and the computers of two other Office of Special Counsel employees. As this ominous day approaches, from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel Fiscal year 2008 Annual Report, here are some highlights of Bloch’s five-year OSC career:

During his tenure, Scott Bloch reduced total matters pending at OSC by 56 percent. Statistical analysis indicates he accomplished this by having his agency throw out matters without investigating them. In Fiscal Year 2008, of 2,447 Prohibited Personnel Practice (PPP) Complaints, OSC referred six percent of them to the Complaints Examining Unit (CEU). Of these, only 88 were processed. Prohibited Personnel Practice Complaints made up 67 percent of total matters, yet only 88 of 2,447, four percent were processed by investigators.

In FY 2008, OSC obtained zero stays from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the quasi-judicial agency tasked with enforcing federal civil service law. In the same year, OSC filed zero corrective action petitions with MSPB.

On whistleblower disclosure activity, OSC received 530 new disclosures in FY 2008. Of these, 25 were reported to the President and Congress. That’s less than five percent that were investigated and any determination made on disclosure validity. Looking at it another way, 95 percent of whistleblower disclosures were not acknowledged by OSC.

That then, explains the record low satisfaction ratings OSC garnered in its survey of customers. Of those that responded to its survey, only 1 out of every 21 respondents obtained a satisfactory result from OSC. Moreover, more than half of respondents indicated that their complaint included allegations of whistleblowing. On a five-point scale, 200 of 220 rated OSC’s results as either dissatisfactory or very dissatisfactory.

As Scott Bloch heads for sentencing tomorrow, he leaves behind innocent victims sentenced to reprisal by his failure to protect those he was tasked to serve. Additionally, as Special Counsel William E. Reukauf’s message from OSC’s Annual Report reads, “FY 2008 was a challenging time for this small, but important, agency. Employees were called upon to respond to and cooperate with two extensive inquiries involving the then-agency head, including a grand jury investigation, and execution of search warrants on agency premises.”

Where in the World is Kathleen Watson, Part 2

Here is a follow up on an earlier post this week.  Follow the link to see the contract.  Ms Watson was formerly a lawyer with the CIA, in human resources I believe.  Her recent area of interest has appeared to be intel.  -GFS

G. Florence,
 
Where in the world is Kathleen Watson?
 
G Florence you are sailing on course.  McNeil Technologies was awarded a $500 million dollar defense contract in September 2010.  The U.S. Special Operations Command five year linguist support services contract award is public knowledge.
 
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4366
 
How is Kathleen Watson and the Defense Security Service connected?  Stay tuned.
 
The Old Navy Man

For those of you who want a quick look:

Found on defense.gov on March 30, 2011 by GFS as advised by Old Navy Man on 3/29/11.

 

CONTRACTS

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

                “McNeil Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Va., has been awarded a $500,000,000 maximum value, five-year indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity linguist support services contract by U.S. Special Operations Command.  The contractor will provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision/management, and other items and services necessary to provide foreign language interpretation, transcription, reporting, and translation services to support overseas contingency operations.  The initial obligation amount is $50,000,000 for the first task order.  The contract number is H92222-10-D-0007.”