Whistleblower Lawyer & Attorney : National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund : Whistleblower Protection, Fraud Claims : Washington DC

Yesterday, January 30, 2008, in a Senate Judiciary Committee DOJ Oversight hearing, Senator Charles Grassley (above, right) had some tough questions for Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Notably, Senator Grassley, a longtime critic of FBI policies and actions against whistleblowers, asked the AG about Special Agent Bassem Youssef, who has exposed serious misconduct in the war on terror.


In his full written questions, Senator Grassley, citing an October 2007 letter to Mukasey sent by Mr. Youssef's attorney, Stephen Kohn, says:

"Special Agent Youssef, through his counsel, provided my office with a
copy of a ten page letter (dated October 11, 2007) filed with your
office detailing threats to our nation's security caused by the failure
of the FBI to hire and promote subject matter experts within the FBI's
counterterrorism division. The examples set forth in that letter are
extremely troubling.  [Mr. Chairman, I ask that the letter be placed in
the record.]

What action has your office taken to investigate the issues and concerns
raised in Mr. Youssef's October 11, 2007 letter?

Do you plan to seek an independent review of Youssef's allegations about how lack of expertise among FBI managers is hindering its
counterterrorism efforts?  Why or why not?"

He goes on to ask Mr. Mukasey about the abuses related to National Security Letters program, of which Mr. Youssef has firsthand knowledge, and has been a vocal critic.


You can read all of Senator's Grassley's tough questions for Attorney General Mukasey after the jump...


Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This week, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (HR. 4986). Section 846 of this bill is a provision designed to protect employees of defense contractors when they report fraud to Congress, an Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, or a Department of Defense employee charged with overseeing contracts.


The Bush administration has consistently opposed whistleblower rights for employees of the federal government and its contractors. Veto threats have been issued against the whistleblower protection legislation that has been proposed by the Congress (click here for the latest on those bills). The administration claims that protecting whistleblowers could harm national security, but the truth is the exact opposite: strong whistleblower laws can help keep this country safe and secure, as well as save us billions of dollars in wasted revenue.


In this case, the President had no choice but to sign the Defense Authorization bill into law, but then he went out of his way to express sharp disapproval of the whistleblower provisions in his signing statement. This statement (below), goes against the spirit of the law, and gives the president justification to ignore a congressional mandate.

“Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”

In short, the new law is a victory worthy of great praise, but the President’s brash treatment of legislation designed to protect honest employees is deplorable.


See the full text of HR. 4986, sec. 846 after the jump...


Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Briefs were filed yesterday in the Supreme Court case Allison Engine Co., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Sanders (Docket no. 07-214). This case will decide whether corporations and individuals who receive government contracts are legally required by the False Claims Act to "present" their claim for payment to a government agency, or if they can evade liability under the FCA by routing these claims through a surrogate, such as a subcontractor.

The Petitioners' and Respondents' briefs were filed yesterday, as well as Amicus briefs, including for the Respondents Amicus Curiae briefs from Senator Grassley and Taxpayers Against Fraud. (Thanks to TAF for these briefs).

View the National Whistleblower Press Release on this issue here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

This February 5th is being called "Tsunami Tuesday" as many of the big states line up for primary elections to nominate candidates for President.


Ordinarily we would be urging those of you who are politically active to take advantage of this forum. We’d tell you to call, write or hire a plane to fly a banner. Just do anything to get attention for the False Claims Act during the campaign. We are a little disappointed nobody has asked the candidates to support the False Claims Act Corrections Act at any of the seemingly endless series of snooze inducing debates. What’s one question about fighting fraud mixed in with the You-Tube chatter?


Despite this void there has been a major positive event to highlight before February 5th.


Two of the biggest states at stake on February 5, California, and Illinois, have had their own False Claims Acts for many years. New York just got on board last year. Now, perhaps sensing a tsunami of support for fighting fraud, New Jersey has joined the group. By a unanimous vote in its Senate, The Garden State enacted its own False Claims Act just in time for Feb 5th.


Were the legislators and Governor afraid not to have a False Claims Act on the books when the national press arrived to cover a presidential campaign? Probably not. Probably, the New Jersey Legislature just knew a good thing when they saw one. Now, in addition to the billions collected through the Federal FCA, whistleblowers will be able to fight fraud at the local level.


The political implications of more states enacting these laws should not be dismissed. First of all the False Claims Act is popular. Fighting fraud is the safe place to be if you are voting in any legislature. We need to remind the Congress of that simple fact early and often to push for improvements to the law. Second, the laws enacted at the state level will increase popularity for all the False Claims Acts. It can be hard to get attention for a federal case involving merely millions as opposed to billions of dollars, but at the state level smart politicians/attorneys can make a nice career out of saving their state a few million dollars and fighting fraud. That’s fine with me.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Early this morning, Stephen Kohn gave a 10 minute interview which provided some insight into the case of FBI counterterrorism whistleblower Bassem Youssef. For those of you who don't live in the DC area or who (like me) were not awake early enough to catch this interview, you can listen to it by clicking here.

Click here for more information and media coverage on the continuing retaliation against Mr. Youssef.

Sign up for our RSS feeds today, and get the latest whistleblower news.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last month we reported on a key Whistleblower/Civil Rights tax case that was filed with the Supreme Court by attorneys working with the National Whistleblower Center. See Whistleblowers Blog (December 13, 2007). The case is Murphy v. IRS, No. 07-802 (Supreme Court), and the principal issue is whether the IRS can tax as income plaintiffs' court awards for non-physical compensatory damages, such as make whole awards for emotional distress and loss of reputation.


Since the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on December 13, 2007, the Solicitor General has requested and received an extension of the time for the government to file a response to Ms. Murphy's cert petition. A copy of the Solicitor General's request is available here, and a copy of the order granting the request is here.


**Also, a brief update on the status of the case was reported in today's Wall Street Journal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here are links to some of the blog posts and websites that covered FBI Whistleblower Bassem Youssef's discussion at the American Library Association conference, where he discussed the Bureau's counterterrorism shortcomings.

Here is a look at some blog posts:

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/fbi-agent-criticizes-coun_n_81355.html

Wonkette:
http://wonkette.com/344491/the-fbi-agent-and-the-naughty-librarians

The Raw Story
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Whistleblower_effectively_gagged_by_FBI_0110.html

Some others:

• http://blog.americancongressfortruth.com/2008/01/13/arab-american-fbi-agent-faults-counterterrorism-work/
• http://www.atlargely.com/2008/01/bassem-youssef.html
• http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2008/01/fbi-warrantless.html
• http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_coverupdeceptions.html#076481
• http://freegovinfo.info/node/1564
• http://womenslens.blogspot.com/2008/01/egyptian-fbi-agent-speaks-out.html
• http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6522302.html?desc=topstory

And some traditional media sources:

• http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1&docID=hsnews-000002654526
• http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-12-fbi-whistleblower_N.htm
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103665.html
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18028499
• http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyFyyiD5i9Yl4A0-s47omtQcMCcAD8U4L3T00
• http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=48127&sid=6&fid=1
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120018357493386451.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
• http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=336347

 

UPDATE: HERE IS THE SPEECH

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Yesterday, Minneapolis Chief U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum ordered the FBI to pay over $1 million to former FBI Agent Jane Turner and her attorneys. Combine that amount with the $360,000 that Turner was awarded by a jury in February 2007, it brings her total court award, to nearly $1.4 Million. The judge's ruling yesterday dealt yet another solid blow to the FBI, which had filed an objection to Ms. Turner's request for reimbursement of her attorneys fees.

Special Agent Turner was a highly regarded child crime agent working in the "Indian Country" of North Dakota for thirteen years. She experienced harsh retaliation from her managers after blowing the whistle on sex discrimination within the FBI, as well as negligence in child abuse investigations. In January 2007, a Minneapolis jury awarded Turner over $500,000 for retaliation and backpay - which by law was reduced to $360,000.

**Tad Vezner of the Pioneer Press has a good article on this issue linked here**


The FBI initially appealed the jury verdict, but the Solicitor General of the United States intervened and forced the FBI to drop their appeal.  


Stephen Kohn, Ms. Turner's attorney and President of the National Whistleblower Center, called the Turner decision "vindication for an irrational attempt by the FBI to destroy one of its highly decorated veteran agents after she exposed highly discriminatory practices by her management."


In addition to disclosing discrimination, Ms. Turner also reported widespread theft by FBI agents at the 9/11 crimescene. A subsequent DOJ investigation found that scores of employees had stolen items belonging to the victims, including a crystal Tiffany globe and bloodstained clothing.


"FBI management at the highest levels must be held accountable for their crude attempt to cover up official misconduct. What the Bureau did to Jane Turner is unnaceptable in modern law enforcement." Added Kohn.

**North Dakota TV station KFYR has video on the Turner issue here

**Dan Browning of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has written numerous articles on the Turner case, and has more on the Judge's decision here (Free Subscription Required)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

President Bush has signed into law the first legislation in more than a decade to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. The Open Government Act of 2007, signed by Bush on New Years eve, contains several important changes and improvements to the Freedom of Information Act.


The new law establishes enforceable deadlines for agencies to process FOIA requests; extends FOIA's reach to certain records maintained by government contractors; establishes an ombudsman to resolve disputes; creates a FOIA tracking system; restores provisions for recovery of attorneys fees by FOIA litigants who successfully prevail in court, including cases where there is a voluntary or unilateral change in the government's position after filing of the lawsuit, so long as the FOIA requester's claim is not insubstantial; and requires that any award of attorneys fees be paid out of an agency's budget and not the Treasury Department's judgment fund.


Legislative improvements to FOIA were long overdue and the Open Government Act of 2007 is intended to speed up citizen access to government information. The Freedom of Information Act is an essential tool to assist whistleblowers, journalists, citizens and watchdog groups discover what their government is up to and provide outside oversight of government activities.


A copy of the Open Government Act of 2007 is linked here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks