“Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or an animal is at stake. Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.
“Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or an animal is at stake. Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Here is an interesting article sent to me a while ago from a reader. It is both fascinating and disturbing. Enjoy. I have left the link to Geo Engineering Watch.Org at the top of the article so you may visit their site and sign up for email updates if you like. GFS
Former Prominent CIA Officer Shares Details Of The Government’s All Out War Against Whistleblowers With GeoengineeringWatch.org
Bella Vista, Ca 96008
October 20, 2015
Many ask why there are not more whistleblowers coming forward to sound the alarm on the climate engineering insanity occurring around the globe. Many use the “lack of whistleblowers” excuse to remain in denial about the all too obvious climate engineering atrocities in our skies. Those who use this excuse to avoid facing reality clearly have no clue whatsoever about what the criminal cabal (masquerading as our government) does to anyone that dares to try and expose the truth. Veteran CIA officer, Kevin Shipp, has shown exceptional courage by openly and actively speaking out about the epidemic tyranny in the halls of our government.
Kevin Shipp, former CIA Officer and Antiterrorism expert, held several high level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, and internal security investigator, supervisor of high risk protective operations and polygraph examiner. Mr. Shipp functioned as program manager for the Department of State, Diplomatic Security, Anti Terrorism Assistance global police training program. He is the recipient of two CIA Meritorious Unit Citations, three Exceptional Performance Awards and a Medallion for overseas operations. He is the author of From the Company of Shadows – CIA Operations and the War on Terrorism. Mr. Shipp has been a regular guest on The American Heroes Channel as an intelligence and terrorism expert and has been the subject of numerous radio interviews and newspaper articles. His website can be found at KevinMShipp.com.
More insight from Kevin is contained within his most recent communication with me, shown below.
Dane. Attached is an expose’ of the system classified agencies use to silence whistle blowers from revealing unconstitutional or illegal operations. As a decorated Agency officer and internal investigator, I witnessed this mechanism being used on good, innocent employees, and their families. That is when I decided to expose it. God speed to you in revealing the tyranny that has taken over our Constitutional system. Best, Kevin
In his book “From The Company Of Shadows”, Kevin gives a highly acclaimed account of what is happening behind the curtain of government secrecy. After some communications with Kevin, he has supplied geoengineeringwatch.org with the hard hitting statement below which outlines what is done to whistleblowers with shocking clarity. My most sincere thanks to Mr. Shipp for his uncommon and exceptional courage in the fight for the greater good.
Dane Wigington geoengineeringwatch.org
By Kevin Shipp, contributing writer for geoengineeringwatch.org
Why don’t more “whistle blowers” come out to expose illegal or unconstitutional secret government operations? If these activities are so illegal, why are people not coming forward to report them?
Over the last fifty years US government intelligence agencies have perfected a complex, sequential system to systematically silence or destroy any employee, including his or her family, who attempts to reveal illegal or unconstitutional activities conducted as part of secret government operations.
As a condition of employment, military and intelligence employees recruited for secret operations are required to sign a “secrecy agreement,” or “nondisclosure agreement,” before being given access to the position, which offers high pay and status in the organization. This agreement threatens civil and criminal penalties if the employee reveals ANY information regarding the program. Thinking the agreement will only be used for legal purposes and will get them the coveted job, all employees eagerly sign it.
This secrecy agreement was originally designed to protect legitimate classified information, to protect military personnel during wartime and protect legitimate national defense information and technology.
However, because of the binding power of the agreement, government agencies began using it as a powerful tool to silence federal employees who question the legality of certain government operations. It was the perfect tool to threaten, silence or jail any whistle blower who dared to challenge the secret operations of government.
Today, the secrecy agreement is routinely used as an efficient weapon to intimidate or silence employees. Annual refresher briefings are given to remind employees of the penalties for violating the agreement. These penalties include huge fines, termination, financial ruin and even prison – all of which mean the destruction of their lives and their families. Most will not reveal any wrongdoing, no matter how egregious, for fear of calculated, severe retribution.
Aerosol filled skies over New York City
When employees sign the secrecy agreement and are cleared for classified programs, they are not told they are giving up their right to a jury trial, or to sue the agency that hired them. If they try to do so as a whistle blower, they find they have no right to be heard in federal court. Many have found this out when their case was denied; then it was too late. That is part of the system.
If the employee attempts to contact their Congressman or Senator, their representative is blocked from receiving any information about their case, because they do not have the necessary “clearance.”
When the employee attempts to blow the whistle to the Congressional intelligence committees, their response is ignored. It is made clear to committee members that they are not to touch such cases, so they refer them back to their Senator or Congressman, who cannot access information involved in their case.
If a courageous employee continues to proceed and blow the whistle, a system of personal and career destruction follows. This begins with promotions being denied, being turned down for sensitive or career enhancing assignments, and their files being flagged, ruining their reputation inside their agency. At this point their career is over. If they go quietly, the retribution stops.
When the employee still continues their effort to report the information, their travel records, personnel records, medical records and security records are searched for mistakes or damaging information that can be used to threaten them with termination. Their telephones and computers are monitored searching for incriminating information. If no substantive information can be found, it is fabricated and placed in their file.
Employees who refuse to back down are then subjected to internal “security investigations,” multiple, hostile “interviews,” attempting to get them to recant their information, and multiple polygraph interrogations.
In many cases, the employee is commanded to report to the internal medical office for psychological evaluation. If they comply, the evaluation labels them as paranoid, unstable, or disgruntled. This information is placed in their file and is used later to justify the agency’s action in the event of outside scrutiny.
If the employee contacts a member of the news media, they are immediately cited with violating their secrecy agreement and criminal penalties are filed against them. Several news media outlets are connected to the CIA and NSA and notify them of the employee’s contact.
Finally, the employee is forced to resign after being threatened with termination in kangaroo court meetings where the information fabricated in their files is used against them.
After termination or forced resignation, interest rates on their internal credit union loans are raised to make the payments unaffordable. The release of the employee’s retirement funds needed provide for their family are blocked (a felony). The agency black lists them from gaining employment with other government agencies or contractors, further ruining them financially.
Dehumanized, financially ruined and under severe emotional and mental pressure, the employee’s family begins to break apart. If the family’s foundation is not strong, this results in alcoholism, depression and divorce. In some cases, it has resulted in the employee committing suicide, the ultimate goal of the program of destruction. This silences the employee permanently, obscuring the agency’s role in their destruction. It is the perfect crime.
Should the employee still have the resolve to endure this program of career and personal destruction and continues to press for release of the information, or if his family members attempt to sue the agency for the illegal activity, classified agencies will invoke the secretive State Secrets Privilege, which orders the employee and his family not to reveal the information or face prison. If the family’s case reaches federal court, the State Secrets Privilege is invoked and the case is shut down – and sealed. Federal judges rubber stamp the censoring of the case without reviewing the case facts.
Now that the employee’s case, and in some cases their family’s case, is shut down and under seal, citing “national security,” the process of silencing the employee is complete. Many are never heard from again, fearing prison if they talk to anyone, including an attorney.
Using attractive awards of multi-million dollar contracts, the US government military industrial complex convinces private corporations that their employees must be cleared and sign secrecy agreements. This includes employees at all levels, from secretaries to CEOs. Once they have signed the secrecy agreement, they are bound to keep all information, including potentially illegal information, quiet, being threatened with the same penalties.
To date, over five million Americans have been required to sign this secrecy agreement and now fall under the shadow of the State Secrets Privilege.
Only a few federal employees have made it through this systematic process of destruction to reveal what they know about the illegal operation they observed. Sadly, some whistle blowers have died “mysterious” deaths or committed “suicide.”
Employees in intelligence agencies are aware of penalties contained in the secrecy agreement and the huge risk in violating it, even to expose corruption. Most look the other way to protect their careers, retirements and families. Many have observed the outward signs of the system of personal and career destruction used on others and a culture of fear exists. But, they are not fully aware of all that is being done. The full scope of the system is only known at the higher levels of the organization and is hidden from employees, until its use is necessary.
This is why we do not see whistle blowers coming out and reporting what they have seen. This system has been used and perfected for over fifty years. It is being used because it works.
It works, unless the system is exposed, the whistle blower knows what is coming and prepares for it, and they are supported by private organizations and individuals dedicated to truth in government.
This support is essential, not only to protect the whistle blower and their family, but also to defend our Constitutional form of government from tyranny.
Kevin M. Shipp Author, From the Company of Shadows
I have continued to monitor the frustratingly slow, on again, off again trail of justice for federal Defense Security Service whistleblower, Robert Conley. Conley, a veteran Industrial Security Representative, employed by DSS, has had to traverse a long hard trail in trying to secure justice against his former employer’s heavy handed disrespect, waste, fraud, abuse, harassment, and retribution for his whistleblowing after he discovered criminal and civil issues concerning a defense contract between a large aerospace contractor and the federal government.
Conley ran into difficulties processing his case report of an investigation, when DSS officials refused to accept the detailed and extensive investigative report he prepared, after Conley was ordered to cut his investigation short and submit his report. Conley was then ordered to start editing his report. This occurred several times, each time DSS management insisted he take out more of the documented evidence and testimony, that would make the case prosecutable.
Conley refused to sign the now DSS changed reports, which were, after DSS Headquarters manipulation, fraudulent. There was a lot of conflict as DSS tried to force Conley to sign the fraudulent report. Because he could not intimidate Conley into signing the fraudulent report, eventually, the DSS Headquarters manager, Michael McDaniel, signed the fraudulent report himself and then briefed the user agency affected. Since other parties were aware of the issues that were found with this contract, and what the real problems were, things went downhill from there. A massive cover-up appeared to be in process regarding the criminal and civil matters discovered that were issues in this contract, and in this investigation. The DSS manager, Michael McDaniel, who had apparently written, signed, and briefed the fraudulent report, later left DSS and moved directly to employment with a defense contractor. (Keep in mind the functional policy of the U.S. Government appears to be, that once someone leaves federal service, they will not go after them in any legal proceedings, nor will they insist they testify in legal proceedings. If they leave the government, they seem to receive a “get out of jail free card.”)
Conley has endured, along with his counterpart, Randall Kelly, (who had oversight of the program for the Marine Corps), vast amounts of harassment, retribution, and abuse. They were both thoroughly beaten down in every way possible by their employers, effectively ending their careers. They have received massive retribution and abuse for reporting theft and fraud involving a government defense contract. They even received threats of various kinds, and at least one death threat passed along through channels, which did not deter them from seeking proper legal resolution of their investigation and case. It has now been fifteen (15) years of struggle with this situation. (Both were forced into premature retirements eventually, as no support or remedy was offered by any of those government entities who are supposed to help whistleblowers.)
Conley has had to endure a long slow process which included making protected disclosures to various parties, as a part of working through the process of trying to get help and put attention on the attendant problems and alleged criminal activities. As a part of the process, the DCIS (Defense Criminal Investigative Service) had an open case filed. This went nowhere fast, and it appeared that a cover-up was likely in progress, as time passed and nothing constructive happened.
Conley then filed a complaint with the DOD OIG. The DOD OIG had Conley’s complaint and case for an extended period of time. Much more time passed. The DOD OIG official in charge, had gone to the Washington DC office of the DCIS in search of Conley’s “then identified as missing” case, and found Conley’s case, with an unworked Congressional Investigation attached, sitting in Director Rick Beltz’s office, in a stack of similarly unworked cases on his desk. Apparently, cases that for various reasons certain people, or corporations did not wish to see worked, were being held in limbo in that office. This is absolutely unacceptable, and a betrayal of all integrity that should be demonstrated by federal law enforcement and contract enforcement activities. So, if any of you filed a case with the DCIS in the past couple of decades or so, and never saw any action or results, you might check to see if your case was one of those held in the derailed pile on the Director’s desk. I understand Rick Beltz was fired, and the DOD OIG official who was trying to do the right thing was removed from his position and transferred to some other position of less exposure.
The DOD OIG eventually said they would be forwarding the Title 18 Criminal issues to another office for processing. That did not happen, as it appears the cover-up was put into place on the criminal issues, apparently in an effort to protect the implicated defense contractor. Conley’s Title 5, Retribution case was upheld by the DOD OIG, whose report concluded he was indeed a whistleblower, and a victim of harassment, retaliation, and retribution forced on him by the Defense Security Service. The DOD OIG directed DSS to make Mr. Conley whole. Director Stanley Sims chose to ignore the report entirely, although he is the Director who received the DOD OIG report. In fact, he seemed, based on documents uncovered recently, to be enraged that Conley would go to the DOD OIG, and that the DOD OIG would tell the DSS what they can and cannot, will and will not, do and what Sims said in these documents could be construed as threats.
Conley’s case then spent a very long time in waiting with the OSC for them to consider his case. There again appeared to be a lot of pressure on the investigative agency, this time OSC. It appears that the corporate defense contractor and some of the implicated parties including within the management levels of DOD, and possibly the Pentagon itself, have a great deal of influence and are able to intimidate those who are supposed to investigate and assure justice to whistleblowers and others reporting criminal and civil issues that need to be addressed by the legal system. So, in my opinion, there was something not kosher going on there, and the OSC failed to do their duty regarding this case.
I have been made aware that a hearing finally is going to take place, under the auspices of an MSPB judge regarding Title 5 issues on Conley’s behalf.
The hearing will take place at the federal courthouse in Seattle, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. I understand it is a public MSPB hearing so if any of you are interested in observing, you may attend. The hearing is scheduled for two days, Monday, January 25 through Tuesday, January 26, 2016.
There is a long list of witnesses and DSS appears to be making effort not to cooperate, or be accountable for their actions, and their lack of decency with regard to how they treat their employees. Throughout the past 15 years, a lot of sudden and insufficiently explained changes have occurred in DSS management levels. Director Stanley Sims, has just left DSS and has gone directly to a lucrative position at a large defense contractor. Industrial Security Director Richard Lawhorn recently left DSS, and has directly taken a lucrative position at another large defense contractor.
There are regulations governing conflict of interest issues, and that prohibit federal employees and officials from using the revolving door to move directly from government oversight positions to defense contractor corporate jobs, where there might be a conflict of interest. I believe there are problems with this succession of DSS employees/managers moving directly from DSS to defense contractors. In fact, I learned that another former DSS Manager, Gregory Gwash, who had left DSS suddenly and directly taken a lucrative position at a large aerospace defense contractor in Seattle a number of years ago, was forced to leave employment with that defense contractor, after a federal AG’s office investigation of his use of the revolving door. Expect I will be writing about this DSS situation in more detail at a later date.
In my absence, I have continued to read, talk to sources, and monitor what is going on regarding whistleblowers, corruption, and mismanagement in government. I wish I could say things are getting better, but I cannot. The corruption and cronyism within the Pentagon and DOD various agencies and activities has continued. Cover-ups of exposed illegal and unethical activities have continued.
And the accompanying retribution and harassment against federal employees, (and in some cases, corporate employees), who know of the crimes and improprieties, and have tried to do something about them by exposing those responsible, has elicited wrath of escalating intensity on the heads of the whistleblowers and other employees who are aware of the situation. This retribution and harassment has expanded in some cases to the families of those targets of retribution as well.
In some cases where investigations are still ongoing, (although being slowed down and arrested in progress as the implicated ones try to use their crony networks to try to make them go away), mysterious retirements and resignations have been occurring in the case of some implicated managers or employees, who stand to be exposed and held accountable for their actions, if cases end up in court and reported publicly. It appears the implicated individuals are being urged, or perhaps given an ultimatum to leave government service under the threat of exposure and prosecution, (with possible destruction of career and loss of retirement benefits), if they refuse. It has been reported to me that in a number of cases these implicated individuals are retiring earlier than they planned, or are translating their employment from government to corporations with the aid of cronyism and using helpful connections developed while working as a federal employee/or government (SES) manager with these corporations.
The trend of these implicated players to take new jobs with defense contractors or other corporate entities, seemingly directly and immediately after leaving federal service, completely violating the requirements, (which vary depending on the government job migrated out of, and the corporate job migrated into), for a period of time to elapse (cool down period) before taking the corporate job where they may have a conflict of interest concern. This is unethical and illegal, violating federal policy as well.
Some examples concern employees who worked in government oversight responsibility agencies whose jobs entailed supervising and having oversight of certain defense contractors, (that hold federal defense contracts), taking jobs with those same corporations or related corporations, that they, had oversight of and authority over. Persons doing as I describe, are said to be using the “revolving door.” The revolving door swings both ways. If you’ve been paying attention to the appointments of agency or activity directors, and have wondered why Agriculture or the FDA would have people, who worked at Monsanto or with certain Pharmaceutical corporations put in charge of enforcement, oversight, and policy, you understand the problem of the revolving door. Compromised individuals cannot serve both American taxpayers, assuring their health and safety, and also serve their corporate masters as well. In this way, many of our systems put into place to provide protection for American taxpayers, have been horrifically compromised, corrupted and made absolutely impotent.
The benefit to these implicated and alleged criminal federal employees, (if they get away with this), is that they may have done favors or in some unethical way served the corporate interests, rather than the American taxpayers, and national security interests, prior to leaving government service. In some cases, in the past it appeared that a quid pro quo relationship may have been in place where favors, or waivers, or other helpful actions on behalf of a corporate defense contractor was rewarded with a corporate defense contractor job later, particularly if the improprieties were discovered, and the employee had to leave federal service.
It appears that they believe if the implicated and compromised employees and managers are allowed to resign and leave, or retire and leave, they may be allowed to go away and not be prosecuted for their alleged crimes, not pulled back into being subjects of, or witnesses to testify in, federal investigations of the ethics or criminal investigations that are ongoing, and may eventually result in prosecutions.
Frankly, there seems to be no will on the part of current Attorney General, Eric Holder, to actually prosecute any of these people, nor of the past two administrations to assure real justice is served, nor of Congress to assure these problems are addressed and the system cleaned up and made to have some integrity again. In fact, Holder is known by many to be a creator and proponent of using non-prosecution agreements to protect corporate and possibly government wrongdoers from being held accountable for their corrupt dealings. Though it has been announced he is stepping down, he is here now, and continuing to serve in the same way he has been, perhaps with less pressure, since some are willing to give him a pass because he is leaving.
I have written about these problems previously. I can see it is not getting any better, and despite lip service from some in Congress to address this type of corruption, it appears many of them are also involved in less than ethical relationships with corporations. So no real investigation with prosecutions as a logical end, have been happening as a product of the work. There does not appear to be any correction of the environments that allow such criminal and corrupt actions and relationships. And there does not appear that any reform of the whole contracting and government oversight system has occurred. Those responsible are being allowed to skate.
I would like to expose specific questionable personnel changes involving federal employees that some of you out there know were implicated in improprieties, possibly being compromised and corrupted by corporate interests, or by someone higher up in the government food chain. I am aware of some cases where the cronyism and corruption have spanned over many agencies and activities in DOD.
If you are a whistle blower, or you have knowledge of any of this, I would like to know what you know. If you know of someone who has left government service, either by resigning suddenly or retiring suddenly, that you know or suspect has been forced out because they were in an indefensible position regarding corruption and/or cover-up of crimes they committed, or that they agreed to cover-up for supervisors or cronies, let me know. I have information about some specific examples. I would like to see if I can discover more connections and depth with the help of my readers.
A reader sent this today. It is sad that things keep sliding downhill. Is no one in authority still left uncorrupted? Things that were fixable problems in decades past have been allowed to run downhill at a rapid rate by those that do not wish real security or government oversight to function at all. If you still care and have some personal knowledge of this mess, please by all means contact your elected politicians before they hold their hearing. GFS
So the Senate is going to examine the security clearance process. And it sounds like people want to blame the Office of Personnel Management for everything that is wrong. Seems like I remember the Defense Investigative Service, now the Defense Security Service, had this mission from the early 1970’s until just recently. I also remember continuous problems with the security clearance process while it was under the Defense Security Service.
So do you think that the Senate will ask the first hard question? If the Office of Personnel Management has really taken over the personnel clearance mission, then why has the Defense Security Service halted a majority of the periodic reinvestigations for Top Secret personnel clearances? The Defense Security Service is claiming budget issues. Are personnel clearance budget dollars still being funneled through the Defense Security Service? And if so, why? The Defense Security Service can’t manage their own internal budget. Why would anyone trust them with the budget of another agency’s mission?
If you remember, the Defense Security Service spent an average of $1 million or more dollars each year for the past five or more years on their internal All Hands junket meetings in many places to include Atlantic City, Las Vegas and Orlando. This after the Secretary of Defense directed all Department of Defense agencies, by DoD Directive, not to hold such meetings. The Director of the Defense Security Service ignored the Secretary of Defense’s directive, and called the junkets “trainings.”
The Old Navy Man
The Washington Post: Senate hearing will examine security clearance in wake of NSA leaks
By Josh Hicks, Published: June 19, 2013 at 6:00 am
A Senate panel on Thursday will examine federal security-clearance processes, continuing a brief round of hearings this week in response to contractor Edward Snowden leaking information about the nation’s sweeping electronic-surveillance program. The Senate subcommittee that deals with contracting and federal workforce will raise questions about a perceived lack of oversight, limited IT capabilities and insufficient information sharing between government agencies, according to an announcement from the group. A report from the national intelligence director showed that about 1 million contractors and more than 3.5 million federal government employees including military personnel hold security clearances. A recent article from Federal Diary columnist Joe Davidson explored the issue of whether contractors should do national security work. The Defense Department handled security clearance processes until 2005, when the Office of Personnel Management’s investigative services division took over the responsibility. Since then, OPM has implemented several changes to decrease clearance-request backlogs and improve the quality of its reviews, according to the subcommittee’s announcement. The hearing on Thursday will feature testimony from OPM’s inspector general and an associate director of investigations for the agency, as well as from the head of the Defense Department’s defense security service, among other officials. Senior government officials also testified Tuesday, saying the government’s electronic surveillance program has thwarted more than 50 terrorist plots in the U.S., according to a Washington Post article about the hearing.
Here is a story regarding more antics of Boeing that have come into the light, thanks to a reader who stays alert for such stories. GFS
Straight from federal Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense, one of the federal requirements for continuing participation in the National Industrial Security Program: “The company must have a reputation for integrity and lawful conduct in its business dealings.” But then we read articles like the one below, and that’s when we realize that Boeing is bigger than the federal government. $13.7 million dollars does not even represent a slap on the wrist to Boeing. The Old Navy Man
Boeing Told to Repay After Charging $2,286 for $10 Part
By Tony Capaccio – Jun 19, 2013 8:30 AM PT The Pentagon’s purchasing agency says Boeing Co. (BA) must refund $13.7 million in excessive prices charged on spare parts, including a $10 device for which the defense contractor charged $2,286 apiece.
The Defense Logistics Agency “is seeking a refund from Boeing,” spokeswoman Michelle McCaskill said in an e-mailed statement. “The refund will be for the full $13.7 million identified” and will be requested by July 31, she said.
The agency overpaid about $1.3 million for 573 of the aluminum “bearing sleeves” used on an aircraft’s main landing-gear door that should have cost $10 each, the Pentagon’s inspector general said in an audit labeled “For Official Use Only.”
Wasteful spending resulted from agency personnel failing to negotiate good deals or to perform adequate oversight, and from Boeing’s failure to pass on savings it won from subcontractors, according to the complete audit report. A summary of the findings was reported by Bloomberg News on June 7.
Boeing “has been working with the Defense Logistics Agency” and the inspector general “throughout the audit process,” Ellen Buhr, a spokeswoman for Boeing’s Global Services and Support unit, said in an e-mailed statement. “We are working with DLA to review the official report and to understand the issues identified.”
The audit marks the second time in two years that the inspector general has cited excessive parts pricing by Chicago-based Boeing, the Pentagon’s second-biggest contractor after Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) A May 2011 inspector general’s audit of two Boeing contracts for an Army depot in Corpus Christi, Texas, found about $13 million in overcharges on $23 million in orders.
The Pentagon has recovered $2.67 million in that case, according to Bridget Serchak, a spokeswoman for the inspector general’s office. The Defense Contract Audit Agency is reviewing the contract to see if more refunds are in order, another spokeswoman, Army Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Robbins, said in an e-mailed statement.
In the more recent audit, the inspector general took what it described as a “nonstatistical sample” of 60 spare parts on 2,659 delivery orders valued at about $81.1 million and found issues involving prices for parts on 1,469 orders valued at $27.2 million.
The sample was part of almost 3,400 spare parts valued at about $142 million that the agency had purchased.
The excessive prices were found on a sample of parts requested under a 2009 “basic ordering agreement” for components and assemblies used on B-1B and B-52 bombers, E-3 surveillance aircraft, KC-135 tankers, Minuteman nuclear missiles and AC-130U gunships.
Boeing overcharged the Defense Logistics Agency’s aviation unit the $13.7 million on 1,469 delivery orders after government personnel failed to negotiate “fair and reasonable prices,” according to the inspector general’s audit.
“If prices are not corrected, DLA Aviation will continue to overpay on future sole-source spare parts procured from Boeing,” it said.
Boeing “did not maintain complete cost and pricing data for 20 delivery orders valued at $3.4 million” because of inadequate agency oversight, the inspector general found. The company issued internal guidance in December emphasizing the need to maintain adequate documentation, it said.
In addition, inspectors found cases in which Boeing failed to pass on savings it obtained.
“Boeing either negotiated for lower prices from its suppliers or obtained spare parts at lower prices from different suppliers,” the audit found. The company “is not required to notify” the agency “when the subcontractor changes its prices, and Boeing did not pass on any cost savings.”
In one example cited, Boeing in February 2008 cited a price of $8,474 each for a “control surface part kit” that attaches to an aircraft’s left elevator.
Auditors obtained Boeing purchase orders indicating it paid about $4,080 for the kit, “resulting in an overpayment of approximately” $4,394 per kit — or about $1.2 million for 273 of them.
Boeing charged the defense agency $17,628 apiece for a “channel” engine structural support on the AC-130U gunship that company documents showed cost about $1,354 each, or an overpayment of more than $16,000, according to the audit.
The logistics agency overpaid about $22,600 for two metal tube assemblies that cover aircraft engine struts. The Defense Logistics Agency accepted as “fair and reasonable” Boeing’s proposed price of $12,467 each.
“Based on our review of Boeing’s purchase order,” the agency “should have paid a unit price of approximately $1,167,” according to the audit.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at
Another Whistleblower Supporter sent this in to me recently. This is the winning of an appeal. The MSPB still has things that must be resolved. It is rather incredible how long whistleblowers must struggle before finally getting through the legal system, if they are allowed to proceed to the legal system at all Here is the material I was sent, verbatim. Enjoy! GFS
After a decade!
Way to go Robert!
Today the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security. In 2003, Robert MacLean blew the whistle on the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Agency’s (TSA) plan to remove U.S. air marshals from long distance flights during a heightened terrorist alert. Mr. MacLean was concerned that the suspension of overnight missions created a danger to the flying public. He complained to his supervisor and to the Office of Inspector General; both responded that they could do nothing.
Mr. MacLean then gave information to a MSNBC reporter about the TSA’s plan. The reporter published an article criticizing the plan. The TSA withdrew its plan after criticism from the public and members of Congress. The TSA subsequently fired Mr. MacLean.
A major issue on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”), was whether or not Mr. MacLean was covered under the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”). Specifically, the WPA prohibits individuals in positions of authority from taking a “personnel action” against a government employee when the employee makes a disclosure, which the employee reasonable believes to evidence a “substantial and specific danger to public health and safety, if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law.” The Court of Appeals held that MacLean’s disclosure was “not specifically prohibited by law.”
The Court vacated the MSPB decision which upheld Mr. MacLean’s termination and remanded the case back to the MSPB to determine whether MacLean’s “disclosure qualifies for WPA protection.” The MSPB must determine whether Mr. MacLean “reasonable believed” his disclosure evidenced a “substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.”
This Press Release etc. is from Robin Petersen, the whistleblower who was held captive in Saudi Arabia after being injured working there for a Boeing Subsidiary. Quite an ordeal. Mr. Petersen has been struggling since to get justice and prevail against an employer who intends to take no responsibility. GFS
See materials he sent:
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF NAVY PILOT AND
AGAINST THE BOEING COMPANY
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday, April 26, 2013 that Plaintiff Robin P. Petersen, a pro se litigant, will have his case heard against “The Boeing Company” and its wholly owned subsidiary “Boeing International Support Systems, Saudi Arabia.” The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court of Arizona.
Mr. Petersen a former Navy pilot with the rank of Commander was recruited in Arizona by “The Boeing Company” to work as a flight instructor for Boeing International Support Systems (“BISS”) in Saudi Arabia. Petersen alleges that the Boeing Company and BISS engaged in fraudulent recruiting practices, trafficking in persons, and in a “Bait and Switch Operation” that defrauds Veterans and the American Tax Payers. Mr. Petersen also stated that he and other U.S. Veterans (Navy, Air Force and Army) were first defrauded within the United States by Boeing and BISS representatives who were operating from St. Louis, Missouri and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. His legal claims include (1) Common Law Fraud, (2) U.S. Passport Confiscation, (3) False Imprisonment, (4) RICO violations, (5) Breach of Contract, (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and (7) Failure to Pay Wages.
The Ninth Circuit of Court of Appeals concluded:
“We hold that the evidence submitted and the allegations made by Petersen were more than sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the forum selection clause an issue here is enforceable under Bremen. The district court therefore abused its discretion by granting BISS’s motion to dismiss without convening an evidentiary hearing. It also abused its discretion in denying Petersen leave to amend his pleadings. The district court abused its discretion by dismissing on the basis of the forum selection clause without at the very least holding an evidentiary hearing as to whether Petersen was induced to assent to the forum selection clause through fraud or overreaching.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited several Appellate cases stating :
“Petersen did precisely what we held that the employee in Spradlin needed to have done, and what the employee in Murphy did do: he provided specific evidence sufficient to demonstrate that he would be wholly foreclosed from litigating his claims against Boeing and BISS in a Saudi forum”
The Boeing Company in recent past has suffered scrutiny by Congress for unethical activity and criminal violations which can be found at http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/193687-1.
Mr. Petersen urges that American Citizens and Veteran’s Organizations provide support by contacting local, state and federal officials asking them to further investigate this matter.
I have published posts previously about Mr. Petersen’s unfortunate experiences that led to him becoming a whistleblower. Please look at the archives or use search on the Whistleblower Supporter blog to see those posts. If anyone can be of help and assistance to Robin Petersen, and/or would like to see the PDF of the Ninth Circuit Court Documentation, please contact Mr. Petersen by email: email@example.com
A reader sent this in today. It is more on the changes that have been unfortunately occurring that have helped take down government services and oversight. I noted some time ago of the problem of government agencies/activities outsourcing their complaint (whistleblower and other) and grievance processes to non-governmental contractors, who have clerks who screen and “handle” complaints to hotlines or written complaints, making decisions about what will be passed upward to people who will possibly (read that only possibly) investigate the complaints. I thank the Old Navy Man for alerting me to this article, he also included for this post. GFS
Some of us told Clapper and the counter-to-intelligence community many years ago that bringing contractors into the process was a very bad idea. But the politicians and federal executives were more concerned with presenting the image of “downsizing” the federal government to the public. Secondarily, no one wanted to pay people for the expertise needed to keep intelligence and counterintelligence within the federal government. So now we’re all paying the price for that decision.
If the public only knew. The news media and the public need to take a close look at where the federal government has ‘hidden’ the federal government’s ramping up of intelligence and counterintelligence personnel. The feds have actually expanded the number of employees and agencies that are now in the collection business.
The Department of Defense has farmed out intelligence and counterintelligence billets to a number of government activities. Just one example, the Defense Security Service. The number of intel billets in the Defense Security Service has increased dramatically, and yet the Defense Security Service is not an intelligence or counterintelligence agency. But no one is asking why. So Stanley Sims (the director), with the blessing of James Clapper, is growing his federal business in counterintelligence and cyber collection.
But the same is true for the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, etc., etc. And all these agencies have contractors and subcontractors.
So where has the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Oversight been all this time? That would be: Dianne Feinstein (California, Chair); Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia); Ron Wyden (Oregon); Barbara Mikulski (Maryland); Mark Udall (Colorado); Mark Warner (Virginia); Martin Heinrich (New Mexico); Angus King (Maine); Saxby Chambliss (Georgia, Vice Chair); Richard Burr (North Carolina); Jim Risch (Idaho); Dan Coats (Indiana); Marco Rubio (Florida); Susan Collins (Maine); and Tom Coburn (Oklahoma).
Apparently the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Oversight thinks everything is just fine.
The Old Navy Man
Growth of intel outsourcing no secret, but now Congress taking notice
By Tracy Connor, Staff Writer, NBC News / June 15, 2013
A growing chorus on Capitol Hill is questioning whether U.S. intelligence agencies are farming out too much work to private contractors like Edward Snowden, the Booz Allen Hamilton systems analyst who has claimed credit leaking classified details about surveillance programs.
“Maybe we should bring some of that more in-house — with employees of the federal government, with the oath of office that we take to protect and defend our country and that seriousness of purpose there,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.
In the days since Snowden professed to be the source of reports on secret surveillance programs, others in Congress have also expressed concern about the number of private employees who have access to sensitive information and suggested it will be the subject of hearings.
While the average American may have been surprised to learn a 29-year-old civilian could tap into secret government files while drawing a paycheck from a for-profit firm, there is nothing new or unusual about it.
Last year, 483,236 private contractors had top-secret security clearances, compared to 791,200 government employees, according to a report by the office of the Director of National Intelligence. Another 582,542 contractors had the less-stringent confidential security clearance, compared to 2.7 million government workers, the report said.
National Security Agency and CIA facilities have government employees with blue badges working side by side with contractors, known as green badges, performing similar work and reporting to the same boss at the site. Because intelligence contracts are classified, it’s difficult to nail down how much taxpayer money is going to firms like Booz Allen.
In his book, “Spies for Hire,” author Tim Shorrock reported that a DNI official told an industry conference in 2007 that 70% of intelligence spending went to private sources. Experts say it’s part of trend that began two decades ago when an intelligence community that shrunk after the Cold War needed to ramp up and looked outside for technology and bodies without increasing the government head count.
“The only reason we have contractors is because of a government that loves selling the myth of the smaller government,” said George Washington University law professor Steven Schooner, who specializes in government procurement law.
The amount of intelligence outsourcing skyrocketed after 9/11 as the budget and the demands for data collection and analysis and other services ballooned. Giant firms like Booz, SAIC and Northrup Grumman got big slices of the pie, but smaller firms also lined up.
Richard “Hollis” Helms, who worked on counter-terrorism for the CIA for 30 years, started a company called Abraxas after retirement with $5,000. Four years after 9/11, it had 225 employees, many of them government retirees. In 2010, it was sold for $124 million.
The benefits of such outsourcing were being debated well before the time when Snowden says he copied files at his office in Hawaii, fled to Hong Kong and leaked the information to reporters.
One 2008 congressional report cautioned that the annual cost of a private employee can be double the cost of a government worker, though others note the feds can avoid pensions and other legacy costs on the back end with contracts.
Contracts are also a way to get retired agency workers with crucial experience back on the job. And using private companies allows the government to surge on manpower in times of crisis without adding permanent employees who may be not be needed in the long run.
“If I’m the government, I can hire this database administration contractor because I have the money right now…and if I don’t have the money in a couple of years, I can just cut the contract,” said Charles Faddis, a retired CIA operations officer who is now a consultant who does work for the government.
In the wake of Snowden’s actions, the financial worries are taking a back seat to security concerns.
While contractors and government workers go through the same process for security clearances, Snowden’s ability to cull and share information about secret programs raises the question of how private companies vet and monitor their hires. Faddis said the explosion in information technology that drove the hiring of Snowden and his ilk also means they have access to such a tremendous amount of data that a single breach could make Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers look like a post-it note.
“Then you have the post-9/11 focus on sharing information and breaking down stovepipes,” he said. “I agree with that but we have gone in typical Washington fashion so much farther that you now have throughout the government all sorts of people at very junior levels who have access to intelligence of staggering quantities.”
There are vague calls for a clampdown. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein said Thursday the public can expect “legislation which will limit or prevent contractors from handling highly classified technical data.
” The government, of course, is not leak-proof. Snowden, a onetime Army recruit, says he had worked directly for the CIA before Booz Allen and other private firms, and Bradley Manning wore an Army uniform.
“There is no empirical evidence that contractors are better or worse than people in the military or the government,” Schooner said.
But William Arkin, who has written extensively on intelligence outsourcing, told NBC “Nightly News” that some of the contractors are different from government employees.
“They’re not motivated necessarily by patriotism. They’re not motivated necessarily by a scar of 9/11. This is a job,” he said.
It’s unclear whether there will be more or fewer of those jobs when the smoke clears from the Snowden case.
Many of the big multibillion-dollar contracting corporations have lobbyists. Some of their top executives worked for the CIA or NSA and retain close ties to the intelligence agencies. The concept of a smaller government is still prized by politicians, and the demand for intelligence services is not waning.
“The train has left the station on outsourcing,” said Schooner. “Do we think Congress will appropriate to hire tens of thousands of employees for pick-your agency? It’s not going to happen.”
I hope all of you are keeping track of all that has suddenly exploded into the media. It rather is too little too late, but if someone will finally prosecute the wrongdoers, we may make some progress. (Read that Eric Holder must go and someone who will carry out clean investigations and prosecutions must be put in his place.) A broken Justice Department is a big part of the problem. The dog no longer has teeth to bite, nor a will to do so. And, it is apparent that the amount of collusion and corruption surrounding contracting, incompetence of federal oversight management, and collusion and corruption shared between certain contractors and some federal government management and some politicians have only gotten worse and the problems deeper. Cronyism, nepotism, and the notorious revolving doors between government and industry continue to run amock and no one is making any effort to stop any of this, or even apply the regulations and laws we currently have. It is all broken, or as one of my sources reported, “FUBAR.”
The recent reporting of alleged Chinese Hackers “stealing all of these secrets and advanced technology,” (from the listed items in the report referenced below), appear to me to be an ever escalating attempt to cover up the real culprits and those truly responsible for the losses. Corruption,greed-driven corruption that the guilty parties in the defense contractor(s) and within the federal government (including Pentagon) have tried so desperately to cover up at each level and every step of the whistleblower’s report. I can only hope that if the media will keep up the pressure, talk with the whistleblowers, and continue to pressure for real investigation and prosecution of those truly responsible for lost technology, and all of you continue to stand up and demand justice, we may eventually prevail.
I have posted information about the infamous James Clapper previously. He is but one cog in the machine, as the corruption appears to spread far and wide both within government agencies and activities, as well as in government defense contractors. One of the whistleblowers that I am aware of currently has a federal investigation in progress that has been stalled every step of the way by those involved in a coverup of one of the compromises of technology listed in the report below. Consider that the culprits who actually have committed the crimes and possible treasonous activities, as well as those who compromised themselves helping to cover-up said crimes, are desperately trying (to the detriment of all of us), to find a way to blame something or someone else for the losses and the criminal actions. It is the last overblown act by very desperate criminals to evade identification and prosecution.
They have continued to try to derail investigations, lie to government investigators and Congress, interfere in the legal processes related to whistleblower complaints, derail the carrying out of prosecution of wrongdoing and more. They have savagely attacked those who have tried to stand up to them. Careers have been destroyed,personal lives devastated, and responsible federal and in some cases corporate employees harassed, undermined and targeted. Would that the nefarious surveillance of phone, email , and other communication work the other way, so we could all see how plots are hatched and planned. It does appear the miscreants reached an apparently well-coordinated new level of outrage, ingeniously blaming Chinese Hackers for loss of the tech on the list, when the true miscreants are right here in the halls of the Pentagon, the offices of DOD agencies and activities and in the CEO and manager’s enclaves within the Defense Contractors unfortunately entrusted with handling our most sensitive and advanced technologies.
No doubt Chinese Hackers are annoying and damaging liabilities, as Hackers from anywhere (including the US) may be, but the true causes and those who bring about the losses of technology that have so badly devastated both our real National Security positioning, and our economic security, are very much closer to home. I maintain that they walk among us, and if allowed, will continue on with their corrupt and criminal activities to the detriment of real national security, economic, and otherwise.
Here is something that one of my readers sent today. I have written about several whistleblowers previously. This may well be a followup on one of them. -GFS
If you haven’t already read David Sirota’s excellent article “James Clapper Must Go,” please do so. I realize that you have posted about the problems with James Clapper before. I believe you will be interested in this. I have a good friend and former coworker who served as a Special Agent for the Department of Defense. My friend is a scientist and was recruited into the Department of Defense because of their expertise in Advanced Technology compartmented research and development. Some years ago now, my friend found that a large aerospace defense contractor was intentionally and illegally handling Advanced Technology in their programs throughout the company. The company’s illegal handling of Advanced Technology lead to the loss of irreplaceable compartmented technology. My friend’s federal investigation of the incident was covered up by their agency and at the highest levels inside the Pentagon. And with the consent of James Clapper, my friend was harassed and psychologically tortured by their agency’s management. My friend was frankly, forced out of federal service.
Recently it became public through the release of the Defense Science Board report “Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat” that the Department of Defense is trying to blame that advanced technology loss on “the cyber threat.” The report is interesting in that it references a table (2.2) that is not present in the unclassified version of the report. One of the listings on table 2.2 is the compartmented program department and the technology that my friend investigated the loss of. That loss was not from cyber collection. The loss was from the intentional and illegal mishandling of the Advanced Technology by the aerospace defense contractor. How many more cases like this has James Clapper participated in?
The Old Navy Man
Here is the article that the Old Navy Man referenced: