168 Days: Proof

ADVICE REGARDING USERRA VIOLATIONS - CLICK HERE!

168 Days: Proof

You want proof? Fine, I've got proof.

Remember how I talked about some Alvey apologists on the "Irony" page? There were two of them that didn't have the spine to ask me directly about my situation, two that more than likely got their jobs on the Fire Department based on who they knew more than what they knew. This is for them, and anyone else that still disputes the validity of my claims. BPU is really going to hate this, but I could care less.

The two individuals responsible for this disclosure are Chris Wing, son of a KCK firefighter's union rep; and Pat Dunn, KCK Fire Captain and brother of BPU Traffic Signal Shop employee Nick Dunn. The fire service is a very honorable career, but these two are obviously the exceptions to the rule.

Then we also have "Travis Smith" (validity of name to be determined) -- Travis has decided to start trolling the "168 Days" Facebook page, posting comments but rarely having the spine to reply to comments when challenged.

So, for Chris, Pat, "Travis", and everyone else that doubts the accuracy of my claims, here's actual copies of items that support them:

First of all, let's explore their "Amended Privilege Log." This is the document that lists the files they have as part of their evidence, but aren't going to share with my attorney. Click here for a copy of the log in a separate window - beware, it is a large file. I found the following items to be of interest:

Page 1: "In addition, reports which include BPU customer information (addresses, etc.), have been withheld. These reports are irrelevant to this lawsuit and would certainly not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" -- then what are they doing as a part of the "evidence"?
The rest of the items are listed from the earliest to the most recent in order to make the timeline easier to read.
Page 25: On 7 July 2010, a total of four withheld pages of documents go from "potential termination" to "termination" -- implying that the decision was made on 7 July 2010, NOT on 21 June 2010 as the falsified documents would suggest.
Page 24: 22 September 2010 -- 9 pages of PROOF that Jody Boeding (UG counsel) knew there was the potential for a suit, counter to the comments she made to me directly: "Email correspondence discussing Snyder complaint and DOL investigation". Take a look and see just how many times her name comes up in the recipients column before April 2012!
Page 24 - 19: starting on 22 September 2010 through 25 January 2011, 90 pages of emails ranging from "Email correspondence discussing Snyder complaint and DOL investigation", "Email cortespondence discussing Snyder complaint response", "Email communication discussing Snyder complaint", Email correspondence providing draft DOL response for review and comment", "Email correspondence providing draft response to DOL", "Email communication discussing DOL investigation status", "Email correspondence with attached draft correspondence to DOL investigator", "Email correspondence discussing DOL investigation and ethics complaint", "Email correspondence discussing DOL investigation and response", "Partially redacted, attachment containing draft response to DOL", and "Partially redacted, attached memorandum regarding DOL statements drafted at direction of counsel" -- plenty of communication to get their stories synchronized.......
Page 18: on 18 January 2011, 8 pages of "Email correspondence discussing meeting to discuss union matters and potential litigation" and "Email correspondence related to statements of plaintiff in anticipation of litigation" -- we did not begin "litigation" until April of 2012! Plenty of time to prepare their deny and delay tactics. And if they claim it wasn't about me or my case, why include it in the "evidence"?
Page 15: On 3 May 2012, 8 pages of "Email correspondence discussing potential litigation issues" -- if their case was so open-and-shut, what "issues" could they possibly have?
Page 14: On 5 December 2012, 40 PAGES of "Email correspondence discussing litigation strategy and draft pleadings for review and approval" and on 6 December 2012 41 PAGES of "Email correspondence forwarding and discussing email correspondence from counsel regarding litigation strategy and filings" -- on 6 December 2012 is when they played the game of denying that Johnson and Clark were served (because Leiker (Sieve-Wilson's friend) "accepted" the process service and then said she wasn't supposed to accept process service), further delaying the suit.

While I have been compiling this site, certain people have decided to break their silence. I have sworn that their identity would remain anonymous, so don't even ask - I won't tell. They have produced copies of information that was submitted as part of the case, and I have verfied it as accurate with the reports I wrote for my attorney (after reviewing the volumes of e-mails they tried to bombard her with) - I can provide actual Bates numbers (court document numbers) if anyone doubts my claims. All of these documents are the ones referred to on the "No Quarter" page (link provided for reference).
All of the links will open in a new tab.

First, let's show just how delighted BPU was to get the award I nominated them for (before I found out that they had to hold the position for me, per USERRA). Nearly every time a service member nominates an employer for an ESGR award, they make sure that the employee is notified and is present for the presentation. I NEVER KNEW THEY ACCEPTED AN ESGR AWARD UNTIL LONG AFTER I WAS TERMINATED.
Now here's an item that underscores just how cowardly they were."Travis Smith" - this is for you! This is evidence that supports my claim that Eric Clark (NOT Greg DeGraeve, as was told to the DOL investigator) made out the "21 June" evaluation with coaching from DeLeon. Take a good look at the date of the e-mail: 29 June is over a week past the date on the final copy of the evaluation. In short, they back-dated the evaluation - WHY? To this day, no one's been able to provide a plausible response, and more importantly, BPU never provided us with the "hard copy" of the evaluation as mentioned in the e-mail. If you look at the evaluation draft in the e-mail and the evaluation that became the one for my personnel record (more about that later) side-by-side it's clear that Clark most definitely copied DeLeon's draft and added his touches to it before submitting it (date to be determined).
Next, here's an e-mail between BPU HR head DeLeon and Robert Wonnell of MVP Law, dated the day before I was walked out of BPU. NO ONE has been able (had the courage) to explain why my termination warranted going past the city attorney and to BPU's outside law firm. Were they already afraid that there was something peculiar about my termination?
Remember when I said that DeLeon sent their unemployment insurance carrier information about me on 9 August? Well, here it is - note there is no 21 June evaluation attached (they listed the two in order from most recent to earliest).
Now, this e-mail dated 10 August shows they supposedly were working on getting me a copy of my personnel file - but it didn't happen. Why? The next e-mail shows why.
Here we are at 13 August, well over a month after I was terminated. In this e-mail they say "it looks like we are still waiting on performance documentation from the manager" (Eric Clark). IF THE EVALUATION SHOWN ABOVE WAS, IN FACT, COMPLETED ON 21 JUNE (OR EVEN 29 JUNE, AFTER DELEON'S E-MAIL TO CLARK), WHY ARE THEY STILL WAITING? WHAT DID JOHNSON HAVE IN FRONT OF HIM ON 8 JULY THAT "SHOWED A TREND" THAT "HE DIDN'T LIKE?"
On 23 August, DeLeon finally says he has a letter drafted to me to enclose with my employee file I requested over a month after I asked for it. Oddly enough, I still don't receive a copy of my personnel file until 24 September, when Kelvington asks BPU to send it to me - and even then it's not complete.
On 14 September, DeLeon tells one of his underlings that "The original letter (believed to be the one posted above) is not in the file." WHY NOT? It's interesting to note that this happens JUST AFTER DOL calls DeLeon regarding my USERRA case.
On 20 October, DeLeon sends an e-mail to City Attorney Jody Boeding, this underscores that Boeding knew that my termination was going to be contested far before she said she knew about it (to me).
On 23 October, DeLeon sends an e-mail to Johnson regarding my ethics complaint, and mentions the City Attorney, further reinforcing exactly when she knew about the contesting of my termination.

Now this is only a few of the documents I have, but the message is clear: IF Kelvington had done even a marginal job of investigating (and listened to the information I gave him), came to the obvious conclusion that something was amiss in this case (things just don't line up), determined that my case had merit, and forwarded it to the Department of Justice (where they would have discovered much of what I have, most likely even more) the outcome would have been far different that it was. BPU may have still fought it, but we would be in a much more powerful position to receive justice. This is why I am still pursuing this battle: I don't want someone else out there to be a victim of the Department of Labor's shoddy work.

And if that means that the liars and cowards of BPU and the Unified Government keep getting exposed, so be it. More to come.

Next: Redirection
To return to the index page, click here.

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.