« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

November 2007

November 19, 2007

Will congress Pass Whistleblower Protections Before...

From http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/

Published by:  National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund

Will Congress Pass Whistleblower Protections Before the Next Disaster? 

Posted on November 15, 2007 by Stephen Kohn 

I call it the two crash rule: It takes two disasters for Congress to protect whistleblowers.

For example, for years airline pilots pleaded for Congress to enact modest protections for airline employees who exposed safety concerns. Year in and year out legislation was introduced, but stalled or was ignored. Then, in 2000, two Alaskan Airlines jets crashed. Only after two plane crashes were the whistleblower protections enacted. The same story holds true for almost every other federal whistleblower law. Disasters prompted action – but in each case the legislative response was limited to fixing the crisis at hand.

How many more disasters are needed to provide real whistleblower protection for all American workers? How many more billions lost in various schemes (such as the home mortgage fiasco)? How many tainted products will be imported into America? How many more taxpayer dollars will be wasted or swindled by contractors in Iraq?

Since January, 2007 numerous whistleblower protection laws have been introduced into Congress. But since the Democratic takeover of Congress only one whistleblower protection proposal has actually passed. This law provides enhanced protections for truck and bus drivers who complain about safety risks.

Obviously, truck drivers need whistleblower protection, but what about the tens of millions of employees who remain completely unprotected?

Congress needs to enact a comprehensive national whistleblower protection law, a law which will provide all legitimate whistleblowers with adequate legal protections.

Below is the list of whistleblower protection laws are currently pending in Congress. They all deserve our support. But why has no member of Congress introduced a national whistleblower protection act, which would protect all honest employees who expose violations of law or threats to the public safety? Why are most whistleblowers still without any adequate protection under federal law? When will Congress finally act?

Here is a list of the major whistleblower protection proposals introduced into Congress since January, 2007. As of today, none of these laws have passed:

Tags: Legislation, congress, law, legislative updates, news, whistleblower laws

Blowing the Whistle Many Times

The New York Times

November 18, 2007

Blowing the Whistle, Many Times

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

WHEN Cynthia Fitzgerald started out in pharmaceutical sales 20 years ago, she received ample training on the right and wrong ways to sell medical products. Right was selling on the merits. Wrong was luring customers with perks and freebies. It was O.K. to buy doctors lunch or dinner, for example, but tempting them with lavish gifts was taboo.

"There were pretty stringent rules back then," recalls Ms. Fitzgerald, now 50 and a grandmother living in Dallas. "It was really clinically driven."

But she says those early lessons didn't serve her so well when she went to work on the other side of the table in 1998, in health care purchasing. Going by the book, and expecting her colleagues and employer to do the same, cost her a job, most of her friendships and several years of her life, she says.

Eventually, Ms. Fitzgerald decided to file what could become one of the largest whistle-blower lawsuits on record. And her case, which names more than a dozen companies as defendants — some with well-known names like Johnson & Johnson, Becton Dickinson and Merck — offers a window onto a little-known world, where billions of dollars' worth of medical products are sold each year to institutional buyers like hospitals.

The suit, filed in 2003 in federal court in Dallas, and unsealed this year, argues that improper sales practices, together with erroneous accounting, are invisibly draining millions of dollars out of vital public programs like Medicare through overcharges or unauthorized uses. While whistle-blower cases typically involve, at most, a handful of companies, Ms. Fitzgerald's alleges systemic fraud across a whole network of companies and more than 7,000 health care institutions.

Her contentions are set against a complex backdrop: spiraling health care costs and debates about Medicare. State and federal authorities in Texas are investigating Ms. Fitzgerald's allegations, and any decision by them to join her case may give the suit momentum in the courts. But her corporate adversaries dispute her accusations.

"Cynthia Fitzgerald is rehashing old rumors and suspicions," said Jody Hatcher, senior vice president of Novation, the company in Irving, Tex., at the heart of her lawsuit. "These allegations have been examined in depth by a variety of different authorities, and no one has proven any of them to be true. The simple fact is that Ms. Fitzgerald's allegations are false."

For her part, Ms. Fitzgerald bristles at the idea that her lawsuit is without merit or, in response to common critiques of whistle-blower cases, about easy money. "I thought they were really nice people," she says. "I was so grateful and thankful to have a steady income again. I wouldn't have rocked the boat for any small thing to save my life."

So why did she rock the boat?

"It was wrong," she says of the behavior she asserts she has witnessed. "And I knew it was wrong."

NINE years ago, while still recovering from a financially ruinous divorce, Ms. Fitzgerald decided to move to Dallas from her native Omaha. She knew almost no one in her new city. She graduated from the University of Nebraska 13 years earlier with a communications degree, then worked in sales and marketing in the food, pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

When she moved to Texas, she says, "It was pretty bleak." She adds, "I went from having Thanksgiving dinners in a house with my family to living in an apartment that was so small that every time I turned around I ran into myself."

More than anything, she said, she wanted stability — a steady job at a company where she could climb the ladder and work until she retired. After months of looking, she joined Novation. The company helped thousands of hospitals, rehabilitation centers, home health agencies and doctors' offices nationwide negotiate prices for medical supplies — a wide range of items as diverse as saline solution and huge imaging machines.

Novation assigned her a portfolio of medical and surgical products for which its member hospitals were spending an estimated $240 million a year: rubber gloves, surgical tools and so forth. The company sent her to a training class where, among other things, she says she learned once again about ethical purchasing procedures.

"I cannot overemphasize in the beginning how excited I was and really feeling blessed," she says. "I felt like I got a second chance. Even though it was on the other side of sales, it was still sales."

But as she settled in, she says, not everything in her new workplace squared with what she had been told in training, a situation that came to a head one day in 1998, when she was still just a few months into the job. According to her complaint, she and her boss met with a Johnson & Johnson sales team that was vying for an exclusive, three-year contract to sell $130 million worth of IV equipment to Novation's clients. It was a valuable contract, and Ms. Fitzgerald had the power to decide who would get it.

The bids were already in. Ms. Fitzgerald understood this to be a mandatory "silent period," when she was not supposed to meet privately with any of the bidding companies. All communications with vendors were supposed to be in writing, and if Ms. Fitzgerald disclosed any information to any bidder, she was required to tell them all.

In a deposition in a separate lawsuit filed against Novation by a medical supplier, a former Novation executive, John M. Burks, did not dispute that the Johnson & Johnson meeting took place. But he said that Ms. Fitzgerald misunderstood the rules, and that Novation permitted such meetings at that point. (When reached for comment, Mr. Burks said his views haven't changed since his deposition.)

Ms. Fitzgerald says she had a very different understanding of the meeting. Discussions behind closed doors, tipping off a company on how to structure a winning bid, naming her price — this could be a felony, she recalls thinking :bid-rigging.

"How much will it take to get the contract?" she says one of the salesmen asked her, according to her complaint. "Others before you have done it."

She says she chose not to do so. "Oh, no!" she recalls blurting out, bringing the meeting to a halt. "This is illegal, and I don't look good in orange."

A spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, Marc Monseau, said, "We vigorously deny the allegations and will defend ourselves against them in court."

Ms. Fitzgerald did not stop there. After the salesmen left, she says, she confronted her boss in the women's room. Shouldn't they report the incident to the legal department? Hadn't they just been told that someone at Novation had taken a bribe?

Her boss offered no satisfaction, Ms. Fitzgerald says in her complaint. Concerned about the integrity of a bidding process she was responsible for, she began pursuing the matter herself.

OVER the following weeks, she says, she scoured her portfolio for contracting anomalies. She told colleagues about what had happened; some confided that similar things had happened to them. Others left anonymous notes on her desk. She began to think that Johnson & Johnson should be excluded from the bidding as a penalty for what she considered a serious ethical breach.

She says she took her concerns to Novation's legal department, human resources and even the company's president. In his deposition, Mr. Burks confirmed her activities, but called her "an employee who doesn't simply understand that when a supplier asks an inappropriate question, you simply say no and move on."

Ms. Fitzgerald says she passed over Johnson & Johnson for the IV contract, awarding it instead to Becton Dickinson. She said Becton had a superior bid, which provided a number of opportunities for Novation and member hospitals to be rewarded with rebates and other payments.

Becton said it believes that Ms. Fitzgerald's accusations of improprieties in how contracts were awarded are baseless and that her complaint is "without merit."

She turned to the next contract, for trash bags — and the same thing started to happen, according to her complaint. When Ms. Fitzgerald told representatives of one vendor, Heritage Bag, that she was planning to put that contract up for bid, she says, one representative told her at dinner with several people that he would "take care of" her. Heritage Bag did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.

Ms. Fitzgerald asked her supervisor if she could be taken off the trash-bag contract. Her supervisor agreed, but then gave her a negative performance review. It said that among other things, she was rude, unable to meet deadlines and kept trying to "overhaul" parts of Novation that were outside her job description, according to a copy of the review. Ms. Fitzgerald refused to sign it. Relations deteriorated, and 15 days later, she was fired for "nonperformance of duties that were clearly identified as part of her job description, " according to Mr. Burks's deposition.

Ms. Fitzgerald says she believes she was shown the door because she had stumbled onto illegal behavior involving hundreds of millions of dollars and had refused to look the other way.

"It's hilarious how stupid I was," she says. "I knew that it was wrong, but I thought that if I just went to the right people, they would correct it. I was very naïve. I didn't realize that it was systemic."

The False Claims Act is a federal law that allows private individuals to sue on behalf of the United States if they believe that they have inside knowledge of a fraud. Their lawsuits stay under court seal at first, to give federal and state investigators time to look into the accusations quietly and to decide whether to join the case. If the government recovers money, the whistle-blower gets 15 to 30 percent of the amount.

Though enacted to fight war profiteering, the False Claims Act has become a potent weapon in the battle against escalating health care costs. Of the 20 largest False Claims Act recoveries listed on the Web site of Taxpayers Against Fraud, a group that supports whistle-blowers and their lawyers, 19 involved health care companies. (The other involved municipal bonds.)

The size of recoveries has soared in recent years. All told, the government has recovered more than $20 billion since 1986, when the False Claims Act was last amended, with $5 billion of it in the last two years.

The biggest single whistle-blower settlement to date was the $900 million that Tenet Healthcare, a hospital company, paid last year to settle accusations of overbilling the Medicare program. That settlement is dwarfed by the $1.7 billion that HCA, another big hospital chain, paid between 2000 and 2003 to settle a number of fraud suits.

Companies and their lawyers say the growing caseload is a sign that the False Claims Act, with its promise of a payout for whistle-blowers, is motivating disgruntled employees to file nuisance suits that can tie up law-abiding companies for years.

Proponents of the law say that $20 billion of recoveries is proof that contracting fraud is real, and that offering whistle-blowers a percentage is a good way to compensate them for the near-certainty that they will be fired.

"Protection for people who are willing to risk their lives and livelihoods, their careers and reputations, is critical," said Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, in Senate hearings last year.

As Ms. Fitzgerald sees it, Medicare's losses grow out of the way that Novation and the vendor companies negotiate contracts.

When companies submitted bids to Novation, she recalled, they did not typically quote a simple price. Rather, they proposed package deals with opportunities for rebates, frequent-buyer discounts, "loyalty" rewards and baskets of products tied together. They might throw in free training for hospital staff, chances to participate in clinical trials, shares of stock, project sponsorships, sometimes even cash. The vendors also paid Novation for administering their contracts and for other services.

Ms. Fitzgerald says her compensation rewarded her for closing deals that maximized these payments — not for simply finding the lowest bid. Vendors preferred to combine higher upfront prices with rebates or other cash-back rewards, she says, because that obscured the net unit price of their products, making it harder for hospitals to comparison-shop.

But this also allowed millions of dollars to become "lost" in the system, she says. Novation passed on many of the payments to hospitals, she says, but not in a way that hospitals could accurately report them to the government. Thus they ended up overstating their supply costs, she says, and getting larger Medicare reimbursements than they were entitled to. The lawsuit does not contend that the hospitals did this deliberately, but that Novation knew it was happening.

A 2005 audit by Daniel R. Levinson, the inspector general of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, appears to bear her out. After studying the finances of three unnamed purchasing consortiums in response to repeated questions from Congress, federal agencies and the news media about their business practices, Mr. Levinson reported that their member hospitals "did not fully account" for such flows of money. In just five years, the discrepancies ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Novation said that there was no evidence that any underreporting was intentional. It cited the complexity of how hospitals are required to report costs and said it believed that hospitals met all legal requirements in how they reported Novation's distributions to them.

In the past, a prosecutor's decision whether or not to join a whistle-blower lawsuit could be a make-or-break moment. If the government became involved, defendants often settled right away. The announcement usually coincided with the unsealing of the whistle-blower' s complaint.

But now that the lawsuits have become so complex, and investigations so slow, judges have become impatient with sealed lawsuits moldering in their courts. Some are ordering the complaints unsealed before investigators finish examining the claims.

That is what happened in Ms. Fitzgerald's case. Last May, a federal judge in Dallas unsealed her suit, which had languished for four years. The assistant United States attorney for the Northern District of Texas , Sean R. McKenna, and the Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, notified the court that they were still investigating and would decide later whether to join the case.

THAT leaves Ms. Fitzgerald on her own for now. After Novation fired her, she was contractually forbidden from disclosing information about the company or filing lawsuits against it for three years, she says. Once that period lapsed, she gradually became aware she was eligible to file a suit under the False Claims Act. That led her to Phillips & Cohen, a law firm involved in whistle-blower cases.

Her firing, meanwhile, left her unable to get another job in her field; word of her demise at Novation seemed to precede her wherever she went. Former colleagues stopped speaking to her. "I was probably at one of the lowest points in my life," she says.

She eventually founded her own business, Dimension Medical Supply. But she regrets the contentious departure from Novation, a company that made her feel as if she "was coming home" when it hired her. Deciding to speak out about the company's dealings was difficult, she says.

"I warred with myself," she says. "There weren't any blacks in upper management. I knew that there were opportunities there, and I could rise to those opportunities. "

She was tempted, she says, to follow the status quo at Novation. And a little voice in her head kept saying, "Why can't you just take the money and run? Buck up, girl, this is the system. You can take it and go places."

In the end, the place she decided to go was court.



U.S. Gives Boeing Contract for Invisible Fence Border Monitoring

US Gives Boeing contract for ‘ invisible fence’ border monitoring

Sep. 21, 2007

Breitbart.com

The US government has awarded aerospace and defense conglomerate Boeing a contract to build a high-tech "invisible fence" to protect its northern and southern borders, the Department of Homeland Security announced.

Boeing's surveillance system involves raising 1,800 towers equipped with cameras and movement detectors along the 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) of US land borders.

Some US press reports have put the value of the deal at 2.5 billion dollars, though Homeland Security officials declined to give a figure.

The fence, dubbed the SBInet (Secure Border Initiative) program, will provide Homeland Security officials "with the best possible solution to detect, identify, classify, respond to and resolve illegal entry attempts at our land borders with Mexico and Canada," the department said.

The system that Boeing will set up "will integrate the latest technology and infrastructure to interdict illegal immigration and stop threats attempting to cross borders," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

In a press conference with Boeing Vice President James Albaugh, Chertoff described the system as a "21st-century virtual fence."

Tens of thousands of people try to cross the US borders -- especially the border with Mexico -- each year, with some 472 deaths reported in 2005, mostly from people losing their way in the southwestern deserts.

Boeing estimates it can set up the system in three years, starting at the region south of Tucson, Arizona, the busiest sector of the US-Mexico border.

November 17, 2007

Boeing's Snooping on Workers: Chinese Accent?

Boeing's snooping on workers might have a Chinese accent

By David Brewster
Crosscut.com
News of the Great Nearby

Today's Post-Intelligencer has a fascinating story about the way Boeing allegedly spies on employees, reading private e-mails, tailing them, and monitoring keystrokes.

The story is framed with concerns about privacy or tracking down employees who might be whistle blowers who talk to the media. It's an important story, with a wholly legitimate concern about privacy and workers' rights.

But I wonder if the untold part of the story is another topic that Boeing would not want to talk about: Chinese espionage. Canada has recently raised the issue, citing suspected espionage about the way China may have been snooping on the maker of the Blackberry, in order to introduce its copycat Redberry.

Just yesterday, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said in its annual report to Congress that Chinese spying was a great threat to U.S. technology. The panel recommended counterintelligence efforts. The issue may find its way into the presidential campaigns, as well as discussions about how the U.S. Attorney's offices have been spending their time.

China denies any spying, but the American government contends that there is a broad effort by China to get new technology without spending money on research. Seattle, with its strong concentration of technology companies and defense concerns, is thought to be particularly crawling with spies. If so, Boeing is probably under pressure from the government to root them out. But it would be reluctant to say so, given what a big customer China is for jets.
Topics: Law / Justice, Federal Agencies, Workplace / Labor, Boeing, Business / Technology

You can also find some other blogger’s takes on this topic at:

http://www.evergreenpolitics.com/ep/2007/11/boeing-spies-on.html

and

http://www.americablog.com/2007/11/boeing-spying-on-workers.html

Alan Grayson is Running for Congress in Florida

Alan Grayson, Whistleblower attorney,  is running for the U.S. Congress in 2008.  He is running for office in Florida’s 8th Congressional District. 

http://www.graysonforcongress.com/

Here is another link:  Grayson's fight against fraud and corruption

http://www.burkhardworks.com/GRAYSON/DM/WARPROFITEERS.pdf

Direct Orders from the Top of Government Block Investigations and Suits

Admin and DOJ Block Whistleblower Suits

Bush Administration, DOJ Blocking Iraq Fraud Suits
    By Matt Renner
    t r u t h o u t | Report

    Wednesday 26 September 2007

    Peter Keisler, the acting US attorney general, covered up evidence of alleged widespread contracting fraud in Iraq by preventing whistleblowers' complaints from being investigated, according to a prominent fraud attorney.

    Alan Grayson, an attorney who has represented scores of whistleblowers in suits against companies that were awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts related to Iraq reconstruction, blamed the Bush administration for the lack of government action on Iraq fraud.

    In an interview with Truthout, Grayson said Keisler has purposely delayed investigations into Iraq contractor fraud because of Keisler's political allegiance to the Bush administration. Keisler has refused to prosecute whistleblower lawsuits because Bush "does not want more bad news coming out of Iraq," Grayson said, adding "to have an entire class of cases treated this way is truly unprecedented. I've been doing this for 20 years and I've never seen it before."

    Keisler was appointed by President Bush to serve as the acting attorney general after Alberto Gonzales resigned in September. In July 2003, Keisler, became the assistant attorney general in charge of the civil division, roughly three months after the invasion of Iraq. Among its responsibilities, the civil division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is tasked with enforcing contract fraud laws and investigating whistleblower complaints. A former law clerk for Judge Robert Bork and former Regan administration lawyer, Keisler is a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society.

    During his time at DOJ, Keisler led the Bush administration's successful legal fight to deny habeas corpus rights for prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Keisler recently resigned his post as assistant attorney general, saying he planned to spend time with his family. Keisler was nominated by the Bush administration to serve as a Federal Judge on the Washington DC Court of Appeals in 2006, but the Senate has not yet taken up his confirmation. He has failed to be confirmed by the Senate in two previous appointment attempts by Bush.

    At a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing September 21 on Iraq war contractors, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N. Dakota) said there "has been a staggering amount of contract abuse, the worst in our history."

    In a hearing last week, Congressman Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Iraq contractor fraud remains a serious issue. "As has been reported in the press, the Inspector General and the Army have uncovered a cluster of fraud and corruption problems arising out of a series of support contracts, many of which were let from an office in Kuwait. As of August 28, the Army reported that it had 76 cases of fraud and corruption under investigation, had obtained 20 indictments, and had uncovered over $15 million in bribes. The people involved ranged from civilians and enlisted military personnel to relatively senior officers," Skelton said.

    Yet, under Keisler's leadership, the DOJ civil division has refused to join any whistleblower suits against Iraq war contractors. DOJ work on behalf of whistleblower lawsuits against companies in other sectors has continued unabated.

    The DOJ did not return calls for comment.

    Keisler apparently took responsibility for the lack of Iraq fraud prosecutions in a keynote speech to the Taxpayers Against Fraud watchdog organization. The speech, however, was "off the record" and a transcript has not been made publicly available.

    During his appearance before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, Grayson said "Under the False Claims Act, the Attorney General is supposed to join with whistleblowers to prosecute and punish war profiteers. The sad truth is that the Bush Administration has not even tried to do this. On the contrary, it has done all it could to prevent this." The DOJ has not joined a single Iraq contracting fraud case brought by a whistleblower to date.

    Under the False Claims Act, established by President Lincoln as a result of fraud and war profiteering during the civil war, any citizen has the ability to sue a company for fraud on behalf of the US government. In what is know as a qui tam action, a whistleblower can recoup legal fees and a percentage of the money the lawsuit recovers for the government. When a qui tam action is brought by a whistleblower, it is placed under seal to allow the government to review the case and to investigate the accused company in secret.

    The DOJ has refused to join 12 such cases and an estimated 50-70 cases remain under seal. By delaying their decision on whether or not to join these cases, the DOJ has kept whistleblowers and their lawyers from going public with their fraud accusations and has kept the accused companies out of court.

    Despite a rejection from the government, Grayson has decided to move forward with five of his pending cases against Iraq war contractors, three against the Halliburton Company and two against Custer Battles LLC.

    Beth Daley, the director of the Project on Government Oversight, described the DOJ's lack of action on Iraq fraud cases as "breathtaking," and as "a travesty of justice." According to Daley, "When you see what has happened with the Iraq fraud cases, you have to wonder if the DOJ has succumbed to political partisan interests rather than fighting corruption, which is their mission. This has huge implications for our democracy; to lose the most important corruption fighting agency to political agendas would be quite sad. It means that corruption has been allowed to fester."

    According to Patrick Burns, a spokesman for Taxpayers Against Fraud, the DOJ has suffered from a lack of staff and resources. Burns says the DOJ has a huge waiting list for fraud cases filed by whistleblowers. Burns added, "the DOJ civil division is a-political. Keisler is as straight a stick as you will get. He is a good lawyer and I have never felt the slightest subterfuge from him."

    Previously, Burns told the Boston Globe, "Basically, they [the US government] have done nothing, and it is hard to explain what is going on there, other than direct orders from the very top of government," Burns continued, "It can no longer be explained by incompetence alone."

Grayson Speaks: Senate Dem. Policy Comm. Hearing

Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing

“An Oversight Hearing on Accountability for Contracting Abuses in Iraq”

Alan Grayson

Grayson & Kubli, P.C.

September 18, 2006

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today, and

to speak before this honorable committee.

My name is Alan Grayson. I am an attorney, and I represent dozens of

whistleblowers in cases brought against contractors who have defrauded the Government.

The Civil False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to bring cases in the name of the

Government, to help the taxpayers recover money from contractors who cheat the

Government. Ms. McBride is one such whistleblower.

With this week marking three and a half years since the occupation of Iraq began,

it is possible to conduct an appraisal of the role that contractors have played in Iraq. It is

not a pretty picture. While U.S. forces are praised for their professionalism and

discipline, there have been countless reports of government contractors in Iraq

undermining the mission, wasting money, and stealing money. Half of the $18 billion in

Iraq reconstruction funds are unaccounted for. Senator Dorgan has said that there is an

“orgy of greed” among contractors in Iraq, and there is ample evidence to back that up.

This Committee, a modern-day Truman Commission, has uncovered many

examples of this. So has the media. What you will not hear about, however, are many

examples from False Claims Act whistleblowers, because the Bush Administration has

systematically kept those cases out of the public eye.

Out of all of the cases filed by whistleblowers regarding fraud in Iraq, only two of

them have been litigated. The Bush Administration refused to participate in either one.

In the first case, a suit that I helped whistleblowers bring against Custer Battles,

the company’s own internal audit report found the company guilty of criminal fraud. The

U.S. Military suspended the defendants, finding adequate evidence of that fraud. Yet the

Bush Administration did literally nothing to recover the millions of dollars that the

Defendants stole. We brought that case to trial, without the help of the Bush

Administration, and won a jury verdict worth over $10 million for the taxpayers. But the

2

judge ruled that the Bush Administration had messed up the contract paperwork, and now

the issue is on appeal.

The second case is Ms. McBride’s complaint against Halliburton. Her case was

filed well over a year ago. The Bush Administration sat on it for that period, investigated

only one of the five allegations of fraud in her complaint, and then – without explanation

– refused to participate.

In both the Custer Battles case and the Halliburton case, the defendants’ intimate

connections with the Bush Administration are well-known.

As for all of the other whistleblower cases filed against contractors alleged to

have defraud the U.S. Government in Iraq, after three and a half years the Bush

Administration perpetuates the masquerade that it is “investigating” these cases. The

False Claims Act provides that these cases must be brought under seal, and gives the

Administration 60 days to investigate. That 60 days became 60 weeks, and is now

approaching three or more years in some cases. Obtaining one extension after another for

these court-ordered seals permits the Bush Administration to keep these cases out of sight

indefinitely. The last thing that the Administration wants, it appears, is more bad news

coming out of Iraq, and it is willing to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery of

justice to prevent that.

As a result, the Bush Administration has not litigated a single case against a

contractor alleged to have defrauded the U.S. Government in Iraq. It has obtained one

guilty plea from a Halliburton employee, however – but for defrauding the company, not

the U.S. Government.

As one reporter on this beat recently noted, the U.S. military has been spending

over $1 billion a week in Iraq, but DoD’s Inspector General has had zero inspectors on

the ground since at least October 2004.

A few months ago, the Wall Street Journal was kind enough to say that I am

conducting a one-man war against contractor fraud against Iraq. I keep wondering when

we will see reinforcements. President Bush twice took an oath of office to see that the

laws are faithfully executed. Regarding fraud in Iraq, it is plain and simple – he has

violated that oath.

An earlier wartime President, Abraham Lincoln, had this to say about war

profiteers, when he proposed enactment of the whistleblowers’ False Claims Act, seven

score and three years ago:

“Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and

fatten on the misfortunes of the Nation, while patriotic blood is crimsoning the

plains of the South, and their countrymen moldering the dust.”

3

As Lincoln himself said, in the Gettysburg Address, it is far above my poor power

to add or detract from this. But let history note that as patriotic blood is crimsoning the

plains of the Sunni Triangle, and as our countrymen lie moldering in the dust, some at

Halliburton, with their Super Bowl Parties and their stock options, feast and fatten on the

misfortunes of this Nation while pretending nothing but loyalty to the flag.

Thank you.

Allan Grayson, Attorney, Pursues Contract Fraud

The Wall Street Journal

Attorney Pursues Iraq Contractor Fraud

Lawyer Uses Civil War-Era Law
To Go After Firms for Corruption,
But Administration Won't Help

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
April 19, 2006

ORLANDO, Fla. -- From his home office in a pink-painted mansion here, lawyer Alan Grayson is waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq.

Mr. Grayson has filed dozens of lawsuits against Iraq contractors on behalf of corporate whistle-blowers. He won a huge victory last month when a federal jury in Virginia ordered a security firm called Custer Battles LLC to return $10 million in ill-gotten funds to the government. The ruling marked the first time an American firm was held responsible for financial improprieties in Iraq. But it also highlighted the limits of the broader efforts to stem contractor abuses there.

The False Claims Act that Mr. Grayson used in the Custer Battles case is a Civil War-era statute allowing whistle-blowers to sue contractors suspected of defrauding the government and then keep a chunk of any recovered money. There are an estimated 50 such cases pending against Iraq contractors, including large firms like Halliburton Co.'s Kellogg Brown and Root subsidiary. A technicality in the statute, however, has allowed the Bush administration to prevent the other lawsuits from moving forward. Cases filed under the statute are automatically sealed, which means that they can't proceed to trial -- or even be publicly disclosed -- until the administration makes a formal decision about whether to join them.

The law says such decisions are supposed to be made within 60 days, but with the exception of the Custer Battles case, which it declined to join, the administration has yet to take a position on any of the suits, some of which were filed more than two years ago. The law allows the Justice Department to ask for extensions, which are almost always granted, for as long as it sees fit. The department has kept the other False Claims Act cases from proceeding by repeatedly asking for extensions in each one.

That has left the cases in legal limbo, with lawyers like Mr. Grayson unable to bring them to trial or detail them publicly.

Contracting experts say previous administrations often declined to join in False Claims Act lawsuits but that the Bush administration's refusal to unseal the cases is unprecedented. Justice Department spokesman Charles Wilson says he can't discuss sealed cases or comment on why the department has yet to act on them. "All of the cases are examined on their merits," Mr. Wilson says. With the Bush administration sitting on the sidelines, primary responsibility for pursuing the Iraq fraud cases rests with plaintiffs' lawyers like Mr. Grayson, a Harvard-educated lawyer who began his career defending federal contractors but now makes his living going after them.

FIGHT FOR IRAQ

See continuing coverage of developments in Iraq, including a look back at three years of war. Plus, see an interactive map of major insurgent attacks.

"With the sheriff asleep in the office, the only way you get justice is with private lawyers like Alan Grayson willing to step up and take down these fraudulent companies," says Patrick Burns, the spokesman for the advocacy group Taxpayers Against Fraud. "Alan Grayson showed that you can do that even without help from the government."

Though it is unclear when the cases will proceed to trial, Mr. Grayson is continuing to press ahead as best he can. He and other lawyers in his firm travel the country taking depositions, gathering documents and interviewing prospective witnesses for the dozens of currently pending lawsuits. Mr. Grayson says he also regularly passes information to the federal investigators probing the cases and the prosecutors deciding whether the government will participate in them.

A fierce critic of the war in Iraq, Mr. Grayson drives an aging Cadillac emblazoned with antiadministration bumper stickers such as "Bush Lied, People Died." He says the administration's botched handling of Iraq opened the door for corrupt contractors to improperly reap fortunes there. At a hearing in February 2005 held by Democratic senators, Mr. Grayson asserted that the administration had "not lifted a finger to recover tens of millions of dollars our whistle-blowers allege was stolen from the government."

His opinions on the matter haven't shifted since. "The Bush administration has made a conscious decision to sweep the cases under the rug for as long as possible," he says today. "And the more bad news that comes out of Iraq, the more motivation they have to do so."

For the contractors in his cross hairs, Mr. Grayson, 48, is a formidable opponent. He received his undergraduate, master's and law degrees from Harvard. He made millions during a two-year stint as the president of IDT Corp., a start-up that has since grown into one of the nation's largest providers of discount telecommunications services. Mr. Grayson says he has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal funds into his small eight-person law firm to help defray the costs of pursuing Iraq fraud cases that may not make it to trial for years. "I have deep enough pockets to subsidize the legal work," he says.

If he prevails, he might fill those deep pockets. Whistle-blowers generally receive 30% of any penalty, although the exact portion of every award is set by the judge in each case. Lawyers like Mr. Grayson, in turn, receive 30% to 50% of whatever the whistle-blowers get. "It's really a financial crapshoot," he says.

Mr. Grayson's firm switched its focus from working for contractors to representing individual whistle-blowers shortly after U.S. forces swept into Iraq in March 2003. He says the firm made the move because they began to be contacted by whistle-blowers who were referred by former clients and others.

Two of his first clients were William D. Baldwin, a former manager for Custer Battles, and Robert J. Isakson, a construction subcontractor who had worked with the firm. The company, run by a pair of politically connected military veterans, had won security contracts in Iraq worth more than $100 million. But the two men told Mr. Grayson that they had evidence the firm was substantially overcharging the U.S. occupation authority.

Mr. Grayson filed suit against the company under the False Claims Act in February 2004, but it languished under seal until that fall, when the Justice Department formally declined to join the case. The government never explained its decision. The case finally went before a judge in February.

After a contentious three-week trial, a federal jury on March 9 found the company's two founders, along with a business partner, guilty of using fake invoices from shell companies to overcharge the authorities by millions of dollars. The jury ordered the men to pay $10 million in penalties, with Mr. Grayson's clients standing to receive about $3 million of the money. Mr. Grayson declined to say how much money he will be paid. David Douglass, a lawyer for Custer Battles, says the company has appealed the verdict.

While waiting for the government to act on the other lawsuits, Mr. Grayson is weighing a career change. His congressional district is represented by a conservative Republican, and Mr. Grayson is strongly considering seeking the Democratic nomination to oppose him. He says his campaign, if he chooses to run, would center on the war in Iraq.

Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com 

Write About Your Whistleblower Experiences!

Write about your experiences at this site.  You are helping to share information and to encourage others to stand up as well.  Write on!

Write On @ Writing.Com!

Boeing Bosses Spy on Workers

By ANDREA JAMES
The Seattle Post Intelligencer
updated 3:49 a.m. PT, Fri., Nov. 16, 2007

Within its bowels, The Boeing Co. holds volumes of proprietary information deemed so valuable that the company has entire teams dedicated to making sure that private information stays private. One such team, dubbed "enterprise" investigators, has permission to read the private e-mails of employees, follow them and collect video footage or photos of them. Investigators can also secretly watch employee computer screens in real time and reproduce every keystroke a worker makes, the Seattle P-I has learned.

For years, Boeing workers have held suspicions about being surveilled, according to a long history of P-I contact with sources, but at least three people familiar with investigation tactics have recently confirmed them.

One company source said some employees have raised internal inquiries about whether their rights were violated. Sometimes, instead of going to court over a grievance on an investigation, Boeing and the employee reach a financial settlement. The settlement almost always requires people involved to sign non-disclosure agreements, the source said.

Boeing desires to keep investigation details under wraps.

"We will not discuss specifics of internal investigations with the media," it said in a written response to P-I questions. "Issues that necessitate investigation in order to protect the company's interests and those of its employees and other stakeholders are handled consistent with all applicable laws."

But the tactics used by Washington's largest employer raise questions about where an employee's rights begin and the employer's end, and how much leeway any corporation has in investigating an employee if it suspects wrongdoing.

A recent case at another large company highlighted that investigations can go too far. In 2006, a scandal erupted at Hewlett-Packard after the company investigated leaks from its board of directors.

The company was ordered to pay $14.5 million and to bring its internal investigations into compliance with laws in California, the company's home state.

The investigation included reviews of internal e-mails and instant messages, the physical surveillance of a board member and at least one journalist, and the illegal use of deception to obtain telephone records of employees and journalists.

For its part, Boeing says that it has multiple internal organizations that provide checks and balances "to ensure these investigations are conducted properly and in accordance with established company and legal guidelines. We do not comment on individual cases or specific investigation activities."

An employee is tailed

Recently, a Boeing investigator told a Puget Sound-area employee that he was followed off company property to a lunch spot, that investigators had footage of him "coming and going" and that investigators had accessed his personal Gmail account.

The primary reason for the 2007 investigation, the employee said, was Boeing's suspicion that he had spoken with a member of the media. The employee learned the details of the investigation during a three-hour meeting, in which investigators laid out some of their findings. He has since been fired.

That particular investigation was connected with a July article in the P-I that brought to light Boeing's struggles complying with a 2002 corporate reform law and cited unnamed sources and internal company documents.

"I wasn't surprised, but more just disappointed in them, that instead of looking at the problems, instead of investigating that, they investigated the people that were complaining and got rid of them," said the employee, who had been an auditor in the company's Office of Internal Governance and asked that he not be named.

"It's not quite indentured servitude, because you can quit, but when you look at the mortgages and car payments, especially in Seattle, you're not exactly free," said the surveilled former employee.

Experts say that tailing employees -- though surprising -- is usually legal, and that corporations have many options at their disposal to monitor employees. An investigator can do most things short of breaking into someone's home.

For example, under Washington's stalking law, licensed private investigators "acting within the capacity of his or her license" are allowed to repeatedly follow a person. Boeing's internal investigators are exempt under state law from having to obtain a private investigator license, but contracted investigators must hold licenses.

"It's worse than you can possibly imagine," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at the federation of Public Interest Research Groups.

"Employees should understand that the law generally gives employers broad authority to conduct surveillance, whether through e-mail, video cameras or other forms of tracking, including off the job in many cases."

The law grants companies the right to protect themselves from employees who break the law, such as by embezzling money or using the company warehouse to run a drug-smuggling ring.

The problem, Mierzwinski said, is when companies use the surveillance tactics available to them to root out whistle-blowers.

"We need greater whistle-blower protections," he said. But, "if you're using the company's resources and you think it's protected because you're using Hotmail, think again."

Privacy laws ask whether a reasonable person would be outraged by a particular act; reasonableness is an oft-cited concept in law, explained Bill Covington, a University of Washington professor on technology law and public policy. Washington is a "will-to-work" state, meaning employees can be fired without reason, he added.

"We cannot write laws that cover every circumstance," he said. "A jury can apply a community standard of what they deem to be fair and right. There are just too many other situations."

Unfortunately, the public itself does not know what it wants, he said.

"I don't think we have made up our mind which way we want to go with these particular laws," Covington said. "You are having a classic clash between business ... and privacy groups."

You are being watched

So when does privacy begin? When an employee steps across the threshold into his or her own home, experts say.

"The only thing your boss can't do is listen to personal telephone calls; that's covered by wiretapping laws," said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J.

Companies following workers typically do so to check on the legitimacy of workers' compensation claims. A company needs to know if a worker who claims injury is actually mowing his lawn, Maltby said. It is "completely inappropriate" to trail employees to see if they are talking to reporters, he added -- but it is legal.

As one expert at the American Civil Liberties Union pointed out, just as the average Joe could trail his neighbor if he wanted to, companies are allowed to trail employees.

"I can't harass the person, but there's nothing that prevents me from just following him," said Doug Klunder, privacy project director at the ACLU of Washington.

Klunder said that reading private e-mails is "highly questionable." Companies should be able to know that employees are checking e-mail, but should not be able to view the contents of the e-mails.

"We certainly don't believe that an employer should be able to read private e-mail content just because it's accessed on a work computer," he said.

However, "it's a tricky area because there aren't a lot of legal protections in Washington and in most states where we have employment-at-will. There are some privacy rights of employees, but they are limited relative to the employer."

When Boeing employees sign on to the company network, a screen pops up to tell them that "to the extent permitted by law, system use and information may be monitored, recorded or disclosed and that using the system constitutes user consent to do so," according to Boeing.

Rights for whistle-blowers

If a corporate investigation discovers employee wrongdoing that merits discipline or dismissal, workers have little recourse, experts say. Whistle-blowers, on the other hand, are afforded more protection, but only if an investigation is deemed retaliatory.

"There are no employee rights. Employees have little negotiating power," said Bill Mateja, former point man for President Bush's Corporate Fraud Task Force, formed in 2002. "Only if they're in the position of whistle-blower do they have a little more oomph."

Whistle-blower cases can be dismissed for many reasons -- the employee might not have understood the law, or the employer's retaliation is not severe enough to merit fault, "or it can be that the investigation cannot prove that the adverse action was taken for the reason that was complained about," said David Mahlum, assistant regional administrator for Region 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. That agency investigates whistle-blower complaints.

Robert Ellis Smith, a lawyer and the publisher of Privacy Journal, a monthly newsletter, called whistle-blower protections the "wild card" in employee protections.

"Protections against electronic surveillance are virtually non-existent in the workplace," Smith said. "The one wild card for this is federal protections for whistle-blowers. Aside from that, the privacy laws are quite weak."


P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.