THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE FBI, FINCEN, FTC, FEC, SEC, OGE, DOJ, INTERPOL AND CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS (THE MASTER REPORT IS OVER 2000 PAGES). SEE WHY:
TOXIC COMPANIES (LINK)
Have you wondered why certain agencies that are supposed to solve these crimes seem to be doing absolutely nothing?
It is because some agencies are set-up as fake window-dressing to PREVENT the crooks from getting caught. For example, entities with the word “Ombudsmen” in their name generally do NOTHING but cover-ups.
For example:
——– Forwarded Message ——–
| Subject: | Re: Status Of Claim Request – New Disclosure Matter |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:57:22 -0700 |
| From: | |
| To: | Alexander, Lynn <lalexander@osc.gov> |
| CC: | Contact OGE <contactoge@oge.gov> |
Our filing is AGAINST OSC for running cover-ups to protect seated White House staff and their campaign financiers!
On June 26, 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Scott J. Bloch for the position of Special Counsel at the Office of Special Counsel; he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on December 9, 2003. On January 5, 2004, he was sworn in to serve a five-year term.[37] Bloch was a lightning rod for controversy. His first major actions as head of the Office were to choose as deputy a lawyer who had publicly taken a position against the “homosexual agenda,” and to hire young lawyers from Ave Maria School of Law, the conservative school founded by Domino’s Pizza billionaire Tom Monaghan.[38]
On May 6, 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation served warrants on OSC headquarters in Washington, D.C. as well as on Mr. Bloch’s home, seizing computers. It was alleged that when Bloch’s refusal to follow up on cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation was leaked to the press, he retaliated against career employees by creating a field office in Detroit. He was removed as Special Counsel on October 23, 2008. He was subsequently found to have obstructed the investigation by removing material from his computer.[39] He pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of Congress but then successfully withdrew his plea upon learning that he would be sentenced to prison.
During the Bloch era, the OSC was criticized for (1) very rarely recognizing legitimate whistleblowers, typically only when the whistleblower had already prevailed elsewhere; (2) taking too long to investigate meritorious cases; (3) using a conservative litmus test in hiring; (4) discouraging federal whistleblowers from using their legal protections, and (5) generally siding with the federal administration instead of with the whistleblowers it was supposed to protect.[40][41]
On March 22, 2007, U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (Democrat, Hawaii), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, held a hearing on “Safeguarding the Merit System Principles.” In his opening statement, Sen. Akaka stated, “organizations that help whistleblowers claim that OSC has gone from being their first option for relief to their last choice since OSC no longer works with agencies to achieve informal relief and the percentage of corrective actions and stays has been cut in half since 2002.”[42]
OSC.GOV is entirely constructed for White House staff protection and against ANYONE reporting crimes BY White House and current agency staff. Current OSC staff, as of April, 2022 should be arrested and the office dissolved as it serves no purpose other than to target whistle-blowers for retribution.
The attached federal report on OSC (INV-567-5.pdf) demonstrates criminal cover-ups, obfuscation, deferrals and financial quid-pro-quo via stock market holdings that should be intolerable in modern America! In 2022, the OSC STILL has shown to STILL be complicit in: (1) very rarely recognizing legitimate whistleblowers, typically only when the whistleblower had already prevailed elsewhere; (2) taking too long to investigate meritorious cases; (3) using a conservative litmus test in hiring; (4) discouraging federal whistleblowers from using their legal protections, and (5) generally siding with the federal administration instead of with the whistleblowers it was supposed to protect.[40][41]
This letter and documents are being BCC’d to every member of Congress, Every regulatory agency, every independent investigative news out, every transparency organization and all public social media outlets.
We hope you OSC people fry in hell for destroying American Democracy with your shill organization window-dressing scam operation!
On 4/18/22 9:45 AM, Alexander, Lynn wrote:
I am going to need additional information in order to confirm that you currently have an open matter with our office. Would you please provide your full name and department or agency where you are or were employed? Also, if you successfully filed with us, you should have received an acknowledgement which would have included a file number. If you have that file number, would you please provide it to me. Once I have this information, I should be able to track down your file.
Thank you,
Lynn Alexander
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 12:34 PM
To: Alexander, Lynn <lalexander@osc.gov>
Cc: Info <info@osc.gov>
Subject: Re: Status Of Claim Request – New Disclosure Matter
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL Do not click on links, open attachments, or provide information unless you are sure the message is legitimate and the content is safe.
Our new disclosure matter, attached has not been closed. We are reporting the OSC status to every member of Congress because the cover-up efforts are so extreme!
On 4/18/22 8:24 AM, Alexander, Lynn wrote:
Your disclosure matter was closed by our office on March 1, 2019.
Thank you,
Lynn Alexander
——————————————————————————-
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MOST GOVERNMENT WHISTLE-BLOWER OFFICES EXIST TO FIND WHISTLE-BLOWERS, PUT THEM ON THE NSA WATCH DATABASE AND TARGET THEM WITH COVERT REPRISAL TACTICS.
WHISTLE-BLOWERS SHOULD ONY GO TO THE NEWS MEDIA AND SOCIAL NETWORKS AND MAKE THEIR OWN NEWS OUTLETS
DoD Hotline – Whistleblower Reprisal Complaints
Whistleblower Retaliation the U.s. Office of Special Counsel
FEC Still Refuses To Investigate Alleged $84 Million Money Laundering Bribes
Tuesday evening the Committee to Defend the President (CDP) filed a motion in a D.C. federal court seeking to supplement the complaint it had filed against the Federal Election Committee (FEC) in April 2018. In its original complaint, the CDP alleged that the agency responsible for enforcing campaign-finance law failed to act on an administrative complaint the CDP had filed with the FEC. That complaint charged that, during the 2016 presidential election, Democrats illegally funneled approximately $84 million through the Hillary Victory Fund to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which then illegally coordinated with the Hillary Clinton campaign.
To understand the alleged scheme requires familiarity with controlling campaign-finance law and campaign contribution limits. As I explained at the time CDP sued the FEC last April:
Under federal law, ‘an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party’s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits—it’s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfer to their national party.’
This legal loophole allows ‘bundlers’ to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors—more than $400,000 at a time—filtering the funds to the national committees. Democrats and Republicans alike exploit this tactic. But once the money reaches the national committees, other limits apply.
During the 2016 election cycle, Democrats followed this formula, with Clinton, the DNC, and participating state Democratic committees establishing the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) as a joint fundraising committee to accept contributions from large donors. To comply with the law, the HVF needed to transfer the donations to the specified recipients, whether the Clinton campaign, down-ticket Democrats, the DNC, or state committees.
FEC records the CDP reviewed revealed a problem, however: HVF reported several large contributions as received and on the same day (or occasionally the following day) the DNC recorded receiving the same amount of funds from a state Democratic committee, but the state Democratic committees never reported receiving the contribution from the HVF or dispersing the funds to the DNC.
Public statements by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile further implicated Hillary Clinton with violating campaign finance laws during the 2016 election. Brazile explained that “[a]s Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
Clinton campaign chief financial officer Gary Gensler similarly stated that the Democratic Party was “fully under the control of the Clinton campaign . . . . The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.”
By controlling the DNC, the campaign contributions made to the national party qualified as donations to the Clinton campaign for purposes of federal campaign finance law, and if properly accounted for, they would exceed the legal contribution limits.
After uncovering evidence of this purported scheme, the CDP filed an administrative complaint with the FEC on December 15, 2017. The CDP asked “the FEC to commence enforcement proceedings against Hillary Clinton, her campaign and its treasurer, the DNC and its treasurer, and the participating state Democratic committees.” Attached to the administrative complaint were nearly 20 pages of Excel spreadsheets summarizing the evidence of the alleged misconduct.
By law, after receiving an administrative complaint, the FEC must notify those accused of wrongdoing of the charges then determine whether there was “reason to believe” a violation of campaign finance law occurred. Following a finding by four FEC commissioners that there is “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, the FEC must then investigate the complaint. Or if the FEC concludes there is no reason to believe a violation occurred, it will dismiss the complaint.
But the FEC did nothing from December 15, 2017 until April 2018, when the CDP sued the FEC seeking a court order directing the agency to rule on the administration complaint it lodged against the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and various state Democratic committees. In response, the FEC filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the CDP lacked standing, meaning it lacked the ability to sue. That motion has been under consideration since last summer.
In last night’s filing, the CDP tells the district court that its request to supplement its complaint will not affect the court’s consideration of the question of standing. Rather, the CDP merely seeks to update its allegations concerning the FEC’s delay, to “allege that, for more than a year, the FEC has completely failed to complete its adjudication of, or even make a ‘reason to believe’ finding concerning, CDP’s Administrative Complaint.”
In briefing filed with its motion to supplement the complaint, the CDP stresses that “in determining whether the FEC’s delay in addressing the Administrative Complaint is ‘unlawful,’ one of the most important factors this Court must consider is the length of time it has been pending before the agency.” Thus, the CDP argues, “in determining whether the FEC’s ‘failure to act is contrary to law,’ the pertinent time period should now be over one year, rather than four months,” and the court should allow it to update the complaint accordingly.
Whether the district court will agree is another matter: The court might well conclude that there is no need to update the complaint merely to state that more time has passed since its filing. It is equally plausible, though, that the court will allow the supplemental filing as innocuous. The FEC ultimately consent the filing of the supplemental complaint.
These procedural machinations, however, serve solely as a sideshow to the real news: The FEC is not doing its job. That is likely what prompted Dan Backer, the D.C.-based attorney representing the CDP, to push for supplementing the complaint—to expose the FEC’s inexcusable inaction.
“It’s outrageous that the FEC has sat around and done nothing – especially with such a detailed, comprehensive paper trail handed to them,” Backer told The Federalist. “It smacks of the same Deep State culture that shielded April Sand,” he said, in reference to the former FEC attorney “who played politics on the job,” by among other things “participat[ing] in a Huffington Post Live internet broadcast via webcam from an FEC facility, criticizing the Republican Party and then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney.” But Sand escaped criminal prosecution for violating the Hatch Act when the “Federal Election Commission recycled her hard drive before evidence could be recovered.”
Now for more than a year the FEC has ignored its statutory duty to address the CDP’s administrative complaint that laid out solid evidence that during the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the state Democratic parties illegally laundered nearly $84 million in campaign contributions. “But they also don’t want anyone doing the job they refuse to do,” Backer said in reference to the FEC’s motion to dismiss the CPF’s lawsuit.
Further, the FEC’s inaction holds significance far beyond the old news of Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential run: “The 2020 cycle has already started, and top-tier national Democratic contenders are already lining up,” Backer notes, adding that “Mark Elias of Perkins Coie, who represented both Clinton and the DNC during the 2016 campaign, is signed up with Kamala Harris.”
“If the FEC doesn’t get off its backside and act, or let others do it as the statute envisions, I have no doubt we’ll see multiple candidates repeating this scheme,” Backer warns.
The election-law lawyer is likely correct, although the candidates have likely learned a few tricks since Hillary’s presidential run: make sure the paper trail shows the funds passing through the state Democratic parties’ accounts, and don’t publicly admit that a candidate controls the DNC. Oh, and visit Wisconsin.
Georgia Reprisal Against Whistleblowers Attorney | The …
Non-Federal Employee’s Allegations of Whistleblower …
Whistleblower Protection Information – U.S. Office of …
Guide to Investigating Military Whistleblower Reprisal and …
‘Disturbing Trend’ in Retaliation Against Whistleblowers …
New Law Requires Discipline for Whistleblower Reprisal
Government Executive: Viewpoint: Whistleblowers are …
Retaliation/Reprisal (brochure) | U.S. Equal Employment …
SILICON VALLEY IS PAYING BRIBES TO CONGRESS VIA INSIDER TRADING AND IT IS KILLING AMERICA
Insider trading by Congress? It’s time to fix the law
Senators’ Stock Trades Would Make a Poker Cheat Blush
Are Recent Stock Sales by Members of Congress the Tip of the Insider Trading Iceberg?
How Congress Gets Away With Insider Trading Even Though It’s Against The Law
Gianforte disputes Fox’s insider trading claim
Insider Trading Enforcement And COVID Political Intelligence
Coronavirus insider trading cases against Burr, Loeffler and others differ drastically
US stock futures plunge, trigger limit down trading halt, after Senate fails to agree on $1.6 trillion stimulus package
Experts suggest financial reforms as insider trading questions engulf Congress
Why prosecuting senators for trading on Covid would be so tough
Use Insider Buying to Identify Top Dividend Payers
Other Senators Don’t Have Richard Burr’s Insider-Trading Problem
Silicon Valley Oligarch Bribes to Political Parties Are Threat To Democracy
Issued by Transparency International Secretariat
Bribe payments to political parties are increasingly used to corrupt the political process, warns Transparency International, the global anti-corruption organisation. This constitutes a dangerous trend undermining democratic institutions. “The current wave of corruption scandals we are witnessing across Europe is not about personal enrichment – it’s about the purchase of access to policy-makers, and political parties are the prime target in this game,” TI Chairman Dr Peter Eigen said.
“There is clear evidence that high-level political corruption is leading to growing disillusionment with the democratic process,” Eigen warned. “In many young democracies it is even threatening the viability of democracy itself. We need to stop this development.” In light of the evidence, Transparency International stated that reform of political party funding will in the future be a central focus of its work.
As a concrete step, TI urges OECD member states to prohibit bribe payments to foreign political parties. The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions does not fully prohibit bribe payments made to foreign political parties and their officials. “Payments to political parties may be used to circumvent the intended impact of the Convention and it is urgent that action be taken to prevent this,” TI’s chairman Prof. Dr. Peter Eigen stated today.
Strong support for this approach was voiced at an international meeting of prominent personalities that was held in Florence and co-chaired by Dr. Eigen and Mr. John Brademas, Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy and a member of TI’s Advisory Council. Participants included representatives from the public and the private sector as well as civil society activists and researchers from 18 countries.
TI will move forward to seek action within the OECD on the basis of a set of actions recommended by the international experts at the Florence meeting. These actions included:
- The OECD should ensure that bribe payments to foreign political parties and their officials are effectively prohibited through its instruments. Such a prohibition should cover bribe payments made “to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage” in order to have the same scope as the prohibition against the bribing of foreign public officials.
- Governments should take effective action to implement such a prohibition in a manner consistent with their legal systems. In some countries such action could include a prohibition against “trading in influence”, as provided for in the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention Against Corruption.
- In order to achieve greater transparency, political parties in the states that have signed the OECD Convention should be required to make prompt and appropriate disclosure of contributions and expenditures. Corporations should also be required publicly to report political contributions and to comply with reporting and other requirements imposed by the countries where such contributions are made.
- The states that have signed the OECD Convention should prohibit corporations based in their own countries from making political party contributions in violation of the laws of the foreign countries where the contributions are made.
- The development of effective mechanisms to deal with bribery within the private sector is a matter of growing urgency. Action in this area may also be a means by which to address aspects of political party corruption.
The landmark OECD Anti-Corruption Convention has now been ratified by 24 countries, who account for the bulk of global exports. A major priority for TI is to underpin the OECD Convention by advocating new measures, such as the ones proposed today, in addition to pressing for full monitoring and enforcement of the Convention and by campaigning for more countries to ratify the Convention.
La Pietra Recommendations
A group of 28 individuals from nine countries from the private sector, public institutions and civil society met at the invitation of Transparency International (TI) at the Villa La Pietra, Florence, Italy, from 12-14 October 2000. The purpose of the meeting was to review issues relating to corruption and political party financing, particularly in the context of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
The participants are convinced that political party corruption is a major problem in most countries around the world – in industrialised countries as well as in developing countries and countries in transition. Bribe payments to party officials have played an important role in major bribery scandals around the world.
In the established democracies, political corruption contributes to a growing disillusionment with democratic processes, evidenced by declining levels of voter participation. In the emerging democracies and countries in transition, political corruption, often fed by corruption in international business transactions, poses an even greater threat to the sustainability of democratic institutions.
Participants agree that the present process of expansion of international business must be accompanied by the development of effective international standards of conducts. This is increasingly recognised in the fields of corporate governance, competition policy and rules for accounting and audit. Participants believe that expanding international trade must also be accompanied by effective measures against corruption, and they commended the OECD for its leadership role in the adoption of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
Concerns were expressed that the Convention’s prohibition of bribe payments to foreign public officials does not fully prohibit bribe payments made to foreign political party officials. Participants recognise that payments to political parties may be used to circumvent the intended impact of the Convention.
Participants are also concerned to ensure that, with increasing privatisation of traditional government functions, the issue of bribery within the private sector requires attention.
Against this background the participants recommend the following actions to the OECD:
- The OECD should ensure that bribe payments to foreign political parties and their officials are effectively prohibited through its instruments. Such a prohibition should cover bribe payments made “to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage” in order to have the same scope as the prohibition against the bribing of foreign public officials.
- Governments should take effective action to implement such a prohibition in a manner consistent with their legal systems. In some countries such action could include a prohibition against “trading in influence”, as provided for in the Council of Europe’s Criminal law Convention Against Corruption.
- In order to achieve greater transparency, political parties in states that have signed the OECD Convention should be required to make prompt and appropriate disclosure of contributions and expenditures. Corporations should also be required publicly to report political contributions and to comply with reporting and other requirements imposed by the countries where such contributions are made.
- The states that have signed the OECD Convention should prohibit corporations based in their own countries from making political party contributions in violation of the laws of the foreign countries where the contributions are made.
- The development of effective mechanisms to deal with bribery within the private sector is a matter of growing urgency. Action in this area may also be a means by which to address aspects of political party corruption.
The participants agreed that their proposals should be submitted formally to the OECD Working Group on Bribery. They also agreed to function as a continuing advisory group to assist Transparency International (TI) in promoting reform of political financing, at the OECD and in other national and international fora.
The participants requested their Co-Chairmen, Prof. Dr. Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International, and the Hon. John Brademas, a member of the TI International Advisory Council, to issue a press statement on behalf of the meeting.
La Pietra, Italy
14 October 2000
For any press enquiries please contact
Jeff Lovitt, Head of Public Relations
Fax:+49-30-34703912
press@transparency.org
