Quote of the day–Queen Gorgo

This will not be over quickly. It will be painful. You will not enjoy this.

Queen Gorgo
From the movie 300.
[As if people who have seen 300 and knew I was going to see it wouldn’t have seen this QOTD coming. I’m hoping similar things can be said to the felons at PNNL and the anti-gun bigots currently wailing about the Parker v. D.C. case.–Joe]

PNNL not motivated

According to my calculations PNNL/Battelle was due to respond to our interrogatories last Saturday. My lawyer said Monday. Yesterday I asked if they had responded. I got the following response:

I gave them a 2-week extension.  Pretty standard courtesy.  I routinely ask for extensions myself.  (You are a high-end motivation client.)

I’m not surprised. In addition to being used to working on government contracts with (sarcasm alert) all the motivation that requires they know that I’m going to be turning over all the appropriate material to federal prosecutors. I’m sure it’s hard to work up much passion about delivering evidence which might earn you a honeymoon in prison with a new spouse who rents you out by the quarter hour to the person with the most cigarettes.

Hey guys, you can delay it by a few weeks but you aren’t going to be able to delay it past the statute of limitations. Bend over and take it like a man.

Jousting with bigots

Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority and a couple of other guys put in a lot of time trying to talk sense into some bigots over the last couple of days. I just lurked until today. I finally posted my Just One Question–which of course went unanswered.

Then the bigots attacked a gun owner that reported an instance where he felt he was about to be attacked by a couple of young men. He put his hand on his gun and without drawing it faced the young men down. They went away without incident. Then the bigots claimed the incident never occurred or that if it did the young men were just probably “asking if you want to buy a ticket to a school’s charity event.” That pissed me off. My response:

I find it quite interesting that someone that was not a witness to the alleged event concludes the event did not occur without producing any facts of their own or pointing out any inconsistency in the reporting of the event. Apparently they believe they have some sort of ESP that allows them to remotely view the event in the past without knowing the exact location or time of the event. Very impressive…

Or perhaps it’s just another bigoted statement against a gun owner. Dismissing their statements out of hand simply because they reported facts that are uncomfortable to the bigot.

Gun owners are the niggers/gays/Jews/pick-your-minority of the 21st century. What would your reaction be if the some politician demanded you be registered because of the color of your skin, your choice of sexual partners, or your religion? What if you were not allowed to freely associate with others of your kind without reporting it to the government (gun show laws present in some states)? What if you were subject to special investigation and discrimination in your employment if you spoke up about these infringements of your rights outside of work and on your own time? What if there were organizations that were openly advocating your extinction from society despite clear constitutional and statutory protection? What if the courts ignored the constitution and the laws supposedly protecting these minority? What if the bigoted politicians that, by law (check out 18 USC 242), should go to jail are instead regarded as “progressive” and “innovative” and are reelected again and again? What if people said you “are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity”?

That’s what it’s like to be a gun owner today. That is why we are so sensitive and why we are so dedicated. It’s because our culture is being threatened with permanent extinction by bigots who don’t care what the facts are. Bigots who can’t answer Just One Question.

It’s a waste of my time. It’s jousting with windmills, so to speak, but it made me feel better.

I’m not the trail blazer I thought I was

Ry pointed this out to me. Absolutely applicable to my situation with PNNL. A ruling that appears to be exactly what we want. It covers what we regarded as the weakest point of our case:

A federal district court has just applied this principle to hold that Ohioans — even ones employed by private employers — are presumptively protected from being fired for off-employer-property (and presumably off-duty and lawful) possession of guns. The case is Plona v. UPS, 2007 WL 509747 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13)

Update: I posted a comment on the blog the above was posting on. I received this very interesting comment:

A. Zarkov (mail):

Joe Huffman:

Very interesting but not at all surprising. The national labs, including Los Alamos, Livermore, Oak Ridge, Berkeley, Brookhaven etc have been notorious for trampling on their employees. Don’t trust them on discovery. One of those labs got caught red-handed destroying documents they were supposed to turn over as part of discovery. While it hurt their court case, they got away with it.

They are felons. I expected such behavior from them. Of course I’m in a little better situation than some people in that I have sufficient evidence in my own log files to incriminate them. Not only do they need to destroy their evidence they will have to manufacture evidence to extract them from their predicament. And that doesn’t even address the problem of all the witnesses.

I was wrong

When, in the mid 1990s, PNNL (operated by Battelle Memorial Institute) defrauded the government, fired the whistle blower, and then got caught they had to pay triple damages. Not just the original amount of fraud:

The Department of Justice announced today that Battelle Memorial Institute has agreed to pay the United States $330,000 to settle allegations it used government-owned equipment to service commercial customers in violation of a federal contract.

After the DOE Office of the Inspector General began an investigation in 1992, Battelle reimbursed the government $110,000 for unauthorized use of certain spectrometry equipment from 1988 through 1992.

The False Claims Act provides for the recovery of treble damages suffered by the government and penalties for each false claim submitted.

I had original believed they just paid back the amount of the false claims.

I’m hoping they soon become very tired of hearing the phrase “treble damages”.

Quote of the day–Matthew Bean

Do you know why prisoners can escape? Because they have more time.

You have the time, the motivation, and the smarts to devote to this case. The other side is at a disadvantage.

Matthew J. Bean, P.S.
February 7, 2007
Regarding Joe Huffman versus Battelle (PNNL).
[This was after he expressed some surprise at my level of preparation in the case and I said I had been thinking about these things for over a year and a half and have been looking forward to the day when I could execute on them.–Joe]

More Battelle scandal

Battelle is the company that manages PNNL (technically, I’m suing Battelle, not PNNL) and several other DOE national laboratories. One of those labs is Oak Ridge. It doesn’t sound like Battelle is in the middle of it, just on the edge, but there are some people being prosecuted for fraud in connection with contracts administered by Battelle.

Update on the PNNL case

I got some interesting information from my lawyer today. I turned over the interrogatories I had been working on. Interesting quote from my lawyer, “Interrogatories are the punishment you get for filing a lawsuit.” I didn’t see it that way. I actually enjoyed it. Apparently it showed. My response was composed of 12 CDROMs (about 250,000 files) and over 300 pages of paper. He said he expects it will be one of the best responses the PNNL lawyers have ever seen. We reviewed some of the CD content and he got this big smile on his face. “Their lawyers would be able to retire on the billings they could charge for this.” My lawyer said he will not be able to retire on his billings because I did all the work.

He saw the PayPal donation button on my PNNL.info site and with a big smile said, “I wonder if they (the PNNL lawyers) will donate to your case? Let’s see, if we donate $10,000 that could result in $250,000 in additional billings…” I wonder if that would be considered unethical?

Yes, I know, it’s taxpayer money that will be used to pay the lawyers and any settlement that might be reached. But I got a call from someone today that has been working on that issue and believes he may be able to turn off that spigot. I’m not convinced he can but I’m working with him on it.

I managed to find a letter I thought I had lost from a different lawyer that contained some information which shut off an escape route for the felons. I gave this lawyer a copy and explained the significance.  He laughed and said that it might be very useful.

We talked quite a bit about the lawyer they chose; Jerome R. Aiken of Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney. What’s most interesting about this guy is that his claimed areas of practice are:

  • Agricultural Law
  • Appeals
  • Consumer Protection
  • Product Liability Law

My lawyer only does employment law and has been doing it for 13 years.

On the felony issue–the PNNL felons (not all on this list were involved and some that were are not on the list) could refuse to testify on points that could incriminate them. But that refusal to testify can be used against PNNL. My lawyer would love to have them “take the fifth”. If they don’t refuse to testify then that gives them two other options. They can tell the truth and risk the criminal charges from their confessions and still damage PNNL’s case, or they can lie. Barb is betting they will lie. But they might be surprised what an experienced trial lawyer can do to a liar. And if we can prove perjury, in addition to the penalties imposed by the court, they could lose their security clearances.

A long time ago I read The Art of Cross Examination and loved it. I can’t find my copy so I ordered another one tonight. I need to get through it before the depositions start in April. I also downloaded an audio version of Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail—Every Place, Every Time.

I wonder if Mr. Jerome R. Aiken will read Being underestimated by the enemy. It’s a little unlikely, even though it is one of those 250,000 files on one of those 12 CDROMs he will be receiving in a day or two. But one thing he probably will read, because it was on one of the 300 pages of paper, is this:

One of Huffman’s co-workers, who must remain anonymous (for fear of retribution from PNNL), knew Joe Huffman far better than McMillan and Hevland. In a meeting a few days after the firing, he told Huffman, “They haven’t got a clue as to what they stepped into.”

I’d love to see his face as he reads that.

Two last bits of sweetness… 1) my attorney’s female receptionist has a Concealed Pistol Permit and 2) my lawyer wants me to teach him to shoot.

I wonder who is sorry

Once I had all the log files organized and added the new ones I received from my web host I did a little more looking just for the fun of it. And right off the bat I found something that gave me the giggles. The main website investigator (probably Michael Sutherland) for PNNL used the machine “puck.pnl.gov” as he or she committed their felony. My search in a friend’s 2005 log files resulted in this little gem:

Machine name: puck.pnl.gov 
Date: 6/22/2005 
Time (UTC): 20:18:50 
IP Address: 130.20.128.81  
Referral URL: http://www.mywebsearch.com/jsp/GGcres.jsp?id=IBdHb4UNDrsJ&su=http%3A//www.mywebsearch.com/jsp/GGweb.jsp%3Ffr%3D20%26searchfor%3Djoe+huffman+sorry%26ptnrS%3DZSzeb001%26st%3Dbar%26nsa%3D0&u=http%3A//www.kennedysailor.com/faq.htm&searchfor=joe+huffman+sorry

This visit took place early on the afternoon of June 22, 2005 about two and half weeks after I was fired. The funny part is the search string they used: “joe huffman sorry”.

It’s a little bit ambiguous what they were looking for. Were they to see if I said something about being sorry for my contribution to what had happened? Or were they sending me a subtle message that they were sorry?

I was never sorry for anything I did. I wasn’t the one committing a felony. And if they were “sorry” that was a pretty sorry attempt at apologizing and it doesn’t cut it. I’ll believe they are sorry after they have spent a few months being rented out by the quarter hour to fellow inmates to the guy with the most cigarettes.

Quote of the day–Lord Acton

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.

Lord Acton
[PNNL has a problem with this. They have defied every Freedom of Information Act request I have made–in some cases blatantly lying say, “No such document exists.” when I created the documents and knew they must still exist. Someday someone will punish them for their illegal acts. When that happens I, and many others, will be there helping to make sure that punishment makes up for all the times they got away with it.–Joe] 

Quote of the day–U.S. Department of Justice

…each Federal employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above private gain. The public deserves and should expect no less.

U.S. Department of Justice
Departmental Ethics Office
Justice Management Division
[If they are required to have a loyalty to the Constitution then how do they get away with working for agencies such as the ATF that are enforcing blatantly unconstitutional laws? Oh, that’s right, the constitution and law doesn’t apply to them unless they want it to.–Joe]

I think I see a pattern here

Search engines are a wonderful thing. I’m sure the felons at PNNL thought they were great and wonderful as they went searching for information on me (see for example the use of Google on this day).

But search engines are double edged swords. For example doing a Google search for Battelle fraud (Battelle is the contractor that manages Pacific Northwest National Laboratory–PNNL) yielded these pages (E835 and E836) in the Congressional Record:

  • Dr. Laul is a nuclear chemist and a nuclear engineer, with a Ph.D. from Purdue University. He spent 15 years at Hanford working on nuclear waste and environmental cleanup problems, analyzing whether that site was suitable for permanent storage of high-level nuclear waste.
  • Dr. Laul is also a whistleblower, and a friend of the taxpayers, who put his career on the line when he blew the whistle on fraud and mismanagement by Batelle, Inc., a DOE contractor. Five days after disclosing that Batelle inappropriately and illegally used equipment paid for by the Government, Batelle fired Dr. Laul, saying he had improperly disposed of a hazardous waste–a violation DOE later said Batelle used as an excuse to lay him off and silence him.
  • After losing his job, Dr. Laul brought a False Claims Act suit against Batelle and won, resulting in Batelle reimbursing DOE $330,000. Today I submit for the Record an article describing the case and reporting on Dr. Laul’s vindication, and thank him for the important and honest work he did on behalf of this country. Dr. Laul lost his job because he had the nerve to stand up for what was right.

You might say that’s all well and good for the taxpayers. But if you read further you might have cause to change your mind about that:

U.S. government investigators agreed that scientist Jagdish C. Laul was fired for turning in his managers for fraud.

A federal appeals court agreed Laul could sue the Hanford contractor for whom he worked for wrongful termination.

The government made the contractor, Battelle’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory pay back $330,000 for double-billing lab equipment–and even recommended Battelle managers be criminally prosecuted for fraud.

But who picked up the $750,000 tab for defending Battelle against Laul’s lawsuit?

U.S. taxpayers.

Laul’s case is the most recent example of a system that allows private nuclear contractors to rack up huge legal bills fighting whistleblowers–even when the contractor’s in the wrong.

Battelle settled with Laul in January to head off a federal jury trial in Spokane.

The cost of his case to taxpayers includes the $250,000 settlement paid to Laul; $400,000 in legal fees to Battelle’s outside law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine of Seattle; and about $100,000 in legal work and other Battelle costs to fight Laul.

If Laul had won at trial, taxpayers would have paid that bill, too. That’s because of a Cold War agreement in which the U.S. government promised to pay all legal costs of its nuclear weapons contractors when they agreed to run the government’s weapons plants.

The agreement, called indemnification, is still in effect today. It applies to Battelle, which works on Hanford cleanup and other government nuclear programs.

Isn’t that nice? Battelle paid $330,000 for the fraud which sounds like was the amount they had illegally charged the government to begin with. And the Federal government has to pay all the legal costs of Battelle’s defense. So… assuming Battelle decides to engage in some illegal activity to increase their bottom line the worst case scenario is that Battelle comes out even in the end because the Feds are required to pay the legal bills. Best case is they get away with it.

In my case the Feds will, assuming I win, pay Battelle’s legal bill and any settlement I get from them. Battelle is held financially harmless by the Federal government. Just so you know. Perhaps your congress critters would like to know that as well.

Continuing the search engine exploration… So what happens if we do a search for Battelle whistleblower? That was interesting… We end up with this story which with a little more searching results in this and digging a little deeper yielded this (UT-B means the partnership between the University of Tennessee and Battelle that manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory [ORNL]):

In my settlement, I made sure that DOE and UT-B explicitly agreed that I had won the case. There were two reasons for this. One was that I did not want UT-B to be able to claim that I “dropped the case” or any such thing. But the other was that back in 1995 at PNNL, following a settlement in which Battelle paid their fired former employee J. C. Laul a sizeable amount for a whistleblower case that Laul was very likely to win if it had played out to the last act (legally speaking), PNNL head and later ORNL head Madia characterized the payout as “a straightforward business decision with the best interest of the US taxpayer in mind”. But as a Government Accountability Project lawyer pointed out, Battelle spent over $400,000 of taxpayer money defending against Laul’s whistleblower action, plus the $330,000 it had to return to the government for the fraudulent action that Laul (accurately) reported. Madia stated that the message of the settlement was “Don’t sue us [Battelle]”, but of course the true message was “We will get away with whatever we can”.

So what our search engines report for us with just a little looking is that Battelle has a history of making stuff up and firing people. I was telling Barb this new information and she said, “You would think they would learn.” Well yes, but there wasn’t much to learn and it’s a different lesson than the one we want them to learn. They have learned they can commit criminal acts and the worst that will happen is they come out even in the end–guaranteed by the contract they have with the Federal government. There are more amazingly great terms in their contract that I’ll save for another day. I wouldn’t want you to burst a vessel from a blood pressure spike.

Here are some of the lessons being taught to Battelle. This is right after being dinged for the first fraud case I mentioned above:

Battelle is expecting to receive an “outstanding” rating for fiscal year 1999 from the Department of Energy for its performance in operating Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland.

The rating is to become final and be announced in late December.

Last year, Battelle also received an outstanding rating. Even though its 1998 score fell just barely shy of the number needed for the top rating, DOE awarded the outstanding rating because of Battelle’s strong efforts in key areas.

This year, Battelle expects to be well above the minimum score needed for an outstanding rating, based in part on the lab’s self-assessment, outgoing lab Director Bill Madia said Wednesday during a meeting with the Tri-City Herald editorial board.

The real problem here is that Battelle/PNNL has no incentive to be responsible for their actions. It’s like a child that gets in trouble at school and the parents intervene in such a way the child is totally protected from any punishment. There is no downside for their misbehavior–there is only upside. That’s one of the ways criminals are created. After sufficient criminal activity they eventually get caught and then they go to prison. Which is has been my end goal from the beginning in then case. The PNNL felons need to spend some time being rented out by the quarter hour to fellow inmates bidding the most cigarettes for a few years and perhaps then the behavior of their previous co-workers will improve.

The above is just the tip of the iceberg. Battelle has other “skeletons in it’s closet” that are most likely to come tumbling out soon. I don’t have enough details to really be comfortable in talking about it even if I was at liberty to discuss it. I have been assured that I will be among the first to know when the details become public.

I’ll keep you posted.

Update: A reader pointed out one of my links was broken. That is fixed now.

Also worthy of update is another source that is more readable and has the potential to be less biased is the actual ruling of the DOE in Westbrook’s case:

There is evidence in the record that suggests that the RIF sheets, which contained the objective information on which the termination selections were to be made, were not given serious attention, and were drawn up to favor a pre-selected individual. I have reviewed the criteria set out on the RIF sheets and find troubling inaccuracies and manipulation.

In my view, the Company’s use of this criterion [transferability of skills] to assess whether an employee is flexible enough to “satisfy” or “get along with” customers is so strained that it suggests a manipulation of the system to reach a predetermined result. …. That leads me to believe its use was an afterthought, one designed to downgrade Westbrook and target her for termination. As such, it detracts from Battelle’s position that the RIF was performed impartially with respect to Westbrook.

PNNL/Battelle has been served

I received an email from my lawyer today about my lawsuit against Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:

We do have service on Battelle. It was served on 1/22/07.

Whoo hooo!! Full speed ahead!

Of course that is in “legal time” rather than in “Internet time” like what I’m used to.

I also received a phone call yesterday from someone that heard about my case. They had lots of interesting information about other illegal activities Battelle has been involved with. He is sufficiently upset about it that he is taking it up with some government officials. I shared what I could with him. I’m not sure his information will be that useful to me but I hope to soon be posting some of it here or on my PNNL.info website. He claims some pretty egregious and illegal stuff.

It’s not too surprising I guess. I did have a guy at the lab tell me and another fairly new employee, “See this badge? This means the law doesn’t apply to us.” That same “fairly new employee” recently sent me email saying, “I can definitely atest to a pattern of illegal and unethical activities at the lab” and “I do think it is my obligation as a citizen to see justice prevail.”

The guy I received a phone call from had first called over two weeks ago. I put him in touch with “fairly new employee” and that contributed to the update yesterday about his plans to talk to the GAO, Congressional oversight committees, and the DOJ in the near future.

I have some hints that my previous plans to avoid getting former co-workers involved may not be possible. Now might be a good time for some of my friends that still work there to get new jobs (hint, hint). Things will be much more comfortable for them if they don’t have to worry about getting fired for reporting information that is embarrassing to Battelle after being deposed. Also I’ve been hearing rumors of business being a little tight for them right now. If certain government agencies become displeased with all the illegal activities Battelle has been engaged in then business could get much worse soon.

Some numbers in the PNNL case

I’ve been working for several days on the log files requested in the interrogatories for the PNNL lawsuit (no, I’m not converting them to EBCDIC although I gave it a few seconds of thought just for the amusement value). I only had a subset of the logs they wanted in a reasonably well organized manner. They wanted more than what I had organized, some of which I didn’t have, lots of logs weren’t in my preferred organization, many of the websites were hosted simultaneously on two different servers at the same time for a while, and the logs came from at least four different servers. It’s been a lot of work but I’m nearly done with that part of it.

I obtained more log files from my old web-hosting provider last night and although there will be a few tweaks to the numbers the following is pretty close:

  • Websites: ~30
  • Directories: ~170
  • Files: ~170,000
  • Size: ~6 Gbytes

I realize they asked for this mostly to cause me pain, almost for certain they won’t bother to do their own analysis, their own internal email and testimony will make this irrelevant, but I have been wanting to organize this stuff for several years anyway. I want to finish my web log analysis program (NoDooce) and this data set will be very useful for both development and testing. And besides, being the Aspergers type, I actually enjoy this type of work. I hope they find some expert witness to look at everything, pay him outrageous amounts of money, and he has as much fun as I have had with the data.

This is just the log files. There are also hundreds of pages of notes, documents I have obtained, and emails. I can’t wait to start digging into the stuff they have to supply to me.

Interesting tidbit on PNNL case

In the process of organizing my log files and complying with the Interrogatories I came across what appears to be the home IP address of one of the PNNL investigators or someone they reported the results of the investigation from the previous day (see also the first day of investigation).

Tracing it through various websites reveals more evidence the whole thing was about guns. Among the evidence is they had a lot of interest in a picture of me with a holstered gun on my hip and interest in Boomershoot.

Interrogatories

My former supervisor, the felon Bryan McMillan, at PNNL has a lawyer who requested a “huge number” (my lawyer’s phrase) of items in their response to my lawsuit. The conclusion we may be able to draw from this is they don’t plan to challenge the point of law about it being a wrongful termination to firing someone because they are a gun owner. The have chosen to go the route to try and make it cost me as much money as possible. Pursuant to that tactic they have requested a lot of financial data from me. With this data they can better judge what my ability is to sustain the legal battle. What they will find out is that our house mortgage payment is lower than most people’s rent, we have no other debt, and Barb and I have very high paying jobs. In essence we can, with minor life style changes, sustain the battle until we retire ten or fifteen years from now. And that doesn’t include all the donations I have received (click on the Make a Donation button here).

Assuming I win I’m paying everyone back with interest but we can’t count on that so you should assume it’s a donation. With a big thanks to some people from the Gun Club at Microsoft donations have covered about half of the legal expenses so far with promises of more as the bills come in. So for other side to try and make it too expensive for me to fight is going to be a losing tactic. All they can do is maybe slow down the inevitable and it actually improves the possibility for me to reach the desired end goal. I don’t have the time right now to explain why that is but the basics are that as long as I win this particular legal battle the more money it costs both sides during the process the better chance I have of seeing the felons actually getting convicted.

Anyway… To prove the point that their game plan is to just drive up the costs, which ironically help me achieve my final goal, here is the list of requests (complete with typos) from the other side:

INTERROGATORY 1:  State your age, birth date, birth place, height, weight, sex, and Social Security Number.

INTERROGATORY 2:  Have you gone under any other name or different spelling of said name?  If so, what name or different spelling?

INTERROGATORY 3:  List the addresses, with the dates, where you have resided during the past ten (10) years.

INTERROGATORY 4:  State the month and year you last attended any school, the highest grade or year completed, and the name and location of said school.

INTERROGATORY 5:  If you are married, please state your spouse’s name and the date and place of your marriage.  If have been married more than once, state the names and addresses of previous spouse or spouses, if living, and the date and place of their death or your divorce.

INTERROGATORY 6:  State the names, addresses, and ages of your children, if any.

INTERROGATORY 7:  Set forth the amount of your earnings during each of the past five (5) years and your earnings to date during the current year.

INTERROGATORY 8:  Are you claiming damages for lost earning capacity, lost wages or benefits?  If so, please state, with specificity:

a. The total amount of claimed damages;
b. How you calculated your damages;
c. All employers relevant to your claim and their addresses and phone numbers; and
d. All dates on which you were unemployed.

INTERROGATORY 9: If you have ever been self-employed, state each period of self-employment and the net monthly earnings of said periods.

INTERROGATORY 10:  Have you ever filed for bankruptcy?  If so, please state:

a. The dates and places at which any bankruptcies were filed; and
b. Whether the bankruptcy proceedings are still pending or whether they have been resolved.  If they have been resolved, please state the date of the dismissal, or discharge, if any.

INTERROGATORY 11:  State where you filed your last income tax return, and the year.

INTERROGATORY 12:  Have you ever been previously involved in a lawsuit?  If so, please state when, where, the nature of the action, the disposition of the case, and the name of the attorney who represented you.

INTERROGATORY 13:  Please advise if you have in your possession or if you have access to statements made by any party or witness to this action.  (For purposes of this interrogatory, a statement is a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it or a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording or transcription thereof which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and reasonably contemporaneously recorded.)  If you do, please identify the name of the person making it, the time and place of its taking, the names and addresses of all persons then present and the name and address of the present custodian therefor.

INTERROGATORY 14:  Have you ever been admitted to a facility or hospital for the treatment of a psychiatric or psychological problem or condition?  If so, state:

a. The name and location of said hospital or facility;
b. Whether said treatment was in-patient or out-patient;
c. The dates of said treatment inclusive;
d. The names and addresses of both treating and admitting physicians, psychologists or care givers; and
e. The type and nature of the treatment received.

INTERROGATORY 15:  Give the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any persons known to you or your attorneys having knowledge of facts pertaining to this lawsuit.   This interrogatory is intended to include all witnesses known to you or your attorney or agents.

INTERROGATORY 16:  Have you ever pled guilty to or been convicted of a crime?  If so, state the nature of the crime, the date, and the ultimate disposition of the matter.

INTERROGATORY 17: Have you and/or your spouse/former spouse ever sought marriage counseling?  If yes, please state:

a. The name and location of where counseling was provided or sought;
b. The dates of said counseling inclusive;
c. The names and addresses of persons who provided counseling; and
d. The type of nature of the counseling received.

INTERROGATORY 18: Please state the date you were Adischarged@ from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/Batelle?

INTERROGATORY 19: Please describe in detail the reasons given to you for your discharge, who gave them, and when these reasons were explained to you.

INTERROGATORY 20: Please state the name, address, and phone number of all places at which you have applied for employment since the date of the subject discharge.

INTERROGATORY 21: Please provide details of your current employment including job title, length employed, specifics regarding compensation, duties and if you have a written contract.

INTERROGATORY 22: Since the date of the subject discharge, please state approximately how many days or months you were unemployed.

INTERROGATORY 23: If the answer to the previous Interrogatory was in the affirmative, please state whether you have received any unemployment compensation.  If yes, please state the dates you received such compensation and the amount of each payment.

INTERROGATORY 24: During your employment at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/Batelle, were you ever disciplined or educated as a result of what your supervisor determined to be improper conduct or deviation from the company=s policies or procedures?  If yes, please state the dates of such disciplines or educations, persons involved, and the nature and reason for the disciplines or education, persons involved, and the nature and reason for the discipline or education.

INTERROGATORY 25: For all employment held since your discharge from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/Batelle, please state:

a. The names and addresses of each employer;
b. The name of your position and a brief job description for each position held;
c. The dates of employment with each employer;
d. Your salary or hourly wage for each position held.

INTERROGATORY 26: In addition the preceding Interrogatory, please list all income, of any type, which you have received since the date of your discharge from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/Batelle.  State the source of the income, and the total income received from each source, including but not limited to, worker=s compensation benefits, unemployment benefits, Social Security benefits, income from jobs, and all income from any other source whatsoever.  If you received unemployment or worker=s compensation benefits which are the responsibility of more than one employer, state which employer is responsible for each amount of the benefit.

INTERROGATORY 27:  Please identify by name and address each person consulted by you as an expert and whom you expect to call as an expert witness at the time of trial.  Additionally, as to such individuals so identified, state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify and state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, giving a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

INTERROGATORY 28:  State whether or not you have received any reports of any kind concerning any aspect of your case.  If your answer is in the affirmative, state:

(a) What is the general subject of the report?
(b) The name, title or specialty, address and phone number of the person or expert or experts who made said report or reports.
(c) Who has custody of such report or reports?

INTERROGATORY 29:  Please describe and list each website maintained by you during the time of your employment at PNNL/Batelle and thereafter, including but not limited to the name of each website, its general subject matter, its URL, and the dates when such website was established.

INTERROGATORY 30:  Other than the websites described in your answer to Interrogatory 30, please describe and list each website where you have posted content of any kind or nature that could be viewed by other users of such website during your employment at PNNL/Batelle and thereafter, including the dates that such posts were made and the names and URLs of websites where such posts were made.

INTERROGATORY 31:  Of the websites listed in your answer to Interrogatory 31, please list specifically which websites you posted content referencing your employment at or information about PNNL/Batelle, including the dates of such posts and the name and URL of such websites.

INTERROGATORY 32:  For each post described in your answer to Interrogatory 32, please describe in detail the content of such post.

INTERROGATORY 33: While employed at PNNL/Batelle did you ever access the internet at work for a non-work related purpose?  If yes, please state the approximate dates of such access, the website you visited, its URL, and the purpose of accessing this website.

INTERROGATORY 34:  Please provide all facts to support the allegation in your Complaint that you were Acertified as a firearms instructor,@ including but not limited to the date of your certification and what agency or group granted you certification.

INTERROGATORY 35:  Please provide all facts to support that PNNL/Batelle knew that you were Acertified as a firearms instructor@ during your employment and/or that this influenced the decision to terminate you.

INTERROGATORY 36:  Please list the names of all the people present in May 17, 2005 meeting alleged in your Complaint, and describe what each person told you at this meeting, including the name and URL of the website(s) where it was asserted that you Areleased business and customer-sensitive information.@

INTERROGATORY 37:  Please list the dates and times that APNNL Investigators@ visited your Agun-related websites@ as alleged in your Complaint.

INTERROGATORY 38:  Please state the name of the AHuman Resources Specialist@ referenced in paragraph 3.9 of your Complaint, as well as the names of any others present at this meeting.

INTERROGATORY 39: Did you ever allow others to access the internet through PNNL/ Batelle owned computers?  If yes, please list the dates and times that you allowed others to access PNNL/Batelle owned computers and the name of such persons.

INTERROGATORY 40:  Please state the name of the manager referenced in paragraph 3.10 of your Complaint.

INTERROGATORY 41:  Please provide all facts to support your allegation that Afollowing [your] suspension, neither Plaintiff nor any of his co-workers, project managers, or program managers were asked any questions.@

INTERROGATORY 42:  Please describe in detail what was told to you regarding how you inappropriately and without authorization used PNNL computing resources, failed to comply with company standards, disclosed or used proprietary or confidential information without authorization, and were dishonest as stated in your Complaint at paragraph 3.14.

INTERROGATORY 43:  State the names of any others who were present at your meeting with Bryan McMillan described in paragraph 3.14 of your Complaint.

INTERROGATORY 44:  Please provide all factual support for your allegation that Athe proffered reasons for Plaintiff=s discharge are false and pretextual,@ as alleged in your complaint.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1:  Please provide legible copies of your income tax returns for the last five (5) years.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2:  Please provide legible copies of all transcripts or statements of any party or witness to this action.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3:  Please provide legible copies of all diaries, notes, memoranda, photographs, records, letters, or documents of any kind pertaining to the liability or damage claims of plaintiff.  This request for production is not meant to include materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, attorney work product, or confidential attorney-client communications.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4:  Please provide true and accurate copies of all job applications you have filled out and submitted since the time of the subject discharge.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5:  Please provide legible copies of all resume or curriculum vitae which you have sent to an employer since the time of the subject discharge.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6:  Please provide legible copies of every record or document in your possession which is connected to, relates to, or is otherwise associated with your employment with defendant.  This request for production includes, but is not limited to, correspondence from or to defendant, written reprimands, performance evaluations, and any other documents received by you which relate to your employment with defendant.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7:  Please provide legible copies of all reports, of any kind, including but not limited to reports of your experts, concerning any aspect of your case.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:  For the websites listed in your answer to Interrogatory 30, please provide a hard copy of the log history of each website, from the date you began employment at PNNL/Batelle to date, showing who logged onto each website, at what time, and for how long. Please indicate on the log history, if it is not readily apparent, which entries you believe represent APNNL investigators@ and which represent you.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: For the websites listed in your answers to Interrogatory 30-32, please provide a hard copy of each posting made by you, from the date you began employment at PNNL/Batelle to date.  This request is intended to include posts in their original form as initially posted as well as any modifications, deletions, or additions made thereafter.  The hard copy may be from the website, from a back-up copy of the posting made by whomever maintains the server, or from any other means available to you.

Bad timing and fun times

Yesterday I received the interrogatories from the lawyer of my felonious former supervisor Bryan McMillan at PNNL. Among the list of things requested (according to my lawyer the 44 interrogatories and seven “requests for production” is a “huge number”) was a HARD COPY of all my website log files from the day I started work at PNNL until the present. As I was organizing the log files (several Gigabytes of stuff) my hard disk died. I had back ups of all the log files up until a month or two after the termination (June 2005) but not for the last 18 months or so. I only had one copy of most of them. My email hadn’t been backed up for several months either. I was up until 3:00 AM before giving up for the night.

Today I was able to recover nearly everything from the old drive with the only thing still potentially at risk was stuff I could recreate such as my website content (still up on my ISPs server). I haven’t verified my email file yet but it seemed to copy just fine. Ry, his son, and I went to Fry’s and bought a new hard disk and I’m now in the process of copying all my files to the new hard disk.

I’m glad I was able to recover the data. It would have been exceedingly difficult to explain a hard disk crash occurring only a few hours after getting a request for the contents.

And it’s not like I don’t want to comply either. It would be lots of fun actually. They want a hard copy of all the log files. I did a rough estimate and came up with over one million pages required using a normal sized font. Printed single sided that’s a pile of paper over 300 feet high. And since when they lose the case they will have to pay all my legal expenses and hence will ultimately get stuck with the bill for all the paper and printing costs. And you know what would be even more funny? Driving a truck full of boxes of paper up to the door of the lawyer’s office and telling them to unload it. And of course imagining them trying to find data of any use in a million pieces of paper would keep me laughing for a few weeks as well.

Unfortunately my lawyer said to just give them the data on a DVD and let them print it out if they wanted it that way. It seems my lawyer wants to spoil nearly all my fun.

Being underestimated by the enemy

My previous post resulted in some serious topic drift in my mind so I decided to make a separate post of it.

You may have noticed that I have a subtitle on this blog of “Ramblings of a red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal”. There are two reasons for that.

One reason is if you call yourself something worse than what your enemies can come up with you take a lot of their power away. This was pointed out to me by firearms/self-defense instructor Greg Hamilton who I am quite fond of quoting. He said when someone calls him some derogatory name in a potentially hazardous situation (as in someone trying to pick a fight) he corrects them by saying, “Nope, I’m a goat f****er.” What are they going to do after that? It’s tough to say anything worse than that about you and they don’t have real means of escalating the situation without getting physical with you. And how can they justify that in their minds? It’s pretty much “game over” unless they planned on going the physical route to begin with anyway–in which case you aren’t any worse off than you were to begin with.

The second reason I do that is because it encourages my enemies to underestimate me. When they then apply their stereotypes to me and engage with their already half-empty brains in a haphazard way they are in for a rude awakening. I think this is part of what happened with PNNL. I suspect they believed I would never know the real reason they went looking for a pretense to fire me or that I would find out for certain they didn’t actually have sufficient grounds to do so. On some level they believed I was stupid. Never mind that my official title there was “Senior Research Scientist II” or that I have a masters degree in Electrical Engineering. I was just a uppity gun nut who needed to be put in his place. Never mind that they put a pile of papers in front of me, told me they were printouts from from my websites, that I needed to “fix things”, but then refused, multiple times, to let me see them. What did they think I was going to do? I wanted, nay needed, to see what it was they were talking about. I was a researcher in “Cyber Security”. Did they think I wouldn’t figure it out or wouldn’t at least give it a try? They seriously underestimated me.

Of course allowing and even encouraging your enemies to underestimate you has it hazards. Had the bigots at PNNL not underestimated me they might left me alone rather than commit a felony against me. Or they could have just been smarter about things and made in nearly impossible for me to gather up the facts. One never knows how things might have been different but two thing are certain:

  1. They were found out and in a big way. Not only the initial hard evidence I found in the website log files but confirmation from the inside that is overwhelming. The points of fact in this lawsuit will never be in question. This was about guns (and a little bit of explosives) and me being an advocate for gun rights.
  2. Because in the general case it is so hard to prove discrimination when you do have the proof you must make the punishment much more extreme than if it were trivial to detect this sort of discrimination. It all boils down to, depending on which method of modeling is more comfortable for you, economics or risk analysis. Because of this I have an obligation to punish these bigots to the maximum extent I can. What I really want is to see them be financially ruined and go to prison. But despite talking to several lawyers none of them believe I can obtain that sort of relief from the courts. I’m not so sure, I still think it is possible, but I won’t be revealing those plans, until some future date when our enemies have less opportunity to evade my goals.

I’d like to explain this second point because it’s may not be obvious to everyone. Suppose, as a child, you really liked cookies and your parents rationed them out at the rate of one per day. Further suppose you could conduct one raid per day on the cookie jar, score one cookie, and get away with it nine times out of ten. If you were caught the punishment was you had to do without your cookie ration for two days. You, knowing your math well enough to compute your total cookie consumption over a ten day period with and without the raids would conclude you should continue raiding the cookie jar.

Supposing it was impractical to make it more difficult for you to conduct a successful raid your parents would have two choices to get you to obey the rules. They could either increase the probability of detecting a cookie jar raid or they could increase the cost when they did detect a raid. If you were to get away with a raid only one out of ten times the cost of conducting the raids would exceed the benefits and you would likely stop the raids. Alternatively they could raise the punishment to be ten days without your cookie ration and you again would conclude you would be better off without conducting the raids.

The same sort of thing applies to big time criminal activity. Except for certain cases like “crimes of passion” and insanity there is a weighing (perhaps at an unconscious level) of the risks and rewards. In most cases of employment discrimination against gun owners the bigots will probably go undetected. When they do get caught the chances of punishment are very near to zero. In fact, to the best of our knowledge there has never been a legal case of anti-gun owner bigotry resulting in the punishment of the bigots. That will likely be my toughest problem to solve in my battle. Because it is so rare to be detected and even when detected it is unheard of to be legally punished I really don’t have a choice if I want to make a difference for anyone but me. I must go for the largest punishment I can possibly achieve. This is because in the future I cannot allow them, or others, to weigh the risks and conclude committing the crime is worth the risk.

There are certain thresholds that must not be crossed without punishment being severe and perhaps out of proportion to the crime. And yes, I agree that life, perhaps death, in prison is too harsh a punishment for the crime of anti-gun owner employment discrimination–provided the crime could be detected and punished with some regularity when it happens. That’s currently not the case so we have to “make an example of them”. And the example I want to make of them is, literally, to have them spend the rest of their lives in prison. This is my Biggest, Hairiest, most Audacious, Goal (BHAG) in this case. I know it’s possible, just unlikely. But I want them to be aware that is what they are facing. I want them to know that is possible. And even if I can’t achieve it in this case I may be able to enable others to get closer in the next case. And the closer we get to achieving that sort of BHAG the less likely the bigots are to take that kind of risk in the future. Given their conclusions about “benefits” of gun control I have serious doubts about many of these bigots being able do enough math to solve even the cookie problem above. But if we make the price of their overt bigotry a significant chance at being rented out by the quarter hour to the person with the most cigarettes they won’t have to know much math to conclude they don’t want to go there.

Hence by giving myself the title of “a red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal” I lured the bigots into attacking me. I didn’t intentionally do that but now that they have and I’ve had an opportunity to regroup I realize I’m in a much better position than anyone I know, or have even heard of, to do what needs to be done. Not that I consider myself on par with him but this reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote, “I was not the lion, but it fell to me to give the lion’s roar.” Just as Hitler underestimated his enemies so have the anti-gun bigots in this case. And just as the only acceptable conclusion of Hitler’s war was his unconditional surrender I see no reason to accept anything different in my war with the bigots at PNNL.

Update: Minor changes were made upon the advice of an attorney.