Ethics - Moral law vs. Criminal law

Ethics should be combination of both,punishment from criminal law,and respect from Moral law,all of that would be different in different country with same interest all community would like to build and that is -Justice-

Mr. Bucey;

I worked for a registrar for 13 years. My main function was to obtain and maintain government contracts, having been awarded over 50.

My former employer self declared themselves small business to obtain at least 6 contracts and they are not small business. I have engaged in a legal battle on several fronts : Office of Inspector General, Qui Tan, disability and unemployment; all these areas I have retained attorney.

I also submitted complaint to ANAB; telling them where to find everything; however they walked away with only 4 minors. This company is criminal in nature.

Can you offer some additional advise.

joanas bruning hicks said:

Mr. Bucey;

I worked for a registrar for 13 years. My main function was to obtain and maintain government contracts, having been awarded over 50.

My former employer self declared themselves small business to obtain at least 6 contracts and they are not small business. I have engaged in a legal battle on several fronts : Office of Inspector General, Qui Tan, disability and unemployment; all these areas I have retained attorney.

I also submitted complaint to ANAB; telling them where to find everything; however they walked away with only 4 minors. This company is criminal in nature.

Can you offer some additional advise.

Click to expand...

Well - interesting. I need a little more information to formulate a response.

1. Are you in the position of whistleblower?
2. If not whistleblower, are you in litigation as a defendant because you were associated with the organization during periods of suspected illegal activity?
3. Were you dismissed from employment because of some other [ostensible] reason purported by the organization as "not related to whistleblowing?"
4. Which of these legal situations (for which you have an attorney) were initiated by you and which against you?
5. What advice has your attorney given you?
6. Do you have confidence he [attorney] is the proper advocate or is he just collecting a paycheck from you?

"Small business" is a "term of art" and has different specific definitions, depending on what industry - in the USA, just a brief summary is available (broken link removed). Other countries have similar flexible guidelines.

Wes;

Some good question; all of the attornies I have retained. In August 2008, I submitted complaint to OIG regarding my former employer taking small business set asides and sending audit packages to India for review; president was copied. Eventually I was terminated after they discvovered cover letter to a business plan, however the underlying issue was the complaint to OIG.
They also changed the dates of employement to disqualify me from long term disability thru employer (prudential). This was verified by my disability att. who said the act was criminal.
Qui Tan att. are in DC, Phillips & Cohen; going slowly.
Had unemployment hearing last week but was adjourned. My att. did not even show up; sent in lady att. with no experience, although when I asked her prior she said yes.
Feel I have good evidence on all fronts however process is moving too slowly.
Also have evidence for discrimination; am phsically handicapped. Would like to find someone to discuss and proceed with possible litigation.

Sounds like you've done all you can. Balance of your problems are beyond the scope of a public forum.

One piece of advice - have a discussion with the law firm principals who sent lady attorney to hearing which was adjourned. My experience tells me this is a common ploy for attorneys to stall proceedings when they have not had an opportunity to assemble all their evidence. We call it "professional courtesy" and it could have been because the other side asked and requested delay which your attorneys accommodated. They'll tell you the reason if you ask - this event does not make them bad or incompetent - actually shows they have credibility with the other side or the other side of the case would not have agreed to adjournment.

Wes Bucey said:

One piece of advice - have a discussion with the law firm principals who sent lady attorney to hearing which was adjourned. My experience tells me this is a common ploy for attorneys to stall proceedings when they have not had an opportunity to assemble all their evidence.

Click to expand...

Is there any relevance at all to the attorney being female?
If not, why the need to distinguish gender? I cannot see it's in the slightest bit relevant here - is there something I'm missing?

JaneB said:

Is there any relevance at all to the attorney being female?
If not, why the need to distinguish gender? I cannot see it's in the slightest bit relevant here - is there something I'm missing?

Click to expand...

I was trying to maintain clarity about which law firm

Had unemployment hearing last week but was adjourned. My att. did not even show up; sent in lady att. with no experience, although when I asked her prior she said yes.

Click to expand...

(apparently poster has several law firms/attorneys for different "cases.")

Even back when I was in law school taking courses, the only gender difference in attorneys was that females encountered a glass ceiling when trying to achieve partnerships at the bigger law firms - no one questioned their legal skills, but there was a system-wide prejudice among the big law firms that females were less able as "rainmakers" (capable of attracting lucrative corporate business.) It was a stupid, self-perpetuating concept because it was a chicken and egg situation - without the prestige of a partnership at a big law firm, females weren't taken seriously by the "old boys" who ran the corporations. The females couldn't get into the male-dominated men-only private clubs to rub elbows with the movers and shakers of corporate American. Only in the last ten years or so has it begun to change. Now, it seems more women than men are attending law school in America because the law firms scrambled to hire females as pressure mounted for equal opportunity and corporate America joined in the pressure to appear more in tune with the sensibilities of the consumers buying their products.

Hello Wes;

Wanted to thank you for the advice you gave me last week. I will put to good use.

UPDATE: Ethics - Moral law vs. Criminal law

Wes Bucey said:

Background:
From time to time, Cove members write posts which disclose facts or "hypotheticals" about observing false records being entered or about being asked by management to change or alter Quality records to "make the company look good."

Sometimes the posts express real bewilderment with a request, "What should I do?"

More often, though, the poster knows exactly that the situation is wrong, maybe even criminally wrong, and is expressing his frustration that he is forced into making a decision whether to follow his conscience or to endanger the economic well-being of his family by refusing to do anything wrong or even (in an extreme case) "blowing the whistle" on the wrongdoers, in which case he may even be fired in retaliation.
<SNIP>
Summary:

1. Above all, remember that following a formal legal course of action will result in a more permanent resolution to the problem than a suicidal rush to "expose the evildoers."
2. Not every instance of wrongdoing is criminal or even purposeful, some are just the result of ignorance or stupidity.
3. If there is any lingering question whether the activities you witness or are being asked to perform are criminal, the input from the lawyer will help resolve that question.
4. Under no circumstances should you try to steal or copy confidential documents to bolster your case. (Google "Mark Whitacre") If, after your conversation with the attorney, referral to legal authorities takes place, they can issue search warrants and go in and seize ALL necessary documents and assure they will be admitted as evidence.
5. Prepare for the LONG wait. It may be years, if ever, before you can get compensation for wrongful termination.
6. Disregard tales of anyone who says, "When it happened to me, I just told them . . . stop it, or else . . . and they straightened right out." That's pure fantasy. Reread stories about Rich Taus, Karen Silkwood, Ed Bricker, and others for a dose of reality.
7. Regardless of the fact there is a government route for whistle blowing on a corporation, do NOT take that route without the advice of a lawyer who will protect YOUR interests.
8. Above all, choose your battles. Consider yourself. Consider your own REAL motive for doing this.
   Are you afraid life, health, safety of people are affected by the wrongdoing? Do it!
   Are you just hoping to get a "reward" (10% of moneys recovered from wrongdoing corporations?) Maybe do it
   Are you just getting even with the SOB who promoted his brother-in-law instead of you? Think twice.
   Did the guy humiliate you in public and now you are going to get "even?" Don't waste your time.

Often, the activity, while reprehensible, is not criminal and your best recourse is just to find a new job. Some folks may add to this thread with examples of reprehensible conduct that is legal, but odious - one that comes to mind are "payroll advance" lenders.

Click to expand...

When I wrote the above words in the first post to this thread so long ago, Mark Whitacre was primarily a notorious figure local to Illinois. Now there is a major motion picture (https://theinformantmovie.warnerbros.com/) which takes a somewhat humorous view of the events surrounding Whitacre.

I understand there are still different views of whether Whitacre was

1. victim of his own bipolar disease (unable to separate fact from fancy)
2. a guy too smart for his own good who thought he'd be able to divert attention away from his own embezzlement schemes by "outing" the company's price fixing
3. a foolish guy who thought his white hat informing would offset his criminal embezzlement

So, I went to see the movie. In my opinion, it makes the feds out to be incredibly gullible as opposed to Whitacre being clever enough to string them along. I can't believe the financial systems at ADM were so poor that Whitacre was able to embezzle $9 million and not have it raise red flags long before it did UNLESS other executives were ALSO dipping their beaks and had purposely muddled the financial systems to hide the embezzlements from routine audits.

The easiest part of the whole movie to accept (for me) was the cavalier way the underlying price fixing was carried out between ADM and its co-conspirators. Sadly, I saw a lot of similar arrogance and hubris among c-level executives throughout my career.

Bottom line:
How does this movie fit in with the general theme of this thread?

I think this movie reinforces the idea there are only a few viable motives for becoming a whistleblower and absolutely outlines the risk and danger of becoming one without conferring with a competent attorney who can provide a realistic view of the situation.

If there is anybody out there who thinks he is a lot smarter and cleverer than the folks he's going to blow the whistle on may be correct, but nobody is smarter than the array of attorneys and accountants and other experts who will comb through the evidence once the feces hits the fan.

If the whistleblower is primarily interested in getting even with someone who insulted him, or profiting from fines or lawsuits, you can be sure the defense team will eventually ferret out the motive and make life miserable for the whistleblower.

This movie is presented as a "dark comedy." Maybe it is. During some parts, audience members guffawed - I sat pretty stony-faced throughout the film. The story played out more like a Greek tragedy than a comedy and most of the laughs seemed to be based on the manic phase of Whitacre's bipolar illness. Having dealt with a bipolar executive in my own firm, I found those scenes very painful to watch.

Whatever else, we're all outsiders and don't have access to enough of the total story to draw worthwhile conclusions about Whitacre's heroism or venality as a whistleblower.

Wes Bucey said:

(From 20th November 2007, 12:21 PM)
I have a colleague in Japan who is a very well-regarded Quality expert who counts Toyota among his clients. He often comments on the "cover-up" mentality rampant at Toyota and other major Japanese manufacturers and openly snorts when folks from western nations wax eloquent about the "wonderful" quality at Toyota. He says, further, that no modern Japanese business person feels compelled to fall on his sword over a lapse in Quality which injures or kills folks - they just sweep the affair under the rug with the connivance and compliance of regulators and media.

Given that kind of background and the fact the "certified" auditor didn't get an attorney up front, the article demonstrates the peril of going up against a large corporation when the top managers refuse to hear negative information about products or operations.

Click to expand...

I thought this was an interesting blast from the past, considering the current Toyota quality issues.

On another note:
When economies are in a downturn, more and more organizations become imbued with a cancer from the top officers down to the lowliest line worker which leads them to believe shortcuts to quality are not only reasonable, but tacitly approved by their customers. I sincerely hope neither your own organization nor any in your supply chain have caught that cancer.