Q. It is assumed that you now see how easy it is for the federal government to convict an intended target. What else have you learned about the federal criminal process?
A. The first thing is the secretive dialogue between court appointed counsel and the prosecutor. Things I "purportedly" said to my counsel; i.e. representations, etc., ended up in motions to the judge without my prior review. Those representations were against my interest and lead me to believe court appointed counsel were working behind the scenes with the prosecutor. There is no other logical explanation, other than pure incompetence. The other thing I learned was that my court appointed counsel could not understand the truth. The truth was complex, sophisticated and multi-layered with concepts in actuarial science, advanced finance and economics, pension law and investment mathematics. Therefore, instead of telling the correct narrative to the jury, legal counsel concocted an even more difficult to understand defense based on a "theory." It was an embarrassing mess. I probably would have fared better had I defended myself.
The other thing that really bothers me is that at no time did the federal government ever ask to sit down with me to discuss why they feel I broke the law. It was all cloak and dagger, hush-hush, tip-toe around me, all the while carefully crafting a narrative with the news media that I could not rebut because all actions against me were being taken secretly. The whole thing was a star-chamber trial.
Q. Do you believe that cases like yours have had a chilling effect upon prospective whistleblowers? What steps would you like to see taken to protect whistleblowers?
A. Yes, I do. It is clear to me that aggressive, hostile, and malicious prosecutions are the government's method for scaring would-be whistleblowers into silence. As a society, we are just a hair's width away from becoming a full blown police state; the evidence is how the government is treating citizens of the United States of America.
Despite numerous promises to the contrary, Obama has displayed an avidity to savagely crush dissent
It is difficult to know what can be done to protect whistleblowers. At a minimum, I think grand juries should be required to interview the person the government is trying to indict. Secret grand juries, where only the prosecution's side is heard, seems outrageous to the average person. That needs to change. Also, there needs to be an easier way for whistleblowers to make their voices and stories heard. Most agencies have Inspectors General. However, in my case, the Department of Labor has not had an Inspector General for years, which explains why my pleas for help went unanswered.
Perhaps a one page disclosure statement should be given to grand juries explaining that there are always two sides to every story (or even three or four sides!), and that they are going to be asked to make a decision based on one side; the prosecution's side, and that the likelihood the prosecution will manipulate them into issuing an indictment is very high. Accordingly, statistically, many innocent people will be falsely indicted. The grand jury should also be told what the effects of an indictment are upon families, children, neighbors, etc. An indictment is devastating and causes so much devastation by itself, whether the person ends up being convicted or not. Grand juries must understand the devastating impact of their decision.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
