Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Charles D. Adams, Petitioner v. Merit Systems Protection Board
Supreme Court briefAug 8, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
No.
s
V3/
IN THE
Supreme Court,US'
FILED
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AUG - 8 2023
^2£§oftheclerK
CHARLES D. ADAMS
Petitioner
VS.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Respondent
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Charles D. Adams, CISSP
Pro Se Petitioner
12994 Park Crescent Circle
Herndon, VA 20171
703-708-9077
1 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Whether CAFC made an error in their decision to dismiss CAFC 2023-1213 (DC3443-22-0386-1-1) which was about DIA not recuesing themselves from the clearance
investigation and revocation process in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and
collusion since Mr. Michael Waschull worked for DIA immediately before MDA and had
initiated the clearance investigation and revocation process and it was a blatant and
obvious conflict of interest. DIA should have turned the clearance adjudication over the
the Air Force (AFOSI) or the Army (G2) or the Navy (ONI) or the Marine Corps (MCI)!
Whether anyone or any organization can deny access to EEO records in a
Discrimination Case, Complaint or Appeal. And whether MDA can intentionally withhold
vital evidence they have in their possession that would change the outcome of the CAFC
decision, such as the H: harddrive containing dates, times, and people for numerous
instances of disparate treatment, discrimination and retaliation, the EEO records of the
discriminators and the EEO records of the discriminating organization, and The FBI
investigation that cleared Mr. Adams of any wrongdoing.
Whether CAFC can deny an Oral Argument Request for a case of this magnitude and
have justice prevail. And whether Mr. Adams’ Sixth Amendment Rights were violated
when CAFC disregarded/ignored my request for an oral argument, in effect, denying him
of his right to be heard, and denying him of his right to face his accuser.
2 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
NOTE ON MISSING EVIDENCE
CAFC did not have access to vital evidence when they made their decision. So it is
imperative that you consider, subpoena if necessary, the evidence that was never
provided to them, evidence that would have changed their decision! Mr. Adams’
Pentagon Drug Tests (that were supposed to be Random but weren’t) and who
requested them (whether MDA tried to cover-up their discrimination by trying to create a
drug motive). Mr. Adams’ FBI Investigation (the one MDA ignored because they didn’t
like the results that cleared me before proceeding with their own in-house investigation
with the predetermined outcome they wanted). Mr. Adams’ Unclassified Personal
Harddrive or H: Drive containing 6 years and 6 months of daily emails and weekly
documentation regarding MDA, Unlawful Termination, Prohibited Personnel Actions, and
other Disparate Treatment, Disparate Impact, Discrimination and Retaliation I was
subjected to while working at MDA. The EEO Records Of The 3 Discriminators
(Michael Waschull, Douglas Clover and LtG Patrick O’Reilly) and The EEO Records Of
The MDA Organization (including the EEO records from the WFIS who processed MDA
EEO complaints during the time I worked at MDA before MDA brought their EEO process
in-house to better control and conceal their EEO complaints).There has never been a
discrimination case where the EEO records were never even examined!
3 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
2
NOTE ON MISSING EVIDENCE
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
5
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
6
DECISION BELOW
6
JURISDICTION
7
FEDERAL RULE INVOLVED
8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
13
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
24
CONCLUSION
26
PROOF OF SERVICE
27
4 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Page
1. Romero v. Department of Defense, C.A.F.C. No. 2007-3322, 6/2/08
17
2. Deirdra Brown-Fleming v. Attorney General, EEOC Appeal No.
0120082667 (October 28, 2010) won by Passman & Kaplan, P.C.
law firm...........................................................................................
17
3. Rattigan v. Department of Justice, Case No. 10-5014 won by won by
Passman & Kaplan, P.C. law firm......................................................
18
4. Robinson v. Department of Interior (2011), Case #550-2009-00090X
18
5. Rodgers v. White (No. 10-3916)
18
6. Royal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No.
0720070045 (Sep. 10, 2007)..............................................
19
7. Teresa Chambers v. U.S. Park Police (2011)
19
8. US Supreme Court Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) No.
78-432 Argued March 28, 1979 and Decided June 27, 1979 ............
19
5 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner Charles D. Adams, CISSP respectfully requests the issuance of a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit below.
DECISION BELOW
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appears
at Appendix A to the petition and is
[ ] reported at________________________________________
or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[X] is unpublished.
The opinion of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appears at Appendix B
to the petition and is
[ ] reported at________________________________________
! or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[X] is unpublished.
[ ] For cases from state courts:
The opinion of the United States court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appears
at Appendix__
to the petition and is
[ ] reported at
.; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
The opinion of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appears at Appendix
_____to the petition and is
[ ] reported at________________________________________
or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
6 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
JURISDICTION
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was May
17, 2023.
[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of
Appeals on the following date: ________________
and a copy
of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to
and including _
(date) on
(date) in
Application No.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1).
[ ] For cases from state courts:
The date on which the highest state court decided my case was
A copy of that decision appears at Appendix_________
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:
______________________________, and a copy of the order denying rehearing
appears at Appendix
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to
and including _
(date) on
(date) in
Application No.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1257(a).
7 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
FEDERAL RULE INVOLVED
Constitution Amendments dealing with Equal Employment Opportunity, Presidential
Powers and Presidential Waivers, Unconstitutional Laws and Powers, Unconstitutional
Behavior, Constitutional Law, Ethics and Retributive Justice, Due Process clause of the
14th Amendment, Civil Rights, Race Discrimination, Abuse of Power (Authority) and Age
Discrimination, Segregation, Jobs and Employee Rights and “Right to Work” Laws,
Government Reform, Pro Se Legal Representation Reform, Compensatory and Punitive
Damage Caps, Treatment of Veterans, Cover-Ups, etc.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination based on
race
Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibiting employment discrimination based
on age
Constitutional Amendment 1 prohibiting the free exercise of people to petition the
Government for redress of grievances. MDA is trying to abridge my right by
implementing several conflicts of interest and cover-ups, by stopping my paycheck during
the appeal process and before I was even found guilty in the hope of forcing me to quit
when my savings ran out (they should have let me remain on admin leave instead of
suspending me without pay until the conclusion of the appeal process and determination
of my guilt or innocence), and threatening to terminate me if I don’t drop my appeals.
Constitutional Amendment V stating that no person will be deprived of liberty or
property without due process. MDA is constantly trying to deny me my due process by
implementing several conflicts of interest and cover-ups, by stopping my paycheck during
the appeal process and before I was even found guilty in the hope of forcing me to quit
when my savings ran out (they should have let me remain on admin leave instead of
suspending me without pay until the conclusion of the appeal process and determination
of my guilt or innocence), and threatening to terminate me if I don’t drop my appeals.
Constitutional Amendment VIII prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Stopping my
paycheck during the appeal process and before I was even found guilty is cruel and
unusual punishment (especially for a first offense where no damage was done). Also
terminating me if I don’t drop my appeals and causing me to lose my health care (when I
have 2 uninsurable dependents - son is autistic and wife has history of cancer) is cruel
and unusual punishment (especially for a first offense where no damage was done).
Executive Order establishing Presidential Waiver for the Missile Defense Agency to do
whatever is necessary regardless of the law in order to stand up a missile defense
system as soon as possible.
8 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
8 COURT CASES SUPPORTING THIS APPEAL
1. Romero v. Department of Defense, C.A.F.C. No. 2007-3322, 6/2/08.
An auditor with the Inspector General for the Department of Defense, fired for
losing his security clearance, has won a reprieve from the appeals court. (Romero
v. Department of Defense, C.A.F.C. No. 2007-3322, 6/2/08). Romero's position
had required a Secret clearance. Then, Romero's boss asked that Romero be
cleared for SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) so that he could do audit
work at the National Security Agency. He was denied this clearance upgrade and
the denial was affirmed following an administrative hearing within DOD. At this
point the agency revoked Romero's clearance and removed him as a result
(Opinion pp. 2-5). Romero took his case to the Merit Systems Protection Board
where he argued he was denied due process when the agency revoked his
existing clearance based on the agency's refusal to upgrade his clearance to SCI.
The MSPB Administrative Judge found that the clearance had been revoked, that
Romero's job required access to SCI and to classified information, and that DOD
had met the requirements of the law in denying his clearance. In short, the MSPB
sustained Romero's removal (pp. 4-5). Romero then took his case to the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision, the court points out a removal based on
denial of a security clearance "does not require the agency to prove that the
reasons for its decision...are supported by a preponderance of evidence." (p. 5)
However, since the MSPB did not consider whether DOD had followed its own
regulations in revoking Romero's clearance, the court vacated the Board's
decision and remanded the case "for the Board to determine whether Mr. Romero
can show that the Department failed to follow its procedures and that any failure to
do so resulted in harmful error." (p. 11). The effect of this decision is to give
Romero another shot at overturning his removal when he goes back before the
MSPB.
2. Deirdra Brown-Fleming v. Attorney General, EEOC Appeal No. 0120082667
(October 28, 2010) won by Passman & Kaplan, P.C. law firm.
Both cases (hers and mine) involved government workers alleging discrimination
and reprisal against their government employers. Both had nothing to do with
performance and everything to do pretexts to discrimination, in my case a single
incident blown way out of proportion in order to get rid of me. Both complainants
asked for reinstatement, a clean record, back pay and benefits, mandatory
training to staff [management] at the agency facility, consideration of "taking
appropriate disciplinary action against all responsible management officials still
employed with the agency,” compensatory and punitive damages, and front pay in
the event the complainant could not be reinstated. And both MDA and pentagon
ignored our appeals and refused to correct the problem when brought to their
9 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
attention. Also closed ranks and spinned it (tried to create the most favorable
impression possible) to appease outsiders. And initiated cover-ups. Furthermore,
the EEOC determined that the victim was "harmed as a result of the Agency's
discriminatory action,” and that the Agency's discriminatory termination (clearance
revocation, suspension, and termination in my case) was the proximate cause of
her emotional and physical problems, the Complainant's depression, anxiety,
stress, insomnia, difficulty concentrating, disassociation, crying spells, social
isolation, damage to her professional reputation, withdrawal from relationships,
short-term memory loss, nightmares, panic, worsening abdominal pain, worsening
hypertension, dramatic weight-loss, and various ailments brought on by stress (in
my case kidney stones, obesity, migraines, etc.).”
3. Rattigan v. Department of Justice, Case No. 10-5014 won by won by
Passman & Kaplan, P.C. law firm.
On June 3, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued its decision which held that disclosing negative information regarding a
federal agency employee to the agency's security office in hopes of calling that
employee's security clearance into question was not immunized from court review.
Rattigan worked for the FBI.
4. Robinson v. Department of Interior (2011), Case #550-2009-00090X.
Ms. Katherine A. Thompson of the Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region of
the Department of the Interior engaged in a pattern of discrimination against Ms.
Robinson from May 2006 until she resigned in November 2007 on multiple bases
when she regarded Ms. Robinson as a person with a disability once the
complainant had serious heart surgery in February 2006, and when she removed
her from the IT Supervisor position as soon as she returned to work to allow a
younger Caucasian man to occupy the GS-13 supervisor position for long enough
to qualify for the new GS-14 IT Manager position. She refused to return Ms.
Robinson to her supervisory position at the end of her bogus “detail” assignment
and, instead, advertised for the Manager position, and when she did not even
consider her for an interview for the advertised position.
5. Rodgers v. White (No. 10-3916).
In Rodgers v. White (No. 10-3916), decided on September 2nd, the Seventh
Circuit reached the unusual result of allowing a plaintiff to use his supervisor as a
comparator in a comparative discipline case alleging race discrimination. The
result is important because the Seventh Circuit had previously indicated in several
cases that supervisors are typically poor comparators, but this case illustrated a
justified exception. Mr. Rodgers, the plaintiff, was the only Black employee among
a lawn-maintenance crew of 27 that worked for the Illinois Secretary of State. He
10 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
was fired purportedly because he had been involved in a practice of allowing crew
members to borrow State maintenance equipment and because he had been
involved in improper timekeeping practices, and also supposedly had not been
forthcoming or helpful in the investigations of such improper practices. However,
Rodgers' supervisor, who was White, was involved in the same practices but was
merely demoted, not fired. The kicker was that the person who fired Rodgers was
the same person that merely demoted his supervisor. The State tried to claim that
Rodgers' evasiveness in the investigations made him more culpable, but the
Court noted that the supervisor had lied as well and even had more responsibility
than Rodgers for the improper timekeeping practices. These facts alone were
enough to preclude summary judgment for the State, even where there was no
evidence of disparaging comments about Rodgers' race or other direct evidence
of discrimination. The takeaway lesson from this case is that, any time an
employer is going to fire or discipline an individual in a protected category, the
decision maker should look carefully at whether any other employees -- not just
those with the same job title -- have engaged in similar conduct and how they
have been treated in the past, particularly by that decision maker. If the employer
is going to discipline an employee in a protected category more harshly for
conduct that is arguably similar to conduct engaged in by other employees, even
supervisors, the company better have a very good and documented reason for
the difference. Otherwise they too may be facing an unpredictable jury to try to
explain the varying treatment.
6. Royal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070045 (Sep.
10, 2007).
In September 2007, EEOC upheld an Administrative Judge’s (AJ) default
judgment in favor of complainant, a Staff Nurse Supervisor, who had alleged race
discrimination when she was not selected for a Nurse Manager position. The AJ
sanctioned the agency for failing to timely investigate the complaint. Relief
included retroactive promotion, back pay and a tailored order to allow complainant
to submit her request for fees incurred solely for the successful prosecution of the
appeal.
7. Teresa Chambers v. U.S. Park Police (2011).
Chambers was fired in 2004 for speaking out publicly about budget issues, but
Chambers says she was only telling the truth when she was asked about staffing
issues within the department.
8. US Supreme Court Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) No. 78-432
Argued March 28,1979 and Decided June 27,1979.
11 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
Case about "manifest racial imbalance" where they ruled that management had
the constitutional right and obligation to help minorities gain and maintain jobs and
promotions in the event of a manifest racia I imbalance and surely no black SESs
out of 33 is a clear example of "manifest racial imbalance."
12 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MDA broke the law. And they violated federal policies and procedures. And they
violated my civil rights. The truth has been covered up by MDA and ignored by DIA and
DoD. And the truth is that And the truth is that a white racist SES Senior Leader at MDA
colluded with his former buddies at the DIA, the organization he worked for immediately
prior to MDA, to get rid of his most senior black employee. And the truth is that the same
white racist SES Senior Leader at MDA is using a minor isolated (one-time) security
incident to get rid of his most senior black employee. Another truth is that the
punishment doesn’t fit the “crime” in that termination of employment is too extreme a
punishment for civil service employee charging a cell phone in his office in a SCIF in
order to accomplish the mission, or for a first offense when no damage was done.
And CAFC is aiding and abetting them. CAFC is aiding and abetting them by
wrongfully dismissing the administrative appeal/complaint. And only SCOTUS can rectify
their egregious error and reestablish justice in this very unfortunate situation!
This appeal is about DIA not recuessinq themselves from the clearance investigation
and revocation process in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and Conflict of
Interest or Lack of Impartiality (collusion) since Mr. Michael Waschull worked for DIA
immediately before MDA. DIA should have turned the clearance adjudication over the the
Air Force (AFOSI) or the Army (G2) or the Navy (ONI) or the Marine Corps (MCI)! And
about DIA not recuessing themselves from the clearance investigation and revocation
process in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and Conflict of Interest or Lack of
Impartiality (collusion) since Mr. Michael Waschull worked for DIA immediately before
MDA, in a discrimination-based clearance investigation and revocation process that
resulted in wrongfully revoking all my clearances and in my wrongful termination based
on racial and age discrimination! DIA supported their every move, including a
discrimination-based clearance investigation and revocation process that resulted
in wrongfully revoking all my clearances and in my wrongful termination based on
racial and age discrimination, in order to prevent my transferring to another DoD
Organization (so MDA could not only terminate me for not being able to do my job (a
pretense for discrimination) but prevent me from transferring to another DoD
Organization)! Effectively helping to wrongfully terminate a career civil service
employee based on race and age discrimination.
MDA has used a presidential waiver to create a climate of rule bending, It is
especially egregious behavior because the SES and MDA has used a presidential waiver
to create a climate of rule bending, including a culture of discrimination, retaliation, and
managerial abuse of power, a climate of rule-bending for security rules that hindered the
mission, such as trying to build an unauthorized telecom link under the table to a foreign
country despite pentagon disapproval, signing of ATOs without ST&Es, ignoring DIAP’s
directive not to skip ST&Es (not performing DIAP-directed site audits), signing unlimited
13 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
number of lATOs to avoid non-waiverable ST&Es, signing of ATOs by unauthorized
personnel (PSOs), bypassing DAA accreditation authority via acreditation of collateral
systems by non-DAA-authorized personnel (PSOs, Deputy Director for IT Security, and
SAPCO Director who should only accredit non-collateral SAP systems as the PAA),
ignoring C&A rules (looking the other way) by bringing the collateral system accreditation
in-house to avoid DAA accreditation, appointing unqualified SAPMAN ISSM for political
reasons, not having enough software licenses for their desktops and laptops, returning
the Nano unwiped and unclassified instead of to the level of the system it was attached
to, etc. So when I followed suit and charged my dead cell-phone in my office which was
inside a SAPF/SCIF, they vindictively used it as a reason to not only eject me from the
SAPF/SCIF, but to revoke all my clearances (so I couldn’t be transferred to another
position in MDA or DoD) and to deny me a merit-selected transfer to the Pentagon, and
to deny my early retirement request which will cost me my health care and all other
benefits (all because I charged a 1st generation cell phone with no camera, no datatransfer capabilities and it was a first offense where SOP is retraining and where no
damage or disclosure occurred to the data or info systems).
The Presidential Waiver given to the Missile Defense Agency to bypass any law or
rule that interfered with their standing up a missile defense system despite the fact
that it violated employee and civil rights. Also once the missile defense system was
stood up, MDA made no effort to go back and fix what was broken or bypass or even
comply with the laws and rules they ignored while standing up the systems. Sadly, MDA,
never went back and fixed the problems (civil rights violations, EEO violations, Employee
Rights violations, security violations, personnel violations, management mistakes,
diversity inequities, race and age discrimination, etc.) they created by circumventing rules
and regulations and using any means necessary after they stood up the missile system
like they promised they would. In fact, MDA has become a repository for vindictive unfit
managers who couldn’t survive anywhere else (and full of employees who can’t go
anywhere else - most of the good ones that could get other jobs have already left or are
in the process of leaving or sticking it out until BRAC forces them to retire). And it’s all
because MDA misused their Presidential Waiver and because they didn’t have to follow
the rules to accomplish the mission (which is ironic and hypocritical that they are picking
on me for bending a couple of rules to accomplish the mission). Collateral damage from
the Presidential Waiver was unnecessary and too severe (too many unanticipated
problems, too many people get hurt).
My case covers so many areas, DIA’s Failure to Recues themselves from the
clearance investigation and revocation process in order to avoid the appearance of
impropriety and Conflict of Interest or Lack of Impartiality (collusion) since Mr.
Michael Waschull worked for DIA immediately before MDA, Wrongful Collusion,
Employer Discrimination, National Security, Presidential Powers and Presidential
Waivers, Unconstitutional Laws and Powers, Unconstitutional Behavior, Constitutional
Law, Ethics and Retributive Justice, Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, Civil
Rights, Race Discrimination, Age Discrimination, and Abuse of Power (Authority),
14 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
Segregation, Jobs and Employee Rights and “Right to Work” Laws, Government Reform
Pro Se Legal Representation Reform, Compensatory and Punitive Damage Caps,
Treatment of Veterans, Cover-Ups, etc., that the court could use MDA as an example
to make a statement (and set one or more precedents) on any or all of the areas.
As a matter of fact, my chances of being selected should probably increase with the
number of birds the Supreme Court can kill with one stone.
And most importantly, this case is about DIA’s Failure to Recues themselves from
the clearance investigation and revocation process in order to avoid the
appearance of impropriety and Conflict of Interest or Lack of Impartiality
(collusion) since Mr. Michael Waschull worked for DIA immediately before MDA
and Employer Discrimination, and it’s about getting rid of a black employee (me)
by any means necessary which is why they tried to stack 1 rated appraisals so they
could attack me on performance grounds, in case the clearance revocation attempt didn’t
work (in case DIA reinstated me), and why they tried to get me to quit by placing me on
unpaid suspension hoping I would run out of money and be forced to quit or be forced to
retire to save my benefits (health insurance, life insurance, etc.).
Here is a Summary of my case (what Mr. Waschull and MDA has done to me over the
past two years and don’t want anyone to know).
Executive Summary for the Supreme Court
It all started when Mr. Waschall wanted to do his friends in a foreign country a favor at
the expense of the US Government. Specifically he wanted to install a telecom link to
speed the transfer of classified information since the diplomatic pouch was so slow. First
thing I did was go to DISA because they are the experts at this type of thing but when he
found out he ordered me to bypass DISA and do it unofficially under the table instead. I
found out why when researching the project further. Two of his senior managers a man
and an woman both told me that he had tried it twice before and that it was rejected by
the Pentagon and that I should ask to get off of the project because if something went
wrong I would be the one to go to jail. I did ask to get off the project and he denied my
request so I dragged my feat until it was OBE. He disliked me ever since and has been
looking for a way to get back at me. For my part, I stayed well out of his way (not even
communicating with him for a year). Well the moment came when I charged my dead
cell-phone in my office in his SAPF.
One day, no different than any other day, I woke up at 0430, got ready for work and
quietly caught the metro at 0520 to work while family slept. When I got to work at 0630 I
noticed my cell phone was dead so since I had important time sensitive mission critical
work to do and since there was no one in the outer lobby to watch it I decided to charge it
in my office while doing my work. I did so because I had been stranded at East Falls
Church the week before for 3 hours with no way of getting a hold of my family to tell them
what was going on and I didn’t want it to happen again and because I figured I could use
15 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
my expertise to mitigate the risk to an acceptable level (to a point where no damage
would occur). In order to mitigate the risks before charging, I made sure the classified
terminals were off, all classified materials were secured and the safe locked (not working
on any classified material while charging), the office door closed, the cell phone was 4
feet away form the classified terminals, not making any phone calls during the charging,
and not receiving any guests during the charging. Additionally, the cell phone itself
mitigated risk in that it was a 1st generation cell phone given to new Verizon customers
for free and as such didn’t have a camera, no memory to speak of (could only save a few
phone numbers), no recording features, no WiFi, no Wireless Interface, No Blue Tooth,
No data transfer capabilities, no USB Connector (couldn’t upload or download or
manipulate data), No Internet Capability, No Instant Messaging capability, No music
capability, no email capability, and no speakerphone (which is why neither the scanning
team or the counterintelligence people confiscated it).
While working on my mission essential work, a crew of signal analysts came through the
SAPF picked up my cell phone signal and came into my office. When I saw them I
gathered my cell phone and charging cord and took it outside to the lock box and locked
it up. One of them followed me out, checked the phone and gave it back to me (did not
confiscate it). Doug Clover my supervisor was out of the office in training so Mr.
Waschull got the report and had me locked out of the SAPF. When asked why he said
he thought I was a spy, which is ludicrous because I didn’t meet any of the red flags
(heavy financial indebtedness, sudden affluence, alcoholism, and disgruntlement). He
also took away 80% of my workload and limited me only writing security policies even
though the vast majority of the work he took away was unclassified (IT Support, C&A,
Reviewing System Security Plans, etc.).
While I was working on the policies that management never approved, the only work I
was allowed to do, Mr. Washcull and MDA went through my office looking for other
violations they could get me on so they could build a case to get rid of me. They didn’t
reprimand me. They didn’t retrain me, which was standard operating procedure (SOP)
for a first-time security incident where no damage was done, which is typical behavior for
people perpetrating discrimination. Apparently they brought in the FBI to build a stronger
case and when they said “We see nothing actionable, just an IT specialist cutting
corners to get the job done” Mr. Washcull decided to use his own internal (biased)
personnel who worked for him to do a second investigation of their own. They said they
found a lot of other so-called “incriminating” evidence that they said made me a threat to
national security. Additionally he told DIA that he thought I was a spy and asked them to
revoke all of my clearances and not just the one involving SAPF/SCI facilities (because
he didn’t want me transferred to another job in MDA or DoD for that matter). The
problem with their “incriminating” evidence was that it was a bunch of exaggerations and
half-truths with the goal of revoking all my clearances and chasing me out of MDA, DoD,
and Civil Service.
16 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
They said I had over 100 computer disks (CD-ROMS) were discovered, that had not
been scanned or screened by Document Control in an effort to undermine my credibility
and establish me as a rule breaker and someone who didn’t care about security and
implying that that attitude translated to classified information as well. What they didn’t
say was that the 100s of computer disks they found were Read-Only Memory meaning
you couldn’t rewrite to them and all but 1 were gold disks made by DISA and FEDEXed
to me over the past 5 years and used to do my job (Gold Disks are CDs that contain
Security Technical Implementation Guide or STIG based configurations of operating
systems that identify vulnerabilities in your configuration and tell you how to correct
them), and Computer-based Training CD-ROMs. Furthermore, all the disks were
unclassified and the disks were prepared by a government agency and virus scanned by
that agency before being sent to me. And by the way, DISA Read-Only Gold Disks are
government issued work products and are authorized by local policy (our local policy
allows government created CD-ROMS to be kept without document control tags). They
didn’t even itemize the disks because everyone would know that they are a non-issue
(not the threat they make them out to be). Which is why the Supreme Court needs to
question MDA’s "facts" as well all their motives in this case.
They also said I used my 4 GB Apple Nano to accomplish unclassified file transfers
between classified and unclassified computer hard drives, aka Sneakernetting. What
they didn’t say was that sneakernetting is one of the most common practices in DoD to
get the job done and accomplish the mission. SOP is to overlook it if no damage is done.
Nor that no classified information was damaged destroyed or disclosed. Nor that I was
instructed to copy all the C&A files from the unclassified computer to the classified
computer and that since the At the time the help desk didn’t have CD-ROMs to give me.
So I took my Nano that contained music for jogging and backup documents from the H:
drive and copied the C&A documents (unclassified PowerPoint SSP Review slides and
IATO letters - there were over 30) to the Nano and then transferred the information into
the IA folder on the classified network. Nor did they tell you the file transfers were always
from low to high and only to accomplish the mission. Nor that the risk of disclosure or
destruction was minimal because the Nano was virus checked by MDA virus checker and
the transfer was one way only and lasted lest than a minute (I never left the Nano
plugged in for more than 1 minute at a time). Furthermore the security protocols on the
classified system are substantial (completely compartmented, etc.). Since I helped
design it and approved the System Security Plan, I knew what I was doing was safe. Nor
did they say that when asked for the Nano, I willingly turned it over to the
counterintelligence people for forensics (full and immediate cooperation because I had
nothing to hide). Nor did they say that the counterintelligence people “found no data that
violated DoD regulations” and returned the Nano unwiped and in original condition (didn’t
even see the need to classify it to the level of the classified system) because it too was
not seen as the threat MDA made it out to be. Nor did they say that I am an expert at
identifying and mitigating risks, and that my job involves doing it every day. Nor did they
say there was no damage destruction or disclosure because of my extensive
mitigations and expertise.
17 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
When they realized they had no case (realize the allegation were either exaggerated or
weren’t true) and because of the fact that there was no damage, they stopped making the
above accusations began to focus on my judgment and character to push the revocation
through. And they started doing things out of the ordinary (think vendetta, conflicts of
interest and cover-up).
Mr. Waschull used his own counterintelligence people to do a 2nd investigation when the
FBI found nothing actionable. Mr. Waschull asked DIA to investigate my clearance
because he use to work for DIA (came to MDA from DIA) and still has friends there,
which increased his chances of getting a favorable outcome. And in the next few weeks
the same person who started the persecution (vendetta), Mr. Waschull, would order my
paycheck stopped, would try and stack 1 appraisals, would simultaneously sign my
appraisal and also serve as the Pay Pool Manager (the first level official of the NSPS
Reconsideration appeal), and would terminate me because I wouldn’t drop my appeals
against him. And these were in addition to the things they had already done such as:
isolating me from my colleagues by moving me to another building and surrounding me
with strangers; withholding my 30-year pin and certificate for 12 months; calling me a
baby killer and other inappropriate and offensive remarks; changing a long-standing rule
to send policies to Policy Working Group (PWG) for comment to IT Team (apparently so
they could say they put on the appraisal that they had to rewrite my stuff); changing a
long-standing rule (behind my back) that I was to review all System Security Plans
(SSPs) and send my analysis to Doug (apparently before they realized I had already
done twice as many as last year so they could make a negative remark about it on my
appraisal); changing a long-standing policy by picking an ISA/ISSM for SAP systems
from the read-on government staff (when they went looking for one for the new SAPWAN
system they decided not to pick a person internal to DOSP and already read on to
administer IAM/ISSM duties for the SAP system and when I asked Doug about it, he said
Mr. Waschull didn’t want to pick me, even though I was the only government worker
qualified to do it, and that he was told to pick someone else even though they would not
be read on - it would be up to the read-on staff to tell them what they need to know to do
their job); changing a long-standing policy regarding the classification of the IATO letters
(the long-standing policy was to draft an unclassified IATO/ATO that could be done by
DOCV or reviewed by anyone, while at the same time, another SAP document was
created by PSOs and PMs detailing what could be put on the accredited system);
changing a long-standing rule by adding the SAP info to the unclassified lATOs/ATOs in
order to keep them out of the public domain (restrict them to read-on people) and protect
themselves from prying eyes, especially the folks at DOCV, and to ensure this they
ordered me to not interact with DOCV for any reason, not even tell them we were
processing everything, even collateral, in-house (which was bending/changing
regulations too, since they are the DAA Reps), which also caused duplication of effort
problems because they were not even told to stop processing the systems we had
already accredited in-house (and when I told them they didn’t care); and changing a long
standing policy when they stopped allowing me to switch my CWS day in order to better
accomplish the mission (get an extra 9 hours of work production that would be lost if a
18 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
sick day were taken) after 3 years of letting me do so (which they only did after I
appealed my appraisal rating and asked for an admin transfer - coincident or retaliation?
So contrary to what the MDA claims, when you look at this incident objectively, you see
that this is not about classified information or national security. It’s about an IA/C&A
SME who is paid to make security decisions, making a security decision based on
his expertise to waive a couple of rules to get the job done (and no different than
when MDA returned the nano without classifying it to the level of the system it was
attached to or wiping it, and no different than my superiors waiving similar rules that
require site audits (ST&Es) when issuing ATOs or accrediting collateral (nonSAP)
systems without the DAA’s knowledge or consent (in violation of both MDA CIO and DoD
DIAP rules) - in essence creating a climate where bending rules to accomplish the
mission is acceptable).
I apologized, said I wouldn’t do it again and continued working on the work I was
assigned and thought that was the end of it. But my managers were determined to blow
this minor security incident way out of proportion in order to use it to get rid of me. So
they had the interviewers call me in and asked me questions and I cooperated fully
(something a spy wouldn’t do). And when appraisals came around and I had provided
my usual input they completely ignored my input, and the fact that I completed twice the
amount of work as the year before, and gave meal, the lowest rating, based on the
single security incident. Again, they did a lot of things out of the ordinary. They ignored
all of my other work; they ignored my written input describing my contributions to the
agency; they ignored the fact, the fact that I had completed an all-time high 8 Policies
(double the number last year); and they ignored the fact that I completed an all-time high
84 SSP Reviews (double the number last year). Which in effect demonstrated the
dilemma for blacks at MDA (how they were forced to do double the work of white
employees for half the ratings and rewards, which is borne out by comparing white and
black ratings and bonuses at MDA - shades of 1904 and the Pullman Company).
I immediately appealed the 1 rating through formal channels and began going up my
COC to formally protest the way I was being treated (didn’t before because I didn’t want
to make waves and because my wife wanted to PCS to Hunstville to be closer with her
family in Montgomery and I didn’t want to jeopardize the move). At the same time I was
offered a GS-2210-15 job at the Pentagon for the OSD Comptroller. I accepted the job
and MDA formally outprocessed me and I reported to my new job. After a couple of
hours working, I was told that MDA had contacted Washington Headquarters Service
(WHS HR) and insisted that I be return to MDA, no reason was given (but it was to
persecute for appealing making my management look bad. They could have left me at
the Pentagon where I was working but they didn’t because they wanted to try and
get rid of me. After a big hassle getting me my badges back and my desktop and cell
phone back (none of which worked initially) they tried to put me in a new office away from
the people I had worked with for the last to years (apparently to isolate me from everyone
so I wouldn’t let them know how badly I was being treated) that was already occupied by
an Army Colonel. So I filed a complaint about that, which was eventually resolved, but
19 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
not without a lot of stress, and I was effectively isolated from everyone I had worked with
surrounded by strangers with nothing to do except work on appeal documentation (no
longer doing policies).
One day the Vice Director asked to see me but when I showed up, my appointment had
been rescheduled and then subsequently cancelled (apparently they got to him too). And
I found out that instead of requesting a revocation of my SCI clearance (because the
incident happened in a SAPF) which again is SOP, Mr. Waschull and MDA requested a
complete revocation of all of my clearances from DIA so I couldn’t be transferred to
another job in MDA (or DoD for that matter). Mr. Washcull and MDA even told the
Unemployment Benefits people that my suspension was my fault so I would get
unemployment benefits in an effort to drain me of resources (money) so I would have to
quite and let them off the hook.
While going up my chain I was worn out and my tolerances were down so low I caught
the flu and had a fever on the day I was to see Mr. Washcull while going up my COC. He
treated me very badly. Had me sit there obviously sick while he belittled regurgitating all
the accusations that he and MDA had been making for months, instead of acknowledging
my desire to properly go up my COC to resolve my grievances. Life at work was a
nightmare and I began having nightmares at home so my mind and body couldn’t
rejuvenate itself. Along the way, they gave me my Nano back intact no less. Finally
when Mr. Washcull and MDA were ready, they called me in and took my badges and had
me escorted out of the building. I continued my fight at home although without my
access to my unclassified profile at work (which they denied my formal request for), and
emails and documents on the unclassified LAN, it was nearly impossible to produce
documentation or dates for most of the things Mr. Washcull and MDA had done (they
obviously knew what they were doing).
I appealed to every higher authority I could think of (Oliver Wendell Homes said, “the best
illumination comes from above”), unfortunately many of them answered to DoD, by filing
appeals to my COC (including the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense), the Defense
Intelligence Agency and their Security Clearance Adjudication Board (SAB), MSPB (and
subsequently to the US Court of Appeals for the Fed
eral Circuit), the Office of Special Counsel, the VA Unemployment Commission, the
EEOC, and my Senators and Congressman. They responded by offering me VERA and
VSIP (early retirement) if I would drop all of my appeals and not talk to anyone about
what had happened to me and I turned them down. What they did was wrong and I
figured if I kept telling people in authority someone would see it and do something about
it. Besides I was not the only employee treated in such a hostile manner and I wanted to
help the others.
But Mr. Waschull and MDA were relentless in their desire (obsession) to get rid of me.
They never stopped trying to make things worst in order to get me to quite trying to
expose their mistakes and cover-ups. They placed me on unpaid administrative leave
20 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
hoping that I would quite or my savings that enabled me to fight would run out. And since
they forced me to use my TSP Retirement Fund to feed my family and pay my bills, I had
to pay early withdrawal penalties and interest and taxes. And their decision to stop my
pay (when they didn’t have too - could have left me on administrative leave until the
appeals had been completed - could have treated me like I was innocent until proven
guilty) ruined my credit too (it went from about 600 to 350). They tried to stack bad
appraisals so in case I won my DIA appeal, they could try and get rid of me on
performance. They began threatening to fire me and drag things out until my government
benefits disappeared (which they did and after 365 days I lost my health insurance and
all of my other government benefits and couldn’t get Temporary Continuing Coverage or
TCC because of their well-panned premeditated strategy to make me suffer by
terminating me after 365 days of unpaid suspension (or the first time their premeditated
persecution hit its mark - revoking my TS-SCI clearance cost me a $150,000 job offer
with a Intel Community contractor).
My friends convinced me it was race discrimination (I thought it was a clear case of
abuse of management authority/abuse of power and misuse of a presidential waiver to
bypass the law and the rules and regulations) when they started reminding me of all the
things Mr. Washcull and MDA had put me through. The precious harassment, the
withholding my 30-year pin and certificate for 12 months, no government cell phone, no
corner office, no STE even though my job required it, etc. There are so many
unexplainable decisions, so many inconsistencies, so many conflicts of interest, that it
had to be racism they said. And when they said, “how come there are no black people in
senior leadership positions. There are 33 SESes. Shouldn’t 2 or 3 be black? And don’t
you think if there were a black senior executive that this persecution would have been
allowed to continue unabated for so long” finally convinced me.
Unfortunately, MDA constantly ignored what they didn’t want to hear (they should be
hoisted on the pillar of arrogance) until EEOC, the first authority not inside the DoD circle
of influence, ruled against them and told them there were grounds for racial
discrimination (they said there wasn’t and summarily dismissed my complaint out of hand
without bothering to investigate it) and ordered them to do a full and complete
investigation of my grievances.
Essentially, the truth has been covered up by MDA and ignored by DIA and DoD. And the
truth is that a bigoted SES Senior Leader at MDA used a minor isolated (one-time)
security incident to get rid of his most senior black employee. Another truth is that the
punishment doesn’t fit the “crime” in that a 1 rating, a year of unpaid suspension, and
termination of employment is too extreme a punishment for civil service employee
charging a cell phone in his office in a SAPF, for a first offense when no damage was
done in order to accomplish the mission. And it is especially egregious behavior because
MDA vindictively used it as a reason to not only eject me from the SAPF/SCIF, but to
revoke all my clearances so I couldn’t be transferred to another position in MDA or DoD,
and to deny me a merit-selected transfer to the Pentagon, and to deny my early
21 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
retirement request which has cost me my health care and all other benefits (all because I
charged a 1st generation cell phone with no camera, no data-transfer capabilities and it
was a first offense where SOP is retraining and where no damage or disclosure occurred
to the data or info systems).
Bottom Line: Mr. Washcull had a choice. The SOP gave him options. He didn't have
to ask for Total Clearance Revocation (so I couldn’t work anywhere anymore), or chose
Maximum Punishment or Unlawful Termination, but he did! And when he realized I
wasn't a spy or that no damage was done, he still insisted on Maximum Punishment.
Also, each person in the COC had a choice. They could have done something about
it, but didn't! They chose to look the other way. And so did MSPB and CAFC! With the
stroke of a pen you can undo this unlawful discrimination and retaliation. And you can
correct CAFC’s erroneous decision!
The MSPB Proceedings and Denial of My Request for an Oral Hearing
MSPB proceedings were more of the same. People bent on maintaining the status quo at
the expense of justice and fairness and getting to the truth. At every turn they sided with
MDA in order to protect their reputation, their resources and the status quo. At every turn
they utilized lack of jurisdiction and other legal techniques to conceal evidence and avert
justice! Furthermore they denied a legitimate request for an oral hearing, in effect,
denying me my right to a fair hearing, my right to be heard, and my right to face my
accuser, thus violating the sixth amendment of the US Constitution.
The CAFC Proceedings and Denial of My Request for an Oral Hearing
Ditto for the CAFC proceedings. More recently they have resorted to sidestepping my
Appeals by transferring them to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(USDC-EDVA) to save resources and avoid the responsibility of making a decision. In
effect, CAFC is violating the Sixth Amendment which calls for speedy hearings and case
resolutions by needlessly delaying my hearings and decisions. Furthermore, transferring
my case to the US District Court for the Eastern District of VA (USDC-EDVA) adds 2
more layers of judicial bureaucracy to my appeal/case (and additional suffering for my
family and I) if I have to appeal their decisions (USDC-EDVA and CA4C), no doubt an
effort to delay my case until I die or quit. It is bureaucratic and judicial apathy like this that
has caused my appeals to drag on for five years and made the affects of my
discrimination and retaliation much worst (and is going to encourage the bad guys to
continue their egregious behavior in the future).
As a result of Mr. Washull’s and MDA’s Discrimination, I was wrongfully stripped of all
my beloved clearances I spent 33 years earning (I receive my TS-SCI when I went
into the USAF because I was programming satellites in FORTRAN and maintained it
22 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
throughout my entire career until a bigoted SES Colluded with DIA and had all of my
clearances discriminatorily revoked so he could prevent me from being transferred
anywhere else in DoD), wrongfully stripped of my beloved cybersecuirty job (one I
was very good at and a critical shortage job in DoD), wrongfully stripped of my
beloved civil service career (when I had a great chance of breaking the longevity
record), wrongfully stripped of my beloved FEHB health care and FEGLI life
insurance (when I desperately needed because I had 3 uninsurable family members,
wife with Cancer, son with Autism, and me with Diabetes)!
Do you want quantifiable costs for MDA’s Discrimination?
How about 7 years my family and I had no health care whatsoever! And what about
the stress, anguish, trauma, anxiety, humiliation, indignity and physical, emotional,
mental and psychological damage that caused us? The Medical Bills due to the lack of
health insurance now total $149,085.20! But what about the unquantifiable costs?!
What about the TSP I lost because of MDA’s Discrimination, which was $562,113.49
then, and would be at least $2,400,000.00 today? And what about the IRA I lost which
was $40,024.58 then, and would be at least $160,000.00 today?
What about the $909.00 a month break-in-service penalty and indignity I have been
forced to endure for 141 months (from Nov 30, 2011 to present) because of MDA’s
Discrimination? That cost is 141 * $909.00 = $128,169.00!
What about my back pay costs? That cost would be at least $1,480,000.00! And what
about my Future Earnings costs? That cost would be at least $3,100,000.00!
How about the $1,100,000.00 in medical bills that has yet to be paid for my Autistic son’s
100 day hospital stay at Reston Hospital and Moss Rehab Hospital?
And what about all the money my sons have loaned me to keep me financially afloat? So
far they have loaned me $80,677.58 and counting!
What about the $68,000.00 tax bill the IRS levied when MDA’s Discrimination forced me
into liquidating my TSP and IRA?
And what about the $676,560.00 in PLUS loans my wife and I had to get to send our son
to college because of MDA’s Discriminatory wrongful job termination which cost us our
sole income and means to send them to college?!
What about my credit rating that was trashed by MDA’s Discrimination? It went from 680
to 505!
23 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
And that’s not counting all the physical and emotional and mental and psychological pain
and suffering, MDA’s Discrimination has caused me and each member of my family!
Even our beloved golden retriever suffered needlessly because we couldn’t afford to take
him to the veterinarian and needlessly died early because of MDA’s Discrimination!
MDA's Discrimination and all the people and organizations whom we went to for help that
stood around and let it happen (accomplices during and after the fact) has cost me and
every member of my family unimaginable and irreparable injuries and damages that will
never be healed or fixed by monetary means alone. Mr. Washcull and MDA and all the
others should and must be held accountable for their egregious atrocities and only you,
the US Supreme Court can do that now. Every other authority has disingenuously
dismissed our pleas for help out of hand!
24 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
My case is unique and important. It deals with Employer Discrimination in the Department
of Defense, specifically the Missile Defense Agency’s Discrimination against Charles
Adams, CISSP. And it deals with DIA’s Failure to Recues themselves from the clearance
investigation and revocation process in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and
Conflict of Interest or Lack of Impartiality (collusion) since Mr. Michael Waschull worked
for DIA immediately before MDA. It is also about the egregious error CAFC made in their
decision to dismiss CAFC 2023-1213 (DC-3443-22-0386-1-1) which is an MSPB
Administrative Appeal Against DIA For Failing to Recues themselves from the clearance
investigation and revocation process in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and
Conflict of Interest or Lack of Impartiality (collusion) since Mr. Michael Waschull worked
for DIA immediately before MDA. Finally it deals with the constitution and whether a
President can waive laws that deny citizens (employees) rights and violate EEO rules
and regulations even to get a strategic national defense advantage such as standing up
the missile defense system.
My case has the potential to resolve a long-standing conflict between Presidential
Powers for National Defense and Individual rights of Government Employees and
American Citizens when one has to be chosen over the other. And to validate the
wrongfulness and injustice of DIA’s Failure to Recues themselves from the clearance
investigation and revocation process in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and
Conflict of Interest or Lack of Impartiality (collusion) between powerful entities when
directed at powerless employees.
By allowing MDA to ignore personnel rules and regulation (and security and other long
standing rules and regulations) because of a Presidential waiver, MDA has been able to
haphazardly use security clearance revocations as a tool to get rid of vested employees
they don’t like or disagree with, or worst solely because of the color of their skin (which is
blatant racism and employer discrimination). And likewise, by allowing DIA to not recues
themselves and practice wrongful collusion without consequences, DIA and MDA and
Mr. Waschull have been able to been able to haphazardly use security clearance
revocations as a tool to get rid of vested employees they don’t like or disagree with, or
worst solely because of the color of their skin (which is blatant racism and employer
discrimination). Thus I feel the Supreme Court should grant my petition (take on my case)
in order to determine once and for all whether the president has the right to waive rules
and regulations and policies (and even laws) in order to facilitate national security at the
expense of the civil rights of federal employees and American Citizens, and whether
Failing to Recues Oneself when required (as was the case here) or Collusion in the
Department of Defense and the Federal Government should go unheeded and
unchecked, with no one and no organization being held accountable for it.
25 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
I’m also appealing my US Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court. Given the
unique circumstances, perhaps it’s not too late for you (the US Supreme Court) to help
me. I’m thinking along the lines of the legality of using Presidential Waivers to circumvent
EEO laws rules and regulations that violate employee rights and the potential to resolve a
long-standing conflict between Presidential Powers for National Defense and Individual
rights of Government Employees and American citizens when one has to be chosen over
the other. And I’m also thinking along the lines of the immorality of Failing to Recues
Oneself when required (as was the case here) and the immorality of Collusion when it
helps the powerful at the expense of the powerless, and helps the employer at the
expense of its employees.
Additionally, it is my belief that if you take the case, not only will it give you the
opportunity to change the way the government operates for the better, but once the
Department of Defense finds out that you have taken the case, they might direct MDA to
settle (because they don’t want you messing around with the way they do things), and
justice will be served.
26 of 29
“Equal Justice Under The Law”
“DIA Not Recuesing Themselves For Conflict Of Interest Or Lack Of Impartiality Is Wrong
And MDA’s Adverse Actions Are All A Pretense For Employer Discrimination”
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted
Charles D. Adams, CISSP
Pro Se Petitioner
12994 Park Crescent Circle
Herndon, VA 20171
703-708-9077
Date:
Aug 4
.2023
27 of 29
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.