Subpoena Time - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

 368Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 02:01 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Oh, @teacozy here is some more FUN facts!!


https://www.workplacefairness.org/fe...istleblowers#3
Quote:
6. Should I report wrongdoing to the Office of Special Counsel?

Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal agency that interprets, investigates, and prosecutes cases of prohibited personnel practices brought by government employees. The OSC operates a confidential Whistleblower Disclosure Hotline (800-572-2249) and also accepts disclosures by mail.

Here are some of the advantages of disclosing wrongdoing to OSC:
Confidentiality is provided by law

The OSC can order your agency to investigate and report on the information disclosed
Once the agency reports on the information disclosed, the OSC must send the report (with comments that you and OSC choose to add) to the President, Congress, and Comptroller General
If the OSC does not send the disclosed information to your agency for an investigation and report, it must return the disclosed information to you with an explanation of why no referral to the agency was made
The OSC must also advise you of any other avenues for disclosure of the information.
Even if OSC finds no fraud, waste, or abuse, you may still pursue a whistleblower claim if you are retaliated against.
CONFIDENTIALTY! that means........private!

Quote:
7. Should I keep my complaint confidential?
If you are extremely concerned that a disclosure will result in retaliation, you should take steps to protect the confidentiality of the disclosure.
For a confidential whistleblower, it could be hard to prove retaliation if the offending management officials persuasively testify that they did not know of your whistleblowing. On the other hand, if you are a well-known whistleblower, adverse consequences are more easily attributable to the report you made. It is easier to establish that the official taking the action knew of your whistleblowing.
You should be prepared in advance to identify retaliation and quickly take steps to assert your rights in opposition to any retaliation.
That means you and Dorit don't get to see the goods! CONFIDENTIALITY OF DISCLOSURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (private matter!!) hush-hush! secret!

Last edited by 95191; 11-24-2015 at 02:29 PM.
95191 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#92 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 04:24 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
Last response for a while since the holidays are coming up and I am going to be busy.

Good example of why a legal expert's opinion is a lot more helpful than the guess of a layperson. Dorit has been following along and gave me permission to post her responses to some points made here. From your quote on the bottom of page 3:

"That quote only says that if you're disclosing something the law doesn't allow you to disclose whistleblower protections only apply if you go through OSC. Thompson isn't speaking about something like that. If he was, he'd be in trouble for not going through OSC and the protections wouldn't apply to him.

From their long link: "A whistleblower may disclose information to “any” person. The statute does not require that the whistleblowing occur through a specific channel (e.g., Office of Inspector General or OSC) unless the information concerns matters required by law or Presidential order to be kept confidential.51" Page 17.

Basically, if the information meets a standard OSC investigates with the agency - "If OSC determines that the disclosure meets the “substantial likelihood” standard, OSC refers information to an agency head for an investigation, and the agency must investigate the allegations and submit a written report to OSC on the agency’s findings." The agency would not know the whistleblower's identity without consent, but here his name is out. "Absent the whistleblower’s consent, OSC does not disclose the identity of the whistleblower.20 If the Special Counsel does not refer the disclosure to the agency head, OSC sends a letter to the whistleblower explaining why the Special Counsel did not refer the information. This letter lets the whistleblower know what other disclosure channels may be available. Either way, an OSC staff member will contact the whistleblower within two weeks of filing to explain the process and timing."

If OSC contacted CDC, CDC knows who it is. If there's an investigation, where is it?"

About the quote you pasted in this post:

"According to the transcripts, Thompson did not approach anyone while talking to Hooker and only talked to a lawyer later - and the process began after his name was known. So he is a well known whistleblower. At any rates, OSC hides the name of the whistleblower under this language. Not the fact that there was disclosure of wrongdoing. In this case, since he's claiming wrongdoing about a paper he was an author on, there would be no good way to hide his name. Furthermore, again, his name was in the open very early. Nothing to hide. If they are saying there is a secret OSC investigation going on it doesn't make sense. But back to where they started: they claim someone granted Thompson whistleblower status. Evidence, please."

She also pointed out that Thompson - via the statement through his lawyer and more recently Posey on the House Floor - has only talked about an investigation through congress. If there was an active investigation going through the OSC like you seem to be suggesting, there wouldn't need to be an additional separate investigation through congress since the OSC can make recommendations to congress. So it doesn't make sense.

But even IF there was some secret investigation going on through the OSC no one knows about, that STILL leaves the point that you don't know about it either and therefore don't have any evidence that there's an investigation or that he has been "granted whistleblower status" since it would be "hush hush" as you said. So either way, you have to admit you have zero evidence to support the claim you made that he was "given" whistleblower status in the other thread you linked where we discussed this

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 11-24-2015 at 04:28 PM.
teacozy is offline  
#93 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 04:27 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Second, there is still no offical "whistlblower" status that gets granted to federal government employees.
I have NO clue where or for that matter HOW you pulled out this remark - link please???

I think this is a good place for this - http://www.whistleblowers.org/index....sk=view&id=144

Quote:
The MSPB ruling sets important national precedent ensuring that the thousands of Title 42 federal employeesmany working in highly sensitive health and safety positions within the federal government – are fully protected under the whistleblower laws.
-- HEALTH as in the CDC!

Quote:
The Board’s decision provides whistleblower protections to thousands of federal employees engaged in highly sensitive work directly related to public health and safety. Dr. Fishbein took a courageous stand in demanding full whistleblower protection in the face of a hostile federal bureaucracy. He is now fully vindicated. Other Title 42 employees with information about wrongdoing can now blow the whistle and obtain protection.
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.
95191 is offline  
 
#94 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 04:37 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"That quote only says that if you're disclosing something the law doesn't allow you to disclose whistleblower protections only apply if you go through OSC. Thompson isn't speaking about something like that. If he was, he'd be in trouble for not going through OSC and the protections wouldn't apply to him.

From their long link: "A whistleblower may disclose information to “any” person. The statute does not require that the whistleblowing occur through a specific channel (e.g., Office of Inspector General or OSC) unless the information concerns matters required by law or Presidential order to be kept confidential.51" Page 17.

Basically, if the information meets a standard OSC investigates with the agency - "If OSC determines that the disclosure meets the “substantial likelihood” standard, OSC refers information to an agency head for an investigation, and the agency must investigate the allegations and submit a written report to OSC on the agency’s findings." The agency would not know the whistleblower's identity without consent, but here his name is out. "Absent the whistleblower’s consent, OSC does not disclose the identity of the whistleblower.20 If the Special Counsel does not refer the disclosure to the agency head, OSC sends a letter to the whistleblower explaining why the Special Counsel did not refer the information. This letter lets the whistleblower know what other disclosure channels may be available. Either way, an OSC staff member will contact the whistleblower within two weeks of filing to explain the process and timing."

If OSC contacted CDC, CDC knows who it is. If there's an investigation, where is it?" You BOTH have NO right to know!

So you are taking advise from someone who does not know the details and who was not there? Good one!

You and Dorit simply do not know. No one does, it's PRIVATE. Filing with the EEOC and OSC are private. You and again, Dorit, do not know who he filed with or what he filed under, or what he disclosed! What was given within this tread are examples of how one "CAN" file. Since you kept and keep claiming federal employees can't get whistleblower status to begin with! Ready to admit they can???

Did she help you spin that bit on the RETALIATION prior or are you ready to admit that too is in accurate?
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.
95191 is offline  
#95 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 04:38 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I have NO clue where or for that matter HOW you pulled out this remark - link please???

I think this is a good place for this - http://www.whistleblowers.org/index....sk=view&id=144

-- HEALTH as in the CDC!
Whistleblower protection against retaliation is not the same thing as "granting" whistleblower status. That they are protected against retaliation by is not in dispute.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#96 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 04:40 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,027
Mentioned: 586 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3680 Post(s)
And no, investigations are not private. Just look at the "news" section of their website. https://osc.gov/Pages/News.aspx

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#97 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 04:48 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
But even IF there was some secret investigation going on through the OSC no one knows about, that STILL leaves the point that you don't know about it either and therefore don't have any evidence that there's an investigation or that he has been "granted whistleblower status" since it would be "hush hush" as you said. So either way, you have to admit you have zero evidence to support the claim you made that he was "given" whistleblower status in the other thread you linked where we discussed this
NOPE, wrong again!

No one has the right to see what he gave! Again, links have been provided telling you that you have NO right to know what is being done regarding a whistleblower, why you two think you must be shown is beyond rational belief! It's private!

There is nothing to disprove he was not given whistleblower status! Boy you really don't want this to be true!

History is really good to know - It does happen - federal whistleblowers before congress! YUP, it' has happened!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...orting-wrongs/ this is just ONE example, there have been many congressional hearing involving those whistleblowers that ARE federal workers!

http://www.c-span.org/video/?326518-...whistleblowers


Blowing smoke and thinking this isn't real is just that! Hot air! It' quite clear so many don't want this be real! The pages of pretending federal workers aren't granted whistleblower protection shows how desperate the PRO Agenda really is!
95191 is offline  
#98 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 04:53 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Whistleblower protection against retaliation is not the same thing as "granting" whistleblower status. That they are protected against retaliation by is not in dispute.
We have posted (many on here to you about this) you DO NOT need to have retaliation! It was shown as an example! A FEDERAL worker - you were the one that made the claim that federal workers aren't whistleblowers - here is YOUR quote!

Quote:
Second, there is still no offical "whistlblower" status that gets granted to federal government employees.
- the link I posted showed THEY are granted whistleblower status and again, it's been posted that one does not need to be retaliated against, this man happened to be but you do not need to be.

Several have asked you about your claim of RETALIATION prior and you did not provide it! Because one does not need it! It's plain and simple!

FACTS are- Federal workers can and are whistleblowers!
One does not need to be "retaliated" against to be a whistleblower!
95191 is offline  
#99 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 04:55 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
And no, investigations are not private. Just look at the "news" section of their website. https://osc.gov/Pages/News.aspx
Do you know much about history or even follow the news?

MANY investigations, especially when it involves a congressional hearing are simply not made public! This isn't something only for this case!
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.
95191 is offline  
#100 of 198 Old 11-24-2015, 05:08 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
She also pointed out that Thompson - via the statement through his lawyer and more recently Posey on the House Floor - has only talked about an investigation through congress. If there was an active investigation going through the OSC like you seem to be suggesting, there wouldn't need to be an additional separate investigation through congress since the OSC can make recommendations to congress. So it doesn't make sense.
It make perfect sense! Having several areas of the goverement looking into why things are done is really a good thing! It helps to avoid cover-ups! It also servers to inform the public, when made public, why things are done - basic US govt history - high school level too.

It's call the congress for a reason and they have hearings, public and private for a reason! Again, history is really good and understanding why our justice system works with congress in this way especially when it involves public trust, federal employees, and more importantly when it involves a Federal Agency like the CDC that is entrusted to ensure the public's trust! It's a big deal when what is being alleged is occurring at the CDC! It's a REAL BIG DEAL! Is it now going to be floated this is some minor things that congress should not know about, like in not letting the public know what is going on with the CDC??? - sounds like some are very worried!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have assumed a "educated" law professor would have explained why our governments does this! I guess not.

I learned about this in school.


ETA - OSC makes recommendation as to policy, not reporting on individual cases, that is how act, laws, regulation, etc are done. This isn't some tiny little thing (I know many seem to wish to just sweep it under a carpet) but bring this to congress is not a little thing! spin and spin and throw all you can to deflect and distract! Seems like a real pattern going on here.

Again, - FEDERAL workers can be whistleblowers - are we clear on that yet???
One does not need to be retaliated against to be a whistleblower!
Filing and disclosure is PRIVATE! Heck even the tip line in private! Having a lawyer write it all down nice and neat and send it to the OSC can also be done and NO ONE needs to know what you did!
Whistleblower DO apper befor congress, that is the US Congress should anyone not know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geeze, thought this was basics US govt!

Last edited by 95191; 11-24-2015 at 05:43 PM.
95191 is offline  
#101 of 198 Old 11-25-2015, 05:22 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 579 Post(s)
A woman I know, worked for HUD, which is a federal agency....she gained whistleblower status when she reported wrongdoings within the dept in our town, and did NOT have to apply for whistle blower protection due to her whistleblowing. She filed for protection after saying something, but retaliation for her came in a different way, such, as police following her, arresting her for very minor things a regular citizen would have just gotten a verbal warning, .... and finally, detained in a psychiatric facility, due to her alleged grievances with HUD, and no one would take her seriously. We are talking millions of dollars being mishandled within the HUD dept in our town, and blatant discrimmination practices she uncovered, favoring 'American' families over homeless immigrants migrating into the city. Many a foreign family went homeless due to this favoritism her boss displayed.
She has now been slandered by the town and media, and portrayed, ousted, and cast out of town. While she may have gotten federal protection from retaliation, it in no way stops local retaliation from occurring.
applejuice, 95191 and Anne Jividen like this.
emmy526 is online now  
#102 of 198 Old 11-25-2015, 11:47 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
@emmy526 that sounds awful! That is simply horrible to do to someone!!!

An not to degrade this woman, she wasn't even at the level of what we are talking about here!
Goes to show how keeping your cards close to you vest is so important. Look how the PRO Agenda propaganda has acted thus far. This on and on and on about how Federal workers can't be whistleblowers, this is basic stuff that isn't even vac related and they can't be truthful! - so childish too! I think it's great NOTHING has come out! All the better for it to come out in the proper setting and at the right time! The PRO Agenda is grasping at nothing! Trying to distort how the process works! So low, when you have nothing and FEAR so much you tend to mislead instead of be factual! Pretend and make up crap and hope others aren't smart enough to figure out that your message is full of it!
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.
95191 is offline  
#103 of 198 Old 11-25-2015, 12:21 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
for those interested in this - http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/01/cdc-v...ver-up-autism/

ETA- if you lack the understanding that one does not need to be retaliated against PRIOR, still can't grasp federal workers can and ARE whistleblowers, don't understand what paper work a lawyer can file on your behalf or how congressional hearings work, maybe skip this link!
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.

Last edited by 95191; 11-25-2015 at 12:58 PM.
95191 is offline  
#104 of 198 Old 11-25-2015, 01:09 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 628
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Is this ever a confusing thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
@serenbat , I have no idea what you're going on about but whistleblower protection only applies if a person has faced retaliation from their employer. There is no evidence that the CDC has retaliated.

http://www.va.gov/oig/hotline/know-y...ing-wrongs.pdf
Did you even read your own link? WHERE does it say that retaliation HAS to occur before applying for whistleblower protection?
Teacozy, I agree with where I believe you were going in the inner quote, but what you actually said was wrong. Whistleblower protection applies from the moment of whistleblowing with the employer knowing that they can not legally retaliate. You are right though that it is not something to be applied for - if the whisteblower feels they are being retaliated against, when the whistleblower laws have been broken, that is when they file a claim.

Emmy526, where in that link does it say whistleblower protection is something that must be applied for?

If it were something that must be applied for, does that mean that if you neglected to apply for it before reporting, say, "a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety," and then were fired from your job in retaliation for it, the court would see that you had never applied for or been granted whistleblower status and so let the firing stand? That seems to be the implication. However, my understanding is that this is not the case, and the laws say that if you have done these actions as described, then you can not be retaliated against for doing them - as opposed to "if you have applied for and been granted official whistleblower status, then you can't be retaliated against for these actions."


Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post
In order to qualify for whistleblower protection, requirements must be met under the whistleblower protection program, and the individual is automatically protected by law against any possible retaliation if requirements are met. What is it that you aren't understanding? These whistleblowers are protected from retaliation BEFORE any retaliation occurs. If retaliation occurs, they file a claim. These laws were developed to encourage future whistleblowers to speak out against illegal activity, because firing employees for speaking out is too easy.
Silvermoom is right here. The individual is automatically protected.

Where teacozy said "only applies" is not quite right, but I expect that was miss-worded as a result of posting in a hurry. Her main point has been "There is no "granting" official whistleblower status for federal government employees." My understanding from what I've read, including links posted by all sides here, is that she is right.

As far as I can tell, back in February a right wing news source called the Daily Caller announced that Obama had granted Thompson immunity, then later in the body of the article referred to it as whistleblower immunity. Natural news and such flew with it from there. Eventually the immunity seems to have dropped - perhaps because there was absolutely nothing to confirm that it had happened apart from one article which was not clear on the source? Granted whistleblower protection seems to have stuck though - probably because he very may well be protected by whistleblower laws not because he has been granted a special status by the Obama admisistration or a court or whatever, but because the laws are already in place to automatically provide protection to federal employees who whistleblow, and because he has been referred to as a whistleblower by mainstream media since before we actually knew his name, back when he was Hooker's anonymous CDC source.


To sum up because TL;DR - I have not seen anything linked from this thread or elsewhere that indicates Thompson applied for or been granted whistleblower status, or even that it is something that must be applied for and granted. Thompson may very well be protected by whistleblower laws that are in place to automatically protect federal employees who report wrongdoing of their agency from being retaliated against so long as his actions fit the outlined criteria, and no one has said that he can't or shouldn't be called a whistleblower. If he felt that he was being retaliated against by his employer, that is when he would file a claim, and whoever he files too (presumably a court?) would declare for sure whether his actions fell within those described by whistleblower laws and if his claim of those laws being broken was valid.

Last edited by pers; 11-25-2015 at 01:16 PM.
pers is offline  
#105 of 198 Old 11-25-2015, 02:21 PM
 
SilverMoon010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,420
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 694 Post(s)
I think the title of the Daily Caller article that's being referred to here of "Obama Admin Grants Immunity To CDC Scientist That Fudged Vaccine Report…Whistleblower Plans To Testify Before Congress" may be taken out of context in this thread.

I think two things are possible with that title:

1. There is an inside source who actually did leak confidential information regarding the Thompson case and was able to pass along the fact when Thompson "officially" became protected by whistleblower laws, assuming he met requirements and qualified for such protection, in which the source must be kept private...

OR

2. The title of that article is simply referring to Thompson being "granted" (using that term loosely), meaning was able to fall under whistleblower protection law, due to requirement met, as an "official" whistleblower under Obama and his administration's recent enhancement of the law under Whistleblower Protection Enhancment Act, which was signed into law in 2012, which strengthens and provides more protection for federal whistleblowers, in particular, federal scientists and censorship.

Again, people may be reading far too deeply into the title of the article. I think the "immunity" term used refers to immunity from employer retaliation.
applejuice, 95191 and Anne Jividen like this.
SilverMoon010 is offline  
#106 of 198 Old 11-25-2015, 02:43 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
@pers the "apply" used by emmy526 was questioning @teacozy who implied the term "apply" - one MUST follow the requirements to be a whistleblower! (link was provided by me that shows what is needed to be a federal whistleblower) @teacozy NEVER answered her assertion that one must first be retaliated against before "applying" to be a whistleblower, even after numerous requests to do so! She NEVER corrected this assertion either.

When statements such as this one made by @teacozy -
Quote:
Second, there is still no offical "whistlblower" status that gets granted to federal government employees.
clearly that lacks knowledge of what we have been discussing here - that statement is utterly false and clearly not from someone who know's about this even given what was clearly posted by govt links! I find it astonishing how pages where devoted to asserting this can't be true for federal employees! (again links were provided that clearly show federal employees are granted and ARE whistleblowers!) These (again are NOT ANTI-vac things!) simply are real facts!

Her instance that one must be retaliated PRIOR also shows no understanding as to this. Certainly post after post claiming this isn't helpful! Again, a false statement!

Further not knowing how and why we have, (and a bit of history here as well) congressional hearing is extremely problematic. Basic US high school history!

Attempting to spin this as in not knowing who he spoke too is just that SPIN too! That is not knowledge made public!

Floating that no evidence has been shown or not knowing what investigation is happening is also pure SPIN - one does this when they clearly are not knowledgable as to how this works!

Last edited by 95191; 11-25-2015 at 05:28 PM.
95191 is offline  
#107 of 198 Old 11-25-2015, 02:51 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

To sum up because TL;DR - I have not seen anything linked from this thread or elsewhere that indicates Thompson applied for or been granted whistleblower status, or even that it is something that must be applied for and granted. Thompson may very well be protected by whistleblower laws that are in place to automatically protect federal employees who report wrongdoing of their agency from being retaliated against so long as his actions fit the outlined criteria, and no one has said that he can't or shouldn't be called a whistleblower. If he felt that he was being retaliated against by his employer, that is when he would file a claim, and whoever he files too (presumably a court?) would declare for sure whether his actions fell within those described by whistleblower laws and if his claim of those laws being broken was valid.
One does not apply to a court. This is done through a govt. agency. The link I provided. You don't seem familiar with US policy on this issue.

Again, you have NO right to see anything, it's private! Protected too!

I fail to see why PRO vaccers think they are entitled to information when one files a complaint and making this into something that is simply not allowed! I even posted and one can google how many cases are brought each year just by federal workers and you (being the PRO vaccers!) are not granted accesses to this information! I can't grasp why you (again ALL those asking for this) feel entitled to this! It's not how it's done! This isn't some ANTIvac secret here - it's how our govt designed the program to work! You don't get to know who took the report, you don't get access to the information, it's very easy IMO but for some reason this procedural stuff can't seem to be grasped!
Anne Jividen likes this.
95191 is offline  
#108 of 198 Old 11-25-2015, 03:03 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

Where teacozy said "only applies" is not quite right, but I expect that was miss-worded as a result of posting in a hurry. Her main point has been "There is no "granting" official whistleblower status for federal government employees." My understanding from what I've read, including links posted by all sides here, is that she is right.
I don't know how you come to this conclusion but NO she is not correct!

Either you are or you are NOT a whistleblower, and yes you can use the term "granted" because either you are or you are not.

granted is correct - meet the guidelines and you are a granted to be a whistleblower! That is how one would word it!

DO NOT meet the guidelines and you are NOT granted to be a whistleblower! pretty simple IMO!


this is the use of "granted" - https://www.whistleblowerattorneys.c...ction-immunity (this wording can be found other place too!) again this isn't ANTI- vac!

Quote:
The government is often eager to grant whistleblower immunity in cases where the individual blowing the whistle has knowledge of a vast corporate scheme involving executive-level employees.
IF they (the US govt) says you are whistleblower it was granted to you!

ETA- more (even in the title) I know @teacozy seemed confused when I posted this up-thread, it's for the same reason - general info not about this one person! So read carefully those who do not understand what "granted" means!

http://www.whistleblowers.org/index....sk=view&id=144

see the use in the title (correct use too! how about that?) - Federal “Title 42” Employees Granted Whistleblower Protection

and it ends with -
Quote:
Other Title 42 employees with information about wrongdoing can now blow the whistle and obtain protection.
obtain is used instead of granted to mean the same thing! WOW!

Last edited by 95191; 11-25-2015 at 05:11 PM.
95191 is offline  
#109 of 198 Old 11-26-2015, 12:28 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 628
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
this is the use of "granted" - https://www.whistleblowerattorneys.c...ction-immunity (this wording can be found other place too!) again this isn't ANTI- vac!

IF they (the US govt) says you are whistleblower it was granted to you!

Quote:
The government is often eager to grant whistleblower immunity in cases where the individual blowing the whistle has knowledge of a vast corporate scheme involving executive-level employees.
No, actually. The US goverment can be very aware that you are a whistleblower protected by whistleblowing laws and call you/refer to you as a whistleblower over and over again and yet decide NOT to grant you the whistleblower immunity discussed here.

Note the heading above where you pulled that quote from is titled "Immunity from Prosecution." To expand on the part you quoted, it says:

Quote:
However, to the extent that the whistleblower was involved in planning the fraudulent activities, our attorneys may be able to negotiate immunity in exchange for the whistleblower’s full cooperation with the investigation. The government is often eager to grant whistleblower immunity in cases where the individual blowing the whistle has knowledge of a vast corporate scheme involving executive-level employees.
I can't remember what Posey said exactly about Thompson's claims - is he supposed to have actually helped destroy research, or did he just witness it? If he did help commit a crime, then being a whistleblower does not protect him from that - he's just as much on the hook as everyone else who was part of that criminal act. That is, unless he makes a special deal and is granted immunity in return for giving information and testimony. But even if he is not granted immunity, he is still a whisteblower and probably protected under federal whistleblower laws.

These whistleblower protection laws are what Teacozy and I and I believe a few others have been talking about. To see what they are, let's go to another of your links that you posted at the top of this page in post 91 - https://www.workplacefairness.org/fe...istleblowers#2

You linked to section 3 on that page, I'm just scrolling up a little and linking directly to section two which says:

Quote:
When an agency official takes, threatens to take, or fails to take a negative personnel action against you because of your whistleblowing activity, that is an illegal form of retaliation or reprisal. Congress was concerned enough about protecting those who blow the whistle on abuse in the government that it passed the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA) 5 USC 2302(b)(8), which prohibits retaliation against a whistleblower. More recently, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA) which extended the protections of whistleblowing to TSA employees, strengthened the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and closed some of the court created loopholes from the WPA.

The WPA applies only when a personnel action is taken against you at least in part because of your protected disclosure. As long as the protected disclosure was "a contributing factor" in the personnel action taken against you, the retaliation need not be the sole or major motivation for the action.
Reading over that, it appears I was wrong about Teacozy's use of "applies when," and she was correct. (My apologies, Teacozy!) I was thinking along the lines of the law applying because the existence is intended to keep retaliation happening to begin with. I guess it was meant as in when it's broken, when retaliation happens, that is when it applies and becomes an issue for a hearing or mediation or such.

Again, that was from your link.

The other link you keep posting, the "Federal “Title 42” Employees Granted Whistleblower Protection" that you keep referring to is dealing with these same whistleblower protection laws. http://www.whistleblowers.org/index....sk=view&id=144 Apparently at some point, a judge had determined that title 42 employees (who number in the thousands) were not protected by the whistleblower protection act, thus meaning they could be fired or otherwise retaliated against for whistleblowing. This article is about that decision being overturned, thus in 2006 all title 42 employees were granted protection under whistleblower laws.
pers is offline  
#110 of 198 Old 11-26-2015, 02:53 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
@pers I have no idea what you post is about! It's hard to grasp, I assume you do realize one can be a whistleblower? That isn't really even clear???

In your reading, did you fail to miss this? I know @teacozy can't seem to get this!

Quote:
Although whistleblower and retaliation claims are often discussed interchangeably, and claims brought by whistleblowers generally involve retaliation by an employer, there is a difference between the two types of claims.
- I also provided the link! DIFFERENT claims! There are a whole bunch of them!!! DIFFERENCE!!!!!! & it's big too!

Federal workers fall into different categories and have different requirements as well, those in the financial areas are not like those who work for the postal service and each has it's own set of claims/regulations, etc that one must meet! What I and others have posted is merely general information, that is was 99% of the time, one deals with a trained lawyer when filing! Crossing the "T"s, dotting the "I"s - I can't understand why PRO vaccers are so hung up on this - who would think that a professional would not get appropriate council prior to filing? But keep on this can't be and pick and pick and see where it get's you! Distract, deflect, pretend it's can't be true!! Again, this isn't ANTI-vac secret stuff here, I would have thought a "professor" would have better explained this, but clearly misleading is far better.......one might question what else they are not being told!!!! General info and it's seem to have baffled so many! As long as one keeps taking advise from someone who isn't being truthful I guess they will buy into anything! Pages of disbelief that a FEDERAL worker could even be a whistleblower, all based on ill advise given by a hero! Oh, well, shows that is really going on!!!!!!!!!!!! One says it can't be and others take them at their word instead of reading BASIC info for themselves! WOW!

Again, one DOES NOT need to be RETALIATED against to be a whistleblower!

It's been difficult enough to get the PRO side to understand federal workers can be whistleblowers, so as to not confuse these doubtful vaccers, one thing that is also not being brought up is that workers (federal too!!) must dual file with their state and meet those requirements as well! Not all federal workers are in DC! State laws apply too! Have fun understanding that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.

Last edited by 95191; 11-26-2015 at 02:58 PM.
95191 is offline  
#111 of 198 Old 11-26-2015, 05:14 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 628
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
@pers I have no idea what you post is about! It's hard to grasp, I assume you do realize one can be a whistleblower? That isn't really even clear???
Since I have talked about laws protecting whistleblowers and said several times that Thompson is a whistleblower, I think it is pretty clear that I do indeed realize that one can be a whistlblower. I'm not always opposed to sarcasm, and do use it myself on occasion, but did this bit of nasty sarcasm directed at me actually add anything to the discussion? Really?


Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

In your reading, did you fail to miss this? I know @teacozy can't seem to get this!

Quote:
Although whistleblower and retaliation claims are often discussed interchangeably, and claims brought by whistleblowers generally involve retaliation by an employer, there is a difference between the two types of claims.
- I also provided the link! DIFFERENT claims! There are a whole bunch of them!!! DIFFERENCE!!!!!! & it's big too!
I'm really not sure where you are going with this. Here is a bit more of the quote for context:

Quote:
Although whistleblower and retaliation claims are often discussed interchangeably, and claims brought by whistleblowers generally involve retaliation by an employer, there is a difference between the two types of claims.

Whistleblowing complaints focus on conduct prohibited by a specific law and/or conduct that may cause damage to public safety, waste tax dollars, or violate public trust in an honest, accountable government. Whistleblower complaints seldom include an employer's retaliation for complaints about personal dislikes or issues that affect only a single person.

However, laws governing the workplace that guarantee rights to each individual worker, such as the right to be free from discrimination, the right to be paid minimum and overtime wages, and the right to join a union do address the rights of an individual worker to enforce their personal legal rights under the law, and to support others who enforce their personal legal rights. If employers interfere with those rights in illegal ways, the individual can bring a retaliation claim to vindicate those individual rights.
We have only been talking about retaliation in terms of retaliation for whistleblowing which is what whistleblowing laws apply to. No one has brought up retaliation for doing other protected activities such as joining a union or protecting their own workplace rights. What does explaining the difference between claims of retaliation brought by whistleblowers and claims brought by others for retaliation for things that are not whistleblowing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
who would think that a professional would not get appropriate council prior to filing?
Indeed, who would? Who said they would not get appropriate council before filing?

All that I see said is that currently having a lawyer is not evidence that anything has been filed or even that anything is being prepared to be filed. In a situation such as Thompson's, of course he's going to have a lawyer whether he is filing or has any intention of filing or not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Pages of disbelief that a FEDERAL worker could even be a whistleblower, all based on ill advise given by a hero!
No. Absolutely not. There have not been pages and pages of disbelief that a federal worker could even be a whistleblower. There has not even been one single sentence or phrase saying that. No one has even denied that Thompson is a whistleblower*. Teacozy and I have both said he is one. Dorit Reiss is apparently aware of this too since Teacozy quoted her saying this:

Quote:
He still has his job because the CDC is probably worried it will be accused of retaliation if they act against him. That's what whistleblower protections do. Nobody needs to grant anything. If an employee exposes possible wrongdoing, even if turns out to be wrong, they are protected from retaliation.
How does Dorit Reiss saying that he probably can thank whistleblower protections as the reason he still has a job somehow a denial that federal employees can be whistlblowers or a denial that Thompson can be called one?

What is being said by her, Teacozy, and myself is that nobody - not the Obama administration or a court or agency - needs to grant Thomspson any special whistleblower status for this protection. If he blows the whistle on his employers wrongdoings (or what he honestly believes to be wrongdoings), then his employer can not legally retaliate because the action itself is protected by law.



Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Again, one DOES NOT need to be RETALIATED against to be a whistleblower!
Again, no one said you need to be retaliated against to be a whistleblower. If you expose wrongdoing (or what you believe to be wrongdoing) on the part of your employer, then you are a whistleblower. You don't even need to be declared one officially or given a special status by Obama or the court or whatever - you just are one by virtue of your actions.

What has been said is that whistleblowers apply when you are retaliated against. Because those laws say that retaliation for whistleblowers is illegal, so when retaliation happens, when the law is broken, that is when you file a claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
It's been difficult enough to get the PRO side to understand federal workers can be whistleblowers,
A reminder of how this started:

- Turquesa said she personally doesn't consider him a whistleblower because he didn't bravely come out on his own to expose wrongdoing on his own. ( *So, correction to above, I guess one person did say they wouldn't consider him a whistleblower).

- Anne Jividen said that yes he is because he has invoked "whistleblower status" and immunity.

- Mathemom asks what "whistlblower status and immunity" even means and requests a court document or such showing him claiming, invoking, or having been granted whistleblower status.

- Teacozy says she's asked this before and has never been given evidence that he's been granted whistleblower status.

- Samaxtics asks if she has any proof that he has not been given whistleblower status.

- Seranbat points out that Skeptical Raptor calls him a whistleblower, links to previous thread that I'm not even up to revisiting right now, then asks Teacozy why she keeps pushing "this not a whistleblower thing."

- Anne Jividen says she can't link to anything official, but does provide that daily caller article which claims that the Obama administration has given him immunity in the headline and "whistleblower immunity" in the body of the article.

- Teacozy says it's not up to her to prove others wrong. If others are going to claim something, it's up to them to back it up with evidence of it being true.

- Teacozy responds to Serenbat's asking why she keeps pushing "this not a whistleblower thing" by pointing out that she's called him a whistleblower too and that calling him that is very different from saying "he has been granted whistleblower status."

And then a lot more happens.

So basically, this whole thing comes back to that Daily Caller article and confusion between whistleblower protection laws and being granted immunity. At one point later in this thread, "whistleblower immunity" is used to mean whistleblower protection as in immunity from employer retaliation instead of it's normal use as immunity from criminal prosecution.

He is a whistleblower because his actions make him one. He does not need to be specially proclaimed one or granted "whistleblower status" by Obama administration or a court or anyone else to be one and be protected from retaliation by whistleblower laws. This is what teacozy and I have been saying. Not that he is not a whistleblower, but that he has not been granted any special status as one by the Obama administration or not.

On the other hand, there are not laws in place saying that whistleblowers get immunity. Immunity is something that would actually need to be granted. The Daily Caller article claimed that the Obama administration had granted Thompson immunity, but did not provide a source for that claim. They (or blogs and such that picked it up from them and cite The Daily Caller article as the source) are the only ones who have said this, to my knowledge. There have been other articles about him including some in mainstream sources. Surely if he was known to have immunity, someone else would be saying it.

Could he have immunity and it just not be known because it's a secret deal? Sure. But "he could have it in secret" does not actually back up the claim that he has been granted immunity. Claims that he has been granted immunity need to be backed up with evidence showing it to be true.

But I've now wandered a bit from where I was originally going, so back to this again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
It's been difficult enough to get the PRO side to understand federal workers can be whistleblowers,
The pro-side is obviously very aware that federal employees can be whistleblowers. The pro side has also referred to Thompson specifically as a whistleblower before this thread. So I think a big part of your difficulty with this thread is that you have spent a ton of time, energy, and far to many words (not all of which were even applicable to the topic at hand) trying to make the pro side understand something that it already understood before the start of this thread instead of actually paying attention to what the pro side was saying and responding to that.
Mathemom likes this.

Last edited by pers; 11-26-2015 at 05:16 PM.
pers is offline  
#112 of 198 Old 11-26-2015, 06:51 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
@pers


Plain and Simple

IF the PRO side knew "federal" workers could be whistleblowers these statementS should not have been made!


YOUR quote pers-
Quote:
There have not been pages and pages of disbelief that a federal worker could even be a whistleblower. There has not even been one single sentence or phrase saying that. No one has even denied that Thompson is a whistleblower*.
REALLY???


Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I've called him the "whistleblower", too. That does not mean I think he's been granted whistleblower protection from the government.
AGAIN-
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
IF a federal government employee faces retaliation after disclosure, then the whistleblower protection comes into play. They do not claim whistleblower status "in abstract", as Dorit put it. Please find a provision that allows granting status of whistleblower to a federal employee?
- IF one knew that federal employees could be whistleblowers you would not need to ask for this! Sounds like she doesn't know or she would not be asking!

AND again -
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
You guys are the ones not getting it. There is no "granting" official whistleblower status for federal government employees. Like I said above, provide a source that shows a provision that allows granting status of whistleblower to a federal employee. A person makes disclosures of wrongdoing. If there are no retaliations, then there is nothing to protect against. The law protects those that blow the whistle vs retaliation. It's not an accredited title or something someone is "granted".
AND AGAIN!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Nothing on those links addresses the point. Again, please find (and source) a provision that allows granting status of whistleblower to a federal employee? I am not seeing that on any source you provided so please provide it again if it is there.
AND still MORE -
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Second, there is still no offical "whistlblower" status that gets granted to federal government employees.



IF the PRO side knew one did not need to be RETALIATED against to be a whistleblower this statement should not have been made!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
@serenbat , I have no idea what you're going on about but whistleblower protection only applies if a person has faced retaliation from their employer.

YOUR quote pers -
Quote:
Again, no one said you need to be retaliated against to be a whistleblower.

@pers what thread have you been reading? clearly NOT this thread - this is pointless - others here can read what is posted!!! PAGES of it!!! Denial!!!!
Anne Jividen likes this.

Last edited by 95191; 11-26-2015 at 07:10 PM.
95191 is offline  
#113 of 198 Old 11-26-2015, 07:06 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
AND still more - I posted the other thread and one can read @teacozy SAME views there -

Denial! AGAIN - same old same old!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
It’s also important to point out that these protections only come into play if there was alleged retaliation by the agency in response to a disclosure.

An employee does not claim whistleblower status in abstract. An employee discloses information about wrongdoing; then, if the agency retaliates, whistleblower protections provide a remedy to the employee (there are a number of other contexts in which we use the term whistleblower that are less relevant here).
" https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...l-perspective/

I thought the bolded was interesting. It looks like there would have to have first been some kind of retaliation by the CDC for Thompson to get whistleblower protection and not something he could have been granted proactively. I haven't seen any evidence that there has been any retaliation from the CDC. In fact, he is still employed there from what I understand.
Those statements are FALSE - NO ONE need to be retaliated against to be a whistleblower - this is simple stuff here!

.......and this crap that has been REPEATED came from her "hero" too, who SHOULD know some basic stuff and apparently doesn't know what the regulations even are!
Anne Jividen likes this.

Last edited by 95191; 11-26-2015 at 07:23 PM.
95191 is offline  
#114 of 198 Old 11-26-2015, 09:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
I am continually amazed by the distraction:

First: Dorit Reiss

Second: The status of "whistleblower" - which (admittedly) I participated in

I am wondering if anyone else believes, like I do, that the 2016 presidential candidates should let us know what their opinions are concerning Dr Thompson.

Perhaps the blame is mine.

I am grateful for all of the angels and saints on this thread who have helped me keep my children healthy!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!!!!!!
Anne Jividen is offline  
#115 of 198 Old 11-27-2015, 05:53 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,738
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2565 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Jividen View Post

I am grateful for all of the angels and saints on this thread who have helped me keep my children healthy!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!!!!!!
I too am grateful to those who love children and fight for children (on any side) and inspire us to ask questions and be strong.

Happy Thanksgiving, Anne!

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#116 of 198 Old 11-27-2015, 07:00 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Jividen View Post
I am continually amazed by the distraction:

First: Dorit Reiss

Second: The status of "whistleblower" - which (admittedly) I participated in

I am wondering if anyone else believes, like I do, that the 2016 presidential candidates should let us know what their opinions are concerning Dr Thompson.

Perhaps the blame is mine.

I am grateful for all of the angels and saints on this thread who have helped me keep my children healthy!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!!!!!!
Anne, sadly you are not going to get what you want anytime soon - IMO

This isn't tops on the radar for most! OTHER things are a bit more pressing, so this can wait..........as to the presidential race, I don't expect a thing, if at all until very late in 2016, no time soon.

As with congress, this too is not tops!

As to here, when PAGES (yes PAGES!!) devoted to saying FEDERAL workers can't have whistleblower status, pushing that one MUST be retaliated against PRIOR, parroting word for word Dorit you will get no place------- it's ALL a distraction! These are super simple basic things the PRO side has attempted to make a mountain out of!!! This seeing who he filed with - pure BS! NOT seeing "evidence" - you are not entitled yet again, pure DISTRACTION from how the process is designed to work - AGAIN not ANTI- vac stuff, but pure propaganda put out by the PRO Agenda for ONE reason ONLY!!!

When you see how one side read EXACT quotes on here and attempts to distort them, it shows just how desperate they really are! Can't even deal with the basics! There is zero desire to deal with the fact this is a CDC matter! Instead deny what has be said by their own side!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What thread are they really reading?????

As to saving health children, one side clearly feels the only way that is done is via a shot and to shut up anyone that dare say a word otherwise!
Anne Jividen likes this.
95191 is offline  
#117 of 198 Old 11-27-2015, 07:09 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathemom View Post
What does this even mean? Can anyone link to a court document or official record linking Dr. Thompson to "whistleblower status"? I am unable to come up with anything other than third-party claims - no objective, credible evidence of his claiming, invoking, or having been granted (which I would assume to be the most meaningful) whistleblower status.
Just to address this, if it's not clear for what has been posted.

One does not document via a court and you do not have the right to see this. Thousands of just FEDERAL workers also file each year, you have NO access to those either. This isn't some special thing and it's not ANTI- vac, it's how the process is designed to work!

Being fed lies on this by those in the PRO vac movement is simply to distract from how this really works! Misleading on the process seems to be the only thing they think can stick, too bad their supports don't realize what else they are being mislead about! Basics aren't even be acknowledge but the propaganda is being pushed full force!!
Mirzam and applejuice like this.
95191 is offline  
#118 of 198 Old 11-27-2015, 08:58 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 628
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
AND still more - I posted the other thread and one can read @teacozy SAME views there -

Denial! AGAIN - same old same old!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
It’s also important to point out that these protections only come into play if there was alleged retaliation by the agency in response to a disclosure.

An employee does not claim whistleblower status in abstract. An employee discloses information about wrongdoing; then, if the agency retaliates, whistleblower protections provide a remedy to the employee (there are a number of other contexts in which we use the term whistleblower that are less relevant here)." https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...l-perspective/

I thought the bolded was interesting. It looks like there would have to have first been some kind of retaliation by the CDC for Thompson to get whistleblower protection and not something he could have been granted proactively. I haven't seen any evidence that there has been any retaliation from the CDC. In fact, he is still employed there from what I understand.
Those statements are FALSE - NO ONE need to be retaliated against to be a whistleblower - this is simple stuff here!

.......and this crap that has been REPEATED came from her "hero" too, who SHOULD know some basic stuff and apparently doesn't know what the regulations even are!
Again, No one has said that you need to be retaliated against to be a whistleblower.

What has been said is that the whistleblowing protection laws come into action when you are retaliated against. There is a difference.

What's with all the spinning of PRO vax statements? How does Teacozy, Dorit Reiss, and me all talking about him as a whistleblower and saying that he probably would be protected under federal whistleblower laws somehow translate into "federal employees can't be whistleblowers, and you are only a whistlblower after you are retaliated against." It's a lot of spinning - completely ignoring all the things that contradict the story about pro-vaxers you are trying to tell, and pulling out the statements you feel you can twist to mean what you want them to be saying.

Notice, none of what you quoted is addressing whether he is a whistleblower or whether it is appropriate to call him. Every paragraph is talking about whistleblower protections.

Would he be protected by those whistleblower protection laws? As we've all said, probably. But not for sure because he currently (so far as I am aware, and I believe, so far as anyone else is aware here too), does not have any offical, legal, recognized status as a whistleblower.

Let's say the CDC did decide to fire him for what he's been saying and they were very open about the reasoning. He files a claim against them for retaliation under whistleblower laws, and it ends up in court, where the CDC admits openly that yeah, they fired him for telling his story about the things have been happening.

Do you think the judge is just going to accept his claim of being a whistleblower because his lawyer says he is and so since the CDC openly admits to firing him for it, rule in his favor? No, that's not what would happen. He does not currently (to my knowledge) have any sort of official legally recognized whistlblower status. What is going to happen is the judge is going first look at his claims and his evidence to see whether he had a reasonable belief that his claims are true and his employer was involved in serious wrongdoing and that his actions were indeed protected under whistlblowing laws.

Now, I really don't know what's going on with him because the story being told through Posey is much worse than the original story told through Hooker, as far as I'm aware he's claiming he has all this data showing the truth about vaccines and autism but isn't making it public, he's not talking for himself, only through others, and it's all just so bizarre.

However, I think that he must believe in what he is doing, and most likely if he were in court in the situation I was just describing, the judge would rule in his favor, that he had a reasonable belief that wrongdoing was going on and reported it, and so he would win. We can't say that for sure though since it hasn't happened - it seems unlikely he would lose, but who knows, a judge could look at his claims/evidence and decide that his belief of wrongdoing was not reasonable or not at all truthful, and thus he is not protected under whistleblowing laws, and rule in favor of the CDC.

To sum up: The pro side knows he's a whistleblower. Please stop saying we don't. However, the law doesn't care what you are the pro side understands. He does not, to my knowledge, have any official legal standing as a whistleblower, and no guarantee that whistleblowing laws would protect him. One does not go to court or the administration or whatever and have some offical whistleblowing status granted in the abstract. If he is retaliated against, that is when he could go to court and the court would determine for sure if his actions fit under the protected actions described in whistleblowing laws. They probably would rule in his favor. But they might not - they might decide his actions were not protected whistleblowing and so the protections wouldn't apply.
pers is offline  
#119 of 198 Old 11-27-2015, 04:57 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
Again, No one has said that you need to be retaliated against to be a whistleblower.

What has been said is that the whistleblowing protection laws come into action when you are retaliated against. There is a difference.
AGAIN, you and @teacozy are incorrect - wrong, what ever you would like to call it!

TWO separate issues and treated differently! I don't know how else to explain this but they are NOT the same! Not dealt with the same and not connected! One does not need retaliation to be a whistleblower and to be PROTECTED as a whistleblower!!!!

http://www.workplacefairness.org/general-whistleblowing
11. Are all of the whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws the same?

No. Unfortunately, whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws generally take on the same rights and remedies as the law relating to the underlying right they protect, which means that they can vary widely from one another.

One does NOT need to be retaliated against to have the protection! No matter how you want to spin it, it's not TRUE! If you meet the requirements it happens when you file, not later! Whistleblowing is NOT the same as Retaliation!!!

You are confusing the two issues here!

Tea was asked and could not provide or prove it and you are repeating the same claim. Those are TWO totally separate issues and NO you do not need retaliation to have whistleblower protection!

The rest of can read here - you claimed NO one said one word about federal employees not being whistleblowers, again, you were incorrect, wrong, what ever term you desire and your wrong about protection when it goes into effect as well!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
There have not been pages and pages of disbelief that a federal worker could even be a whistleblower. There has not even been one single sentence or phrase saying that.
Most certainly has and quotes to show this!

Again, PRO vaccers want to make something where there is nothing - these protections are to ensure that one is NOT retailed against and if so you can deal with that as well - two totally separate issues. You can and many do, file prior to their employer even knowing! You are protect the minute you file and have meet the given requirements. Again, per your state and given what type of employee you are! Some can be orally, some must be written, etc,. but file, meet the needed requirements and you have the whistleblower protection! NO need to wait until you are retaliated against to have the protection! 2 issues, two different remedies and while often hand in hand, they are NOT the same! That is the WHOLE reason there is a whistleblower act!!! To PREVENT retaliation in the 1st place!!!!!!!!!!!

You can cheerlead for the PRO Agenda all you want, spin it - go for it, does not change the reality one bit!
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.

Last edited by 95191; 11-27-2015 at 05:02 PM.
95191 is offline  
#120 of 198 Old 11-27-2015, 05:09 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
To sum up: The pro side knows he's a whistleblower. Please stop saying we don't. However, the law doesn't care what you are the pro side understands. He does not, to my knowledge, have any official legal standing as a whistleblower, and no guarantee that whistleblowing laws would protect him. One does not go to court or the administration or whatever and have some offical whistleblowing status granted in the abstract. If he is retaliated against, that is when he could go to court and the court would determine for sure if his actions fit under the protected actions described in whistleblowing laws. They probably would rule in his favor. But they might not - they might decide his actions were not protected whistleblowing and so the protections wouldn't apply.
I have no clue what these means!

Legal standing as a whistleblower! He and anyone else can be a whistleblower! I have NO idea what you think you get to see in a private matter! Legal standing! If he meet his needed requirements, and filed, he is covers, really simple!

NO ONE goes before a court in employment cases. The only time you go to court is to sue. 99% of the time you must 1st win in the agency where you filed to even stand a change of suing in a court and that has noting to do with retaliation! Employment law is where this is covered.

And again going on and on with this retaliation! that is not how this program works! Whistleblowing and Retaliation are two separate issues under employment laws! NOT the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are PROTECTED once you file, not later! Geeze!!! Again, protection happen as soon as you meet the requirements needed!
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.
95191 is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 1,970

10 members and 1,960 guests
emmy526 , Hores , idler , KerriB , melvinjoe , paukstukas , PrayerOFChrist , sarrahlnorris , satkins , toddsork62
Most users ever online was 21,860, 06-22-2018 at 08:45 PM.