« We Know That You Know | Main | OMB's Groovy New Website »

Feb 07, 2006


Todd Schoenrogge

Witch hunt!!!

The Dept. of Justice allows Immigration Judges to bring booze to work, I am sure the CIA has just as high of standards.

As a party in Schoenrogge v Justice (fedcir 05-3135) pending petition before the Supreme Court (Sup.Ct. 05-8582) I have personal experience that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a rubber stamp for the MSPB and not interested in fair review.

My case has been reported on Fedsmith and in the Sept. 26, 2005 issue of Federal Employees News Digest.

What all the reports fail to mention is that both the MSPB and Federal Circuit held that I did not have a reasonable belief that Judges bringing booze into a federal prison in violation of 28 CFR 511.11(c) and 28 CFR 511.12(a) was a crime. Both those bodies also ignored that possession of intoxicants is listed as an offense at item 20 of the US Dept. of Justice Schedule of offenses.

The court of appeals and MSPB also found that even though 56 FLRA No. 97 (Sept. 1, 2000) held that Immigration Judges are not in the chain of command for legal assistants, that my refusal to falisify computer entries at the request of an immigration judge was disrespectful. Both those bodies ignored that falisification of official records is a violation of federal law 18 USC 2071(b) and is listed at item 22 of the Dept. of Justice Schedule of offenses.

The MSPB and court of appeals also ignored the fact that I never alleged reprisal for filing discrimination complaints.

Even though the record before the MSPB contains 18 references to my allegations of reprisal for testifying against the proposing and deciding officials on behalf of a co-working in the discrimination matter she filed (Dept. of Justice docket no. B-00-2377) both the MSPB and court of appeals held that I alleged reprisal for filing discrimination complaints.

The Court of appeals did not even review the record.

Concerning the allegation that I entered a plea of guilty to disorderly conduct. There was never a charge of disorderly conduct. Therefore there was never a plea to or a finding of guilty of disorderly conduct, or attempting to provoke a physical altercation.

Regarding the phone calls that the agency stated were made for the purpose of harassment. I was denied as witnesses the recipients of those calls. I could not ask those persons if my phone calls were made to harass or if my phone calls were made for the purpose of disclosing violations of federal laws.

The recipients of those calls had a legal obligation under 28 USC 535(b) to investigate those disclosures of criminal activity. Instead, it was alleged that I made those calls to harass.

Nothing like having whistleblower disclosures termed as harassment.

Perhaps instead of trumping up charges against a whistleblower the agency should have removed immigration judges for bringing booze into a prison and ordering staff to falsify computer records.

Perhaps the agency should have also prosecuted those management personnel that attempted to influence my testimony against the proposing and deciding offiicials in the above referenced DoJ docket number.

Thank you for the time you have devoted to reading this.

The comments to this entry are closed.