Mudd v. DVA ...
RETALIATION ... DID VA RETALIATE AGAINST HER FOR BLOWING THE WHISTLE? ...
The appellant, Debra K. Mudd, filed an IRA appeal, alleging that she disclosed that the agency's scheduling practices violated several statutory provisions and agency directives. Specifically, the appellant claimed that on December 12, 2008, she made a protected disclosure when she asked an agency compliance officer to investigate and intervene in a dispute between the agency and certain employees, including the appellant, over the agency's scheduling practices. She further alleged that on December 31, 2008, she made a protected disclosure when she filed a grievance under the applicable collective bargaining agreement, which alleged that such practices violated "policies and laws; Title 5, Part 3, Subpart E, Chapter 61, Subchapter I, 6101, 3(b)(c)(e) and VA Directive 5011/2 Hours of Duty and Leave 2(f)." The compliance officer indicated in an email to the appellant dated June 15, 2009, inter alia, that, because a grievance had been filed, additional concerns should be addressed by the union. In her Board appeal, the appellant asserted, inter alia, that, in reprisal for her protected disclosures, the agency took several personnel actions against her, including changing her schedule and failing to consider her for two vacant social worker positions for which she had applied. The administrative judge dismissed the IRA appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege that she made a protected disclosure. The appellant has filed a petition for review of this decision. The agency has not filed a response to the appellant's petition for review. ... Here, Mudd Appeals To MSPB:
Durden v. United States ... HE BROKE IN AND RAPED ME IN FRONT OF MY CHILDREN ! ... On December 13, 2009, someone broke into Maria Durden's home on the Fort Bragg military base and raped her in front of her children. In January 2010, U.S. Army Specialist Aaron Pernell became a suspect in Durden's rape and consented to giving a DNA sample that was used to identify him as Durden's assailant. Pernell was also identified at that time as being involved in burglaries and sexual assaults that occurred in 2008 and 2009 in Fayetteville. Mrs. Durden subsequently sued the government alleging that the Army was negligent and therefore is liable for the sexual assault against her. The government moved to dismiss Durden's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court granted the government's motion with respect to subject matter jurisdiction. ... Here, Durden Appeals To 4thCir: COURT DECISION
Watson v. UnitedStates ... INVOLUNTARY DISCHARGE ... MY REFUSAL FOR A 3RD DEPLOYMENT TO IRAQ WAS ILLEGAL DUE TO MY DISABILITY ... Richard P. Watson (plaintiff or Mr. Watson), a veteran with approximately four years of service in the United States Army (Army), brings claims against the United States (defendant) under the Military Pay Act, 37 U.S.C. § 204, and 10 U.S.C. § 1201, which governs disability retirement pay. Mr. Watson enlisted in the Army on September 9, 2004 and served until July 11, 2008. During his service, Mr. Watson served two tours of duty in Iraq: from May through September 2005 and from August through December 2007. The Army ordered Mr. Watson to return to Iraq for a third tour of duty on December 23, 2007, but Mr. Watson refused to deploy. As a result, the Army charged and convicted Mr. Watson under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for missing movement to Iraq and involuntarily discharged him under other than honorable conditions. Plaintiff claims that the Army's August 2007 deployment of Mr. Watson to Iraq and its December 2007 order to redeploy were unlawful because Mr. Watson was not medically fit for deployment. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, in October 2006, Mr. Watson was diagnosed with optic nerve atrophy and optic neuritis, conditions that obligated the Army to refer him to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) pursuant to the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (Disability Evaluation System). Notwithstanding its alleged obligation to do so, the Army did not refer Mr. Watson to an MEB. According to plaintiff, Mr. Watson's August 2007 deployment to Iraq was therefore unlawful as was the Army's December 2007 order that Mr. Watson redeploy to Iraq. Plaintiff further contends that, because the Army's redeployment order was unlawful, Mr. Watson's refusal to deploy was justified and his subsequent involuntary discharge for misconduct was also unlawful. ... Here, Watson Appeals To FedCir: COURT DECISION
Carrillo v. Dhs ... EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ... DID HOMELAND DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE HONORABLY DISCHARGED MARINE? ... Ben Carrillo served in the Marine Corps from 1977 to 1998 and was honorably discharged, making him a pref- erence eligible veteran. At the time of the events at issue in this case, he was employed by DHS as a grade level GS-12 Safety and Occupational Health Specialist. Mr. Carrillo's appeal centers on two DHS job announcements. The first announced position was posted for a GS-14 Supervisory Safety and Occupational Health Manager ("supervisor position"). The second job announcement was posted for a GS-13 Safety and Occupational Health Manager position ("team-lead position"). Here, petitioner Ben Carrillo appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board's ("Board") final decision upholding his nonselection for two positions at the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS" or "agency"). ... Here, Lee Appeals To FedCir: COURT DECISION
ThePeople v. Lee ... A WOMAN'S WORST NIGHTMARE ... A NIGHTIME HOMEBURGLARISING SERIAL RAPIST ON THE LOOSE ... Robert Charles Lee (appellant) was convicted by jury of 35 counts in connection with attacks on 10 women over a period of nearly nine years. He was sentenced to multiple life terms and a separate aggregate determinate term in state prison. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in imposing multiple consecutive indeterminate terms of 25 years to life in violation of the Penal Code section 667.611 prohibition against consecutive sentences for multiple sexual offenses committed against the same victim on a single occasion. He also contends his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated by his inability to confront and cross- examine witnesses who performed genetic testing, and that the evidence on certain counts was legally insufficient to sustain conviction. ... Here, Lee Appeals To CA2/2: CAUTIONThe Individual Accounts Are Extremely Disturbing, Proceed With Caution. COURT DECISION
Have A Cup Of Coffe Drugs.
Open Season Ends Soon, Hurry!