Category: Stories about industry whistleblowers


“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.

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.


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

G Florence:

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.” 

Second Time 
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. 

Aircraft Parts 
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. 

Negotiating Prices 
“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                                                         
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at

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:


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
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:

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

G Florence:

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:

Hello Everyone,

As most of you may feel, I am quite fascinated (and saddened) by all of the incidences reported recently of corruption by government and employers and the suffering of whistleblowers for their candid commitment, and resolve to do the right thing.  I have been hearing about some specific cases also from people like you. 

For instance, some time ago, I published a post regarding a government activity, Defense Security Service, continuing to schedule wasteful “all-hands” meetings, where employees are flown to one or two locations across the country and put up in hotels, to sit and listen to talking heads for a week.  One source quoted a cost of about a million dollars spent by the DSS each time employees were ordered to report to these meetings.  That did not include the salary requirements for these government employees, as they were still technically on duty, though sitting in meetings, they were not at their work-site, working. 

The way this was scheduled, a managers-only all-hands was held first.   Then the field employees in four regions were divided up to attend one of two all-hands meetings; one for eastern half and one for western half of the country.  There also was an all-hands meeting for counter-intelligence activity employees within DSS, and then an all-hands meeting for DSS computing security employees. 

All of this spending was going on while many agencies and activities were being cut.  I have heard of quick planning going on to spend money fast, before it could be “lost” or reappropriated to prevent critical cuts in other areas of government.  I have heard that due to the discomfort and unwanted negative attention brought to bear on DSS previously for  this gigantic wasteful annual misspending of money, the DSS Director and managers attempted to change the name of these boondoggles from “all-hands meetings” to”all-hands trainings.”  Last year, I am told, they held them,  in defiance of being told by higher up not to hold those meetings. 

What’s in a name?  It appears  DSS director, Stanley Sims and his manager cronies,  thought that since they were also being criticised for the lack of meaningful and high quality training for their field employees, they could dodge the bullet by calling the meetings, “trainings,” and then continue the same sorry events exactly as before.  So the same meetings were held under the new label of training with the same old  format and succession of talking heads. In other words, hold employees captive in front of those talking heads for a week, (with little opportunity for meaningful training, or skill development, or true collaboration time for DSS employees to work on problem solving and improvements in how they do their oversight duties).  I have been updated that this year 2013, there were no meetings, (or meetings labeled as trainings), held, due to sequestration, and the close scrutiny that all such activities were being given. 

Also, in the DSS activity,  I have heard of more incidences of harassment of DSS employees by managers, reports that the DSS Director has gone about the country threatening employees who have complained about the issue of DSS managers pressuring employees to work unreported overtime, that if the employees are not willing to work when he wants, where he wants, and however long he wants, they can leave, or he’ll “fire their ass.”  True story; my sources are very adamant about this.  So nothing has changed.  It is still a sorry mess, despite Richard Lawhorn’s (Director of Field Operations, DSS) public statements to the contrary.  So while those who have been conducting these illegal activities protest  in public, behind the scenes the abuse of civil servants continues. 

I have also been hearing about new incidences of nepotism and cronyism within DSS, in actions taken by managers, including the Director.  I’d appreciate anyone who can elaborate on any of this contacting me.  Please see the “About” section of this blog, for email contact information.  I also would like to hear from those of you with different examples from government or industry. 

There just appears to be an even more expanding wave of corruption going through the government.  I heard a whistleblower last night on a national radio program,  berating Attorney General, Eric Holder, for his lack of willingness to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing.  I appreciated hearing her interview.   This exact problem has bothered me ever since Eric Holder, in a lower position in the AG’s office, crafted and positioned the Non-Prosecution Agreement first used with Boeing in the Druyan/Sears Tanker scandal.  He appears to have continued this same philosophy to the present day, as the U.S. Attorney General, to the chagrin of a great many whistleblowers, and victims of the corrupted ones in government and industry. 

Persist!  And please, keep communicating with me.  I wish to bring your concerns to light. 


Seriously, does the current Administration think that a voluntary process is going to make functionally any difference at all? 

Those agencies with the most to hide, particularly those who may have employees or directors with inappropriate conflict of interest relationships with corporations or other organizations will be the last to ever consent to the transparency of making responses (truthful and illuminating responses) to FOIA requests more easily accessed. 

Perhaps in issues, which do not involve corruption and direct involvement of federal managers in confederate relationships to defense contractors, who profit mightily from such relationships, there may be some easier access to some information.  But the situations that are causing the worst of the mass of incidents being covered up and kept from the public will not be helped by any of this. 

And those federal employees who are trying to report such violations will continue to be shredded by the system of corruption and the influence pressured by conflict of interest relationships as they are today.


Requesting public documents about to get easier

Link to original article:

I read an interesting article recently regarding how federal agencies have been trying to deal with their overly backlogged Freedom of Information Act requests for information that have apparently been piling up since the 2009 change in Federal direction about granting such requests. 

According to the article by Joseph Marks, in Nextgov, August 31, 2012, about half the agencies have actually reduced the number of FOIA exemptions (information they refused to release formerly, under the premise that such information is exempt to FOIA requests). 

The article also talks about agencies using technology to improve processing time for FOIA requests and the use of the FOIA libraries to post information that might commonly be requested via FOIA requests. 

It seems to this observer that if the Obama administration truly wishes to increase transparency, that more transparent action taken toward prosecuting the many cases of wrongdoing and criminal activity in the realm of federal defense contracting needs to take center stage.  Corruption, influence pedaling, cronyism, fraud, technology theft, use of the “revolving door” by people between industry and the federal government (and vice versa) in order to better serve the needs of the corporations they serve, must be stopped cold in order to allow the oversight that supposedly is in place now to be able to actually function and prevent such atrocities.  The Administration must see that a general clean up is put swiftly into action, and mean it so that these issues are handled first for any genuine transparency in FOIA request handling to be a reality. 

As long as intensive efforts within corporations and their government confederates go into covering up corruption, theft, and fraud within the federal defense contracting world, and wrongdoers that are occasionally exposed, usually by federal employees trying to do their oversight jobs, the status quo, cover-ups and sudden retirements of culpable individuals and use by such of convenient revolving doors will continue to provide sufficient threat of exposure to thwart any serious transparency granted to a FOIA request hopeful, preventing s/he from every getting an honest and “transparent” accounting of what is really going on in federal agencies, particularly in relationship to defense contractors and other corporate interests. 

This article describes a tempest in a teapot, and does not address the real problems related to FOIA requests not being honored by those trying to get to the truth of wrongdoing in the federal government. 


Link to article:

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! 






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:



From: Douglas Kinan []

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.





v. Civil Action No. 08-10477-WGY



Judge William G. Young











NOW COMES the Plaintiff, pro se, in

CA No. 08-10477-WGY


referenced with



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


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





“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… :’


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



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. “




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



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








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.






Respectfully submitted,


Douglas K.




34 Glenburnie Road

Boston, MA 02132


October 10, 2009


Dawson told Plaintiff that the [violations in

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

disagreed with Dawson.





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







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.




“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.”




I, Douglas K. Kinan, hereby certify I

request, by First Class Mail, prepaid

served the



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





Douglas K.




34 Glenburnie Road

Boston, MA 02132


October 10, 2009









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


jeopardy and silence me concerning my reporting of public

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





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

not confidential.

In the interest of substantial and equal justice and




accordance with the United States Marshals

Service, Judicial Security Division




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




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




destroying my livelihood and my reputation in the court.

I hereby solemnly swear and affirm:




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



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

Peter Solomon who operates the switchboard.




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


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.”)




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


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

have been here on the 27








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

March 24, 2009



I asked Dawson who sent




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

that Judge Gertner sent




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






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

Una-Bomber, Ted Kaczynski.


Dawson told me that I was




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





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




new law.

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





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


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




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




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





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




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




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


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


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






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



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




him the 2008

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

version. He said




no.” .





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.”




disagreed with Dawson

and informed




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



Dawson then informed. me that his job requires




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




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







and to let me know.

During the course of our discussion Dawson asked if

I had a complaint in court. I told him


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




informed Dawson there

was no reason for




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





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




to the press. Dawson

suggested that I




with Shelly Murphy or Dave Abel at the Boston Globe.



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


had a message

waiting. It was from Dawson.




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,




then you’ll


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


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




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




my thirty-page affidavit were false that I

would not be talking to




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




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




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







MAIL …….tI: .. It,:!,



: Inappropriate Communication(s)


Friday, March 27, 20099:51 AM




“Dawson, Frank (USMS)” <>




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



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)-594-7008 Cell

(617)-748-2579 FAX