The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
1333 H Street, N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

RE:  RESPONSE TO ELAINE KAPLAN AND TIM HANNAPEL’S ISSUE BRIEF

Dear ACS Executive Director Lisa Brown:

My name is Douglas Kinan.  I am an officer of the court - an Assistant Register with the Massachusetts Trial Court.

Respectfully, please be assured that my request is focused on conduct, the facts and the official record  - not on any specific individual and certainly not the “government.”

The government actually works when responsible individuals follow the rule of law, live up to their oath and a basic moral code to not make life horrible for others because they can.

In accordance with the ACS’s mission statement and the promotion of “access to justice, democracy and the rule of law,” please accept and incorporate my good faith response and my affidavit into the record concerning Kaplan and Hannapel’s, issue brief: “Reinvigorating the U.S. Office of Special Counsel:  Suggestions for the next Administration.”

Based on my direct and independent knowledge, Kaplan and Hannapel’s words are just that - only words.  Put to the test, Kaplan and Hannapel failed and/or refused to apply and enforce the OSC’s mandate.

As so many can testify, when Kaplan had the opportunity and sworn obligation to do “good and important stuff,” uphold the law, “serve the needs of its people” and enforce the mandate of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), their conduct, actions and behavior were pathetic at best and criminal at worst.  Harsh comments?  Of course not.

Notwithstanding the heinous and violent acts against women (and their children,) in their proper context and perspective, anyone willing to make a conscious decision to do nothing concerning a retaliatory pattern and practice of framing innocent whistleblowers and complainants, designed to strip them (and their families) of a livelihood, career and full pension is about the lowest act you can do.

As a former DoD employee, beginning approximately June 1998, I conscientiously and repeatedly requested that Kaplan, who was at the helm of the OSC, conduct an investigation concerning prohibited personnel practices (PPP) at the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMAE), Boston, Massachusetts, including the DCMAE’s insistence on targeting, framing, prosecuting and punishing innocent whistleblowers and complainants.  Kaplan had the power and the authority to do “a lot of really good and important stuff.”  Accordingly, Kaplan did not have the right to remain silent and allow innocent individuals to suffer.

Concerning the frame-ups and my opposition to such conduct as it was happening, the DCMAE’s Chief Counsel boasted, “We (the Legal Directorate) can do anything we want. It’s called gaming. We can deny, we can delay…dismiss. We can manipulate the system any way we want.”

Aside from the plain language mandating an OSC investigation, by operation and rule of law, Kaplan knew or should have known that in accordance with 18 USC 4:  “Whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both.”

And 18 USC 2(a),  “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission is punished as a principal.”  (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punished as a principal.”

My requests to Kaplan concerning the “good and important stuff” she talks about in her issue brief and the “rule of law” were ignored, which allowed the DCMAE to continue with a verified criminal enterprise, subsidized by millions of taxpayer dollars.  No investigation occurred.

Kaplan’s successor, Scott J. Bloch emulated Kaplan’s conduct and dismissed my reporting regarding the DCMAE’s continuing PPP’s, including the current, in-progress frame up (one of many) of DCMAE whistleblower, Ken Pedeleose.

Malfeasance, secrecy, silence, denial and cover up must be infectious at the OSC.  Acting Director, William Reukauf’s disregard for the rule of law is plain to see by his conduct and decision in the PPP concerning Pedeleose’s retaliatory frame up.  He refuses to investigate the DCMAE’s continuing pattern and practice of PPP’s.

On October 27, 2008, Reukauf sent agency spokesman, Anthony Guglielmi, out to publicly declare, “OSC thrived despite the investigation of Bloch and the office would continue ‘business as usual’ during the transition to new leadership.”  Guglielmi added, “Through it all, this office has never stopped doing its job.  In fact, they are doing it better than ever.”

Does “business as usual” mean Reukauf can make a conscious decision, with specific intent to ignore Pedeleose’s frame up, which makes him a relevant and willing participant?

Senator Grassley’s letter to Reukauf dated September 16, 2003 talks about the “serious problems at OSC,” which still have not been resolved.

And Reukauf’s two-paragraph letter dated October 20, 2008, denying whistleblower, Carol Czarkowski’s “Request for Reconsideration” in OSC File No. MA-99-1884 & MA-00-1346, concerning the verified retaliation against her is a decision, which contradicts his mandated responsibility and suffocates Czarkowski’s administrative remedy, to which she is entitled.

Reukauf operated with no shame, no fear and no conscience when he disingenuously writes:  “Accordingly, your request for reconsideration is denied and there is no further appeal available to you within the Office of Special Counsel.”  Reukauf offered no explanation for ignoring OSC’s mandate, his denial and provided no appeal rights information to Czarkowski.

It’s fairly obvious that Reukauf does not abide by the rules or the laws either.  The facts are the facts and the record is the record.  Should the public believe the facts and the evidence, corroborated by the official record, or take Reukauf’s word?

Back to Pedeleose.  Pedeleose’s retaliatory frame up is not based on a hunch or conjecture.  By being a DoD whistleblower, according to DoD estimates Pedeleose saved the government $34 million. Pending OPM’s fraudulent and frivolous appeal, on March 31, 2008, his peers voted Pedeleose as, “Employee of the Year - 2007.”

In exchange for Pedeleose’s exemplary government service, he earned a bull’s-eye on his back and successfully fought false charges, a rigged investigation, felony perjury by a DCMAE witness and prosecutorial misconduct by DCMAE attorneys - the standard DCMAE modus operandi against whistleblowers.

Pedeleose’s unwarranted and unjust ordeal is not over.  He is now contending with OPM’s fraudulent and frivolous appeal to overturn a favorable adjudication by the United States Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dated October 24, 2007, (Docket No. AT-0752-06-0350-I-1.)  Prima facie evidence to prove the appeal to be frivolous and fraudulent lies in the fact that the appeal does not explain the DCMAE’s rigged investigation, and perjured testimony by the DCMAE witnesses against Pedeleose.

I do not know Pedeleose or Czarkowski and I have never met them.  However, someone in government and/or law enforcement needs to lend dignity to the facts and the verified record to end the DCMAE’s criminal enterprise.  Strangely, my reporting seems to be more offensive than the conduct I report and has been met with silence.

The public needs to have some assurance those whistleblower disclosures and other PPP’s will be accorded due process and investigated on the merits - not denied based on back-room dealing, fraternity, collusion, evasion or other reasons.

Despite two phone messages and three email requests for comment from Kaplan and Hannabel, two requests were met with silence and my third email request was blocked by Kaplan’s firewall.

Thank you for your time.  I hope the ACS will consider my request.

Sincerely,

Douglas Kinan

cc:  John D. Podesta - Obama Transition Team
Relevent Bar Associations

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or check out our talk-back forum. Thanks for your support!

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pm and is filed under OSC Watch. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.