About 50% of OSC 110 employees are licensed attorneys. Most of them were specifically hired to implement 5 U.S.C. 1214, the section of law that describes OSC duties to protect federal employees from prohibited personnel practices.
However, as they appear to interpret legal ethics, if OSC does not want them to implement 5 U.S.C. 1214, then they have a positive legal duty to break the law on OSC's behalf, because OSC is their "client" whose interests they are required to advance, whether legal or not. They appear to claim that legal ethics prohibits them from "blowing whistles" on OSC lawbreaking (unless they are directly impacted by it) and requires them to do whatever they (legally?) can to conceal OSC's lawbreaking from disclosure.
That OSC has failed to comply with aspects of 5 U.S.C. 1214 and failed to protect those who sought its protection from PPP's is now established by a Federal Judge (see pages 10-12 and 15).
But the Bar Association of the responsible OSC attorney does not appear to care, based on its response to a professional misconduct complaint filed with it, based on the Federal Judge's ruling. Here is the request for reconsideration, which questions the facts and reasons cited by the Bar association in closing the complaint.
When government attorneys, specifically hired by OSC to implement specific laws to protect concerned federal employees, who have responsibilities for the safeguards and security of America's nuclear stockpile or other things of the utmost importance for public and safety, from unlawful retribution, do not have to implement those laws, can apparently claim that their lawbreaking is their positive duty, given the wishes of their employer, OSC, and their licensing authority takes no issue with it, we are all at increased and unnecessary risk of a nuclear 9/11 or other catastrophic event in America.
For OSC Watch
Joe Carson, PE
Comments