-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Whistleblowers! Lawrence Lucas on Sonny Perdue, The New Head of USDA
Click here: Whistleblowers! Lawrence Lucas on Sonny Perdue, the new head of USDA 04/27 by Marti Oakley | Current Events Podcas
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Whistleblowers! Lawrence Lucas on Sonny Perdue, The New Head of USDA
Click here: Whistleblowers! Lawrence Lucas on Sonny Perdue, the new head of USDA 04/27 by Marti Oakley | Current Events Podcas
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sonny Purdue Confirmed & Welcoming Ceremony at USDA, 25 April 2017
Click here: USDA
From: House Committee on Agriculture <email@example.com>
Date: Monday, April 24, 2017
April 24, 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Mollie Wilken
April 24, 2017 (202) 225-2171
Chairman Conaway Applauds the Confirmation of Secretary Perdue
Today, House Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway issued the following statement upon the confirmation of Governor Sonny Perdue as the 31st Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
"Today is a great day for American agriculture. Secretary Perdue is a strong friend of America's farmers and ranchers, and I know he will work to ensure that agriculture is a top priority in the new Administration.
"President Trump has made it clear he supports a good farm bill that is delivered on time and includes a strong safety net for our nation's farmers. That is absolutely critical as rural America struggles against the largest 4-year percentage decline in net farm income since the start of the Great Depression. It is good to have someone at the table fighting on behalf of rural America, and I look forward to working with Secretary Perdue as we develop a strong farm bill that improves the lives of America's farmers and ranchers."
House Committee on Agriculture
1301 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2171 | Fax: 202-225-4464
WEBSITE | UNSUBSCRIBE | CONTACT
Click Here to view this email in your browser
Click Here to be removed from this list
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Apr 19, 2017 2:41 PM
Subject: A Civil Rights Issue: Supreme Court Hearing on Anthony Perry v Merit Systems Protection Board
Mr. Anthony Perry Takes a Stand for Federal Workers' Right to Pursue Mixed Case In U.S. District Court.
A CIVIL RIGHTS MATTER: Supreme Court to Rule On Federal Workers' Right to Take Complaint to U.S. District Court
Tanya Ward Jordan, President
The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C)
On Monday, April 17th, many present and former federal employees lined up to witness the Supreme Court justices open their April session with the case of Anthony Perry, a former Department of Commerce Census Bureau employee and a member of the Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C).
The question the Supreme Court with newly appointed Judge Neil Gorsuch on the bench must answer is --- Whether a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decision dismissing a mixed case on "jurisdictional grounds" is subject to judicial review in district court or in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
If the Perry case is allowed to proceed in district court it has a far more likely chance of being heard by a jury. For the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is known to largely "RUBBER STAMP" federal agency decisions.
Christopher Landau, who represented Perry, urged the court to rule that mixed cases like his client's should go to the district court. But, Brian Fletcher, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, argued on behalf of the federal government. Fletcher disagreed asserting Perry's case should go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
If the Supreme Court were to send Perry's case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, rather than the U.S. District Court, it would be indeed a civil rights blow for Federal workers who challenge unlawful civil rights violations and adverse actions (i.e. wrongful demotions, suspensions, and job terminations). For "some studies report that the U.S. Courts of Appeals affirmed 90 percent of all cases they decided from 1995 to 2005." (See footnote 1)
Penn State Law students submitted an amicus brief to Supreme Court in support of Mr. Perry's right to pursue his claims in U.S. District Court. The amicus brief read:
"The issue at the center of Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board stems from a 2012 Supreme Court decision, in which the Court held that federal employees whose discrimination claims are dismissed on procedural grounds by the MSPB are entitled to have their cases heard on the merits in federal district court. The Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, along with plaintiff Anthony Perry, argued that a federal employee's discrimination claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, as opposed to procedural grounds, is entitled to the same type of review." Read more at link http://news.psu.edu/story/456966/2017/03/21/penn-state-law-students-submit-amicus-brief-supreme-court
The upcoming Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision on the Perry case will most likely close the loop and provide clarity for many federal workers, like Perry, who are often coerced into signing settlement agreements that require them to drop valid discrimination claims against the federal government.
Footnote 1: https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2012-taking-the-stand.cfm
See articles at links below. Perry v Merit Systems Protection Board
This email was sent to email@example.com
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences
The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C) · P.O. Box 142 · Washington, DC 20044 · USA
Three months into his position as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack sent a memo to USDA employees promising an aggressive strategy to fix the racial discrimination issues long plaguing the department. The well-known Pigford Case, a successful class-action suit filed against USDA by black farmers for unfairly denying them loans, was just one example of the problem. For decades, the USDA—especially its local county committees, which administer farm loans throughout the rural South—has been known as "the Last Plantation" for discriminatory lending practices, land foreclosures and degrading treatment of African-American farmers.
"I have said many times that I intend to take definitive action to improve USDA's record on civil rights and to move USDA into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider," Vilsack said in the 2009 memo, which detailed his plans to review thousands of neglected Bush-era complaints against the agency, and to commission an independent, on-the-ground assessment of practices at their county offices. Two years later, that Civil Rights Assessment report (pdf) is here, with recommendations to help ensure fair and equal access to USDA programs.
Led by the Jackson Lewis Corporate Diversity Counseling Group, which has conducted similar civil rights evaluations for Fortune 500 companies, investigators went to the 16 states representing the majority of claims. They came back with more than 200 proposals for preventing inequities, whether intentional or unintentional, including monitoring customer service, documenting of interactions with the public, and creating a more streamlined program application process.
"These changes enhance the key elements of structure, accountability, incentives and penalities, cultural transformation, performance management, and other essential tools and measures of success," says the report's executive summary. According to USDA, many of the report's recommendations have either already been, or are currently being, implemented, including:
* Holding managers accountable for using a diverse pool of applicants for job vacancies and promotions
* Requiring county officials to thoroughly explain the reasons why a loan or program application was denied, and what the applicant can do to improve their chances of getting approved in the future
* Promoting and distributing informational materials about programs and services throughout all USDA offices
Secretary Vilsack has formed an internal working group to implement other recommendations from the report, which he heralded as "a roadmap that will help us continue moving forward." But a leader in the black farmers community is underwhelmed.
"Many of the issues raised in this report are nothing new," John W. Boyd Jr, president of the National Black Farmers Association told The Root, explaining that Jackson Lewis' recommendations are similar to proposals mentioned in a previous report from 1997 under former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "The USDA already knows that this stuff exists."
Boyd, who was consulted as part of the report, says he talked to officials about the need for diversity on the mostly white county committees that make loan decisions around the country. "They need to take a stronger approach to fix that, either legislatively or through internal policy, to make it more comfortable for blacks and other minorities to be a part of that system. That has to be a priority if they really want to see more loans going to minority farmers," he said.
A specific change that Boyd would like to see is voting rights for the minority advisors who counsel county officers on equitable lending. "They can advise, but they can't vote, so they're just sitting there and watching a lot of corruption take place. If they could actually vote on who loans are given to, that would really change the results."
Boyd also thinks—now that the government has offered discrimination settlements for African-American, Native American, Hispanic and women farmers—that it's time for some officials to step down from their posts. "There has to be some kind of accountability here," he said. "We've had all these settlements, and we haven't heard about anybody being terminated or penalized or fired. That needs to happen so those career bureaucrats will see that the department is no longer playing. Secretary Vilsack often makes statements about having 'zero tolerance' for discrimination, but I haven't seen the accountability piece."
But he says the biggest issue straining relationships between the USDA and black farmers, and perhaps the hardest one to remedy, is a lack of trust. "The farmers just don't trust the government to make loans to them fairly. It's going to be hard to get them to take a new chance on USDA," Boyd said, suggesting that a special initiative to transform the very culture of the department is needed.
Despite his grievances with the Civil Rights Assessment report, Boyd has a bit of praise for the USDA's efforts. "I give the Obama administration some credit for signing the black farmers bill and entering into agreements with the Indian, Hispanic and women farmers," he said. "But from a holistic and long-term standpoint, more needs to be done to fix what we were all complaining about in the first place. And I don't think we're there yet."
OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN BETO O'ROURKE
Oliver Bruce Mitchell III
622 Wall Street
Los Angeles, California
March 27, 2017
Congressman Beto O'Rourke
1330 Longworth House Office Building
Congressman Beto O'Rourke
303 N Oregon St Suite 210
El Paso, TX
Subj: A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH
Dear Congressman Beto O'Rourke,
My name is Oliver B. Mitchell III, I'm a U.S. Veteran and former U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs employee turned whistleblower. I'm writing you today regarding ongoing events surrounding my "prior" whistleblower activity.
I write you today, not motivated by any political party, agenda or ideology but out of a genuine interest in finding a solution to our problem.
As I have previously stated before, my complaints were meant to address systemic employment, mismanagement, fraud, waste and abuse issues within the Greater Los Angeles VA Medical Center.
Early in 2013 it came to my attention, that on October 24, 2011, 30 members of Congress signed and delivered a letter to the Government Accountability Office requesting an investigation into "the difficulty in scheduling healthcare appointments within the Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System."
Those allegations to include the material evidence was derived and obtained from my legal and lawful complaints that were submitted to Chairman Miller on January 7, 2011.
Again, my complaints were meant to address systemic employment, mismanagement, fraud, waste and abuse issues within the Greater Los Angeles VA Medical Center.
As you may be aware, their letter and study into my allegations and overwhelming evidence is what led to the current national scandal in today's headlines. As a result of the Legislative Branch investigation into the VA, I have and continue to be targeted and attacked by the government in response.
On more than one occasion I have written to Congress regarding my allegations of systemic reprisal, retaliation, intimidation, and vengeance due to my prior EEO and whistleblowing activity. However, I have yet to hear from anyone, while additional occurrences of retaliation and targeting persist.
I understand your time is valuable and I appreciate your time and assistance regarding this matter. However, I believe that Donna Beiter, the former CEO and Director of the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center; along with Dr. Robert Petzel, the former Undersecretary for Health and the VA Office of Inspector General may not have been forthright regarding my allegations.
On Monday, September 9, 2013, you, Congressman O'Rourke, participated in a field hearing in Pittsburgh, PA titled "A Matter Of Life and Death: Examining Preventable Deaths, Patient Safety Issues, and Bonuses for VA Execs who Oversaw Them." That hearing and subsequent report is the basis for my contact today.
In February of 2008 I began working for the Greater Los Angeles VA Medical Center as a GS-5, Patient Services Assistant in the Imaging/Radiology Department. Although my original title and billet was as a Lead Patient Services Assistant I wasn't paid for that position.
In October of 2008, Donna M. Beiter, RN, MSN, became the director of the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. During her tenure she managed the nation's largest and most complex integrated healthcare facility in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center is affiliated with more than 45 colleges, universities, and vocational schools with 964 beds, over 5,000 employees and an annual operating budget of over $900 million.
On November 24, 2008, I attended a "Systems Redesign" meeting in which VA officials made the following statement (as transcribed to the Office of Special Counsel):
I went ahead and reviewed the audio, my initial complaint as well as the transcript's from my EEO investigation. Now you state, that the IG's investigation and the facility's response to my allegations show no wrong doing. However, as I listen to the recording and compare it to the IG's investigation I come to the same conclusion. The facility fabricated (lied) their story in an effort to deflect from ﴾their﴿ wrong doing.
1. In the recording I state "why are we still scheduling orders 5yrs and back, im still canceling orders from 2001."
2. In the recording Dr. El‐Saden states "anything over a year old should be canceled."
3. I then ask "should be canceled or scheduled."
4. Dr. El‐Saden clearly states "canceled because they wouldn't let us do a mass purge, so its just a matter of getting in there and canceling them ourselves."
5. Dr. El‐Saden states "your backlog should start at April '07."
6. Then Dr. El‐Saden poses a question to Craig Morioka asking "isn't that right Craig not anything earlier than that?"
7. The committee chairman then states "somebody needs to be canceling those orders."
8. Then Dr. El‐Saden states "cancel everything and not just MR cancel any of those orders before April '07."
9. Randy Jones then states "if they don't read the history it maybe please do a year from now."
10. Then Dr. El‐Saden states "well that is where the April 7 came from because I got permission..."
11. However she is interrupted by Randy before she could finish her statement.
12. Lastly, Dr. El‐Saden states "and the mass purge thing is not going to happen is that right?"
13. Then Craig responds to Dr. El‐Saden stating "not that I know of nobody wants to even take the chance of fear of losing there job or something."
Now lets analyze this rationally.
The Office of Special Counsel states that Dr. El‐Saden got permission to delete the backlog and it should start at April '07.
However, in Dr. El‐Sadens own words she stated "canceled because they wouldn't let us do a mass purge, so its just a matter of getting in there and canceling them ourselves."
Now lets look at "its just a matter of getting in there and canceling them ourselves."
If the facility or Dr. El‐Saden had actually received permission to cancel any portion thereof why make the statement of "its just a matter of getting in there and canceling them ourselves?"
Clearly, she is saying "I did not get permission " thus her statement "so its just a matter of getting in there and canceling them ourselves."
Clearly, she is saying "canceled because they wouldn't let us do a mass purge."
Now Randy Jones states "if they don't read the history it maybe please do a year from now."
What he is referring to is that "some orders have provisions or additional orders that state please do a future exam a year from now."
Thus Dr. El‐Sadens statement "well that is where the April 7 came from because I got permission..."
Then there's the committee chairs statement "somebody needs to be canceling those orders."
So again the question becomes, "if they had permission to delete or purge any portion thereof," then why be so concerned about how or why its being deleted?"
Then Dr. El‐Saden states again "and the mass purge thing is not going to happen is that right?"
And lastly you hear Craig say in response to that mass purge "not that I know of nobody wants to even take the chance of fear of losing there job or something."
So when even the audio is examined and weighed in its entirety, any person of reason can conclude that the facility did not get any permission to mass purge, delete, destroy, hide or fabricate any portion thereof the backlog.
As previously discussed, the IG's investigation is flawed because they relied on the facilities internal investigation and response.
When you look at the timing of my complaints to include my subsequent detail it is more than apparent that the facility conspired in order to address my IG complaint.
It would appear that the agency to include the OSC would rather not find any wrongdoing despite the obvious elephant in the room. This isn't a question of any outdated orders or pending orders this is a question of illegality regarding how and why the orders were canceled. Any order for any services regardless of the department is and becomes a permanent record within the veterans medical record. As previously stated before, no one can authorize anyone to delete any records pertaining to a veterans entire medical record.
That's like saying were going to delete any record in a veterans health record just because its old and/or outdated. See Exhibit 1
As a result of that "Systems Redesign" meeting, on March 24, 2009, I filed a whistleblower complaint with the VA Office of Inspector General. In that complaint I alleged the following (excerpted below):
"As an honorably discharged veteran and an employee of the VA West Los Angeles it is with great sadness that I must report suspected acts of fraud, waste and abuse within the Imaging Department at this facility. Since I began my employment with this department I have noticed questionable practices ranging from excused absence from the work place, comp and/or over time abuse, suspected improper use of department funds, inflated department performance averages, cancellation of MRI request and improper storage of patient data… On June 3, 2008 I met with the local union office to discuss the issues. During my meeting with the local union office it was suggested that I speak with Mary Moore regarding my issues. A complaint was submitted to Mary Moore, Manager Employee Relations. On June 6, 2008 Ms. Moore stated I should contact the OIG hotline and file a complaint. In June of 08 the department decided to lease a mobile MRI unit costing $40,000 dollars a month. The unit is being leased to allow the department an opportunity to catch up on the patient back log. We currently average about 2200 request for MRI's monthly. Our current availability for MRI's is approximately 800 to 900 monthly. Thus creating a backlog of patients each month. On several occasions I have approached the Department Chief Dr. Suzie El-Saden with suggestions on how to increase the number of patients and reduce cost and overhead. Each time I was met with hesitation and skepticism. Dr. El-Saden has stated on several occasions that she would like for me to schedule all patients within 30 days. I'm aware that the VA has a mandate that states patients should receive care within 30 days. This clinic does not have the equipment or personnel to accomplish such a task. Within a 30 day period we are closed 4 days thus leaving 26 days of operation. In order to meet the required benchmark set forth we would have to perform 85 MRI's per day. Since my employment within this department I have witnessed "valid request for MRI's" being cancelled and/or deleted from the system as a means of reducing the number of request for MRI's pending. This has been an ongoing trend since my employment here. It is my opinion that the harassment, death threats and threats of termination I have received are due to my vocal opposition to this practice. Canceling any patients request for service is unjust, unfair and harmful to the health and well-being of the patient. Cancelling any patients request for service due to a failing administrative process is criminal and negligent. It is my opinion that this department has not been able to meet its mandated obligations with regards to performance. The administrative process is flawed and has resulted in deaths, continued pain and suffering and an overall decline in veterans' health due to the lengthy wait for an MRI." See Exhibit 1
While the complaint itself does not mention the word wait times, it is the supporting evidence that was submitted to both the VA Office of Inspector General and the Office of Special Counsel that substantiates my allegations of wait time fraud.
On November 25, 2009, in response to my allegations to the VA Office of Inspector General, Donna Beiter provided the following response:
During the period of time in question, the backlog of outstanding requests for MRI imaging studies across the Veterans Health Administration dated back 10 years. Central Office and the Office of Dr. Charles Anderson, National Radiology Dircetor, instructed all Imaging Services across the country to mass purge all outstanding imaging orders for studies older than 6 months, where the procedure was no longer needed, and with approval from the individual healthcare systems Medical Executive Committee (MEC). Upon investigation of the backlogged imaging orders within GLA Imaging Service, it was found that most were no longer needed as the patients had received imaging with another modality, received alternate therapy obviating the need for MRI, or were no longer receiving their healthcare at GLA. All patient imaging requests that were found to still be valid were scheduled. Approval was granted for this process by the MEC, and in collaboration with the Service Chiefs and/or Careline Directors within the healthcare system. See Exhibit 2
In February of 2014, a Freedom of Information Request was submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs seeking clarification from Dr. Charles Anderson. What I received supported my allegations that the los Angeles officials did not get permission to delete, destroy, alter or purge and medical records. In fact, Dr. Charles Anderson stated the following:
How to Reduce Imaging Wait Times, National Radiology Director, PCS; December 17, 2007
Per Page 2: Reason for Monitor:
Preliminary data showed imaging wait times are a problem.
Improving wait times will result in better patient care.
Collecting wait time data across VHA allows us to study the problem and reach coordinated, evidence based solutions.
Per Page 3: Definition of Imaging Wait Time:
From desired appointment data as entered by provider; to date patient arrives and study is registered.
Very similar to clinic wait time definition.
Per Page 34: Work Down Backlog:
Extend the work hours.
Stagger staff hours.
Resolve order queue and develop plan to resolve the queue of orders never acted on.
Here in Dr. Charles Anderson's own words he never instructed any VA Medical facility to delete, destroy, or purge and records. In fact, he said to work down the backlog by "developing a plan to resolve the queue of orders never acted on." See Exhibit 3
Despite the obvious elephant in the room, Donna Beiter and company continued their charade until the bitter end.
On February 26, 2014, Bryant Jordan, reporter for the Military Times ran an article "VA Defends Veteran Medical Appointments." In that article, Catherine Gromek, Congressional Relations Officer with the VA's Inspector General Office, said "the agency contacted the center's director after receiving a complaint on its hotline in March 2009 that MRI appointments were being deleted from the system for 2000 through November 2008 without proper notification." The article continues, "the IG was satisfied with the response and did not open an investigation."
On February 26, 2014, Dr. Dean C. Norman, Chief of Staff, West Los Angeles VA Medical Center publicily responded to my allegations saying "You may have seen recent news coverage alleging the mishandling of patient records by a VA medical facility in 2008. Some media reports on this issue have been inaccurate. VA did not destroy patients' personal medical records in VA's electronic health record system, which has been in place since the 1990's. VA has established a record of safe, exceptional health care that is consistently recognized by independent reviews and organizations. Under Secretary for Health Dr. Robert Petzel addressed questions from members of the House of Representatives today on this topic saying, "There was no attempt to eliminate records" and that several hundred records were properly closed only after a thorough administrative review. The Greater Los Angeles VA Medical did identify that there were large numbers of very old imaging requests in the system. As part of appropriate patient care processes and in accordance with nationally established VA guidelines, the medical center performed a carefully planned project of administratively clearing old imaging requests after an extensive review of each individual request. At no time were "group" close-outs of imaging studies completed. See story here: http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/13160/va-fact-checks-record-management-allegation/
Now Congressman O'Rourke, this is a complete and false fabrication to distort the truth.
In March of 2008, just one month after my employment began, Dr. Suzie El-Saden along with seven (7) other collaborators published "A methodology to integrate clinical data for the efficient assessment of brain-tumor patients."
The document published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health states:
Careful examination of the medical record of brain-tumor patients can be an overwhelming task for the neuroradiologist. The number of clinical documents alone may approach 100 for a patient that has a 3-year-old brain tumor. The neuroradiologist's evaluation of a patient's brain tumor involves examining the current imaging exam and checking for previous imaging exams that may occur pre- or post-treatment. The goal of this research is to develop an effective method to review all of the pertinent patient information from the medical record. We have designed and developed a medical system that incorporates Hospital Information Systems, Radiology Information Systems, and Picture Archiving and Communications Systems information. Our research improves clinical review of patient's data by organizing image display, removing unnecessary documents, and mining for key clinical scenarios that are important in the assessment and care of brain-tumor patients.
Here in Dr. El-Sadens own words she states:
Our "research" improves clinical review of patient's data by organizing image display, "removing unnecessary documents", and mining for key clinical scenarios that are important in the assessment and care of brain-tumor patients.
The key phrase within the entire document being "removing unnecessary documents."
This statement alone lends further proof and evidence that the nation's largest VA Medical Center engaged in the destruction of documents in an effort to reduce its raging decade plus backlog.
In hindsight, due to their hostile reaction to my whistleblower complaint, on April 14, 2009, I filed an EEO complaint alleging "discrimination and reprisal for whistleblowing on the basis of Race (African American), Color (Black), Gender (Male) Sexual Orientation (Gay) and Hostile Work Environment. My EEO complaint (EEOC No. 480-2010-00106X) contained well over 100 documents to support my allegations of manipulated wait time data, fraud, waste and abuse. In addition, I also provided evidence of insurance and medical fraud.
As a result of whistleblowing, on June 5, 2009, Dr. Suzie El-Saden detailed me to "unclassified" duties in Primary and Ambulatory Care.
On Wednesday, September 9, 2009, I emailed Dr. Dean Norman, Chief Of Staff; Gary Sugg, Equal Employment Opportunity Office; Mary Moore, Chief, Employee Labor Relations and Lynda K. Eaton, Vice-President, AFGE saying:
"To all interested parties: To recap all previous conversations held this Wednesday September 9, 2009 the following is provided: I had a conversation with the Patient Advocate Office with regrads to my healthcare here at GLA. I informed the advocate that: (not a complete list) 1) My primary provider has been changed without my advance written consent. 2) Appointments have been made without my prior approval and consent. 3) I have received several phone calls and voicemails stating I'm to contact the Mental Health Clinic for an appointment. 4) I have received several mailings stating I'm to contact the Mental Health Clinic for an appointment. 5) The continuity in my care has been disrupted by unauthorized changes in my health care providers. 6) I clearly stated that my care here as a U.S. Veteran is separate from my employment here and that it is my opinion that Management has taken it upon there selves to interfere with my healthcare. 7) Since I personally did not authorize any changes to my healthcare record, primary provider or appointments I find that those individuals who have accessed my record have done so fraudulently and without cause. As a result of informing the Patient Advocate I was advised by such to contact EEO. I informed EEO (namely Mr. Gary Sugg) the same information as it was related to the Patient Advocate. However I disagree with Gary when he states that this should be reported to Employee Relations. Clearly this is not a matter for Employee Relations. This is a patient and facility issue not an employee and facility issue. The manager Mary Moore has no real authorization to conduct or investigate these claims as stated. Accordingly, I informed my union representative the same as it has been previously related to others. It is my opinion that managements continued surveillance, harassment and manipulation of my healthcare to be directly related to my previous and/or current EEO and OIG activity. This behavior is unacceptable to me and shall be dealt with accordingly. Therefore, under the rights afforded me through the Collective Bargaining Agreement I hereby exercise and reserve the right to contact the appropriate officials for assistance. This matter should be investigated through the Patients Advocate Office not EEO. As a result I have at this time decided to stop receiving care at this facility until the appropriate authorities have been notified. Oliver Mitchell." See Exhibit 4
As a matter of life and death, I have recently requested and received a copy of my VA medical records from the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center that substantiate non-consensual research. Additionally, I'am in receipt of evidence that suggest both Donna Beiter and Dr. Robert Petzel; targeted, selected and manipulated situations by illegally placing me into the VA's organ donation program. Specifically, the organ, tissue and eye donation program.
Human trafficking is considered the most common form of modern day slavery and is considered a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States. According to the FBI, human trafficking is the fastest growing business of organized crime worldwide. In this instance, accountability and the enforcement of the rule of law to protect human dignity is necessary.
Despite my reports of gross mismanagement and falsified data of records at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, it is my opinion that agency officials had intended to commit a far greater crime by engaging me in targeted individual by engaging in body snatching and the harvesting of my body parts. Evidence does exist to corroborate that allegation.
In April of 2013, the Government Accuntability Office prepared and submitted "Prescription Drugs: Comparsion of DoD and VA Direct Purchase Prices." The GAO was asked to compare prices for prescription drugs across federal programs. The report described direct purchase prices paid by DoD and VA for a smaple of prescription drugs. The sample contained 43 brand name and 40 generic drugs.
While reviewing my VA medical records I determined that officials at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center engaged in drug trials against me as a form of retaliation and research for whistleblowing. Of the sampled drugs, records show that VA officials prescribed well over a dozen drugs during the time of my filing my VA OIG complaint, my EEO complaint, my FLRA complaint and my complaint to the Office of Special Counsel. Additionally, it was noted that several of the drugs were contradictory to one another and at the time prescribed could have caused death. Am I to believe that VA officials engaged in "ATTEMPTED MURDER" for whistleblowing? I could have DIED from all of this..
From March 24, 2009 til present, officials at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center prescribed the following medications:
HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE 25MG TAB
MINOCYCLINE HCL 100MG CAP
KETOCONAZOLE 2% CREAM
CETIRIZINE HCL 10MG TAB
VERAPAMIL 40MG (HALF-TAB)
ACYCLOVIR 400MG TAB
BENADRYL, MAALOX, LIDOCAINE VISCOUS, OZ
ASPIRIN 325MG TAB
PROPRANOLOL HCL 80MG TAB
GUAIFENESIN 100MG/5ML (ALC-F/SF) LIQUID
AZITHROMYCIN 250MG TAB
ALBUTEROL 90/IPRATROP 18MCG 200D PO INHL
HCTZ 25/LISINOPRIL 20MG TAB
AMLODIPINE BESYLATE 5MG TAB
DM 10/GUAIFENESN 100MG/5ML (ALC-F/SF) SYR
DOXYCYCLINE HYCLATE 100MG CAP
CODEINE 10MG/GG 100MG/5ML ORAL LIQUID
OMEPRAZOLE 20MG EC CAP
TERAZOSIN HCL 1MG CAP
ZOLPIDEM TARTRATE 10MG TAB
SUMATRIPTAN SUCCINATE 100MG TAB
LISINOPRIL 20MG TAB
HEMORRHOIDAL RTL SUPP
z-HEMORRHOIDAL/HC 1% RTL OINT
CROMOLYN NA 5.2MG 200D NASAL INHL
HC 1%/NEOMYCIN 3.5MG/POLYMYXIN OTIC SOLN
AMOXICILLIN 500MG CAP
PREDNISONE 20MG TAB
METOPROLOL TARTRATE 50MG TAB
DIPHENHYDRAMINE HCL 25MG CAP
TEMAZEPAM 15MG CAP
SUMATRIPTAN (IMITREX) STATDOSE KIT
NAPROXEN 375MG TAB
BUPROPION HCL 150MG 12HR SA TAB
In addition, it has been determined that VA officials have illegally placed a biomedical implant into me as a means of retaliation. Well over 185 pages of VA medical records corrobaorate and substantiate that allegation. According to government documents these devices are radiofrequency (RF) controlled and powered. They have been specifically developed for the Department of Defense and are capable of data collection, human research, surveillance and behavior modification. In this case, officials at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center illegally placed the devices into me as a defense to my legal and lawful whistleblowing activities.
Progress notes within my VA medical records state that I'am both crazy, homicidial and suicidial. However, these notes were placed there AFTER I blew the whistle on agency officials.
The act(s) of Extrajudicial Punishment, Extrajudicial Killing and Extrajudicial Murder violates all International, Constitutional and all U.S. Statue laws.
Article 3 of the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions states:
The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples are prohibited at all times under all circumstances with no exceptions.
The Fifth Amendment under the U.S. Constitution states:
No person [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
18 USC 1111 – Murder states:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
During that field hearing in which you attended, Congressman Jeff Miller stated "As most of you are aware, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration provides health care services for millions of American veterans, but recently a rash of preventable veteran deaths, suicides, and infectious disease outbreaks at several VHA facilities throughout the country has put this organization under intense scrutiny. Despite the fact that multiple VA Inspector General reports have linked a number of these incidents to widespread mismanagement at VHA facilities, the Department has consistently given executives who presided over these events glowing performance reviews and cash bonuses of up to $63,000. Many Americans have watched in disbelief as these events have unfolded on their television screens and in the pages of their local newspapers. For some, however, this tragic incident has hit much closer to home. So I would like to take a moment to recognize all the family members of those who have suffered preventable deaths at VA medical centers, as well as any veterans who have endured VA patient-safety incidents that are here in attendance today."
Congressman O'Rourke, although I may be a whistleblower, I'am also a veteran, a patient, a U.S. citizen and a human being who deserves the same respect and acknowledgment for safety issues I have both faced and exposed. It is indefensible for the United States of America to engage me in this manner for reporting FACTS simply because I'am a BLACK whistleblower.
My employment began with the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in February 2008. As a result of a "Systems Redesign" meeting in November 2008, I blew the whistle in March 2009. From March 2009 til March 2011, I filed several complaints with various agencys and during that time period Ms. Donna Beiter received well over $40,000 dollars in "bonus" payments despite her denial of my allegations.
On January 26, 2011, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General published Report No. 09-01038-77, titled "Combined Assessment Program Summary Report, Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Safety in Veterans Health Administration Facilities."
Per the report, Page 1, Executive Summary states "The VA Office of Inspector General, Office of Healthcare Inspections evaluated Veterans Health Administration facilities' magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety programs by determining whether facilities: (1) implemented and maintained MRI safety and infection control policies and procedures, (2) provided adequate employee training, (3) completed appropriate patient screening and informed consents, and (4) conducted risk assessments of MRI suites. Inspectors evaluated 50 MRI suites at 43 facilities during Combined Assessment Program reviews conducted from July 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. VHA facilities had recognized the importance of safety in the MRI suites and had implemented adequate policies and procedures. We identified four areas where compliance with MRI safety requirements and guidelines needs to improve. We recommended that the Under Secretary for Health, in conjunction with VISN and facility senior managers, ensures that: (1) All employees who may need to enter the MRI suite receive initial and annual MRI safety training. (2) Employees screen patients prior to MRI scans, obtain necessary signatures on screening forms, retain screening forms in patient medical records, and document follow-up on potential contraindications for MRI. (3) Informed consents specific to MRI with contrast are completed for all high-risk patients and documented in the medical records. (4) Physical barriers are in place, call systems are tested and maintained, risk assessments are completed, and emergency drills are conducted. The Under Secretary for Health concurred with the recommendations and provided implementation plans with target completion dates. We will follow up on the actions until they are completed."
Per the report, Page 2 states "In June 2008, OHI conducted a hotline inspection in response to an allegation of patient neglect during an MRI procedure." Page 2 continues saying "Scope and Methodology: Inspectors evaluated 50 MRI suites at 43 facilities during Combined Assessment Program (CAP) reviews conducted from July 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. The facilities reviewed represented a mix of size, affiliation, geographic location, and Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs). The review was limited to facilities with VA-staffed, permanent MRI suites (mobile MRI units were excluded). We interviewed selected program managers and reviewed documents, including MRI safety self-assessments, medical records, and employee training records. We generated an individual CAP report for each facility. For this report, we analyzed the data from the individual facility CAP reviews to identify system-wide trends."
Now, Congressman O'Rourke, am I to believe that agency officials intentionally neglected to investigate my "hotline complaint" simply because I also reported that we were using a "mobile MRI unit?" This report does not speak to my complaint despite the fact that agency officials made a visit to the Los Angeles facility during there combined assessment.
Congressman O'Rourke, with respect to any non-consensual research I never gave the VA, NSA, FBI, CIA nor the Military Industrial Complex my consent whether written or oral, permission to perform any medical, experimental, or military grade experiments or research on my persons.
I never consented to being a human subject research person for any "non lethal weaponry research as eluded to by Colonel Dennis B. Herbert, USMC (Ret.). In the spring of 1999, Colonel Herbert published "Non-Lethal Weaponry: From Tactical to Strategic Applications. Non-lethal weapons will become more widely applicable across the conflict spectrum. This will occur as the locus of war shifts from the battlefield to urban areas. A particularly challenging aspect of the future security environment will be the increasing likelihood of military operations in cities, as the National Defense Panel reported. The next generation of non-lethals is now emerging. It includes acoustics, electromagnetic pulse, lasers, and other directed energy weapons. Yet understanding non-lethal weapons effects determines safe employment parameters and ultimately rules of engagement. It is also necessary to ensure compliance with international law. Directed energy weapons that target the central nervous system and cause neurophysiological disorders may violate the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980. And weapons that go beyond non-lethal intentions and cause "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering" could violate the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977. Environmental consequences must also be considered. A modification of the environment with harmful effects on humans would violate the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. Knowledge of human and environmental effects may be necessary to establish international standards."
Again, Congressman O'Rourke, I have received well over 300 documents that substantiate and corroborate my allegations of non consensual research to include "neurophysiological disorders." Well over 100 of those documents clearly illustrate medical research and experimentation via the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center Neurology and Imaging Departments.
I find these actions to be heinous crimes for whistleblowing and the basis is simply because I'am BLACK.
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) published and released HRD 86-56 "Drug Company-Sponsored Research at VA Medical Facilities."
The report highlighted:
In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed drug companies' medical research activities in Veterans Administration (VA) facilities. The review included:
1. Examining VA research involvement with drug companies.
2. Determining whether the VA practice of using drug company donations for medical research violates federal prohibitions against an agency supplementing its appropriations.
3. Reviewing VA procedures concerning financial controls imposed on investigators conducting such research.
4. Determining whether VA recovers all costs of performing drug company-sponsored studies.
5. Reviewing VA investigations of allegations involving drug company funded research at the VA Medical Center in Long Beach, California.
The VA plays a major role in the medical research. The VA spends nearly $1 billion a year on about 15,000 studies involving 150,000 patients.
On April 13, 2003 the New York Times ran "Nationwide Inquiry at Veterans' Hospitals" and reported that the Long Beach, California VA Medical center was under investigation for "deaths of patients in research projects."
See story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/national/13VETS.html
On March 25, 1999 the New York Times ran "V.A. Hospital Is Told to Halt All Research" and reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs had suspended research at the Los Angeles VA due to a "failure to meet ethical guidelines in human experiments."
Per the New York Times:
After six years of investigations and temporary suspensions, the hospitals and clinics of the Veterans Affairs of Greater Los Angeles Health Care System -- including the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, one of the nation's largest research hospitals -- were ordered on Monday to halt all of their animal and human experiments. The order will go into effect on Friday.
Congressman O'Rourke, this is no coincidence that the same hospital I blew the whistle on would engage me in performing experiments on me as a means of retaliation. This is a continued pattern of abuse and neglect for human life.
Dr. John H. Mather, (former) agency chief of the VA's Research Compliance office said: "The rules are important. They reflect the ethical underpinnings for the conduct of research, the need to treat other human beings with dignity and respect."
Yet not only have I been treated with disrespect but I have seemingly been neglected by everyone in DC. Is my life not important enough or is it because I am a BLACK whistleblower who is entitled to redress?
Again, I say, I have broken no laws and unlike Edward Snowden, my complaints were submitted through proper channels in accordance with U.S. laws.
Therefore, I ask, why am I being neglected?
As one of the nation's policy makers you cannot ignore the harm and counterproductive impacts of these actions. Someone is responsible for "developing, carrying out, advising and implementing" this lawless behavior towards me.
I'm not a national security threat, a traitor to democracy or a war criminal. Therefore, I ask, why am I being punished?
Congressman O'Rourke please understand it was agency officials who instructed me to blow the whistle in the first place, and it were those same officials who lied and betrayed Americas veterans. It is indefensible for their actions, yet alone the systemic deprivation of my due process for being a BLACK whistleblower. The evidence is in the pudding when on March 18, 2011, Lisa K. Holliday Esq., Agency Counsel, stripped me of my CIVIL RIGHTS whereas on March 18, 2011 "Complainant, Oliver B. Mitchell ("Complainant") and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the "Agency") resolve by this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") all matters raised by Complainant in his May 26, 2009, complaint of discrimination pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") (EEOC Case No. 480-2010-00106X), all matters raised by Complainant in his informal complaint of discrimination pending before the Office of Resolution Management (Agency Case No. 200P-0691-2011-101903), and all other current causes of action arising before execution of this agreement including, but not limited to, all EEO complaints, grievances, Office of Special Counsel complaints, and civil actions, etc. ln doing so, Complainant waives all rights to further administrative processing, and all rights to file a civil action in connection with his complaints of discrimination and all other causes of action arising before execution of this Agreement. Accordingly, the Complainant and the Agency (collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Parties") agree as follows." See Exhibit 5
Am I to believe that having signed that settlement contract gave the United States of America the inherent right to target, terrorize and torture me on U.S. soil for being an AFRICAN AMERICAN whistleblower?
As we speak, the world is facing both an identity and race crisis. Purportedly, as America is considered the leader of the free world, what type of example are we setting when we cant even acknowledge me as a BLACK whistleblower?
Don't you think its time for racial change Congressman O'Rourke?
Therefore, I must ask. With all due RESPECT, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE VA PEOPLE?
I thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
----------- s -----------
Oliver B. Mitchell III