Amended Perfected Allegations of Wrongdoing – Part II of IV
U.S. Office of Special Counsel: November 2014 to February 2021 - Part 2 "Perfected Allegations"
Specific, perfected allegations
a) OSC RMO Gross Mismanagement and Obstruction of Whistleblower Disclosure (DI-15-1950)
01. On 03 November 2014, I disclosed wrongdoing by DoL and OSHA RMOs to the DoL-OIG, copied to the Regional Office of the OSC, asking for an investigation. The DoL-OIG had been copied on the four letters I earlier sent to DoL Secretary Thomas E. Perez and thus was fully informed about the retaliatory investigation conducted by OSHA Director, David Michaels.
Documents: Letter from D. Whitman to E. Lewis (DOL, OIG), dtd 03 November 2014; and Perfected Allegations of Wrongdoing, Pt I, DoL and OSHA August 2010 to present, attested and dated, 15 November 2024.
02. On 16 January 2015, I disclosed to OSC Special Counsel, Carolyn N. Lerner, detailed allegations of gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, violations of law, rule and regulation, and prohibited personnel practices (PPP) by senior OSHA, DoL, and DoL-OIG RMOs. The WPA required the OSC to conduct a simple 15-day review to determine whether or not the information disclosed a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, and whether it alleged PPP, which it did, and refer it to the OSC investigation unit for a 240-day investigation. [5 U.S.C., 1213 (b)- (c); 5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(a)(1)].
Documents: Ltr from D.L. Whitman to OSC-DU (DI-15-1950) dtd 16 Jan 2015, with receipt; Perfected Allegations of Wrongdoing, Pt I of IV, DoL and OSHA August 2010 to June 2015.
03. On 26 January 2014, the OSC acknowledged receipt of my disclosure, registering it as OSC disclosure (DI-15-1950) but not acknowledging it also was a complaint of PPP. The failure of the OSC to identify the PPP complaint and order an investigation was gross mismanagement and a breach of duty to protect me as a federal whistleblower [5 U.S.C., ⸹1212(a)], and a denial of my Constitutional right to bring a grievance to the federal government [Const. Amend I].
Document: Ltr from C.A. McMullen (OSC-DU) to D. Whitman, dtd 26 Jan 2015,
04. On 14 February 2015, in the context of making my disclosure to the OSC, OSHA issued a Notice of Proposed Removal, threatening to remove me from my employment, a PPP [5 U.S. Code, ⸹2302(b)(8)(B)]. This should have prompted the OSC to intervene and request a stay of the proposed adverse action from the MSPB [5 U.S.C., ⸹1212(a)].
Witnesses: H. Thomas, R. Sax (Union Stewards)
Document: Response to 2015 Notice of Proposed Removal, dtd 18 Mar 2015.
05. On 01 May 2015, OSHA ARA J. Dement confirmed he worked with OSHA RSI J. Paul to gather evidence for my removal by conducting unauthorized surveillance of my private nonwork activities, a serious violation of my Constitutional right to privacy [Const. Amend. IV)] as well as a PPP [5 U.S. Code, ⸹2302(b)(8)(B)(2)].
Witness: H. Thomas (AFGE Steward)
Documents: Email from J. Dement (OSHA) to H. Thomas (AFGE) dtd 01 May 2015; Email from D.L. Whitman to H. Thomas (AFGE) dtd 01 May 2015:
06. On 05 May 2015, OSHA issued me a Notice of Removal, based on OSHA’s 14 February 2015 Notice of Proposed Removal, a PPP [5 U.S. Code, ⸹2302(b)(8)(B)] that should have been prevented by timely OSC action to protect a federal whistleblower from PPP [5 U.S.C., ⸹1212(a)], representing both a breach of statutory duty and violation of my Constitutional right to due process of law [Const. Amend. V]
Document: Notice of Removal from J. Wulff to D. Whitman, dtd 05 May 2015.
07. On 16 June 2015, I disclosed to the OSC I had been removed from my federal employment in the context of my disclosure to the OSC on 16 January 2015, which the OSC should have recognized and prompting an immediate request to the MSPB to stay my removal [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(a)(1)]. The OSC failure to protect a federal employee from PPP was a serious breach of statutory duty [5 U.S.C., ⸹1212(a)], as was the OSC failure to conduct a simple 15-day review of OSC disclosure (DI-15-1950) for 151-days, which facilitated the PPP.
Documents: Email from D. Whitman to J. Land (OSC), dtd 16 Jun 2015 0930AM); Email from J. Pennington (OSC-DU) to D.L. Whitman, dtd 16 Jun 2015 0813PM.
08. From 16 June 2015 to 06 July 2018, a period of 751 days, I had no communications from the OSC regarding its review and findings of disclosure (DI-15-1950), revealing the OSC’s disinterest in the law [5 U.S.C., ⸹1213(b)] and its duty to protect federal whistleblowers from PPP. This gross mismanagement degraded the evidentiary base and enhanced the irreparable harm caused to me by denying my Constitutional due process rights [Const. Amend V].
09. On 27 June 2018, 1,326 days after I disclosed wrongdoing to the OSC, I asked then OSC Special Counsel, Henry J. Kerner, for the status of the substantial likelihood finding for
disclosure (DI-15-1950), noting the history of OSC obstruction of a 15-day review for more than 3.5 years and citing my 26 March 2016 OSC complaint of PPP (MA-16-3007) as amending to my initial OSC disclosure. Specifically, I asked Special Counsel Kerner to, a) complete the OSC "substantial likelihood" review and as an equitable matter b) petition the MSPB to stay my removal as a likely PPP as permitted by statute [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(1)(A)(i)].
Document: Email D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner (OSC) demand for finding dtd 27 Jun 2018 950PM.
10. On 06 July 2018, OSC Special Counsel Kerner responded, issuing a substantial likelihood finding and ordering a 60-day investigation of my disclosure (DI-15-1950) by then DoL Secretary R. Alexander Acosta. But rather than providing DoL Secretary Acosta the information from OSC disclosure (DI-15-1950), required by statute [5 U.S.C., ⸹1213(c)], Special Counsel Kerner substituted a general statement that concealed the allegations of wrongdoing, the reprisal against DoL employees, and the potential culpability of the DoL-OIG, allowing Secretary Acosta to task the investigation to the DoL-OIG and violate WPA statutory requirement that denied Secretary Acosta to delegate an investigation of PPP [5 U.S.C., ⸹7515(c)].
Document: Ltr from H. J. Kerner (OSC) to R.A. Acosta (DoL-OSEC) dtd 06 Jul 2018.
Allegation: OSC Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner Corrupted a Statutorily Mandated Order for Agency Head Investigation of OSC Disclosure (DI-15-1950).
This allegation begins a series of six (6) perfected allegations of wrongdoing by senior federal responsible management officials tasked with protecting federal whistleblowers. They represent serious wrongdoing from gross mismanagement and abuse of authority, to knowing violations of federal criminal law, from falsifying federal documents [18 U.S.C., ⸹1001], to obstructing the federal investigative process [18 U.S.C., ⸹1505], to a conspiracy against rights [18 U.S.C., ⸹241] which emphasis the gravity of what is a culture of corruption that has invaded much of the federal administrative state.
01. Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner’s Order to DoL Secretary R. Alexander Acosta on 06 July 2018 for a 60-day investigation of OSC disclosure (DI-15-1950) was corrupted when Special Counsel Kerner failed to honor the WPA mandate to transmit the information in disclosure (DI-15-1950) to DoL Secretary R. Alexander Acosta which disclosed allegations of wrongdoing by DoL RMOs, including DoL-OIG RMOs, as well as allegations of PPP against DoL employees. Instead, Special Counsel Kerner substituted only general information which concealed these allegations of wrongdoing in violation of both the WPA [5 U.S.C., ⸹2313(c)(1)] and federal criminal law [18 U.S.C., ⸹1001], only asking:
· Whether investigations meet all essential elements of outlined in the WIM.
· Whether investigators receive appropriate resources, training and legal assistance.
· Whether – and if so how – the WIM has been updated since 2015.
· Whether respondents (i.e., employers accused of retaliation) receive more favorable
treatment-including access to information – more access to investigator and leader time and greater credibility in case determinations - than complainants (i.e. employee
whistleblowers); and.
· And whether investigators were pressured to close cases without investigating.
None of these questions were allegations, none of them appeared in the information in disclosure (DI-15-1950), and none of them could be investigated to substantiate or nonstubstantiate or allegations of wrongdoing by RMOs, which Special Counsel Kerner knew as a 20-year former attorney-employee of the DoJ. Further, as is examined in detail with Section H below, Special Counsel Kerner’s violation of law was brought to his attention shortly after his substantial likelihood finding was released, with Special Counsel Kerner refusing to correct the defective Order, and the Order itself was concealed for 28 months, until 03 November 2020 as part of the agency head’s investigative report, all of which points to the corruption of the Order as intentional.
Document: Ltr from H. J. Kerner (OSC) to R.A. Acosta (DoL-OSEC) dtd 06 Jul 2018; Transmittal Letter - DOL to OSC, re: Order for Investigation of DI-15-1950, dtd 03 Nov 2020.
02. On 09 July 2018, OSC attorney K. Tannenbaum, who was assigned as the investigator of PPP complaint (MA-16-3007), notified me Special Counsel had issued a “substantial likelihood” finding for my disclosure (DI-15-1950), but without disclosing its substance. However, the language K. Tannenbaum used closely corresponded to the corrupt language used by SpecialCounsel Kerner in his Order, suggesting K. Tannenbaum was involved in the corruption of the Order.
Document: Ltr from K. Tanenbaum (OSC) to D.L. Whitman, Order for investigation of (DI-15-1950), dtd 09 Jul 2018
03. On 15 July 2018, I advised Special Counsel Kerner his 06 July 2018 Order was defective because it omitted the information from disclosure (DI-15-1950), making it impossible for DoL Secretary Acosta to conduct a proper statutory investigation. I asked Kerner reissue the Order with the proper information from (DI-15-1950), which I identified as containing allegations of violations of law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, waste of government funds, and specific and substantial threat to the public safety and health, as well as specific allegations of PPP by DoL senior officials.
Document: Email from D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner (OSC) dtd 15 Jul 2018 0938PM
04. On 16 July 2018, Special Counsel Kerner responded by directing me to “bring all of the information you include in the numbered paragraphs below to the agency/OIG investigator, once he or she contacts you”, thus continuing the corruption rather than correcting the Order.
Document: Email from H.J. Kerner (OSC) to D.L. Whitman (re Order) dtd 16 Jul 2018 0147PM.
05. On 03 August 2018, DoL-OIG Audit Director, Mark Schwartz reported Special Counsel Kerner’s Order for an investigation of disclosure (DI-15-1950) had been sent to the DoL-OIG, for review not investigation, asking me for “a list of cases where you believe respondents received more favorable treatment than complainants, cases where investigators were pressured to close cases without investigating, and contact information for individuals that can corroborate my “allegations”. Schwartz as a career IG auditor lacked the qualifications of an investigator, and as a member of the DoL-OIG had a conflict of interest in conducting an investigation because disclosure (DI-15-1950) included allegations of wrongdoing by the DoL-OIG. Also, the confusing language he used appeared to be the result of trying to conceal he was conducting an audit.
Document: Email from M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) to D.L. Whitman re referal DI-15-1950 dtd 03 Aug 2018 0409PM
06. On 12 August 2018, I sent DoL-OIG Audit Director M. Schwartz a ten (10) page letter with twenty (20) specific allegations detailing the wrongdoing reported in OSC disclosure (DI-15- 1950), noting this information should have been attached to Special Counsel Kerner’s 06 July 2018 Order for an investigation. I also attached four (4) documents confirming my allegations DoL-OIG wrongdoing in 2014. As a career DoL-OIG auditor, Schwartz was fully aware he did lacked the necessary investigator qualification highlighted in CIGIE Quality Standards for Investigations. Thus, conducting a review/audit in lieu of a statutorily mandated investigation was both an abuse of authority and criminal obstruction of a federal investigation by auditor Schwartz [18 U.S.C. ⸹1505].
Document: Email from D.L. Whitman to M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) dtd 12 Aug 2018 1018PM.
Allegation: Senior responsible management officials in the DoL, OSC, and CIGIE, engaged in a multi-year, interagency obstruction the investigation of OSC Disclosure (DI-15-1950) in violation of federal criminal law.
This section examines how OSC, DoL-OIG, and CIGIE-IC RMOs collaborated to obstruct the statutorily mandated investigation of disclosure (DI-15-1950) to protect wrongdoing by these RMOs, and preferred others – political appointees, corporate officials and NGOs, from accountability. This obstruction of the federal investigative process was directed at degrading the evidentiary base (documents and witness statements) necessary for substantiating or non- substantiating these allegations, which acted to protect those engaged in wrongdoing from accountability.
01. On 09 September 2018, I provided DoL-OIG Audit Director, Mark Schwartz with specific details about allegations of wrongdoing by DoL senior officials corrupting DoL-OSHA WBPP investigations, noting I could offer additional details to an investigation. I also asked if Schwartz would substantiate/nonsubstantiate the allegations made in OSC disclosure (DI-15- 1950). Schwartz answered, “As you are aware, my Office is continuing our review into this matter,” confirming the DoL-OIG was substituting an audit for a mandated investigation in defiance of the WPA [5 U.S.C., ⸹12133(c)].
Document: Email D. Whitman to M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG), dtd 19 Sep 2018 0958 AM; Email M. Swartz to D. Whitman, dtd 24 Sep 2018 0505PM.
02. On 01 October 2018, I disclosed to DoL-IG and Chair of the CIGIE-IC, Scott S. Dahl’s failure to conduct an investigation of disclosure (DI-15-1950) as mandated by the WPA [5 U.S.C., 1213(c)] that also violated the CIGIE Quality Standards for the Conduct of Investigations, demanding DoL-IG Dahl immediately notify the CIGIE-IC and DoL Secretary Acosta of these allegations of an improper referral of the OSC Order for investigation of OSC disclosure (DI-15-1950), which should immediately be reassign to a proper investigator.
Document: Ltr from D.L. Whitman to S.S. Dahl (DoL-OIG) dtd 01 October 2018.
03. On 21 November 2018, I disclosed to multiple senior members of Congress, the Deputy Director of Management & Budget (OMB), the Director U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE), the Chair and Vice-Chair of CIGIE Integrity Committee (CIGIE-IC), and the Chair of the FBI Office of Integrity and Compliance, all of whom occupied positions on the CIGIE-IC, providing a detailed account of the failure of DoL-IG and Chair of the CIGIE-IC Scott S. Dahl to allow the proper investigation of disclosure (DI-15-1950) as mandated by the WPA [5 U.S.C., 1213(c)]. None of these officials responded, raising an inference they approved of the obstruction and multi-year, interagency collaboration to protect senior federal RMOs from accountability for wrongdoing. This disclosure included fifteen (15) documents with perfected allegations and explicitly asked for an investigation by the CIGIE-IC.
Document: Ltr from D.L. Whitman to CIGIE-IC dtd 21 Nov 2018.
04. On 27 November 2018, Deborah Jeffery, CIGIE-IC Vice-Chair appointed by DoL-IG Scott S. Dahl, responded to my 21 November 2018 CIGIE-IC disclosure of wrongdoing by CIGIE-IC Chair Scott S. Dahl, by closing my complaint and falsely arguing it didn’t meet the CIGIE Standards threshold requirement for an investigation.
Document: Ltr from D, Jeffery (CIGIE-IC) to D. Whitman, dtd 27 Nov. 2018; Email from M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) to D.L. Whitman dtd 27 Feb 2019 0521PM.
05. On 17 April 2019, I responded to CIGIE-IC Vice-Chair Deborah Jeffrey’s closure of my CIGIE-IC complaint against CIGIE-IC Chair Scott S. Dahl, disputing the closure as an abuse of authority and providing evidence beyond doubt Scott S. Dahl was violating WPA statutes by substituting an audit for a mandated investigation [5 U.S.C., ⸹1213(c)].
Document: Email from D. Whitman to D. Jefferey (CIGIE-IC), dtd 17 Apr 2019 0555PM
06. The DoL-OIG mismanagement of OSC Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner’s corrupted 60- day Order for a statutorily mandated investigation of disclosure (DI-15-1950) continued for 851 days, during which evidence beyond doubt accumulated the DoL-OIG was knowingly and willfully obstructing the federal investigative process [18 U.S.C., ⸹1505] by redefining the Order as a “review”, which DoL-OIG Audit Director Mark Schwartz did multiple times to me, witness Michael Madry on dtd 24 Apr 2019, witness Aaron Stookey 08 May 2019, to witness Jason Stolarik on 13 May 2019, and to witness Dan Forrand on 20 May 2019.
Further, in a 23 May 2019 letter to Senator Krysten Sinema, DoL IG Scott S. Dahl confirmed he was substituting a review for an investigation, advising, “The DoL-OIG audit director is currently conducting this review,” confirming Dahl was setting the terms for the corruption of the mandated investigation.
Documents: Email from M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) to D.L. Whitman dtd 27 Feb 2019 0521PM; Ltr from D.L. Whitman to M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG), disclosure, dtd 08 Apr 2019; Ltr from M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) to M. Madry dtd 24 Apr 2019 Ltr from M. Madry to M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG), dtd 28 Apr 2019; Email M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) to A. Stookey (witness) dtd 08 May 2019 0132 PM; Email from M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) to M. Madry dtd 09 May 2019 1255AM; Email from J. Stolarik (witness) to M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) re interview dtd 13 May 2019 0834AM; Email from M. Schwartz (DoL-OIG) to D. Forrand dtd 20 May 2019; Ltr from
S.S. Dahl (DoL-IG) to K. Sinema (U.S. Senate) dtd 23 May 2019.
07. Clear and convincing evidence also accumulated of an interagency collaboration to protect wrongdoing by OSC RMOs, the Office of the Secretary of Labor, and the CIGIE-IC, with RMOs in each of these agencies acting to obstruct the federal investigative process:
a. OSC: Multiple disclosures of the corruption of the investigation, providing clear and convincing evidence of DoL-OIG wrongdoing were made to Special Counsel Kerner and copied to senior OSC senior officials on 24 November 2018, 22 April 2019, 01 May 2020, and 28 August 2020. Further, in an email to witness Aaron Stookey, OSC investigator Karen Tanenbaum who was assigned to review disclosure (DI-15-1950) and PPP complaint (MA-16-3007), revealed she had little knowledge of either the disclosure or the complaint.
b. Secretary of Labor: Multiple reports of the corruption of the investigation were made to DoL Secretary R. Alexander Acosta on 25 March 2019 and 03 April 2019, and then to DoL Secretary Eugene S. Scalia on 30 June 2020, neither of whom responded.
c. CIGIE-IC: As discussed in paragraphs 54 and 55 above, multiple disclosures were made to CIGIE-IC Vice- Chair, Deborah Jeffery, providing specific evidence of violations of law, rule, and regulation by CIGIE-IC Chair Scott S. Dahl, with Jefferies obstructing a CIGIE-IC investigation.
Documents: Email from D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner (OSC), dtd 24 Nov 2018 635PM; Email from D. Whitman to H.J. Kerner, L. Lopez, et al, dtd 22 Apr 2019 0940PM; Ltr from D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner, L. Lopez dtd 01 May 2020; Email from D.L. Whitman to H.K. Kerner dtd 28 Aug 2020 0103PM; Email from K. Tanenbaum (OSC) to A. Stookey (witness) dtd 17 Aug 2020 12:28 PM; Ltr from J. Stolarik to A. Acosta (DoL-OSEC), dtd 25 Mar 2019; Ltr from A. Stookey (witness) to R.A. Acosta (DoL-OSEC) dtd 03 Apr 2019; Ltr from D.L. Whitman to E.S. Scalia (DoL-OSEC), disclosure, dtd 30 June 2020; Email from A. Stookey to E. Scalia(DoL-OSEC) dtd 30 Jun 2020 1031AM; Ltr from D. Forrand, M. Madry, A. Stookey (witnesses) to G. Dodaro (OGE), disclosure, dtd 26 May 2019, complete pdf; 06 May 2019 and 10 May 2019 emails from Y. Jones to D. Forrand.
08. This interagency obstruction continued for 800 days beyond the statutory 60-days allowed for the investigation, facilitated by OSC granting multiple extensions after the 04 September 2018 deadline for completion of the investion, highlighted by the DoL-OIG audit manager
failing to begin his “review” for 75 days with full knowledge it was a fraud, then delaying interviews for another 194 days. This collaboration between the OSC and the DoL-OIG reflects a contempt for statutory mandates and the interests of whistleblowers by the senior leadership in both the DoL-OIG and the OSC.
Documents: Email from K. Tanenbaum (OSC) to D.L. Whitman re extending investigation dtd 04 Dec 2019 0232AM; Email from K. Tanenbaum (OSC) to D.L. Whitman dtd 15 Apr 2020 0619PM; Email from K. Tanenbaum to D.L. Whitman dtd 29 Jul 2020 0514PM
09. On 03 November 2020, Secretary of Labor Eugene S. Scalia delivered to Special Counsel, Henry J. Kerner the following document: Office of Inspector General Audit in Response to US. Office of Special Counsel's Referral, File Number DI-15-1950, claiming it was submitted in accordance with your referral of July 6, 2018 to then-Secretary Alexander Acosta. The document itself confirmed NO investigation had been conducted and in its place the DoL- OIG had substituted a performance audit that could not and did not investigate allegations of wrongdoing by DoL senior management officials, as required by statue [5 U.S.C., ⸹1213(c)].
This DoL-OIG audit continued the pattern of corruption by falsely claiming:
a. “This report is in response to Secretary Acosta’s request for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to review OSC’s referral.” When, in fact and discussed extensively here, Special Counsel Kerner had issued an Order for investigation, not a review that was to be conducted by the DoL agency head. DoL Secretary Scalia confirmed that in his letter of transmission, where he repeatedly characterized the Report as a Report of “investigation”.
b. The audit also contained notable admissions, including, “As evidence to support the whistleblower’s disclosures to OSC, the Whistleblower provided us with “a list of 15 WPP cases with 72 specific allegations of wrongdoing related to the cases.” Allegations of wrongdoing require investigation, not audit. Also, as discussed in detail in Part I and here in Part II, disclosure (DI-15-1950) contained perfected allegations of wrongdoing, including PPP which by law could only be investigated by the agency head [5 U.S.C., ⸹7515(c)], as well as including allegations of wrongdoing by senior DoL officials, which the audit does not acknowledge or review, including allegations of wrongdoing by DoL-OIG Assistant IG for Audit, Elliot Lewis, which the audit protects.
c. The audit also falsely states, “The Whistleblower provided 5 general allegations about OSHA’s management of WPP . . .” However, none of the cited “general allegations” reflect the information in disclosure (DI-15-1950), and the claim these were not supported with specific evidence is also false, because it assumes these “general allegations were mine”, which they weren’t, as I reported to Audit Director Mark Schwarz on 12 August 2018.
d. Finally, the audit repeatedly claims it could not review any of the cases I identified because the witnesses refused to cooperate. What the audit conceals is misconduct by the auditors who refused to disclose they were not conducting an investigation, as reported in paragraph 56 above.
Documents: Transmittal Letter - DOL to OSC, DI-15-1950, dtd Nov. 3, 2020: DoL-OIG Audit Report re OSC Disclosure (DI-15-1950), pub 08 Oct 2020; OSC to Dr. Whitman - Disclosure Referral Report Received, DI-15-1950 - Nov. 5, 2020.
10, On 23 December 2020, in a response to Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner, I repudiated the audit as a fiction, disclosing the multi-year corruption it reflected, beginning with the: a) cover- up of serious wrongdoing by multiple senior officials in the DoL and the DoL-OSHA, b) multiple violations of law, rule, and regulation by the Dol-OIG in substituting an audit for an investigation, c) inherent conflicts of interest present, and d) interagency collaboration employed in orchestrating what was the obstruction of the federal investigative process [18 U.S.C., ⸹1505].
I supported my repudiation with eight (8) documents that offered clear and convincing evidence of the wrongdoing, with the response copied to: Secretary of Labor, Eugene S. Scalia; Solicitor of Labor, Kate S. O’Scannlain; CIGIE Executive Chair, Michael J. Rigas; CIGIE Chair, Michael E. Horowitz; General Counsel, CIGIE, Atticus J. Reaser; CIGIE Vice-Chair, Allison C. Lerner; CIGIE-IC Chair, Kevin Winters; CIGIE-IC Vice-Chair, Deborah Jeffrey; OGE Chair and member of the CIGIE-IC, Emory Rounds III; Deputy Director for Compliance, (FBI), and member of CIGIE-IC, Catherine Bruno; Chief Counsel, DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility, Corey R. Amundson; Acting Deputy Chief of the DoJ Public Integrity Committee, and alternate member of the CIGIC-IC, Allegations Review Group (ARG), John D. Keller; OSC General Counsel, Susan K. Ullman; White House, Chief of Staff, Mark R. Meadows; and Member, House Committee on Oversight and Reform, James D. Jordan. I received no acknowledgement or response from any of these.
Document: Ltr from D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner Repudiation of Report 23 Dec 2020 complete pdf.
11. On 30 October 2020, in the context of the corrupted DoL-OIG Audit Report “OIG’S Audit in Response to OSC Referral: File Number DI-15-1950”, DoJ IG and CIGIE Chair, Michael J. Horowitz, and OSC Special Counsel, Henry J. Kerner, concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby Special Counsel Kerner would ignore the WPA mandate to protect all federal whistleblowers, allowing CIGIE to self-regulate by receiving and exclusively investigating all whistleblower complaints involving members of the CIGIE community. This MOU represented an assault on Constitutional separation of powers, whereby Horowitz and Kerner effectively amended the WPA without Congressional authority to protect CIGIE members as an exceptional class of federal employees.
Documents: Memo 30 Oct 2020, M. Horowitz (CIGIE) and H.J. Kerner (OSC), Protecting CIGIE members from OSC investigations; Memo re Horowitz-Kerner 2020 MOU and separation of powers.
12. On 19 February 2021, OSC Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner submitted to U.S. President Joseph R. Biden, what he characterized as “a report of a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) investigation of whistleblower allegations” as required by law [5 U.S.C., ⸹1213(e)], claiming, a former regional investigator for . . . Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP) Region 9 . . . alleged significant breakdowns in Region 9’s processing of whistleblower complaints resulting in the region’s widespread failure to protect whistleblowers as required by law.” Special Counsel Kerner then reported, “OIG notes that the whistleblower . . . provided OIG with 15 cases containing 72 specific allegations of wrongdoing . . . OIG stated that it had “insufficient information” to determine if Region 9’s failure to complete all essential elements in a given investigation changed the investigation’s outcome.”
As discussed above, Special Counsel Kerner was fully informed these statements were false and intended to conceal a six (6) year interagency collaboration by DoL-OIG, OSC and DoL-OIG RMOs to obstruct, not complete, a federal investigation denying sixteen (16) private-sector and three (3) federal whistleblowers their Constitutional right to bring a grievance to the federal government [Const. Amend I] and enjoy the protection of the due process of law [Const. Amend V], constituting a conspiracy against rights in violations of federal criminal law [18 U.S.C., ⸹241].
Document: Ltr from H. Kerner (OSC) to the President dtd 19 Feb 2021.
Allegation: OSC RMOs Obstructed the Investigation of OSC Complaint of Prohibited Personnel Practices (MA-16-3007) in Violation of Federal Law
01. On 29 March 2016, after waiting 439 days for the OSC to conduct a simple 15-day review of Disclosure (DI-15-1950), which contained specific allegations of PPP and by statute should have been identified as an OSC PPP Complaint, [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(a)(1)], I filed an amendment to my disclosure (DI-15-1950) providing specific allegations of PPP and requesting a stay of my removal as allowed by statute [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(1)]
Witness. T. Devine, C.N. Lerner
Document: Ltr from T. Devine (GAP) to C.N Lerner (OSC), filing PPP complaint dtd 29 Mar 2016.
02. On 28 April 2016, the OSC-CEU verbally acknowledged receipt of my OSC PPP complaint identifying it as (MA-16-3007), with OSC attorney Jason Seigel assigned as the investigator. However, OSC again ignored my request for a stay of my removal, an abuse of authority in light of the OSC’s failure to timely review disclosure (DI-15-1950) for 418 days, which included a complaint of PPP, subjecting me and my family to irreparable harm and the WPA process to corruption.
Witnesses: OSC B. Wheeler and Jason Siegel; GAP attorney, T. Devine,
03. On 29 July 2016, my legal counsel, Tom Devine, responding to my questions about the WPA mandated OSC progress reports of PPP investigations, advising, “OSC issues only boiler plate reports, a basic violation of statute [5 U.S.C., 1214(a)(1)(C)] that denies federal whistleblowers their right to protect against OSC mismanagement. My OSC PPP complaint is then 122 days old and without a proper statutory review.
Document: Email from T. Devine (GAP) to D. Whitman re OSC failure to follow WPA mandates dtd 29 Jul 2016.
04. On 2-3 September 2016, my legal counsel, Tom Devine again reported OSC status updates under 5 U.S.C, ⸹1214(a)(1)(C) only confirm the PPP investigation is ongoing without any information about the investigation of the complaint. My OSC PPP complaint is then 155 days old and without a proper statutory review.
Document: Emails between D. Whitman and T. Devine, re OSC management of MA-16- 3007, dtd 2-3 Sep 2016.
05. On 03 June 2017, my legal counsel, Tom Devine, once again reported, “Re/why I haven’t been more responsive to seeking an OSC stay—sure, I’ll ask them again. But we already have, and after a year they’re still not even investigating the retaliation which is a prerequisite for a stay,” a clear violation of the WPA [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(a)(1)(C)(1)]. The OSC’s review of my PPP
complaint is 431 days old, 91 days beyond the statutory mandate for a determination [5 U.S.C.,
⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)], with no investigation conducted.
Witness: D. Whitman, T. Devine
Document: Email from T. Devine (GAP) to D. Whitman, re stay, dtd 03 Jun 2017 0704PM
06. On 02 July 2017 my legal counsel, Tom Devine, reports OSC attorney Siegal has been removed and OSC will reassign the review of my PPP complaint, which then was 424-days old and 184 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: D. Whitman, T. Devine, J. Siegal
Document: Email from T. Devine (GAP) to D.L. Whitman (OSC collaboration) dtd 02 Jul 2017 0638PM.
07. On 24 July 2017, my legal counsel, Tom Devine, reported the review of my PPP complaint has been assigned to RDU Chief, Karen Gorman to “personally investigate,” saying Gorman rejected assigning the case to someone else because she expects to order an investigation by 31 August 2017. At that time, the review of my PPP complaint was 446 days old and 206 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: D. Whitman, T. Devine, K. Gorman
Document: Email from T. Devine (GAP) to D. Whitman, re OSC review of MA-16- 3007, dtd 24 Jul 2017.
08. On 01 September 2017, I have a teleconference with RDU Chief Karen Gorman during which she displayed little knowledge of my PPP complaint, which then was 484-days old and 244 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: D. Whitman, K. Gorman
09. On 06 September 2017, I have a second teleconference with RDU Chief Karen Gorman, who disconnects the call when I raised the issue of investigating my PPP complaint, which was then was 489 days old and 249 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: D. Whitman, K. Gorman
10. On 31 October 2017, my legal counsel, Tom Devine, advised Ann Marsh, West Coast Editor of Financial Planning, he knows the OSC has been obstructing the investigation of my PPP complaint, which was then 544 days old and 304 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: D. Whitman, T. Devine, A. Marsh
11. On 21 November 2017, my legal counsel, Tom Devine, reports OSC attorney Karen Tanenbaum has been assigned to review my PPP complaint under the supervision of RDU Chief, Elizabeth Q. McMurray. My PPP complaint is 565-days old and 325 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: T. Devine, K. Tanenbaum, E. McMurray
Document: Email from T.M. Devine to K. Gorman, E. McMurray (OSC), re K. Tannenbaum assignment, dtd 21 Nov 2017 0801PM.
12. On 24 January 2018, OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum reports she is not investigating my PPP complaint but instead is conducting ADR discussions I did not authorize. The OSC review of my PPP complaint is 629 days old and 389 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: K. Tanenbaum, D. Whitman
Document: Email K. Tannenbaum (OSC) to T. Devine (GAP) re review of MA-16-3007, dtd 24 Jan 2018 0221PM
13. On 29 January 2018, OSC attorney Tanenbaum conducts her first teleconference with me, with my case is 634-days old and 394 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: D. Whitman, K. Tanenbaum.
14. On 20 March 2018, my legal counsel Tom Devine reports OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum has “convinced” her chain of command to make the “substantial likelihood” finding and order an investigation.” My case is 684-days old and 444 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)]. Witnesses: T. Devine, K. Tanenbaum
Document: Email from T. Devine (GAP) to D. Whitman re OSC review of MA-16-3007, dtd 20 Mar 2018 1131PM.
15. On 10 May 2018, my legal counsel, Tom Devine reports OSC attorney K Tanenbaum only needs to complete a formal referral. My case then is 705-days old and 465 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: T. Devine, K. Tanenbaum
Document: Email from T. Devine (GAP) to D. Whitman, re OSC review of MA-16- 3007, dtd 10 May 2018 0828PM.
16. On 24 May 2018, my legal counsel, Tom Devine reports OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum agrees with my PPP complaint and is drafting a referral. My complaint is 749 days old and 479 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: T. Devine, K. Tanenbaum
Document: Email K. Tannenbaum (OSC) to T. Devine (GAP) re review of MA-16-3007, dtd 24 Jan 2018 0221PM
17. On 07 June 2018, OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum reports she is “talking” to the DOL about “ADR and other Whitman matters,” which I didn’t authorize. My case is 762-days old and 492 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: D. Whitman, T. Devine, K. Tanenbaum.
Document: Email from K. Tanenbaum (OSC) to T. Devine (GAP), dtd 07 Jun 2018
18. On 15 June 2018, my legal counsel, Tom Devine, reported OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum has “come to a merit finding” for my PPP complaint. My PPP complaint is 770-days old and 530 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: T. Devine, K. Tanenbaum
Document: Email T. Devine (GAP) to D. Whitman, re OSC review of MA-16-3007, dtd 15 Jun 2018 0804PM.
19. On 20 June 2018, I have a teleconference with OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum and my legal counsel, Tom Devine, during which K. Tanenbaum offers no timeline for producing a “substantial likelihood” determination, confirming OSC’s a gross mismanagement, abuse of authority and violations of statute [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)] are designed to obstruct the investigation of my PPP complaint, which then is 776-days old and 535 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Witnesses: D. Whitman, T. Devine, K. Tanenbaum
20. On 26 June 2018, I terminate legal representation by Tom Devine and the Government Accountability Program (GAP), citing breach of professional responsibility and collaboration with OSC to delay the investigation of my PPP complaint (MA-16-3007), which then is 782 days old and 542 days beyond the mandated statutory determination [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(i)].
Document: Ltr from D.L. Whitman to R.A. Salzman (GAP Board of Directors), Termination of representation), dtd 26 June 2018).
21. At no time between 29 March 2016 and 26 June 2018, a period of 782 days did the OSC
comply with statutory mandates re the management of my PPP complaint (MA-16-3007),
including: a) failing to provide 60-day notices reporting the progress of the investigation of my PPP complaint [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(c)], and b) failing to secure my agreement to extend time for the investigation beyond the 240 days as mandated by statute [5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(2)(A)(ii)]. These persistent failures to honor their statutory duties offer clear and convincing evidence of senior OSC RMOs complete disregard for WPA mandates, OSC’s mission to protect federal whistleblowers, and my Constitutional due process rights [Const. Amend V].
22. On 18 July 2018, I received an email from K. Tenenbaum, the OSC attorney investigating my PPP complaint (MA-16-3007) working within the Retaliation and Disclosure Unit (RDU), requesting I participate in a teleconference with her supervisor and RDU Chief Elizabeth Q. McMurray, to discuss the OSC’s ongoing investigation into OSC-11 (MA-16-3007).
Document: Email from K. Tanenbaum (OSC) to D. Whitman, dtd 18 Jul 2018 0417AM
23. On 01August 2018, I disclosed to OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum, copied to OSC senior leadership, I had reviewed the history of the OSC’s gross management of my PPP complaint (MA-16-3007) for 2.5 years, requesting OSC attorney K. Tannenbaum produce fifteen (15) WPA mandated OSC progress reports of investigation as required by statute (5 USC 1214(a)(1)(C)(i); 5 USC 1214(a)(1)(C)(ii); 5 USC 1214(b)(2)(A)(i); 5 USC 1214(b)(2)(A)(ii); and 5 USC 1214(b)(2)(A)(ii)).
Document: Email from D.L. Whitman to K. Tannenbaum (OSC), dtd 01 Aug 2018.
24. On 06 August 2018, OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum responded to my document request by directing I request them via FOIA, falsely claiming OSC could not provide them to me as required by statute [5 USC 1214(a)(1)(C)]. OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum then advised the OSC had made a preliminary decision to close my PPP complaint, citing false claims by the DoL, I had not been allowed to review or dispute. Thus, closing my PPP complaint in the context of requesting documents which K. Tanenbaum refused to produce, a PPP prompted by my disclosing to K. Tanenbaum OSC gross mismanagement.
Document: Email from K. Tanenbaum (OSC) to D. Whitman, re FOIA, dtd 06 Aug 2018; Ltr from K. Tanenbaum to D.L. Whitman dtd 06 Aug 2018
25. On 06 August 2018, I disclosed to Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner and multiple senior federal officials, the wide-spread gross mismanagement of federal whistleblower disclosures and PPP complaints by OSC RMOs staff, citing the 2.5-year gross mismanagement of my PPP complaint (MA-16-3007).
Document: Email from D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner (OSC) re misconduct dtd 06 Aug 2018
26. On 21 August 2018, OSC attorney K. Tanenbaum notified me of the final closure of my PPP complaint (MA-16-3007), advising, I had the option of appealing the decision to the MSPB if I filed it within 65 days, or 25 October 2018.
Document: Ltr from K. Tanenbaum (OSC) to D.L. Whitman (closing MA-16-3007 PPP Complaint, dtd 21 Aug. 2018.
27. The purpose served by K. Tanenbaum requiring on 06 August 2018I that I request OSC documents via FOIA became apparent when I filed a FOIA request for these documents on 10 September 2018, which was necessary for me to meet the 60-day limit on an appeal to the MSPB. That request began a chain of OSC claims it would require and extensive complicated search that was likely to take months, if not years, to resolve, effectively obstructing any attempt to appeal to the MSPB. In fact, documents from my FOIA request didn’t appear for 19 months, and when they arrived on 08 April 2020, they failed to produce the documents requested, denying me my appeal rights, a violation of my Constitutional due process rights [Const. Amend V]
Documents: Email from T. Ndongo (OSC) to D.L. Whitman (re FOIA requests) dtd 10 Sep 2018 1146PM.
Allegation: OSC Obstructed the processing of OSC disclosure (DI-18-4904) by dismissing the disclosure without a proper statutorily mandated review and finding in Violation of Federal Law.
On 17 July 2018 I e-filed a disclosure with the OSC, alleging systemic wrongdoing by OSC RMOs managing my OSC disclosure (DI-15-1950), my OSC PPP complaint (MA-16-3007), and violations of the WPA by Special Counsel, Henry J. Kerner, including the falsification of an OSC Order for investigation of disclosure (DI- 15-1950), By statute [] the allegations involving the Special Counsel should have been referred to the CIGIE-IC for review and investigation. Instead, OSC Associate Special Counsel, Anne Wagner, intercepted the disclosure and dismissed it, to avoid a referral that would have subjected Special Counsel and other OSC staff to accountability for their roles in Special Counsel Kerner’s violations of law.
01. On 17 July 2018, I e-filed a disclosure, identified as (DI-18-4904, )with the OSC, alleging wrongdoing within the U.S. Special Counsel’s Disclosure Unit (DU), supervised by Catherine McMullen and former Deputy Director, Karen Gorman, as well as wrongdoing by Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner.
Document: E-filing OSC Form 12 Disclosure of wrongdoing, dtd 17 Jul 2017 0250PM.
02. On 22 July 2018, as an equitable matter in light of the 3.5 year delay by the OSC in considering my request for a stay of my removal , I demand Special Counsel Kerner respond to my stay request, citing the multiple OSC violations of the WPA and my Constitutional due process right in the management of my disclosure (DI-15-1950) and PPP complaint (MA-16- 3007). Special Counsel Kerner did not respond to my stay request.
Document: Email from D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner (OSC) (re Violations of Due Process) dtd 22 Jul 2018 0452PM.
03. On 06 August 2018, I amended my disclosure (DI-18-4904) providing additional detailed allegations regarding OSC wrongdoing in the management of PPP complaint (DI-16-3007) to OSC Special Counsel Kerner and OSC General Counsel, Susan Ullman, which was acknowledged by Associate Special Counsel Anne Wagner on 21 August 2018.
Document: Email from D.L. Whitman to H. J. Kerner (OSC) copied to S. Ullman (OSC)(re wrongdoing) dtd 06 Aug 2018 1059PM; Email from A. Wagner (OSC) to D.L. Whitman re DI-18-4904 dtd 21 Aug 2018 1125PM
04. On 22 August 2018, I again amended disclosure (DI-18-4904), emailing Associate Special Counsel Anne Wagner regarding serious wrongdoing by OSC attorney, K. Tanenbaum closing PPP complaint (MA-16-3007).
Document: Email from D.L. Whitman to A. Wagner (OSC), disclosure, dtd 22 Aug 2018 1120PM.
05. On 31 August 2018, Associate Special Counsel Annie Wagner closed my disclosure (DI- 18-4904) without making a substantial likelihood Finding as required by statute [5 U.S.C., 1213(b)], and without acknowledging the conflict of interest created by a senior OSC official reviewing a disclosure of wrongdoing against Special Counsel Kerner, which by statute was to be reviewed by the CIGIE Integrity Committee [5a U.S.C. ⸹11(b)(12)], not by a senior OSC staff member.
Associate Special Counsel Annie Wagner presuming to review and dismiss my disclosure (DI- 18-4904) with clear knowledge that involved a conflict of interest was gross mismanagement and abuse of authority by Annie Wagner, a former MSPB Judge who made several telling admissions, acknowledging:
a. Disclosure (DI-18-4904) made specific allegations of violations of law, rule, gross mismanagement, and abuse of authority by Special Counsel Kerner, which by statute
qualified the disclosure for investigation [5 U.S.C., 1213(b)].
b. GAO audit 18-400 found OSC was not properly processing disclosures and PPP complaints, confirming OSC historically ignored statutory mandates.
c. OSC “typically” treats disclosures of wrongdoing by OSC investigators as “requests for reconsideration”, not as allegations of wrongdoing that need to be investigated, a breach of duty to report wrongdoing, not cover it up [5 C.F.R. 2635.101(11)].
d. OSC attorneys do not routinely provide complainants with Agency evidence obtained during the investigation”, a fundamental violation of complainant’s Constitutional due process rights [Const. Amend V], and a violation of the OSC’s duty to protect whistleblowers; and
e. OSC directed complainants to FOIA to obtain documents from OSC investigations, knowing such misdirection would lead to the denial of complaint’s appeals to the MSPB - a serious violation of Constitutional due process [Const. Amend. V].
Document: Ltr from A. Wagner (OSC) to D.L. Whitman, response to DI-18-4904, dtd 31 Aug 2018
On 07 September 2018, I disclosed to Special Counsel Kerner serious wrongdoing by Associate Special Counsel Wagner closing disclosure (DI-18-4904), citing Wagner’s letter of 31 August 2018, which: 1) Failed to provide a positive or negative 45-day substantial likelihood Finding in accordance with law; 2) Reflected serious conflicts of interest and complete loss of independence and objectivity; 3) Failed to safeguard the merit system or protect a federal whistleblower; 4) Detailed a misstatement of fact; and 5) Failed to properly review substantial, if not clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing by OSC officials.
Document: Ltr from D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner (OSC), dtd 07 Sep 2018
Allegation: OSC engaged in gross mismanagement and abuse of authority in denying for 5.5 years the federal whistleblower a stay of his removal from his federal employment in the context of the whistleblower disclosing agency wrongdoing to the OSC.
As discussed above, the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act, as Amended empowered the OSC to receive, review, and investigate whistleblower complaints of prohibited personnel practices (PPP) as a means to protect federal whistleblowers, and empowering the OSC to request a stay of an agency action that met the test of an alleged PPP, as prominently identified in 5 U.S.C., ⸹1212(a)(2), Powers and functions of the Office of Special Counsel. When considered in the context of the broad powers granted to the OSC by 5 U.S.C., ⸹1212, the WPA effectively designated the OSC as the federal whistleblower’s legal counsel protecting the whistleblower’s interests as well as the whistleblower’s legal rights.
The OSC power to request MSPB to stay a PPP alleged by a federal whistleblower continues in 5 U.S.C., ⸹1214(b)(1), which empowers the OSC to make such a request for an initial 45-day stay “if the Special Counsel determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the personnel action was taken, or is to be taken, as a result of a prohibited personnel practice,” which the WPA mandates the MSPB to honor and extend as appropriate, unless the MSPB determines it would be “inappropriate,” which while not defined, implies that the denial would be based on a factual and reasonable determination.
That still leaves unanswered questions about the standard required of the OSC in making stay requests, which the OSC itself answered in its 2015 Policy Statement of Stay Requests, directing the OSC may consider requesting a stay of a personnel action against an employee when: (1) OSC has reasonable grounds, which are defined as sufficient evidence for a reasonable person with the same information and knowledge of the applicable law, to believe a PPP has been or will be committed”; and (2) the employee has been removed for more than 14 days, which is designed to provide OSC with “time to conduct an investigation” and can be granted on preliminary information for an extended period pending the completion of an OSC investigation.
The allegation here is that the OSC engaged in gross mismanagement and abuse of authority in denying for 5.5 years the federal whistleblower a stay of his removal from his federal employment in the context of the whistleblower disclosing agency wrongdoing to the OSC. The test of the allegation is whether the evidence supports gross mismanagement by the OSC that contributed to the OSC’s denial of multiple stay requests because granting the request would expose OSC’s gross mismanagement.
01. As discussed above, from 26 January 2015 through 06 June 2018, neither OSC Special Counsel Carolyn N. Lerner, nor OSC Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner petitioned the MSPB
for a stay of my 05 May 2015 removal, notwithstanding:
a. My 16 January 2015 OSC disclosure explicitly alleged multiple instances of PPP by the agency against me, which should have alerted the OSC to the possibility of continuing PPP, including my removal, and a need for vigilance to protect a federal whistleblower as mandated by statute.
b. OSC knew of the removal on 16 June 2015, which was more than 14 days after the removal took place, meeting OSC policy allowing for a stay (see below).
c. OSC knew my removal occurred in the context of my disclosure to the OSC of DoL wrongdoing, which easily met the statutory test of a PPP [5 U.S.C., ⸹2302(b)(8)(B)] allowing for a stay of my removal,
d. OSC’s own Policy Statement, adopted in 2015, clarified a stay required only reasonable grounds to believe a PPP had been committed and that the employee had been removed for more than 14 days.
Document: 2015 OSC Policy Statement re Stay Requests; Letter from D. Whitman to E. Lewis (DO- OIG), dtd 03 November 2014; Ltr from D.L. Whitman to OSC-DU (DI-15-1950) dtd 16 Jan 2015, with receipt; Notice of Removal from J. Wulff to D. Whitman, dtd 05 May 2015; Email from D. Whitman to J. Land (OSC), dtd 16 Jun 2015 0930AM); Email from J.Pennington (OSC-DU) to D.L. Whitman, dtd 16 Jun 2015 0813PM.
02. On 29 March 2016, I filed an OSC PPP complaint with the OSC, detailing PPP committed by the DoL against me, including my removal from my position as an OSHA-WBPP attorney investigator on 05 May 2015, and offering clear and convincing documentation supporting the allegation of my wrongful removal, asking for the OSC to petition the MSPB for a stay of my
removal. The OSC failed to acknowledge my request and continued to deny a stay for the
following 4.7 years, notwithstanding overwhelming documented evidence warranting a stay request.
Document: Ltr from T. Devine (GAP) to C.N Lerner (OSC), filing PPP complaint, dtd 29 Mar 2016.
03. On 27 June 2018, I demand OSC Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner complete the review of my disclosure (DI-15-1950) and request a stay of my removal from the MSPB. Special Counsel Kerner completed the review and issued the statorily mandated Order for an investigation to agency head, Secretary of Labor R. Alexander Acosta, but did not acknowledge my request for a stay of my removal.
Document: Email D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner (OSC) demand for finding dtd 27 Jun 2018 0950PM.
04. On 06 July 2018, when Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner made a substantial likelihood finding in favor of OSC Disclosure (DI-15-1950), Special Counsel Kerner knew the OSC had violated the federal whistleblower’s right to a timely 15-day review and referral for investigation of the disclosure for 3.5 Years, denying the whistleblower stay relief from agency retaliation, and directed by the WPA and the OSC’s own policy.
Documents: Ltr from H. J. Kerner (OSC) to R.A. Acosta (DoL-OSEC) dtd 06 Jul 2018
05. On 22 July 2018, I again asked Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner to request a stay from the MSPB, as an equitable matter based on OSC wrongdoing which had delayed a favorable “reason to believe” finding for my 16 January 2015 disclosure to the OSC for 3.5 years. Special Counsel Kerner offered no response to my request.
Document: Email from D.L. Whitman to H.J. Kerner (OSC), dtd 22 Jul 2018 0452PM
The presumption in favor of an OSC stay request on 16 June 2015, only grew stronger with the filing of my OSC PPP complaint 9.5 months later on 29 March 2016, which exposed how the OSC had failed to identify the PPP in my initial OSC disclosure on 16 January 2015, and grew ever stronger with the continuing failure of the OSC to complete a simple review of my disclosure (DI-15-1950) for 3.5 years.
The failure of Special Counsel Kerner to respond to my requests for a stay in June and July 2018, cannot be explained by gross mismanagement alone. If there were defensible reasons to deny a stay, Special Counsel Kerner could have responded and explained, but he didn’t. Thus, Special Counsel Kerner’s silence argues other improper motives, arising to misconduct, if not wrongdoing.
Summary of Part II
The six (6) perfected allegations of wrongdoing by the OSC RMOs in collaboration with DoL- OIG and CIGIE RMOs are fully supported by clear and convincing evidence, if not evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This ongoing collaboration continued for 2.4 years, and then resumed in November 2020, when CIGIE RMOs actively suppressed a FOIA request that would have yielded evidence of the OSC, DoL-OIG, and CIGIE-IC multi-year collaboration to obstruct and investigation of OSC disclosure (DI-15-1950), which is discussed in detail in Part III of this Report. Sadly, what this evidence points to is a collapse of the integrity of the federal whistleblower statutory constructs, when the disclosures involved senior federal managers and political appointees. Thus, the evidence produced here strongly argues:
a. A culture of corruption now exists within the OSC, the DoL-OIG and CIGIE, whereby senior federal RMOs engage in intentional actions to protect themselves, political appointees and preferred others from accountability for wrongdoing.
b. These intentional actions include the systematic violation of laws, rules, and regulations to facilitate what is a network of protection; and
c. The creation of a culture of corruption within the federal administrative state has been weaponized against whistleblowers to conceal wrongdoing by threat and inducement designed to discourage federal employees from honoring their obligation of federal service to report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, and corruption to appropriate authorities [5 CFR ⸹2635.101(11)].
Part III of Perfected Allegations of Wrongdoing will continue to explore this network of protection by offering additional documented evidence of how it has expanded other federal agencies performing supporting roles in whistleblower protection. These include: a detailed examination of CIGIE, its Integrity Committee and its control over federal records, all of which are now actively contributing to the corruption of the federal administrative state.
Respectfully submitted 20 February 2025 under penalty of perjury,