Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Whistleblower Laws

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whistleblower Laws

    I have a question for Bill the Cat and those who have looked in to these laws.

    Does a whistleblower lose their protection if they have lied in the report or form they fill out when making the report to the government?

    More questions to come after I get the answer to this.
    Last edited by RumTumTugger; 11-05-2019, 07:18 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
    I have a question for Bill the Cat and those who have looked in to these laws.

    Does a whistleblower lose their protection if they have lied in the report or form they fill out when making the report to the government?

    More questions to come after I get the answer to this.
    No. The law is clear that they are to remain free from retaliation even if there is no action taken on their complaint. The complaint need not even be factual for the protections to take place.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      No. The law is clear that they are to remain free from retaliation even if there is no action taken on their complaint. The complaint need not even be factual for the protections to take place.
      Is the application form different then the report? if the whistleblower lied on the application form in anyway would that make them lose the status?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
        Is the application form different then the report? if the whistleblower lied on the application form in anyway would that make them lose the status?
        No. It would just result in the claim being dismissed
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          No. It would just result in the claim being dismissed
          so even if the form does prompted the person to certify to certify “that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” with a statement such as this The punishment for making a “false statement or concealment of a material fact” is “a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both,” in it?

          Comment


          • #6
            This would seem to suggest that if someone wanted to cause trouble for his boss, he could simply file a false "whistleblower" complaint without repercussions.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              I've been checking into this myself, and the answer varies depending on the political leaning of the site. There are a couple of revisions to the federal law, but it does appear that the protection of the complainant is pretty rock solid for federal employees, including, depending on the site, anonymity.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                so even if the form does prompted the person to certify to certify “that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.” with a statement such as this The punishment for making a “false statement or concealment of a material fact” is “a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both,” in it?
                Proving the whistleblower knew their statement is false is pretty hard. All they have to show is that they reasonsbly thought it was true. The threat clause is there to scare those who know they are lying.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  This would seem to suggest that if someone wanted to cause trouble for his boss, he could simply file a false "whistleblower" complaint without repercussions.
                  Oh it happens more frequently than you know.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Proving the whistleblower knew their statement is false is pretty hard. All they have to show is that they reasonsbly thought it was true. The threat clause is there to scare those who know they are lying.
                    what if someone didn't didn’t check the box on the application that asks to disclose whether he or she has previously communicated the allegations to “Congress or congressional committees.” when he or she did indeed would it be reasonbale to assume that they knew they concealed a material fact?
                    Last edited by RumTumTugger; 11-06-2019, 09:24 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                      what if someone didn't didn’t check the box on the application that asks to disclose whether he or she has previously communicated the allegations to “Congress or congressional committees.” when he or she did indeed would it be reasonbale to assume that they knew they concealed a material fact?
                      Possibly. But it is easy to feign ignorance and say that you didn't read that part.
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Possibly. But it is easy to feign ignorance and say that you didn't read that part.
                        So in other words continue lying. and those who want to believe evil of a certain person will keep kidding themselves and say it is reasonable to assume that the person did not read that part.
                        Last edited by RumTumTugger; 11-06-2019, 10:51 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                          So in other words continue lying.
                          Zachary.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's obviously a really complex thing pitting the 6th amendment against the need for transparency in government.

                            In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


                            It's kinda like the tension between mercy and justice - if I'm on trial, I want mercy - if my enemy is on trial, I want justice. I don't think there's a single person here who would say, "yeah, I'm OK being tried on the word of an anonymous person, and not be confronted with the witness against me".
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              It's obviously a really complex thing pitting the 6th amendment against the need for transparency in government.

                              In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


                              It's kinda like the tension between mercy and justice - if I'm on trial, I want mercy - if my enemy is on trial, I want justice. I don't think there's a single person here who would say, "yeah, I'm OK being tried on the word of an anonymous person, and not be confronted with the witness against me".
                              In the case of an anonymous whistleblower, the person/entity being tried does indeed get to confront the whistleblower; the whistleblower only remains anonymous to those not involved in the litigation.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X