Letter from Douglass Kinan to Senator Lieberman re: Ongoing Government Corruption

 TIME SENSITIVE REQUEST

Via fax: 202-224-9750/860-549-8478/866/317-2242 & US Mail

34 Glenburnie Road

Boston, MA 02132

November 13, 2009

Honorable Senator Joseph Lieberman

ATTN: Clarine Nardi-Riddle, Chief of Staff

706 Hart Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

RE: REQUEST TO BE AN EXPERT GOVERNMENT WITNESS REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL, ARMY AND FBI’S MODUS OPERANDI TO POSSIBLY COVER UP CERTAIN EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FORT HOOD MASSACRE

Dear Ms. Nardi-Riddle:

Senator Lieberman seems to have it right when he indicates that the Fort Hood massacre was an act of terrorism. Consistent with the Senator Lieberman’s request for accountability; I would like to be a relevant government witness for the Senator’s hearings set for the week of November 16, 2009, concerning the Fort Hood massacre.

My name is Douglas Kinan. I am an Officer of the Court – an Assistant Deputy Register with the Massachusetts Trial Court. I am also a former employee of the Department of Defense.

As a Viet Nam Era Veteran, a taxpayer and a former employee of the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”) with first hand knowledge of how the Department of Defense Inspector General’s (“DoDIG”) manipulates investigations and covers up high crime and corruption in government, I can provide expert testimony showing a nexus to the Fort Hood massacre and the DoDIG’s direct role in covering up and/or ignoring reports, incidents and episodes, which would have prevented the senseless murders of innocent victims. The families of these victims deserve better treatment than what the DoDIG offers.

I believe my direct and independent knowledge gives me standing to be an expert government witness concerning the DoDIG’s role in the Fort Hood Massacre. Some of the same players who covered up and participated in heinous and egregious government crime and manipulated investigations over the past ten years are some of the same players that may be connected or may influence the outcome of the Fort Hood “investigation.”

Some current officials are: Hotline Director Leonard C. Trahan (DoDIG), L. Jerry Hansen (Army), James L. Pavlik (DoDIG), John R. Crane (DoDIG), and Uldric Fiore, Jr. (Army). Former DoD supervisor and convicted felon, Richard T. Race (DoDIG), supervised some of these same individuals who were complicit with serious crime. Recent retiree, Deputy IG, Thomas Gimble (DoDIG) was also involved in the cover-ups.

I shall provide expert testimony and government evidence to prove that signs were not “missed” as some have reported. Malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance by these same individuals are a pattern that is repeated over and over again. These few officials are experts at changing the subject 2

and shifting the focus with false denials, perjured affidavits/declarations and other deceptions, as they have done in key investigations for years. One peripheral case that comes to mind is the changing stories and false official statements in the Patrick Tillman story.

Based on past practice, I shall provide expert testimony and evidence to prove that there is little or no chance that the Fort Hood crime victims will receive a fair, impartial or objective investigation and that a cover up by the DoDIG and Army is more likely than not.

I shall provide expert testimony that key players in the chain of command, controlling the outcome of the investigation are experts at creating facts, manipulating and slanting investigations with false official statements, false denials and silence. Their method of investigating each other with the intent of finding no wrongdoing is standard operating procedure and ensures that government crime and corruption promoted by the DoDIG’s office shall continue.

I shall provide expert testimony that the FBI and the DOJ has had knowledge of the verified criminal activity by several members of the DoDIG’s chain of command for many years and did nothing, which allowed and encouraged the crime and corruption to continue.

One of the strong-arm tactics to silence me is outlined in the attached email from U.S. Marshall, Frank Dawson who visited me at my job in the Suffolk County Courthouse on March 25, 2009, in an attempt to threaten me into silence. The DOJ is working so hard not to admit the obvious and to prevent me from being a government witness in any forum, by any means necessary.

I shall testify that U.S. Marshal Dawson threatened to place me in a national database as a “stalker” if I continued to report public corruption to the Assistant United States Attorney and Public Corruption Officer, Brian Kelly. Dawson said that my lawfully required reporting was “against the law” and that Kelly said it was “bothersome.” It should be noted that Public Corruption Officer, Brian Kelley and Supervisory FBI Agent John T. Foley, working together, have ignored the verified criminal activity outlined in my 30-page affidavit. Foley thought the DCMA frame-ups were amusing.

I shall provide a list of those innocent individuals who were framed with the participation and cooperation of a few individuals within the DoDIG’s office and the DOJ coupled with a list of the individuals who received promotions for providing false and/or tainted testimony. It should be noted that witnesses who provided false and or tainted testimony were “fast-tracked” to receive one, two, three and four grade promotions and remain on the favored list for future promotions because they have been identified as “team-players.”

PARTIAL BACKGROUND

As a former DoD employee with direct knowledge of the extensive criminal activity, including the frame up of innocent employees, I requested an investigation by DoDIG Hotline Director, Leonard Trahan, Jr., concerning the Defense Contract Management Agency, Chief Counsel, Bruce Krasker and his former Deputy Jerome C. Brennan’s insistence on framing innocent employees and other verified criminal activity, using millions of tax dollars to do it. Thus, I have first hand experience on how investigations by a few key individuals are manipulated to achieve “their” desired results.

A November 9, 2009, FBI Press Release states that the “FBI continues to work closely with the Department of the Army [and the DoDIG] in the joint, ongoing investigation into the tragic events that occurred at Fort Hood.” Consistent with the honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability needed by the Joint Terrorism Task Force (“JTTF”) in the Fort Hood massacre, consider the following: 3

One high level Senator’s Chief of Staff has described the DoDIG’s office as being “dysfunctional.” and wrote, “The main problem is management level mismanagement. The 18 SES persons in charge of that office are the big problem. Most are not suited for those positions. Most do not believe in the IG mission. We are working some issues. We have made some headway. We have had some setbacks. It’s like mission impossible. The easy way out is to give up. Quit. But I won’t do that. But don’t expect miracles or quick solutions. Heddell is ok so far. But he may suddenly leave with the upheaval in politics and go back to Labor IG. And then we are back to square one with Gimble or worse.”

According to a Department of Interior, Office of the Inspector General, Report of Investigation dated June 5, 2008, which I received, via FOIA, on December 30, 2008, the Director of the Defense Hotline for fraud, waste and abuse, Leonard C. Trahan, Jr., his supervisor, Assistant Inspector General, Investigative Policy and Oversight, James L. Pavlik, former Assistant Inspector General for Inspections and Policy, L. Jerry Hansen, former Chief Assistant Inspector General and a member of President Bush’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Richard T. Race, former IG, General Counsel, Uldric Fiore, Jr., and former Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz acted in concert to cover up several fraud, waste and abuse investigations within the Rumsfeld Pentagon.

In a letter dated August 3, 2006, the President’s Integrity Committee established that there was “clear evidence” that Schmitz and others in his chain of command lied to Senator Grassley and “allowed a press release to be issued that contained false information.”

In his December 7, 1998 Memorandum to Lt. Colonel Citizen, Trahan entered false statements into the record to cover up the frame-up of two innocent DCMA employees, promotion fixing, well planned discrimination, heinous and violent acts against women and other public corruption. Trahan also lied in his June 28, 2006 sworn statement to National Security Agency Investigator W. Rod Biggs. In that same sworn statement, Trahan characterized DCMAE whistleblower and senior engineer Kenneth Pedeleose, who saved the DoD $34 million, as being “disloyal.”

In Pavlik’s undated “Executive Summary,” transmitting a fraudulent report to Senator Grassley on April 26, 2006, Pavlik lied. Trahan and Pavlik’s willingness to knowingly enter false statements into the government record to cover up DoD violations and manipulate investigations remains unchecked.

Trahan and Pavlik’s cover up concerning the DCMA’s promotion fixing, which the DCMAE ethics attorney characterized as “criminal,” ripples across the entire government and diminishes and discounts the merit-based promotion policy promised to all employees.

As to their character, on February 19, 2008, Richard T. Race pleaded guilty in Judge Brinkema’s court to “fraudulent banking transactions” and was allowed to “voluntarily retire,” Uldric Fiore, Jr. was removed for his participation in the retaliatory frame-up of DCMA whistleblower and senior engineer, Kenneth Pedeleose, for lying to Senator Grassley, the Secretary of Defense and everyone else and he went to work for Judge Advocate General, Lt. General Scott C. Black, L. Jerry Hansen was removed and he, too, went to work for Army. It should be emphasized that Pedeleose saved the DoD/government $34 million and in March 2008, his peers voted Pedeleose “Employee of the Year – 2007,” yet his deliberate and retaliatory frame up is currently on appeal. 4

Based on a proven track record for complicity with high crime in government, will the Fort Hood victims’ families be relieved by knowing who the key players are and how this investigation may play out?

Could the DoDIG have prevented these murders? I say yes. Here’s why: Concerning the frame-ups, Krasker boasted: “We (the Legal Directorate) can do anything we want. It’s called gaming. We can deny, we can delay…dismiss. We can manipulate the system any way we want.” Krasker can make this boast because he knew he would have cover from the DoDIG’s office and the Department of Justice. Trahan ignored the DCMA’s crime pattern and rationalized the frame ups this way: “There were two EEO cases in the District in which Mr. Kinan disagreed with the decisions made by [the Equal Employment Manager] and the [DCMDE Chief Counsel.] Instead of accepting those decisions “as reasonable people can disagree”, they became a ‘cause celebre’ for Mr. Kinan.” What “reasonable” person believes that framing an innocent person is okay? Trahan, a “retired Army CID agent” with approximately 40 years experience, should know that framing two innocent people is not “two EEO cases” – it’s framing two innocent people. It’s a felony. Trahan stood by while two innocent individuals anguished for 50 – 60 months and allowed them to be stripped of their career and full pension. The most recent frame up, using the same M.O., is that of Kenneth Pedeleose.

Pedeleose is a senior industrial engineer with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMAE) who objected to, and blew the whistle on the Lockheed C-5 parts scandal: $744.00 for washers, $714.00 for a rivet, $5,217 for a 1-inch metal bracket and $2,522 for a 4-inch metal sleeve. According to a Federal Times April 5, 2004 story, Pedeleose’s whistle blowing “resulted in government savings of $34 million according to the [Department of Defense] estimates.” Pedeleose’s exemplary government service also earned him a bull’s eye on his back by the DCMA’s Chief Counsel, Bruce Krasker, who orchestrated many retaliatory frame-ups, with the cooperation of the DOJ. In a June 28, 2006 sworn interview with the NSA, Trahan describes Pedeleose this way: “disruptive, disloyal and counterproductive.” Trahan’s false statements to this investigator suggest that he is at the front of Pedeleose’s retaliation. Trahan has repeatedly demonstrated that he is impervious to DoD rules and regulations and the law. Trahan and others in the DoDIG chain of command are a danger to the government, yet they remain in high paying jobs to facilitate criminal activity, which affects all Americans. In a conflict of interest, Trahan’s counterpart, the AIG for Policy and Oversight, James L. Pavlik, covered up for Trahan by conducting a fraudulent investigation, making false official statements and issuing a fraudulent report to deceive Senator Grassley. After he reviewed my 30-page affidavit, Pavlik writes: “We found that Mr. Kinan has repeatedly distorted the factual record by asserting only some of the relevant facts in order to convince others that he was wronged by the system.” Incidentally, the FBI and the DOJ have verified the criminal conduct outlined in my 30-page affidavit. My affidavit was concealed with a government payoff, which allows the crime to continue. 5

As for the DOJ’s thought on my reporting, AUSA Christine Wichers of the Boston United States Attorney’s office characterizes my lawful reporting of crime, public corruption and verified felony conduct as being “irrelevant, repetitive, conclusory, inflammatory, prolix, disjointed, unintelligible, impenetrable, swollen with irrelevant rhetorical flourishes, muddled, personal and vindictive.” Although they are remarkable and dramatic descriptions of the verified facts, that office has not denied or disputed the DCMA’s pattern and practice of crime and the irreparable harm to many innocent individuals and the government.

I respectfully, remind the Senator that anyone willing to frame innocent citizens will do or say anything, even cover up the Hasan massacre.

The Senator should know that the Defense Criminal Investigation Agency, the FBI and the DOJ have established my credibility at 100%.

Please view the verified facts in their proper context concerning these serious matters. I emphasize, this is about conduct only. My 30-page affidavit can be emailed to you immediately on request.

Please let me know of the Senator’s decision concerning my reasonable, lawful and relevant request.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Douglas K. Kinan

617-323-6171

dougkinan@yahoo.com

Attachments (2)

cc:

President Barack Obama

Honorable Susan Collins (via fax: 202-224-2693 & 207-622-5884)

Honorable Charles Grassley (via fax: 202-224-6020)

Honorable Patrick Leahy (via fax: 202-224-3479)

Honorable Arlen Specter (via fax: 202-228-1229)

Honorable John Conyers (via fax: 202-225-0072)

Eric Holder, Attorney General (via fax: 202-514-4482 202 & 202-514-4001))

Robert Mueller, Director, FBI (via fax: 202-278-2478)

James “Chip” Burrus, FBI Integrity Committee (via fax: 202-324-4260)

Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense (via fax: 703-571-9339)

John McHugh, Secretary of the Army (via fax 703-697-3501)

Gordon Heddell, DoD Inspector General (via fax: 703-604-8310)

Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, Commanding

Jeffrey Trueman, VERPA

Marie Virella: Framed with the participation of Trahan, et al

Morris Plaisance: Framed with the participation of Trahan, et al

Kenneth Pedeleose: Framed with the participation of Trahan, et al

Carol Czarkowski: Framed with the participation of Trahan, et al 6

World Wide Web

Scott Bloch’s “Whistle-Muting” Legacy

Whistle-Muting?

 

Link to original:  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/government-inc/2008/10/whistle-muting.html

 

Office of Special Counsel chief Scott Bloch has resigned after much turmoil, following months of pressure to give up his post as the government’s putative advocate and investigator of whistle blower complaints.

Bloch bailed out under pressure from the White House five months after the FBI raided his house and government office as part of an obstruction of justice probe, according to a piece by The Post’s Carrie Johnson.

Bloch set a peculiar tone for his office, claiming to be a dedicated protector of government employees who speak out about fraud, waste and abuse of tax dollars, even as he fell under scrutiny himself. He is under investigation on allegations that he retaliated against whistleblowers in his own office and then tried to hide the evidence, allegations he has denied.

Even his depature this week was unusual. In his resignation letter, he suggested he was the victim of people who didn’t like what he had to say.

“‘No one likes the bearer of bad news’ wrote the Greek poet Sophocles,” his resignation letter to the president begins.

Critics aren’t buying that suggestion, though. Among them is Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, which has been examining the office for several years.

“This is a victory for federal workers. It would have been obscene for this man to be able to walk away under his own terms,” she said in a statement. “He has left the agency in shambles. It will take a lot of work to repair the damage Bloch caused. It will also be necessary to fix the systemic flaws which have long hampered its effectiveness.”

 

When Public Servants Become Enemies of the State

From OSC Watch.org

 By A.H. Martin

 

July 9, 2008

 

What happens to Federal employees when the bureaucracy that employs them no longer sees them as a team player, but rather a weak link, not a member of their “team,” or worse, a whistleblower?

 

This article will give just a brief glimpse into the lives of two such public servants.  Every American citizen should care about the treatment of Federal civil servants.  Simply stated, if the rights of the public’s servants can be easily compromised, so can the rights of every and any citizen if they find themselves in the unfortunate position of being bullied by the Federal Bureaucracy, in other words, an Enemy of the State.

 

In the movie “Enemy of the State,” Will Smith found himself being hunted down by a very powerful Federal agency. The leaders of that agency believed he had something that would compromise, or expose the Government’s management integrity—or lack thereof.  By no fault of his own, Smith, a private citizen, was targeted and the orders were given to terminate the problem—his life—because he threatened some very powerful ideologies.  Gene Hackman was the Federal employee, and he too was targeted.  There is a saying that goes something like truth is stranger than fiction.

 

Within the bricks and mortar of the Federal infrastructure—many Federal employees, and private citizens find themselves targeted as enemies of Federal executives, managers and political appointees.  They find themselves there not because they intentionally sold secrets to China or gave military intelligence to the Soviet Union.  Rather they find themselves being enemies of management employees because they tried to help another employee, who their boss didn’t like, or stood up for a member of the public…an act that political appointees simply didn’t appreciate, or exposed an exploitation of power.

 

Martin Salazar is one of those employees.  Salazar testified in support of a Discrimination Case before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for a coworker, Shirley Smith.  In return for his support of a mother of two, he could be facing over 12 months in Federal Prison because management was upset with Shirley and even more upset that Salazar would challenge their authority.  The young mother, Shirley Smith served 24 months in Federal Prison for filing a false EEO statement, she charged the agency with discrimination through an EEO complaint and she didn’t win the complaint.

 

In order for the Federal management to retaliate effectively against Martin Salazar for aiding Shirley, collaboration with several parts of government is essential.

 

The case is in Aiken, South Carolina regarding Martin Salazar (if you Google his name), you will find that his crime was signing a retirement settlement agreement with the wrong birth date on the forms—forms which the agency, who initiated the  charges, prepared.  He was charged with making a false statement.

You may wonder why their lawyers didn’t do a better job of defending them. You may also refuse to believe that our justice system could be so unjust. Surely there is more to this story. Well there is and it goes something like this.

 

Remember the firings of the U.S. Attorneys?  Well it takes a U.S. Attorney to decide if they will prosecute a case.  Some U.S. Attorneys wouldn’t prosecute cases on clearly Administrative matters, while others overzealous U.S. Attorneys will.  The US Attorney in Aiken, South Carolina is one of those that would and did.  South Carolina has a history of taking actions to put the fear of God in people of color and/or minorities; reminding these people of “their place.”

 

Both Martin and Shirley are minorities.  Martin is a Mexican American, Shirley is African American.  If those in power want to send a message to Federal employees not to testify for other employees, or if the people in power want to silence whistleblowers both within and outside of government, sending people to prison for filing discrimination lawsuits is one sure way to accomplish this.

 

Federal managers and executives only need the “right” U.S. Attorney—one that is a “team player”—to be willing to use their power to retaliate against the employee. The Federal Judicial system is a powerful tool.  Lawyers are intimidated every day to comply with the wishes of powerful people at the expense of their client.  This is the reality of the legal and judicial system we have in the United States.

 

Is it illegal?  Is it unethical?  Is it immoral?  Yes to all three questions.  The more complicated question is “what can we do about it”?  The answer—not much—if you have limited financial resources or political influence.

 

After his support of Ms. Smith, Mr. Salazar became a true enemy of the Department of Energy (DOE) management officials, and the division they worked for.

 

These officials do what most Federal managers do when they don’t like an employee who exposes errors/issues—they targeted him, harassed him, alienated him, and bullied him, hoping he would give up and leave.  He filed discrimination charges against the DOE, which was the only way he could try to protect himself, his job to provide for his family.

 

The DOE proposed a unilateral settlement with Salazar.  He accepted.  The DOE prepared the settlement agreement and validated his retirement documents. Both were base upon the DOE’s calculations and set dates for each function; the erroneous separation date and retirement date. Once enacted by the government 16 months later, they charged him with making a false statement.  He was arrested, charged and found guilty in Federal District court of making a false statement as he was not part of the “team.” He is now facing 12 Months in Federal Prison for this “crime” he did not commit.

 

There are laws against retaliation for filing discrimination complaints and testifying.  There are also laws against selective prosecution.  But who is going to enforce these laws—the Justice Department? The Justice Department was unable, or unwilling to handle the overzealous prosecution of six children in Jena Louisiana.  Laws are only as good as the desire and agenda of the empowered individuals responsible for enforcing them.

 

If Federal executives and managers choose to validate bad dates on retirement papers, that they themselves prepared, and also prosecute unsuccessful discrimination lawsuits, which result in federal crimes of false statement, and then send Federal employees to prison, then the general public, and not just the Federal employee, is at the mercy of Federal Agency officials and U.S. Attorneys, who choose to use the judicial system as a tool to retaliate, bully and destroy the lives of those they do not like, who are not considered “team players.”

 

Interestingly enough Martin Salazar obtained “sworn Declarations/Affidavits” from two of the three main government witnesses. These same government witnesses made declaration unlike those at the trial, and only now state the truth, “after the fact”, because they are protected from criminal perjury by the very US Attorney that prosecuted this case… can we say “conflict of interest”? In fact, the statements from these government witnesses are more egregious acts than the charges faced by Salazar.

 

Although the U.S Attorney and the Court were made aware of the potential perjury, neither the U.S. Attorney, or the Court was concerned with these violations; they obtained the ill results of a conviction despite the fact it came from absolute and known lies.

 

In other words the U.S. Attorney in Aiken, South Carolina is not protecting the public from a criminal, or seeking to uncover the truth, but merely seeking a conviction. Now that they have a conviction, the truth and justice are not of concern.  The U.S. attorney is not interested in pursuing witnesses who helped railroad an innocent man.  They get away with the real crime—an innocent man goes to prison—where is the justice?

 

The nightmare of Shirley Smith and Martin Salazar’s life is not a movie and unfortunately not unique.

They, like countless other Private Citizens and Federal Employees, have suffered and have not only lost a job but have lost the God given freedoms of American life for themselves and their families, with the impact of the future consequences from Federal convictions, which is immeasurable.

 

Federal employment is competitive but it can also be life threatening in untold ways.  More and more people are entering public service because jobs in the private sector are not readily available.  People want security.  At the same time the prison industrial complex is flourishing.  Taxpayers are funding the destruction of thousands of lives like Martin’s and Shirley’s on frivolous issues and selective prosecutions.  Good people who did the right thing are going to Federal Prison because high ranking Federal employees have friends in positions of power, and exploit these advantages for personal agendas.

 

The Federal Government is the nation’s largest employer. Over 1.8 million people are employed by our government. The Federal government’s reach touches the lives of absolutely every American Citizen.  To be a Federal civil, or public servant brings to mind images of postal workers, forest rangers, FBI Agents, air traffic controllers and of course tax collectors, just to name a few.  As an employer, the Federal government has a solid reputation of offering its’ employees job security, and decent salary and good benefits.   What the public often doesn’t realize is the that there is a dark side to that good government job.

 

The dark side reflects an employer that has unlimited money, unbridled power, and undeserved respect within the minds of the American public, media, and judicial system.  When an employee finds themselves on the other side of an issue that contradicts management—whether the issue be public safety, national security, or public health, the employee can easily become, to borrow a movie title, an “Enemy of the State.”

 

Not only is the employee’s livelihood at stake, but also at risk are their lives and the lives of their families; becoming pawns in the abuse of power in “protecting Federal government”; Moreover, the government is spending untold Millions of taxpayer’s dollars to carry out theses atrocities, and will continue to do so at our expense, in covering up Federal executives and managers errors and personal agendas.

 

Without exposure of the conduct of the Federal bureaucracy unjust actions against its Citizens and against its employees, and a change in the culture of institutional and bureaucratic bullying, we are all vulnerable to becoming Enemies of the State.

 

What can you do to help?

 

PLEASE SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION

 

 

>>> CLICK HERE <<<

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Original Article Here:

 

 

http://www.oscwatch.org/blog/2008/07/09/when-public-servants-become-enemies-of-the-state/