About an hour ago I got a call from John Trumbo of the Tri City Herald. He said he had just talked to Battelle about my lawsuit (Word .DOC file). Battelle said they hadn’t been served yet (not surprising) and would only say that I had worked for them between “such and such dates” and that I had worked on Internet security projects. He wanted to confirm with me, as stated in the complaint that I knew of nothing I had done wrong except for the allowing of my wife and daughter to use the company laptop to access the Internet and that it was against company policy. I confirmed that was the case. He stated it was hard to imagine anyone would try to build a case for termination based on their advocation of Second Amendment rights. I agreed but assured him I am certain that is the case. He said, “It will go out tomorrow.” And “Onward and upward I guess.”
We’ll see how my luck (very good for the last several years) with reporters and Second Amendment issues holds up under the pressure of an adversary like Battelle.
Update: It’s out. I can’t complain. I’m thrilled to confirm Battelle still claims the termination was “for violating PNNL policies (involving) inappropriate and unauthorized use of PNNL computers.” That would be the hosting of a personal website on a company computer as they told the Department of Energy which is totally false. And/or it could be the use of the company laptop by my wife and daughter a few times which is true but is not going to be believable as cause for termination to any jury. They are going to have a “fun time” making that case. More on the quandary they are in some other post.
The PNNL saga has almost become unbelievable. These people are trying to hold a position that is unsustainable.
In my own shit, the charges have finally been dropped. I’m looking at filing a civil suit early in 07.
I hate lawyers and the system, but when I’m dealing with cops, that is the only venue I have, outside of Internal Affairs, of which I am leary.
Have a great New Year’s,
They had no reason to pay any attention to me at all until the lawsuit was filed. They could just ignore me for as long as they wanted. And even now it will likely drag on for years.
I’m glad things are looking better for you. Take care. It’s not something you want to enter into on a whim.
Regardless, those cocksuckers held me on bullshit charges, stole drugs, and dicked me around in court for a year. The necessity to fuck with them back is a moral imperative.
Those assholes are probably used to bullying poor Mexicans who don’t have the money or legal status to argue.
I am going to get satisfaction, and I don’t mean money. Depositions and court time suck. They can eat it.
Best regards, and not a whim,
I fully understand. I had a run in with Symantec once. According to the evidence I had they owed me between $20,000 and $50,000. They refused to allow me to audit the books as per my contract. My lawyer said it would cost me a minimum of $100K to persue it in the courts. I declined but took other (legal) action which cost me many, many hours, a few more thousand dollars and ultimately contributed to Symantec loosing about $30,000,000. I figured it was a fair investment.
At times you have to stand up for not only yourself but others as well.
Go get ’em Ben.
glad to see you finally have a shot at satisfaction. Good luck.
Maybe I’m a little slow but even after reading the complaint I’m having trouble understanding what this suit is about. Suppose all your allegations are true, and they did in fact fire you because of your pro-gun views. That was illegal because … why, exactly?
It was illegal under Federal Law, 18 USC 241, because two or more people conspired to injure (financially) for the enjoyment of a right or privilege secured under the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of my having so exercised the same. This is a felony.
Federal prosecutors declined to prosecute because “they had better things to do” and as an individual I had no “right of private action”. Under state law I can bring a civil suit for wrongful termination because Washington State (case) law says that you may not be fired for the exercise of “public policy”. The highest authority on public policy is the Washington State Constitution. The Constitution has a very strong “keep and bear arms” provision that clear protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Also, the “investigators” spent a lot of time and many, many visits to my web page about being a firearms instructor and being an advocate for the carrying of concealed handguns. Washington State has a very strong Right to Carry law. By causing me harm while I was exercising “Public Policy” I may have a case against them. The gun rights angle on public policy has not been tried before except in cases where the terminated employee brought guns onto the employer property. All of those people have lost their cases (competing rights, the property rights of the employer versus the gun rights of the employee). That is not an issue in this case. The employer has nothing but the right to be a bigot in this case.