Comments on: Chief Investigator Says Justice Department Is Blocking Probe Into Fired Prosecutors http://www.OSCwatch.org/blog/2008/01/30/chief-investigator-says-justice-department-is-blocking-probe-into-fired-prosecutors/ The objectives of OSC Watch are to expose US Office of Special Counsel lawbreaking since 1989 in failing to protect, as required by 5 USC 1214, the 10,000 or more federal employees who sought its protection from prohibited personnel practices (PPP’s) - not limited to whistleblower reprisal type PPP, but including the 11 (of 12) types of PPP for which OSC has jurisdiction - particularly the 3000 or so who subsequently filed whistleblower appeals at MSPB; along with MSPB’s enabling lawbreaking failure since 1989, per 5 USC 1204, to conduct oversight of OSC’s compliance with 5 USC 1214; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:37:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: MediaGirl http://www.OSCwatch.org/blog/2008/01/30/chief-investigator-says-justice-department-is-blocking-probe-into-fired-prosecutors/#comment-16 MediaGirl Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:54:59 +0000 http://www.OSCwatch.org/blog/2008/01/30/chief-investigator-says-justice-department-is-blocking-probe-into-fired-prosecutors/#comment-16 Joe Carson, on January 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm Said: To: Whom It May Concern From: Joe Carson, PE, , netmultiple-time prevailing whistleblower in Dept. of Energy , petitioner in multiple cases against US Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Knoxville, TN 865-300-5831 Subject: Special Counsel Scott Bloch letter to AG Mukasey (attached) and LA Times Story of January 29, 2008 I am a co-founder of OSC Watch , which has 3 objectives: 1) expose how the OSC, since 1989, has failed to comply with its primary statutory duty - to protect federal employees from prohibited personal practices (PPP’s), 2) stop OSC’s lawbreaking, and 3) obtain a measure of justice and restoration for the 10,000 or more loyal, patriotic, federal employees, who sought OSC’s protection from PPP’s since 1989 and failed to obtain the protection OSC is required to provide. The members of the OSC Watch Steering Committee are nearing completion of a petition to Congress to conduct oversight of OSC focused on OSC Watch’s concerns about systemic and persistent OSC lawbreaking. I am also a party to a number of legal actions against OSC, alleging a number of aspects and instances of OSC’s failure to comply with relevant law to protect federal employees from PPP’s or report the results of investigations it conducts per 1216. In those cases, it is an assistant United States Attorney who represents OSC against my claims of OSC’s failures to protect federal employees, including United States attorneys, against PPP’s. Had OSC complied with its statutory duties to protect federal employees from PPP since 1989, I think that the Department of Justice, as other federal agencies, particularly the Department of Energy, would be much different places and I think national tragedies, such as 9/11, failure of levees in New Orleans, loss of space shuttle Columbia, might have been averted and the Department of Justice would be much more resistant to being used as a political spoil. A trial court decision in one of those cases, finding significant OSC non-compliance with aspects of it statutory duties to protect me, is attached. My comments are Special Counsel Bloch’s letter to AG Mukasey are focused on its first two pages about OSC’s PPP investigations (conducted per 1214) and the Hatch Act and 1216(a)(4) investigations at DOJ. 1. Special Counsel Bloch’s legal claims about his jurisdiction to investigate violations of law under OSC’s jurisdiction by DOJ are correct, as far as he goes. But he fails to state what his fundamental statutory duty is to the DOJ employee(s) who filed PPP complaints with OSC - to investigate the PPP complaint, to determine the whether “there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken,” and appropriately report that PPP determination. If OSC makes a positive PPP determination, it must report it to AG Mukasey per 1214(e), to enable AG Mukasey to comply with his statutory obligation to “prevent PPP’s” in DOJ, per 5 USC 2302(c). That is where OSC’s statutory duties end, it has complete discretion as a prosecutorial agency about formally seeking corrective action or disciplinary action as a result of his PPP investigations. Mr. Bloch’s five year tenure at Special Counsel will end, coincidentally, in January 2009, his claims about the end of the current administration are disingenuous, it is his statutory 5 year tenure ending that is more relevant. 2) Special Counsel Bloch fails to mention that he has subpoena power over DOJ to execute his legal jurisdiction over it, as described at 5 USC 1212(b). He apparently has not subpoenaed DOJ for information to this point. If he issues subpoenas DOJ for documents, depositions, or responses to interrogatories and DOJ does not comply with OSC’s subpoena, OSC can request the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to seek an order from Federal District Court to enforce it. MSPB would use its attorneys, not DOJ ones, in such an action. I suggest the following questions for OSC: 1) How many PPP complaints, alleging how many specific PPP’s, has it received from DOJ employees since 2001? 2) How many times has OSC determined “there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken,” as a result of its investigations of these PPP complaints? 3) For each positive PPP determination, where is the public record of its determination, its transmittal of that determination to DOJ, and the Attorney General Certified DOJ response, as required by 5 USC 1214(e) and 1219(a)(3)? 4) Why has OSC not subpoenaed DOJ to provide the information OSC needs to conduct its ongoing PPP investigations? Joe Carson, on January 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm Said:

To: Whom It May Concern

From: Joe Carson, PE, , netmultiple-time prevailing whistleblower in Dept. of Energy , petitioner in multiple cases against US Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Knoxville, TN 865-300-5831

Subject: Special Counsel Scott Bloch letter to AG Mukasey (attached) and LA Times Story of January 29, 2008

I am a co-founder of OSC Watch , which has 3 objectives: 1) expose how the OSC, since 1989, has failed to comply with its primary statutory duty - to protect federal employees from prohibited personal practices (PPP’s), 2) stop OSC’s lawbreaking, and 3) obtain a measure of justice and restoration for the 10,000 or more loyal, patriotic, federal employees, who sought OSC’s protection from PPP’s since 1989 and failed to obtain the protection OSC is required to provide. The members of the OSC Watch Steering Committee are nearing completion of a petition to Congress to conduct oversight of OSC focused on OSC Watch’s concerns about systemic and persistent OSC lawbreaking.

I am also a party to a number of legal actions against OSC, alleging a number of aspects and instances of OSC’s failure to comply with relevant law to protect federal employees from PPP’s or report the results of investigations it conducts per 1216. In those cases, it is an assistant United States Attorney who represents OSC against my claims of OSC’s failures to protect federal employees, including United States attorneys, against PPP’s. Had OSC complied with its statutory duties to protect federal employees from PPP since 1989, I think that the Department of Justice, as other federal agencies, particularly the Department of Energy, would be much different places and I think national tragedies, such as 9/11, failure of levees in New Orleans, loss of space shuttle Columbia, might have been averted and the Department of Justice would be much more resistant to being used as a political spoil. A trial court decision in one of those cases, finding significant OSC non-compliance with aspects of it statutory duties to protect me, is attached.

My comments are Special Counsel Bloch’s letter to AG Mukasey are focused on its first two pages about OSC’s PPP investigations (conducted per 1214) and the Hatch Act and 1216(a)(4) investigations at DOJ.

1. Special Counsel Bloch’s legal claims about his jurisdiction to investigate violations of law under OSC’s jurisdiction by DOJ are correct, as far as he goes. But he fails to state what his fundamental statutory duty is to the DOJ employee(s) who filed PPP complaints with OSC - to investigate the PPP complaint, to determine the whether “there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken,” and appropriately report that PPP determination. If OSC makes a positive PPP determination, it must report it to AG Mukasey per 1214(e), to enable AG Mukasey to comply with his statutory obligation to “prevent PPP’s” in DOJ, per 5 USC 2302(c). That is where OSC’s statutory duties end, it has complete discretion as a prosecutorial agency about formally seeking corrective action or disciplinary action as a result of his PPP investigations. Mr. Bloch’s five year tenure at Special Counsel will end, coincidentally, in January 2009, his claims about the end of the current administration are disingenuous, it is his statutory 5 year tenure ending that is more relevant.

2) Special Counsel Bloch fails to mention that he has subpoena power over DOJ to execute his legal jurisdiction over it, as described at 5 USC 1212(b). He apparently has not subpoenaed DOJ for information to this point. If he issues subpoenas DOJ for documents, depositions, or responses to interrogatories and DOJ does not comply with OSC’s subpoena, OSC can request the US Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to seek an order from Federal District Court to enforce it. MSPB would use its attorneys, not DOJ ones, in such an action.

I suggest the following questions for OSC:

1) How many PPP complaints, alleging how many specific PPP’s, has it received from DOJ employees since 2001?

2) How many times has OSC determined “there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP has occurred, exists, or is to be taken,” as a result of its investigations of these PPP complaints?

3) For each positive PPP determination, where is the public record of its determination, its transmittal of that determination to DOJ, and the Attorney General Certified DOJ response, as required by 5 USC 1214(e) and 1219(a)(3)?

4) Why has OSC not subpoenaed DOJ to provide the information OSC needs to conduct its ongoing PPP investigations?

]]>