WhistleblowerSupporter

DSS and Boeing Continue Retribution Against DSS Security Specialist Despite DOD OIG Report

Thanks Old Navy Man for sending this.  It is a good follow up in one of the continuing stories I had been observing.  The Defense Security Service has truly reached the point of no salvation in this whistleblower supporter's opinion.  It just gets worse and worse.  I have a lot more I've been told or have been able to find out during my family emergency trips back east.  I'll be unrolling more stuff from this point forward.   Please do go to this link.  I see that POGO's Nick Schwellenbach included links to the DOD OIG's report concerning Mr. Conley's case from 2002-2008, where the DOD OIG validated and upheld Mr. Conley's concerns and that he has been fiercely retaliated against by DSS managers and it appears the director.  Mr. Conley has been on the receiving end of a vendetta for doing his job lawfully and trying to make sure a particular case was not covered up and would be prosecuted.  But because of the demonstrated actions of the defense contractor involved (Boeing) and the conflict of interest relationships certain managers in DSS have personally and professionally with Boeing,  and as it was discovered later, Boeing's relationships with other government managers and  defense agencies or activities, it has been a brutal uphill battle to assure integrity in the oversight process.  Start with reading all of this.  I will be publishing more later.    GFS

 

 

G Florence:
 
Please read this article    http://getinvolved.pogo.org/site/PageNavigator/dss_boeing_whistleblower.html

I just stumbled across this link to a very disturbing whistleblower article.  I did not see it posted at your site so I am forwarding it to you.  Please take the time read it.  I hope you will consider posting it with your comments.  This recent article is from the Project On Government Oversight.  As an old navy man I am incensed that the two government workers identified in this article have been persecuted by the Marine Corps, my Navy and the Defense Security Service for trying to do their jobs.  More people need to know what is going on in our government!
 
An Old Navy Man

Cyber Attacks, National Security and US Economic Survival

Anyone interested in both real national security and economic security should read this set of articles.  What is discussed in these articles does not cover even half of the problems.  It is not only cyber espionage and theft, but other more direct kinds of actions that may also be very risky to our security and economic well-being.   Problems, such as sloppy security or imprudent decisions made by defense contractors regarding how security is handled, often brought about by penny wise, pound foolish financial decisions designed to save money for the company.  Misguided notions of an open world – a fantasy non-competitive world where science and technology should all be shared, can also bring about loss of technology and “technical secrets”.  Sometimes the visitors that are allowed in, (as in the case of foreign nationals), who ask for in person visits, or sometimes extended project or work time, in the defense contractor’s company sites, can provide significant risks to these same kinds of materials.    

Read these two articles for now if you did not already see them.  GFS

 

* * * * *

 

US arms makers said to be bleeding secrets to cyber foes

By Jim Wolf

Reuters

 

Link:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43230826

 

* * * * *

 

From Nextgov:

 

Pentagon to adversaries: An attack on U.S. networks might unleash military force

By Aliya Sternstein  05/31/11

A new Defense Department policy that reportedly authorizes troops to use physical force in response to a cyberattack does not represent a change in posture, but rather a signal to adversaries that the United States will not hesitate to act, said a former U.S. military and intelligence official who managed network security.

According to an article in Monday's Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon penned a departmental policy that for the first time unequivocally states that a grave attack on U.S. networks will be treated as an act of war. In other words, a cyberattack severe enough to cause death and destruction can trigger the use of military force.

"I don't think the statement is a giant step forward in terms of new policy," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Dale W. Meyerrose, former chief information officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "It's an explicit statement, which underpins the military being serious about cyberspace and its relationship to the other domains of land, sea and air."

The policy, expected to be publicly released within the next month, arrives at a time when the notion of cyberwar increasingly is becoming a real-world problem. During the past year, sophisticated intrusions such as the Stuxnet virus, which targets industrial equipment such as nuclear reactors, and so-called advanced persistent threats, worms that invade silently for extensive periods to steal intelligence, have fueled national security concerns.

This weekend, Defense and Homeland Security Department officials confirmed the government is investigating a network penetration at Defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp.

While the Pentagon's policy may seem like a statement of the obvious, "it does put potential folks who want to do mischief with national security apparatus on notice," said Meyerrose, who also served as CIO at several Defense and Air Force commands.

Few nations have enough cyber-savvy to cripple U.S. critical infrastructure, such as power grids, but as soon as terrorist groups or enemy states attain that capability, they will not hesitate to use it, James A. Lewis, a cybersecurity researcher at the nonprofit Center for Strategic and International Studies, testified before Congress just last week.

The more imminent possibility is that adversaries will disrupt military communications, said Meyerrose, now a senior executive at information technology firm Harris Corp. Under the new Pentagon edict, "the retribution [for that] could be -- we'll take out your ability to transmit, or it could involve killing," he said. "When we report on the elements of cyber, we tend to boil it down to a user on a keyboard. It's not quite that simple. It could be an attack on a military place where computer systems are assembled."

In mid-May, while unveiling a new White House policy framework on international cybersecurity with other Cabinet officials, Defense Department Deputy Secretary William J. Lynn III alluded to "a forthcoming strategy for operating in cyberspace."

The White House document asserts that the United States has the right to use military force to defend itself against cyber threats.

"All states possess an inherent right to self-defense, and we recognize that certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners," the strategy states. "We reserve the right to use all necessary means -- diplomatic, informational, military and economic -- as appropriate and consistent with applicable international law, in order to defend our nation, our allies, our partners and our interests."

Link:  http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110531_5712.php

 

 

 

Comments Regarding “Declining DCAA Role in Oversight of Tens of Billions of Pentagon Contract Dollars

Here are some comments left on one of the articles I posted earlier today.  You will want to check the original article and additional comments.  See link at bottom of this post.  And thanks again, Old Navy Man.  GFS

 

G. Florence-

 

It’s not just ‘An Old Navy Man’ that believes there’s a problem.  See comments below.

 

Good investigative reporting on the part of Mr. Schwellenbach!

 

An Old Navy Man

 

 

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Declining DCAA Role in Oversight of Tens of Billions of Pentagon Contract Dollars:

Comments

Joe   It is a shame that the only reason that DCAA gave away proposal audits under the stated PGI threshold is so that we can put more time in working paper documentation. Not that our audits will be any better or that we will question more cost. No, just the opposite. We gave away millions of dollars of proposal work just to have more time to document our work. Such as waste of effort. This is definately contrary to Secretary Gates efficiency initiative. I am dispoointed that Fitzgerald did not have a backbone and went along with AT&L on this one. Stephenson never would have given away work just to have more time for those picture perfect working papers. What's next, $500 million and $50 million. Before we know it, Fitzgerald will have each auditor completing only one audit per year. I imagine that Policy is already examining how to raise the desk review incurred cost threshold to $100 million per year. Here's a clue how to deal with the gap between the audit work that needs to be accomplished and the current funding, provide DCAA more funds. Simple, issue solved. DCAA saves dollar for dollar more than it costs, period. So why won't Comptroller Hale provide DCAA more money? Oh I get it, he does not want oversight of contractors and neither does our lobbyist Deputy Secretary of Defense. I get it now. We need a change of administration and fast!

Posted on: Oct 30, 2010 at 05:54 PM

Carol   The blog comments are 100% on the mark. In essence, pricing evaluations by DCMA for FFP under $10 million and cost type over $100 million will become nothing more than a rate check. DCMA is not staffed to perform a full price analysis of proposals under these thresholds. This represents a high volume of proposals. Rather DCMA will call DCAA for the latest rates and that will be the extent of the price analysis. It will not matter than the rates are 2-3 years old or perhaps no rate information. The message was been sent by AT&L, pricing actions under these thresholds are immaterial and become a blank check for contractors. I am curious about the independence comment made by Frank. I thought that the Defense Business Board in its October 2008 report stated that DCAA should perform any audits it felt necessary regardless of the DPAP guidance, FAR, DFARS, CAS, etc. How can DPAP decide the audits to be performed by DCAA? This seems to be an independence issue. The PGI guidance was not revised due to a change in law or other legal statute. Perhaps Fitzgerald is confusing Army Audit with DCAA where in Army Audit the Secretary of the Army may decide the audits that are performed. But in DCAA, the responsibility is on the DCAA Director to decide the audits that are necessary, no one else has that responsibility. I believe we have a GAGAS noncompliance. POGO, could you research the independence issue. This could be very serious.

Posted on: Oct 30, 2010 at 08:02 AM

John    Agree with Frank and Mike. The Pentagon has wanted DCAA to get out of the forward pricing audit business for years. Contracting officials want to place as much money on contract as possible and do not want to have to address audit findings while negotiating contracts. However, I would argue that the new thresholds really do not matter because many forward pricing reports are issued too late to be of use to the contracting officer and many others are never issued because the supervisor, manager, region, QA reviewers have an issue with the working papers such as the entrance conference was not thoroughly documented or the sample was too small. All the while, real dollars are wasted especially on FFP contracts. Assignments are cancelled all the time. I recall a time when the FAO had a prepare a detailed explanation for the region when it cancelled an assignment. Now we cancel more assignments that we complete. POGO, you should ask for the number of cancelled assignments for the last five years, you should see a significant increase in FY 2010. Not to mention the millions that have gone unaudited and thousands of audit hours wasted. I guess Army Audit has a very liberal cancellation policy.

Posted on: Oct 29, 2010 at 07:42 PM

Jan   Here's the next scandle, DCAA spends twice as much to do 25%of the audits. Overpayments and fraud triple due to no oversight. GAO and IG find DCAA's audit working papers are perfect, but gig DCAA for performing marginal analytical procedures. Wake-up Fitzgerald, you have many hearings in your future so start practicing the opening statement on how the Pentagon made you do it and how important it is to ensure that all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Oh, and do not forget, you are responsible for DCAA and cannot use the Pentagon or anyone else as an excuse. The independence issue is squarely on you. Keep in mind that Under Secretary Hale and Deputy Lynn will not be around forever to protect you.

Posted on: Oct 29, 2010 at 07:01 PM

Mike   This action is very short-sighted by Director Fitzgerald. The ratio of questioned cost to dollars examined on the smaller dollar pricing actions is generally greater than the larger dollars especially the fixed price effort. These are generally smaller, less experienced contractors that do not have adequate pricing systems in place and are not knowledgeable of the FAR and CAS. Last month my office issued a report on a FFP $8 million proposal. We questioned half of the proposed amount ($4 million) because the contractor charged all indirect costs to the Government contract and none to its commercial customers. Reason, the commercial customer would not pay for the indirect costs, but they tried to get the Government to pay it. The CO sustained 100% and reduced the negotiated price accordingly. DCMA does not know contractor accounting records at the level of detail as DCAA and would not have had this finding in their price evaluation. Result, $4 million down the drain. POGO stay with this one, it has scandle written all over it.

Posted on: Oct 29, 2010 at 06:10 PM

Frank   It is an impairment to DCAA's independence for the Pentagon to dictate the audits that DCAA will perform. If there is a risk such as an inadequate estimating system, history of overbillings, or even fraud referrals, DCAA should be able to perform the pricing audits. This is just the Pentagon's way of reducing the oversight of contractors. DCMA is not equipped to handle the significant workload associated with pre-award pricing effort on cost-type contracts under $100 million and fixed-price under $10 million.

Posted on: Oct 29, 2010 at 0 http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/10/declining-dcaa-role-in-oversight-of-tens-of-billions-of-pentagon-contract-dollars.html6:02 PM

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/10/declining-dcaa-role-in-oversight-of-tens-of-billions-of-pentagon-contract-dollars.html

 

Oversight of Contracts Worth Billions and Billions is Broken

This is another article sent to me today.  Thank you reader!  GFS

 

G. Florence-

 

The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is broken.  The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is broken.  And the Defense Security Service (DSS) is broken.  It looks like the entire contracting and security oversight of defense contractors is broken.

 

 

An Old Navy Man

 

 

POGO

Pentagon Radically Reducing Oversight of Contracts Worth Tens of Billions

October 29, 2010  Nick Schwellenbach

The Pentagon has radically decreased the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s (DCAA) review of contracts, according to an October 18 DCAA memo obtained by POGO. DCAA’s job is to protect taxpayers from contractor overbilling.

“POGO has long feared contractors and their government allies would block DCAA from exposing contractor ripoffs,” said Nick Schwellenbach, POGO’s director of investigations.  “Why are billions of dollars being put at risk when Secretary Gates is demanding cost savings?”

According to the memo, contracting guidance “now limits contracting officer requests for audit services to Fixed-price proposals over $10 million and Cost-Type proposals over $100 million, unless there are exceptional circumstances.”

These audit services are reviews of cost data (referred to as “reviews”) and they entail an examination of a contractor’s cost proposal to the government.  In these proposals, contractors estimate how much it will cost them to accomplish work on a contract.

Previously, there was no dollar threshold for reviews on fixed-price contract proposals, but contracting officers would limit requests for DCAA reviews of proposals over a threshold tied to the submission of cost or pricing data, which is currently $700,000. The old threshold for reviews of cost-type proposals was $10 million, but could be lower if the contractor has systemic problems estimating costs.

In FY 2009, a total of at least $92 billion in Defense Department contracts fell between the old thresholds and the new ones, according to USAspending.gov.  The $92 billion figure is a conservative estimate – it reflects awarded and funded contracts, rather than contract proposals, which are often higher than the funded contract award amounts.

The guidance states that cost proposals below the new dollar thresholds for review may be sent instead to the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). DCMA is typically less thorough than DCAA, according to a 2009 Wartime Contracting Commission report.  The DCMA also does not specialize in examining and verifying cost and pricing data.

The reason for this new restriction is DCAA’s attempt to perfectly comply with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). With this standard, which requires meticulous documentation of findings, DCAA is unable to cover as much ground as they used to, thus the need to restrict “audits” as defined by GAGAS.  The number of DCAA reports produced annually has plunged: 33,801 in FY 2007 to 30,352 in FY 2008 to 21,276 reports in FY 2009.

Rather than subjecting reviews of cost or pricing data to GAGAS, DCAA should consider these reviews as financial advisory services, which are not subject to all GAGAS requirements.  This would better protect taxpayers and warfighters by allowing DCAA to review cost data and deliver advice to contracting officers in a timely fashion.

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. POGO's investigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/contract-oversight/co-ca-20101029.html

 

Congress, Corruption, Cover-ups and Government Oversight Agencies Gone Wild

A reader sent this to me today and asked to remain anonymous when it posted.  Thank you to the reader who took the time to write this thoughtful comment.  Here it is.   GFS

Has anyone considered the DSS mad-dash to become an "Intelligence Agency" might have been a desperate attempt to hide from any oversight? As an Intelligence agency, they would not have to answer to any inspectors, DOD/IG, GAO or even Congress. Their years of incompetence, mismanagement and looking the other way while Defense contractors compromised our nation's most classified technologies would be safe from accountability.

Why would they do this? As an example, simply look at the former DSS upper management personnel who have garnered for themselves high paying positions within industry after leaving Government service.

Look back to the Boeing Tanker scandal, Senator McCain publicly asked for a list of all formerly high placed government employees who retired and went to work for DOD contractors. Senator McCain is/was a very influential Senator, yet no such list was ever forthcoming to the public and after losing the Tanker contract, Boeing pulled a Senator or two and a couple of Congressmen/women out of a hat and hocus-pocus, Boeing is back in the Tanker business.

This is just one example of what is going on within DSS and most other agencies; DSS looks the other way, Senators and Congressmen look the other way and God help anyone stupid enough to report security violations, retaliations here we come!  No one wants to address the fraud waste and abuse that is taking over our whole government; why fall on your sword and ruin your career when nothing will change.

I have found with association with others as well as my own personal involvement,  that a great many major security violations and classified technology compromises that we reported, were either dismissed by upper management types who were more loyal to Industry than to the government or dismissed as not an issue, by hiding behind the claim, "National Secrets", and thereby not having to explain anything to anyone with no further comment.  Or the problems we reported were  just plain covered up by agencies such as DSS, Navy, DCIS, NCIS and others. This is the norm in today's Government upper management - no ethics, and no honor.

If it were not so sad a state of affairs in our government, you could laugh at those who are asking Congressmen/women and Senators to pass Whistle blower protections for those who report Fraud, Waste and Abuse.

Think about this; they are asking for Congressmen/women and Senators to provide protections for those who report criminal acts committed by those very same members of Congress, and therein is the reason why agencies such as DSS, Navy, DCIS, NCIS, etc do not fear having to be held accountable for their actions. Our Congressional Representatives don't want to be thrown under the bus or in some cases, disrupt the production of the campaign cash cow. 

-Anonymous Guest Blogger

Change is not really Change at Defense Security Service

I received a follow up comment from "An Old Navy Man" today.  He states:

"I guess Lawhorn will have to share underwear with Cole and Hellman now.  The Beltway rumor is that Vince Taylor was encouraged to move on."

 

Original Post - story

GFS,  

 

There’s an old Navy story about a ship’s Captain who inspected his sailors.  Afterward he told the first mate that his men smelled bad.  Perhaps it would help if the sailors would change underwear occasionally.  The first mate responded “Aye, aye sir, I’ll see to it immediately!”

 

The first mate went straight to the sailor’s berth and announced, “The Captain thinks you guys smell bad and wants you to change your underwear.”  The first mate continued, “Watson, you change with Sterling.”  “Taylor you change with Cole.”  “Lawhorn you change with Hellmann.”

 

The moral of the story-   someone may come along and promise change, but don’t count on things smelling any better.

 

It’s time for the Office of the Secretary of Defense to hand the Industrial Security mission back to the Government Contracting Authorities.

 

From an old Navy man

 

 

 

 

Watson Announces Departure From DSS Director Position

I hear from my beltway sources that today, Kathleen (Kathy) Watson announced that she was leaving as Director of Defense Security Service.  I understand she did not announce what her next endeavor would be.  Those that are curious about such things should be watching closely.  There has been a pattern of people leaving DSS and taking lucrative defense contractor jobs with contractors that have been “overseen” by DSS. 

 

I hope the Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office is paying attention and will continue to investigate such things and keep an eye on where she goes and under what sort of agreement. 

 

And by the way, someone should also be looking closely at Richard Lawhorn, who has been very skillful I hear at keeping himself below the radar, with plausible deniability.  Directors have come and gone; Lawhorn has remained. 

National Security Whistleblowers Still Need Protection

This article by Shanna Devine is excellently written and right spot on.  This is exactly what federal employees, in fact a growing number of federal employees, have been experiencing.  Few ever seem to get real justice and are made whole again. 

One huge problem is security classification creep.  I am referring to when certain people purposefully misclassify something in order to hide it, as they know it will get them into trouble or mess up their business practices if it is discovered.  They try to keep these things secret by putting them behind the curtain.  During the past decade, it seems many with authority to affect this kind of behind the scenes change in policy were using the claim of “National Security” to hide many things, including illegal activities committed by themselves, their cronies in the government, or their cronies in industry, including defense contractors.  (Sometimes the wrongdoing was done in collusion between all of them.)  This has corrupted the whole meaning and implementation of  “classified.”  While there are things that truly are classified for good reason and are necessary to keep out of public view for real and legitimate national security concerns, there are many things which have been abominations which need to be identified and formally outted, taking the greedy and unethical wrongdoers who used such improper classifying of these things to hide theft, fraud, bribery, etc. into custody and begin prosecution.  GFS

 

*******

 

The Birmingham News - Congress Should Protect National Security Whistleblowers

The following op-ed was written by GAP Legislative Officer Shanna Devine and was published in Alice Echo News (TX), Daily Sun News (WA), and Madison Capital Times.

What makes America safe? This fundamental question lays at the heart of current Congressional debate over whether national security employees who expose wrongdoing should have the right to fight against retaliation.

Some in Congress believe that protecting national security whistleblowers translates to an eventual dangerous dissemination of classified information. This is fear mongering. The efforts of past intelligence whistleblowers have increased our safety when government managers are missing in action.

If you look at these employees who have been fired or harassed, you do not find people who sought to reveal state secrets. Instead, you meet patriots trying to do their jobs protecting the public by acting as professionals, not bureaucrats.

Richard Barlow had a distinguished CIA career, where he helped the agency find and convict two agents in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons development department. Subsequently, he joined the Office of Nonproliferation in the Department of Defense (DoD). In 1989, Barlow then learned that his bosses were misleading Congress by failing to disclose that the planned sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan could potentially help that country deliver nuclear bombs. When he raised those concerns within his agency, he was stripped of his security clearance and labeled a risk. A DoD investigation exonerated him as a threat, but the Pentagon never reinstated his security clearance – successfully destroying his career without any independent appeal rights. Barlow did all he could to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, keep Congress informed, and make the world a safer place. And how was he thanked? To this day he has been denied government pension or health insurance. Pakistan now has its nuclear weapons, but Barlow has yet to get his vindication.

In 2006, 30-year Air Force mechanic George Sarris followed what government posters said was his duty – to contact the Inspector General about bureaucratic misconduct. He challenged maintenance breakdowns for American reconnaissance aircraft over Afghanistan and Iraq. One real risk were potential in-flight fires, caused by not replacing fuel hoses 15 years past expiration. In response, the Air Force IG accused him of committing a crime by “stealing” evidence which they initially demanded he produce to prove his charges. The IG put Sarris under criminal investigation, stripping all job duties by suspending his security clearance. Reassigned to the employee break room, his job was to fill space as an example to others.

Franz Gayl, a retired Marine major, is a civilian Marine Corps Science and Technology Advisor. In 2006, he served in Iraq, where he witnessed over 700 combat fatalities caused by an 18-month delay in providing armored vehicles that withstand roadside bombs. Gayl’s whistleblowing to Congress led to delivery of the mine resistant vehicles, and the unnecessary fatalities ended. However, Marine officials suspended Gayl, took away his key job duties, denied him further training, and placed him under criminal investigation.

These stories, and numerous others, are not just tragedies for the whistleblowers involved. They send a powerful signal to all national security employees: Keep your head down. If you see anything wrong, keep it to yourself.

The climate of fear within our national security agencies is the biggest threat to our national security. As noted FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley observed: “Bureaucratic breakdowns and needless disasters keep recurring, in huge part, because government whistleblowers have been silenced.”

We will never be safe until national security whistleblowers can tell the truth. That cannot happen until Congress gives them normal rights against retaliation, a reform stalled since last year by secret procedural holds that haven’t even been challenged. It is time for the politicians to get serious about protecting those who protect us.

Shanna Devine is Legislative Officer for the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization based in Washington, D.C.

Whistleblowers Speak Up at the National Press Conference

This came from a group I belong to earlier this week.  I post it here for all to read.  If you are interested in joining the group, it is Whistleblower 411 on Yahoo. 

GFS

 

Whistleblowers give shocking testimony at the national press conference in Washington, D.C.

On July 19, 2010, at a press conference held at the National Press Club, major government "Watch Dog" organizations, Whistleblower protection organizations, and numerous Whistleblowers came together in support of a new direction for the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).   Some of the organizations in attendance were: The National Federation of Federal Government Employees (NFFE); The National Whistleblower Center; U.S. Justice Watch, the Federal Ethics Center and The Government Accountability Project (GAP).   OSC is the primary governmental agency tasked with the protection of our most important watchdogs on the front lines of our national security, government employees and the military.

 

The press conference, sponsored by U.S. Justice Watch ( www.USJUSTICEWATCH.com) ,  brought these organizations together to support and endorse Attorney Dave Nolan for Special Counsel and  government Whistleblower Darlene F. Price as his Deputy.   Nolan would replace the former Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch.  Scott Bloch's criminal sentence hearing is scheduled for July 23rd.  Although Bloch plead guilty only to withholding information from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he was also accused by many of retaliating against his own agency employees and failing to protect federal Whistleblowers. 

 

During the press conference several Whistleblowers had an opportunity to tell their amazing yet most disturbing stories in order to demonstrate how the ineffectiveness of OSC has brought real harm to citizens, and why OSC is so important.  Some of this testimony was not only shocking, but heart-wrenching as well.

 

The most compelling was the testimony of  Gary Vander Boegh.  Mr. Vander Boegh was a contract engineer at the Paducah, Kentucky Gaseous Diffusion Plant for many years.  He and his boss were "conveniently" fired after he began to report serious environmental crimes of  improper/illegal dumping  of radiological (enriched uranium), hazardous waste in Western Kentucky.  Mr. Vander Boegh alleged that these crimes have been going on for years and continue to be "covered up" by numerous government officials with the Department of Energy (DOE), KY Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Ed Whitfield - just to name a few.

 

This illegal dumping has contaminated not only the ground in the surrounding area of Paducah, KY, but has also involved releasing hazardous radiological gases into the air where it has the potential to spread as far as the wind may take it.  This cover-up has led to widespread cancer clusters in the surrounding area, and currently endangers the tri-state area of KY, ILL, and OH.  To view this terrifying testimony go to:www.USJUSTICEWATCH.com.

 

Also videotaped at the press conference was the heart wrenching story of Jim Faller, founder of U.S. Justice Watch.  Mr. Faller described being wrongfully held in custody without a trial by corrupt federal agents and prosecutors. This happened after he exposed that government officials were allowing large amounts of money to be funneled to the terrorist organization PPK, a Marxist-Leninist Radical Islamic, TERRORIST group of Kurds trying to establish an independent Kurdish state in Eastern Turkey.  You may view his Presentation also at: www.USJUSTICEWATCH.com.

 

Statements (oral and written) from the following Whistleblowers were also submitted in support of Attorney Dave Nolan's nomination:

 

Joe Carson, licensed Professional Engineer, Facility Representative - safety inspector, Department of Energy (DOE), Oak Ridge, TN.

 

Darlene Fitzgerald Price, Former Special Agent and Author: "BorderGate, the story the government doesn't want you to read."

 

Former FBI Agent and Time Magazine's person of the year, Coleen Rowley

 

Carol Czardowski, former Department of the Navy employee

 

Sandy Nunn, former Special Agent, U.S. Customs Service.

 

Mark Danielson, former Department of Energy, Special Response Team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

 

Larry Fisher, Founder, National Accountant Whistleblower Coalition, http://www.nawbc.com

 

Environmental Protection Agency Staff Accountant, GS-14

 

 

 

Janet Howard, former Department of Commerce employee and Whistleblower who reported the commercial airliner that flew by the Capitol on 9-11, just above tree level. Designated as the "Class Agent" for all Department of Commerce African American Employees.

 

Dorothy Pritchett, DOE, employee, the proposed "Class Agent" for African American Employees at the Dept of Energy Headquarters, who reported illegalities by a first cousin of a powerful U.S. Senator.

 

Joseph Santos, Former DOE intern, who was denied the promise tuition assistance and terminated after he blew the whistle on the same powerful U.S. Senator mentioned above.

 

Caroline E. Williams, Former DOE Headquarters employee, terminated after reporting financial irregularities of the very same first cousin of a powerful U.S. Senator mentioned above.

 

For more information regarding this press conference please feel free to contact:

 

Jim Faller at: www.USJUSTICEWATCH.com

 

Darlene Fitzgerald Price at: (606) 310-0078

 

Attorney Dave Nolan at: (703) 780-1864

BISS Whistleblower's Letter to Hillary Clinton

With Mr. Petersen's permission, I have posted the letter below that he wrote asking help from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, while he experienced unlawful detainment by BIS/Boeing in Saudi Arabia and was not allowed to leave to seek medical treatment in the United States.  Apparently there are a number of people, both U.S citizens and citizens of other nations, who have been experiencing such treatment.  This is an outrage.  Defininitive action must be taken by the U.S. government, concerning this unlawful behavior by Boeing/BISS and what appears to be an involved Saudi government.  Accepting employment with Boeing/BISS and working in the Middle East should not be tantamount to signing away one's rights and becoming a slave or political prisoner.    GFS

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

To all;

I have sent the following email to the U.S. State Department as they allow only seven days in which to respond to their email.

 

Rob

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Subject: RE: Boeing Company Violating Human Rights [Incident: 100604-000108]

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:04:54 +0000

Dear Sir/Madam;

 

Thank you for your email.  I am responding because you stated that I have seven (7) days to reopen this matter should I not feel it has been resolved.  I do not feel it has been properly resolved.  My point in this matter is that the Boeing Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Boeing International Support Systems have engaged in U.S. Passport confiscation, false imprisonment, failure to provide for the safety and wellbeing of its employees and other fraudulent activities.  They have defrauded the Saudi Government through over billing (claiming to have more employees working for them than actual) and in providing substandard flight training and unsafe aircraft maintenance.  They are a U.S. Contactor and as such are required to meet certain ethical, professional and legal standards in accordance with the Technical Assistance Agreements established through our U.S. State Department.  They have not met those standards and should be held accountable for violating such agreements. 

 

I and others, including people from other nations were held against our will and were not allowed to return to our countries of origin when requests were made in writing to Boeing managers.  Many were forced to sign liability releases before being paid, having their passports returned, and being provided with an "Exit Visa" in which to leave the country of Saudi Arabia.  Although, this information was reported first to the U.S. State Department in June of 2009, via the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (please find attached letter dated June 3, 2009) and then to the FBI in December of 2009 to my knowledge, no investigation has ever been initiated by either agency. 

 

You should know that I recently sent a letter to President Obama dated June 16, 2010 asking that he please have someone contact the Phoenix, FBI on my behalf to inquire as to why they did not initiate an investigation of some sort for what I believe are criminal violations of U.S. Law.

 

Thank you for taking the time to review this information and please reopen this investigation [Incident: 100604-000108].

 

Sincerely,

 

 

s/ Robin Petersen

 

> From: [email protected]

> To: [email protected]

> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:40:20 -0400

> Subject: Boeing Company Violating Human Rights [Incident: 100604-000108]

>

>

> Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support

> center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

>

> If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it

> within the next 7 days.

>

> Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

>

> Subject

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> Boeing Company Violating Human Rights

>

>

> Discussion Thread

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> Response (Support Agent) - 06/18/2010 10:40 AM

> Thank you for your message to Secretary Clinton sharing your thoughts and concerns. We value your opinion and will take it -- and the views of all Americans -- into consideration.

>

> Secretary Clinton is committed to strengthening America’s national security, advancing the interest of the United States, and restoring America’s leadership position in the world.

>

> Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of State.

>

>

> Question Reference #100604-000108

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> Category Level 1: Ask the State Department

> Date Created: 06/04/2010 12:06 PM

> Last Updated: 06/18/2010 10:40 AM

> Status: Solved

> [---001:001003:23410---]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robin P. Petersen

Apartment NC8-10D

Saudi City, Jeddah

Saudi Arabia

Email [email protected]  Phone # 966 (0) 56 650-7815

  June 3, 2009

US State Department

The Honorable Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State

Washington DC

USA 

Subj:  Withholding of US Passports 

Dear Mrs. Clinton; 

I am writing you this letter to request your assistance.  I am a US Citizen / Retired Veteran and have been injured in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.   I need to return to the United States for medical care.   

Although I have requested the return of my US Passport, the managers of the Boeing International Support Systems / Alsalam Aircraft Company will not return the passport to me nor will they provide me with an exit visa to leave this country. 

I have enclosed a copy of a letter that was written to the Boeing C.E.O. dated June 2, 2009 for your review.  Please help me. 

Thank you, 
 

Robin P. Petersen 
 

Encl:  letter dated June 2, 2009 to the Boeing Company CEO