Sunday, July 02, 2017

I Love Whistleblowers! Our Heroes in a Corrupt World! (Part 1)


This is Why Evidence NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Watch this video before it's too late
Published on Jun 28, 2017
Whistleblower with 600,000,000 documents sues James Comey #Freedomwatch
Published on Jun 6, 2017
Montgomery has, with immunity, come forward to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and has produced 47 hard drives with over 600 million pages of information allegedly showing that the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other SCOTUS justices, over 156 judges, former businessman Donald Trump, other prominent business leaders. where being spied on. #FreedomWatch
💳 Help support my channel :)
FBI Whistle-Blower : Trump White House Has Been COMPROMISED (4/2017)
Published on Apr 21, 2017
Trumps odd behavior and flip-flopping has had millions of supporters asking what has happened. Now this former FBI Agent is warning America about what is coming!
Top 10 Whistleblowers in History
Published on Aug 27, 2015
If you’ve ever wanted to know corporation and government secrets, these are the individuals you can thank. Join as we count down our picks for Top 10 Whistleblowers. Click here to subscribe: or visit our channel page here: Also, check out our interactive Suggestion Tool at 
Whistleblowers keep us safe. We can’t allow them to be silenced
With its proposed changes to the Official Secrets Act, the Law Commission would make it all but impossible for government wrongdoing to be exposed
Shami Chakrabarti
Monday 13 February 2017
The Law Commission is an important body with a proud history. Set up in 1965 to provide independent advice to government on law reform, it describes itself as non-political and has often made meticulous recommendations on overlooked but vital areas of the statute book, from criminal and family law to that governing property, trusts and other areas of commerce. Its status, value and prestige have been greatly enhanced by a succession of judicial chairs, usually of the high court and then promoted to the court of appeal.
Yet in an age of high-octane media and politics, legislative policy has been driven more by kneejerks and soundbites than reason and research. The commission has felt neglected, with too many reports unimplemented by parliament, and it may be concerned for its long-term future. Some years ago I was visited in my Liberty office by commission officials concerned about their declining brand and influence, and with a healthy curiosity as to how better to communicate with the world beyond Whitehall. So the government’s invitation to the commission in 2015 to look at what is bureaucratically called the “protection of official data” must have caused considerable excitement.
Coming two years after Edward Snowden’s revelations on the blanket surveillance of entire populations without parliamentary or judicial sanction and with an extremely spurious basis in law, no one can have imagined this to be a routine spring clean of the Official Secrets Act or simple “future-proofing”, as was suggested in the consultation paper published on 2 February. This is an extremely political area of the law, and venturing into this territory brings great risk to an independent body that would never want to be seen as a proxy for any government or the security state.
This is why there is considerable concern about the consultation process so far, and the fact that only seven weeks remain for public input – let alone some of the provisional recommendations.
Then there is the lopsided nature of who has been consulted. It seems that government departments, the police and security agencies have understandably had the ear of the commission, but no journalists or past whistleblowers. Three NGOs are said to have been consulted, but they don’t seem to agree that this happened. Finally, and tellingly, the consultation paper was not openly launched in the media. It was given as an exclusive to a publication thought to be onside. A commission spokesperson is said to have explained that this was because that “it’s a nuanced issue. We wanted to secure an opinion editorial first.” That is spin worthy of a political operation, not public communication from a quasi-judicial body.
The provisional recommendations include sentencing provisions stipulating draconian jail sentences, which place leaking and whistleblowing in the same category as spying for foreign powers. According to the proposals, these sentences would apply to any leaker, whether or not they were a British citizen or operating within the UK. More alarmingly still, the commission says there should be no statutory public interest defence for anyone accused of the offences. Threatened by such grave consequences and offered little-to-no legal protection, it is surely more than we can ask of any journalist or genuine whistleblower to come forward in order to protect the public interest.
Journalists and the whistleblowers with whom they work perform an essential service in ensuring transparency – often where government would keep us in the dark. There are at present very few means by which wrongdoing within government agencies can be exposed, and as a consequence it falls to individuals. There is no question that protecting national security is important, but public interest journalism and individual ethics have their place in democracy alongside security and the law.
With just a few weeks left for the consultation, I hope the commission will seek to get it back on track by reaching out to the journalists, human rights lawyers and whistleblowers who have so far been excluded from the process. It is essential for the credibility of the report (and the commission) that a greater balance between the two sides of this debate are reflected. In this brief window, I also urge the wider public to get involved, responding to the commission’s call for input. In this age of Donald Trump, democracy has to be about more than filling a ballot box every few years.

• You can contribute to the consultation by emailing
Whistleblowing in the U.S. can make you a millionaire. In Canada, it can get you fired
Whistleblowing in the United States has seen a record year, with a total of $37 million in rewards handed out. But before you're tempted to try it here, you'd better read this
Howard Levitt
December 15, 2015
Whistleblowing in the United States has seen a record year, with the Securities & Exchange Commission rewarding eight whistleblowers a total of US$37 million. Who hasn’t heard about Dieselgate — exposing Volkswagen’s faked emission tests and severely tarnishing the German automaker’s green image and slowing worldwide sales?
Howard Levitt: Just what your rights are in regards to some commonly held beliefs about employment law might surprise you. Find out more
While the essence of whistleblowing is to expose an employer’s wrongdoing to the authorities, it is also important to understand its implications in Canada’s employment legislation.
Employees have a legal duty of loyalty to their employer. This obligation is so fundamental to the relationship that it binds employees without having to be spelled out in writing. Whistleblower legislation creates an exception to that duty.
In Regina, the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, fired its office manager, Linda Merk, after she blew the whistle on alleged financial abuses by union officials Charles Gumulcak and Bert Royer.
Merk charged the union with illegal retaliation under the Saskatchewan Labour Standards Act. In 2005, she finally won the union’s conviction in the Supreme Court of Canada. Although the duty of fidelity does not require employees to remain silent in the face of wrongdoing, the same duty does require them to “go up the ladder,” exhausting reasonable steps in reporting a problem internally before tipping off authorities or the media.
The Supreme Court in Merk held that the balance between an employee’s duty of loyalty and the public interest in suppressing unlawful activity is best achieved if employees are encouraged to resolve problems internally rather than immediately running to the police. This helps ensure the employer’s reputation is not damaged by unwarranted and potentially defamatory attacks based on inaccurate information.‎
However, malfeasance on the part of senior management may make it unreasonable to seek an internal remedy. For example, someone working at FIFA would not have been expected to confront the international football association’s president, Sepp Blatter.
In Canada, government workers are afforded greater protection against retaliation for whistleblowing than are private-sector employees. At the federal level, employees are sheltered by the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act, while similar legislation exists in several provinces, including Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia. On Dec. 2, Quebec’s legislature gave first reading to a similar statute, Bill 87, which the opposition criticizes for failing to protect private-sector workers.
In most provinces, employees who report violations of certain statutes (such as Ontario’s Occupational Health & Safety Act) are specifically protected from reprisals. However, few provinces — notably New Brunswick and Saskatchewan — give general protection to private-sector whistleblowers.
A rarely used source of general protection is the Criminal Code of Canada. Since 2004, section 425.1 has made it a crime, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, for an employer to retaliate against a worker who informs authorities of any law-breaking activity.
Publicizing one’s own personal workplace issues, as opposed to institutional wrongdoing,  however, doesn’t count. There must be a significant public-interest dimension.
In 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that Nico Van Duyvenbode was not acting as a whistleblower when he began a letter-writing campaign complaining that his employer, the Public Service of Canada, was treating him unfairly.
Being recognized as a legitimate whistleblower recently helped Ted Cooper get reinstated at the City of Ottawa with 28 months’ back pay. In May 2013, Cooper, a unionized professional engineer employed by the city, was fired for insubordination after sending an email to his supervisor demanding information about a project and threatening to involve the Auditor General. His union grieved the dismissal, seeking reinstatement. In September 2015, the arbitrator, Deborah Leighton, found that “the email was unprofessional and showed bad judgment.” Despite this, she concluded that the appropriate discipline was a five-day suspension, not termination.
Cooper’s history as a whistleblower tipped the scales, saving him from being found insubordinate. For years, he had waged a campaign to alert authorities about grave miscalculations that risked dangerous flooding in new developments in Kanata, Ont. Cooper’s efforts were vindicated in 2008, when then-mayor Larry O’Brien publicly commended his persistence. Perceived errors in later studies sent Cooper back into battle.
Mindful of that background, Leighton wrote: “I am convinced that the email was well motivated in spite of its tone. …[F]or years he has worked on his own time to ensure that project is safe for the public. Moreover, he believed that he had a duty as a professional engineer to raise concerns.”
Looking ahead to 2016, the Ontario Securities Commission is planning to set up a version of the SEC’s whistleblower reward system.
There is nothing like the smile of a newly minted millionaire, especially one brimming with self-righteousness.
Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt & Grosman LLP, employment and labour lawyers. He practises employment law in eight provinces. Employment Law Hour with Howard Levitt airs Sundays at 1 p.m. on NEWSTALK 1010 in Toronto.
Whistleblowers Honored By Time
By Jaime Holguin AP
December 22, 2002
The FBI agent who wrote a scathing memo on FBI intelligence failures and women who blew the whistle on corruption at corporate giants Enron and WorldCom were named Sunday as Time Magazine's Persons of the Year.
The magazine's editors chose Coleen Rowley, Cynthia Cooper and Sherron Watkins "for believing — really believing — that the truth is one thing that must not be moved off the books, and for stepping in to make sure that it wasn't."
Time managing editor Jim Kelly said the women embody a critical struggle facing the country — how to restore trust in disgraced institutions, from major corporations to the Catholic Church.
"It's their modesty that's so becoming," Kelly told The Associated Press. "All three are just resolute in standing up for what is right. All three of them are made of very strong character."
Rowley, 48, wrote a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller in May criticizing the agency for ignoring evidence before Sept. 11, 2001, that hinted of an attack.
She later told the Senate that the FBI was mired in bureaucracy and "careerism."
"I think there are changes in the works," Rowley said Sunday in a broadcast interview. "We have yet to see how they're all going to work out. I think that, you know, we're trying."
Cooper, 38, a WorldCom internal auditor, alerted the company's board in June to $3.8 billion in accounting irregularities. A month later, the telecommunications giant declared the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.
Watkins, 43, sent memos in August 2001 warning Enron chairman Kenneth Lay that improper accounting could cause the company to collapse. The company later filed for bankruptcy, and Watkins resigned as a vice president last month.
"I think in some of the higher echelons in corporate America, there is a little bit of an old boys' club that makes it more difficult for male executives to almost — I don't want to say rat out a friend, but that's almost — that is what I want to say," Watkins said during a broadcast interview.
Time's cover story on the three women compares them with Sept. 11 firefighters as heroes chosen by circumstance.
"They were people who did right just by doing their jobs rightly — which means ferociously, with eyes open and with the bravery the rest of us always hope we have and may never know if we do," the magazine writes.
Last year, Time editors selected then-New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for leading the city's response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Critics suggested Osama bin Laden should have been the pick as the year's top newsmaker.
The 2002 picks are unusual because the vast majority of the magazine's Persons of the Year have been long-established public figures — world leaders, war heroes, corporate chiefs.
In an interview with Time editors, Rowley, Cooper and Watkins — nationally unknown before this year — said some colleagues now hate them for shedding light on the mistakes of their superiors.
"There is a price to be paid," Cooper said. "There have been times that I could not stop crying."
The magazine's Persons of the Year package includes profiles of the women and a joint interview of the three, conducted earlier this month. The issue hits newsstands Monday.
© 2002 The Associated Press.
Also See:

God Bless the People Behind WikiLeaks and Other News!

05 February 2014

Big Brother is Watching!

(Part 2)
02 February 2014


Whistleblower Edward Snowden - Is He For Real?

13 June 2013


02 December 2010