"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
--H. L. Mencken
The Fraud Chronicles
"Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!"
"Ka Chink!, Ka Chink!, Ka Chink!"
“Mistakes were made.”
“The system broke down.”
“Regulators were co-opted by industry.”
“Judgments were botched.”
“Mature relationships were established.”
“Bribes were accepted.”
“Lunches and dinners were eaten.”
“We can blackmail every member of Congress!”
--Overheard at the IRS.
"Every member of Congress has been bought!"
--Overheard in the Metro (Must have been uttered by a lobbyist.)
"The agency, part of the Interior Department, has been the subject of two scathing inspector general's reports in the past two years, documenting how MMS officials have improperly accepted gifts from officials they regulate and have been engaged in illegal drug use and sexual activities with them."
-- Washington Post, June 16, 2010.
Why stop at the MMS? It goes on in every Government Agency. Just look at the IRS. Read below.
These guys should be tried in a criminal Court!
Cecil Hua, Steve Benigni, Behrooz Sabet.
A Court Case:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________________________
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXX )
XXXXXXXXXXXXX )
XXXXXXXXXXXXX )
XXXXXXXXXXXXX )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
JOHN SNOW, SECRETARY, )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, )
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW )
Washington, DC 20220 )
)
and )
)
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER )
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE )
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW )
Washington, D.C. 20224 )
)
Defendant, )
)
Serve: )
)
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE )
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) Case No. ________________
Attn: Civil Process Clerk )
United States Attorney’s Office )
555 4th Street, NW )
Washington, DC 20530 )
-Via Certified Mail )
)
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL )
10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW )
Washington, DC 20530 )
-Via Certified Mail )
)
JOHN SNOW )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY )
20th and C Streets, NW )
Washington, D.C. 20551 )
-Via Certified Mail )
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER )
U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE )
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW )
Washington, D.C. 20224 )
-Via Certified Mail )
)
U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE )
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW )
Washington, D.C. 20224 )
-Via Certified Mail )
________________________________________________)
CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND MONETARY RELIEF
AND DEMAND FOR JURY
1.This action arises out of the Defendant United States Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) unlawful employment actions against the Plaintiff. Specifically, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX alleges that the IRS discriminated against him on the bases of national origin (XXXXXX) and religion (XXXXX), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when it failed during over six years of employment to: advance or promote him in any way; to give him any meritorious salary increases; to assign him career-enhancing projects related to modernization; to provide him with the proper support, tools, computer equipment and software to accomplish projects; and to allow him to take necessary training programs to remain updated on technological developments and advance his career.
2.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also alleges that the IRS repeatedly and persistently harassed him in reprisal for engaging in Equal Employment Opportunities activities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when it, inter alia, subjected him to physical and verbal harassment leading to his constructive discharge in 2001.
3.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also alleges that his former employer, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS), through its unlawful discriminatory behavior and retaliation, made his working conditions so unbearable that any reasonable person in his position would feel compelled to resign.
Parties
4.Plaintiff (“Mr. XXXXXXXXXX”) is a U.S. citizen, a male of XXXXXX origin, and a resident of the Town of XXXXXX, County of XXXXXXX, in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
5.Defendant John Snow is the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury and is responsible for the lawful administration of the Department of the Treasury and those Agencies and Bureaus under its purview including the Plaintiff’s employer, the United States Internal Revenue Service. As such, Secretary Snow is a proper defendant in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.
6.Defendant Mark W. Everson is the Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue Service, the Plaintiff’s former employer and is responsible for the United States Internal Revenue Service’s lawful administration. As such, Commissioner Everson is a proper defendant in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.
Jurisdiction
7.This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it asserts a claim that arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
8.This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(F)(3), as it asserts a claim that arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Venue
9.Venue is proper in the District of Columbia under 29 U.S.C. § 1402 because a substantial part of the acts and omissions that give rise to this Complaint occurred in the Internal Revenue Service’s offices located at 1111 Constitution Avenue,., NW, in Washington, D.C., and venue is proper under § 2000e-5(F)(3) because the Defendant has its principal office in the District of Columbia.
Factual Allegations
10.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was born in XXXXXX, emigrated to the U.S. from XXXX via XXXXXX, and became a U.S. citizen in XXXX.
11.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX has at all times in his life followed the XXXXX religious faith.
12.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was hired as a Senior Technical Advisor (Computer Science and Electrical Engineering), at the level of GS-15, at the IRS’s Washington, D.C. offices in XXXXXXXX.
13.The IRS hired Mr. XXXXXXXXXX as one of fifteen hires out of approximately three thousand applicants to take part in the modernization of IRS computer systems.
14.In or around November 1998, the IRS assigned him to its Information Systems Division under the supervision of Steve Benigni.
15. From the outset of his employment under Mr. Benigni, Mr. Benigni displayed a hostile attitude toward Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that he did not display toward Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s XXXXXXX coworkers.
16.In or around August 1999, Mr. Benigni assigned Mr. XXXXXXXXXX to the ETSS/RGS (Electronic Technical Support System/Report Generation System) project, a project in which almost every week Mr. XXXXXXXXXX had to travel to Dallas, Texas, with Mr. Benigni’s full knowledge and approval.
17.During his assignment to the ETSS/RGS project, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX would call every week from Dallas or from wherever to where he was traveling to report to Mr. Benigni on the on going project activities.
18.On or about August 13, 1999, Mr. Benigni admonished in an e-mail Mr. XXXXXXXXXX for Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s failing to attend meetings at New Carrollton, Maryland, despite the fact that Mr. Benigni was aware that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was in T exas on a work assignment at the time.
19.In or around March, 2000, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was assigned to prepare an “Alternatives Analysis” for the SCRIPS (Service Center Recognition and Image Processing System project) project, which is one of the systems that processes tax returns.
20.Although Mr. Benigni assigned Mr. XXXXXXXXXX to prepare an “Alternatives Analysis” for the project, he did not identify the particular problem that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was to analyze.
21.During his undertaking of this “Alternatives Analysis” project, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX repeatedly had to ask Mr. Benigni what the real problem was that he had to analyze.
22. During his undertaking of “Alternatives Analysis” project, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also repeatedly asked to meet with Mr. Albicker, an important executive at the IRS, who purportedly asked for the analysis to be performed.
23.Mr. Benigni never granted Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s request for this meeting with Mr. Albicker regarding the “Alternatives Analysis” project.
24.In or around April 2000, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was assigned an assistant to help with the “Alternatives Analysis” project, but his superiors removed her from this assignment shortly thereafter.
25.The IRS also did not allow Mr. XXXXXXXXXX to meet with the contractor who was already working on this SCRIPS project despite repeated warnings from Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that the project would fall short in its quality without a meeting with the contractor.
26.Through persistent efforts, despite several obstacles put in his way, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX managed to identify the correct problem.
27.After identifying the correct problem involved with the “SCRIPS Alternatives Analysis” project Mr. XXXXXXXXXX completed the study for the project and delivered the study report on time.
28.Despite Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s success, in or about November of 2000 Mr. Benigni gave Mr. XXXXXXXXXX his annual performance rating, which was less than outstanding despite Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s outstanding work performance and completion of the project (Mr. XXXXXXXXXX received an “outstanding” rating for the same type of work in the previous year).
29.Whereupon Mr. XXXXXXXXXX informed Mr. Benigni of his dissatisfaction with the rating in the light of all the extraordinary efforts he had to put in for the SCRIPS project, and Mr. Benigni instructed him to speak with Mr. Cecil Hua, Mr. Benigni’s direct superior and the Director of the IRS’s Systems Engineering and Integration Division.
30.Accordingly, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX met with Mr. Hua to discuss his performance rating.
31.During the meeting Mr. Hua lost his temper, physically threw Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s SCRIPS report and electronic mail exchanges on the floor and said “Get out, that is your rating!”
32.As a result of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s dissatisfaction with his performance rating and his inability to resolve the situation due to the IRS’s discriminatory attitude toward him, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX filed an EEO Counseling Report of Discrimination based on his national origin in November 2000.
33.Subsequently, in or around late November or early December of 2000, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX did not elevate his EEO Complaint of Discrimination to the Treasury Department as a gesture to amicably resolve the situation and return his concentration to his work.
34.In or around January of 2001, unknown IRS employees assigned Mr. XXXXXXXXXX a project called the “Impact Assessment,” a multi-million dollar project that pertained to data mining using a data warehouse, and instructed Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, without first consulting Mr. XXXXXXXXXX about his workload, that he was to perform and complete the Impact Assessment within 2 weeks.
35.The Impact Assessment was a prodigious project involving a large amount of time-consuming attention to detail.
36.In response to this unreasonable assignment of work, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX informed in an e-mail that he was not in a position to perform the Impact Assessment project because he already was involved in another project and because the deadline was unreasonable.
37.Shortly thereafter, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX met with Mr. Benigni to discuss the Impact Assessment project and Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s responsive e-mail.
38.During the meeting between Mr. XXXXXXXXXX and Mr. Benigni to discuss the Impact Assessment project and Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s responsive e-mail, Mr. Benigni yelled and cursed at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX.
39.When Mr. XXXXXXXXXX attempted to leave the meeting to retrieve his file that contained all correspondence and information related to the Impact Assessment project, Mr. Benigni threatened Mr. XXXXXXXXXX saying, “God damn it, sit down, I will write you up.”
40.On or about March 9, 2001, Mr. Benigni walked into Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s work area and threw a counseling letter at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, striking Mr. XXXXXXXXXX in the face with the letter.
41.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was shocked and astonished at this behavior, and so Mr. XXXXXXXXXX again met with Mr. Hua to discuss the Impact Assessment project and the issues between himself and Mr. Benigni.
42.When Mr. XXXXXXXXXX raised the issue of Mr. Benigni’s abusive conduct with Mr. Hua, Mr. Benigni’s direct supervisor, Mr. Hua curtly responded by telling Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, “Who cares? You Indians are corrupt anyway. What’s the big deal?”
43.Mr. Hua also advised Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that, “You have two problems. You tend to escalate problems, and you associate with the niggers.” Mr. Hua added the names "Charles Murray, Al Holloway, Bridgette Kendrick, Cynthia Forrest, Fred Bumbry.
44.Despite the forgoing, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX pursued the issue of the counseling letter, and Mr. Hua eventually agreed to withdraw Mr. Benigni’s counseling letter.
45.After Mr. Hua failed to withdraw the counseling letter in or about April of 2001, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX filed an EEO discrimination claim on or about April 16, 2001.
46.On or about April 19, 2001, shortly after learning that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX filed his EEO claim, Mr. Benigni came to Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle and told Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that he wanted to do Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s mid-year assessment/performance appraisal.
47.Mr. Benigni then made a gesture with his foot like he was crushing a bug and stated, “We’re going to put you on probation.”
48.Accordingly, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX declined to attend his “mid-year assessment” meeting with Mr. Benigni in the light of Mr. Benigni’s behavior and the stated intent of putting Mr. XXXXXXXXXX on probation.
49.On April 20, 2001, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX then appealed to Mr. Bob Albicker, the IRS’s Deputy Chief Information Officer/Associate Commissioner and Cecil Hua’s supervisor, and Ms. Toni Zimmerman, the IRS’s Deputy Chief Information Officer.
50.Within a few days after Mr. XXXXXXXXXX appealed to Mr. Albicker and Ms. Zimmerman, Mr. Benigni started circling Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle repeatedly.
51.Within a few days after Mr. XXXXXXXXXX appealed to Mr. Albicker and Ms. Zimmerman, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also began receiving multiple silent phone calls a day, however at times he heard heavy breathing on the other end of the line.
52.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX reported these matters to the IRS’s EEO Counselors, but the EEO Counselors did nothing to stop these activities.
53.As a result of Mr. Benigni’s harassment, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX developed a variety of stomach problems, leading to his having to consult with a gastro-intestinal specialist, Dr. Pinnar, when his stomach pain became severe.
54.Around this period, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also began to experience angina attacks with increasing frequency, and he had to consume liberal doses of nitroglycerin tablets to contain the severe chest pains.
55.After one such severe angina attack, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was rushed to a cardiologist.
56.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX told Mr. Benigni, Mr. Hua, and the EEO Counselors that all of these incidents of extreme physical distress and psychological pain were being caused by Mr. Benigni’s treatment of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, but nobody acted to stop Mr. Benigni.
57.Finally, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX informed Mr. Hua that he no longer wanted to work under Mr. Benigni’s purview.
58.Accordingly, in or around July of 2001 Mr. Hua assigned Mr. Behrooz Sabet as a “Management Contact” for XXXXXXXXXX, although he did not define for Mr. XXXXXXXXXX what exactly a “management contact” really meant.
59. Within a week following his assignment as a “Management Contact” for Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Mr. Sabet told Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, “You better watch out. I’ve been brought into this Division to force you out. If I do that, I have been promised a Senior Executive position.”
60.Mr. Sabet then proceeded to give Mr. XXXXXXXXXX multiple assignments.
61.The first one was to write a White Paper on “How Do We Communicate the New Functionality Resulting from Information System Modernization to Our Stakeholders?” and Mr. Sabet demanded that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX should not affix his name as the author of this White Paper.
62.During Mr. Sabet’s supervision of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Mr. Sabet constantly cursed at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, calling him, among other profanities, a “motherfucker” and repeatedly asked him, “You bastard, who do you think you are?”
63.During Mr. Sabet’s supervision of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Mr. Sabet followed Mr. XXXXXXXXXX into the bathroom and spit on the bathroom floor where Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s feet were.
64.Mr. Sabet also constantly followed Mr. XXXXXXXXXX into the elevators and including the cafeteria, even though Mr. Sabet did not eat his lunch at the cafeteria.
65.At this time Mr. Sabet also referred to Mr. XXXXXXXXXX as a “stupid minority.”
66.At this time Mr. Sabet also told Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, “You are an XXXXXX. You’re a minority. Why don’t you get with it?”
67.Mr. Sabet also frequently interrupted the work Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was doing by entering Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle, sitting down very close to him, and then repeatedly cursing at him using profanities even when Mr. XXXXXXXXXX asked him to stop.
68.In addition, at this time Mr. Sabet also told Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, “You Hindus are stupid anyway. You’ve got all those gods running around.”
69.During Mr. Sabet’s supervision of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Mr. Sabet also bogged Mr. XXXXXXXXXX down with more and more assignments in an attempt to prevent him from completing his EEO interrogatories timely and in a coherent fashion by aggressively interfering with Mr. XXXXXXXXXX when Mr. Sabet knew that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was working on his EEO interrogatories.
70.In or about mid August of 2001, Mr. Sabet refused to allow Mr. XXXXXXXXXX to take time off to complete an EEO discovery request, ripping up in front of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s leave request for leave and then throwing the torn document in the trash can.
71.When Mr. XXXXXXXXXX went to pick up the pieces in the trash can, Mr. Sabet quickly bent over, picked up the pieces and put them in his pocket.
72.After all of this had taken place, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX encountered Mr. Hua in the hall, and Mr. XXXXXXXXXX asked Mr. Hua, “Why are you doing all these things to me?”
73.Mr. Cecil Hua responded by showing Mr. XXXXXXXXXX his middle finger, whereupon Mr. Hua laughed at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX and walked away.
74.During about August of 2001, with increasing frequency Mr. Sabet commenced banging violently on the outside of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle walls, resulting in Mr. XXXXXXXXXX suffering further acute stomach pains, intestinal distress, and angina attacks.
75.On August 16, 2001, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX filed a complaint directly to the Commissioner of the IRS, Mr. Charles Rossotti, in which he notified Mr. Rossotti that IRS employees were retaliating against him for his previous EEO complaint. Mr. XXXXXXXXXX requested that the IRS Commissioner take immediate measures to stop the retaliation and continued harassment. To the best of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s knowledge, the IRS took no remedial measures in response to his request.
76.On or about August 22, 2001, Mr. Sabet’s banging on Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle walls with a binder markedly increased in frequency, the intimidation becoming more severe in an attempt to intimidate Mr. XXXXXXXXXX into resigning.
77.On or about August 22, 2001, Mr. Sabet threw and hit Mr. XXXXXXXXXX in the shoulder with a 3-ring binder, stating “I’m going to force you out.”
78.On or about August 22, 2001, due to Mr. Sabet’s retaliatory actions and physical assaults, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was forced to leave the IRS Building in haste, as Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was unable to endure it any more.
79.On or about September 4, 2001, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX sent an e-mail to Mr. Hua stating that his civil rights had been violated, and he again requested time off to complete his EEO interrogatories.
80.Hua responded to Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s e-mail dated in or about September 4, 2001, by telling Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that he was absent without leave and ordered Mr. XXXXXXXXXX not to write to him anymore.
81.On at least three separate occasions prior to September 10, 2001, Mr. Sabet called Mr. XXXXXXXXXX at home and left messages on his voice mail, two of them stating “Get back to work or I will chop your balls off.”
82.On or about September 10, 2001, as the direct and proximate result of the IRS’s illegal discrimination on the basis of his national origin and its illegal retaliation and reprisal for his having made an EEO complaint, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was compelled to submit his resignation to the IRS.
83.Because of all aggressive, virulent, retaliatory and hostile environment to which Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was subjected, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was unable to complete his EEO Interrogatories at work.
84.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was only able to complete them only by in or about September 14, 2001, after he was forced to submit his resignation on or about September 10, 2001.
85.Within two or three weeks after Mr. XXXXXXXXXX submitted his resignation, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX called the IRS’s Commissioner’s office and spoke to a woman named Gail Carol, informing her that he submitted his resignation under duress and wished to withdraw it.
86.Ms. Carol instead laughed at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX and hung up on him.
87.After Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was forced out of the IRS, Mr. Benigni and Mr. Sabet began falsely telling people at the IRS that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX had illegally entered the IRS building, logged into the computers, and sent an electronic mail threatening to kill someone.
Count I
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Discrimination/Tangible Employment Action
(Including, but not limited to, Constructive Discharge)
88.Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 87 as though alleged herein.
89.Plaintiff is a “person” and an “employee” as the terms are defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e and the Defendant is an “executive agency” as the term is defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16.(a).
90.Defendant failed and/or refused to hire Plaintiff for new positions, and otherwise discriminated against the Plaintiff with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of Plaintiff’s ethnic origin and religion.
91.Defendant limited, segregated, and/or classified the Plaintiff in a way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of Plaintiff’s ethnic origin and religion.
92.Defendant took a tangible employment action against the Plaintiff when it constructively discharged the Plaintiff when it made the Plaintiff’s working conditions so intolerable that his resignation was compelled and is qualified as a fitting response to Defendant’s behavior and conduct.
93.Defendant did not have a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of discrimination and harassment.
94.Plaintiff reasonably availed himself of Defendant’s EEO procedures; however, Defendant’s purported anti-harassment policies and grievance mechanisms were ineffective and were not properly implemented.
95.Plaintiff sustained substantial monetary and non-monetary damages as the result of the Defendant’s illegal conduct.
96.Plaintiff demands such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., including, but not limited to, the following:
a.reinstatement and economic damages, including back pay;
b.compensatory damages;
c.punitive damages;
d.reasonable attorney’s fees;
e.court costs; and any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
Count II
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment
97.Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 96 as though alleged herein.
98.Plaintiff is a “person” and an “employee” as the terms are defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e and the Defendant is an “executive agency” as the term is defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16.(a).
99.Defendant failed and/or refused to hire Plaintiff for new positions, and otherwise discriminated against the Plaintiff with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of Plaintiff’s ethnic origin and religion.
100.Defendant limited, segregated, and/or classified the Plaintiff in a way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of Plaintiff’s ethnic origin and religion.
101.Defendant engaged in hostile conduct, including verbal, psychological and physical assaults, against the Plaintiff.
102.Plaintiff sustained substantial monetary and non-monetary damages as the result of the Defendant’s illegal conduct.
103.Plaintiff demands such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., including, but not limited to, the following:
a.reinstatement and economic damages, including back pay;
b.compensatory damages;
c.punitive damages;
d.reasonable attorney’s fees;
e.court costs; and any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
Count III
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Retaliation
(Adverse Employment Actions including, but not limited to, Constructive Discharge)
104.Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 103 as though alleged herein.
105.Defendant, in response to Plaintiff’s engaging in protected activity by filing and prosecuting an EEO complaint against the Defendant, made the Plaintiff’s working conditions so intolerable, through its unlawful discriminatory behavior and retaliation, that his resignation was compelled and is qualified as a fitting response to Defendant’s behavior and conduct.
106.Defendant did not have a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of discrimination and harassment.
107.Plaintiff reasonably availed himself of Defendant’s EEO procedures; however, Defendant’s purported anti-harassment policies and grievance mechanisms were ineffective and were not properly implemented.
108.Plaintiff demands such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., including, but not limited to, the following:
a.reinstatement and economic damages, including back pay;
b.compensatory damages;
c.punitive damages;
d.reasonable attorney’s fees;
e.court costs; and any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff XXXXXXXXXX prays this Honorable Court for Judgment against the Defendant, in addition to reinstatement, in the amount of economic damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages to be determined at trial, plus attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, equitable relief (including Plaintiff’s employment status and awarding back pay) and any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper to award.
Respectfully Submitted,
XXXXXX X. XXXXXXXXXX,
By Counsel,
_________________________________
R. Scott Oswald, D.C. Bar No. 458859
Nicholas Woodfield, D.C. Bar No. 471801
Employment Law Group, P.L.L.C.
888 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006-3307
(202) 261-2812
(202) 261-2835 (facsimile)
soswald@employmentlawgroup.net
nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.net
Counsel for Plaintiff
Jury Demand
Plaintiff XXXXXXXXXX demands a jury for all issues proper to be so tried.
_________________________________
R. Scott Oswald
Nicholas Woodfield
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "arfus584" <arfus584@earthlink.net>
To: <Lloyd_A._Blanchard@omb.eop.gov>
Cc: <ugillis@omb.eop.gov>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:40 PM
Subject: IRS: Our Meeting on December 06, 2001.
To: Dr. Lloyd A. Blanchard, PhD
Associate Director
Executive Office of the President
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20503
cc: Ms. Ursula S. Gillis
Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Dr. Blanchard,
I want to thank you and Ms. Gillis for taking the time to meet with me on December 6, 2001 at 4:30 PM regarding the issues of malfeasance and sabotage of information system modernization at the IRS.
Although our meeting was short, lasting no more than twenty five minutes, Iam gratified someone in the Government did care enough.
It is sad and ironic that no one in my own agency, the IRS, did not care to meet with me and entertain any discussions with me on matters of substance during the more than six years I spent there. Even more, in the light of the recent documents I had authored, copies of which had been provided to Commissioner Rossotti, no one has expressed any interest in meeting with me to discuss how these problems can be corrected. Probably it is understandable if these illustrious folks are busily engaged in a massive cover up in their attempts to portray "what is not" as what is, and "what is" as what is not.
You would have also noticed that in all my documents, I have not only identified the problems and flaws, I have actually proposed corrective solutions.
These documents I have authored, copies of which are already in your possession, detail how the information system modernization at the IRS has collapsed for the third or the fourth time -- people have lost count. The prior efforts at modernization had cost the Federal Government (and thus the taxpayers) almost $9 Billion dollars, give or take a Billion or two.
The current effort under Commissioner Rossotti has cost almost $500 Million--with nothing much to show for it. That leaves us with a loss of almost$9.5 Billion. No, these are not my numbers. These numbers are documented in the GAO reports and in the newspaper articles.
The $9.5 Billion loss to the Government is the "direct" cost. The indirect or consequential loss of the failure of modernization is vastly much more than this mere $9.5 Billion. The indirect cost to the Federal Government in terms of the taxes not collected due to unreported income, fraud, etc. has been estimated to be anywhere from $250 Billion to $500 Billion PER
YEAR.
Imagine if you will, if all these taxes were collected, would the Government run a deficit in the light of the new tragic developments due to the war in Afghanistan? May be President Bush can even justify the tax cuts he has proposed. The national debt that stands at $5 Trillion can be wiped out at a much faster rate. Even more, senior citizens could be given prescription benefits. Or, give it to a worthy cause--me. I promise you, it will be wisely spent, not squandered.
These failures are NOT due to mistakes or errors in judgment. This is sabotage and malfeasance on a large scale through means subtle and gross.
Stupidity is not a crime. To be an idiot is not a crime. Not knowing something is not a crime.
What does one do when someone doesn't know something? They, if normal, go to someone who knows and seek help.
IRS is not H&R Block. It is an enforcement organization. It is not unreasonable to expect such an organization should be held to a higher standard of ethics.
We also discussed under what conditions I ended up working for the IRS.
IRS hired me, along with a few others, because of the pressure fromm Congress that the IRS lacked technical managers and that the IRS needed to hire technical managers from the outside before Congress would authorize any new funding for modernization. The IRS old-boys' network failed in all modernization related activities or projects.
...................................................
.......................................................
In response to your question, "What can we do?", we explored briefly the following avenues:
1. Freeze all modernization related activities and related expenditures immediately until a thorough investigation is completed, thus preventing further hemorrhage and loss of money to the Government.
2. Refer the matter to the Department of Justice for a Grand Jury investigation so that evidence can be presented and examined under oath. You may submit my documents ( minus my resignation letter addressed to the Commissioner) under your current possession as prima facie evidence. I am prepared to provide additional evidence directly to the Grand Jury.
3. Convene a panel under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) under the proviso that the panel members shall have no current dealings with the Federal Government. This is to prevent the "Beltway Bandits" and the "Parkway Patriots" syndrome that afflicts the Federal Government. This panel should examine and investigate all the current IRS' plans to modernize its information systems, their completeness, and validity. At the completion of the investigation, the panel should submit a comprehensive report to the Director of Management and Budget whether the current approach to modernization should be scrapped. The panel should also examine the qualifications of people engaged in modernization and their fitness to occupy these positions. The panel should be headed by someone such as Feynman, who headed the panel that investigated the Challenger disaster in 1986. It should be a no holds barred investigation. This task can be completed in three or at the most four weeks.
4. Form a new Division within the OMB. Its mission should be to monitor and investigate how the appropriated funds are being expended, instead of waiting till the end of the year when the agencies report their performance, if at all and if any-at which time it is too late to do anything other than saying "amen." The "Balanced Scorecard" is not enough. Agencies such as the IRS should be asked to submit monthly progress reports for scrutiny by the OMB on high risk, high value, high return programs. After all, an organization that generates $2 Trillion in revenue should not be managed in this manner, whether in the private sector or in the public sector. The Inspector Generals Cannot do this job. Neither can the GAO. Usually, the GAO comes into the picture only after something goes terribly wrong.
The OMB has to go beyond merely appropriating the money and parceling it out to the agencies to squander year-after-year.
For example, we briefly explored how the Request for Proposal (RFP) to procure the services of the PRIME Contractor was so shot with holes, butthe IRS still went ahead anyway, precipitating the current fiasco, despite my pointing out the gross flaws in the RFP even way back in March 1998.
I urge you to read the documents I have provided you. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will be more than glad to explain and answer any questions you may have on any of these documents, because I hold myself accountable.
Things we did not get to discuss:
1. Nepotism at the IRS. Husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, in-laws, boy friends, girl friends--well I am going to stop there. When you go into a meeting, you never know whom you are talking to, and the hidden agenda lurking beneath the surface. Close relatives should be forbidden from working for the same agency. Indeed, several private companies do exactly
that. I used to work for Mobil Corporation. They refused to hire ANY relatives.
2. Hiring, appointments, and promotions governed by the same-old bunch, regardless of the qualifications and competence of the candidates, to the utter detriment of the organization. Using code words such as "Can he/she be trusted", the word "trusted" being used in its most perverse sense, namely, can he/she be trusted to sabotage modernization related activities, lie constructively and creatively, and not be caught. This is an insidious and surreptitious form of corruption.
3. The number of retirees working for the IRS' contractors, however unqualified they may be. Let us ask this question: If these people could not help the IRS modernize while they were employees of the Government, what makes anyone think that they can help the IRS modernize the IRS after they retire by becoming contractors or employees of the contractors? How is it the very next day after they retire they show up in the contractors' payroll walking around the IRS facilities, getting paid way, way beyond their qualifications? Maybe someone within the Government is pulling the strings for them telling the contractors in a subtle way unless their buddies are hired, the contractors' invoices may not be approved or the ability of these contractors to obtain additional work from the IRS may be in jeopardy.
4. Blackmail.
5. Lying to Congress.
I have barely scratched the surface.
In the light of the above, is it any surprise that the Federal Government cannot attract qualified candidates to staff its needs? Would anyone highly qualified, committed to professional integrity and honesty, agree to work for thugs? Even if they agree for the sake of money, will they last? Will they have any respect for the institutions that harbors and rewards corrupt people?
Recently, there has been considerable talk about "attracting" qualified people to serve in the Government by reimbursing student loans, etc. Without correcting the aforementioned problems, that program will become part of the prevailing corruption. To whom do you think all that money will go? To friends, relatives, and buddies of these illustrious folks who brought you the information system modernization at the IRS.
I left with you my write up on Disaster Recovery at the IRS--IRS has none to date. I wrote that in 1995. You may wish to read that. It is just three pages. That write up is part of a larger document that I produced, in which I have explained how the IRS can accomplish disaster recovery and assure continuity of operations. To date, IRS has not implemented even remotely what can be called disaster recovery. The modernization initiatives do not address this issue at all. I have pointed this out in my memorandum addressed to Tom Lucas on the project called "CADE"-the Customer Account Data Engine and another memorandum on the e-services project. You already have copies of those memoranda. What kind of "modernization" is this in the light of the recent terrorist activities?
If you can straighten out at least one agency-the IRS-it will be a significant accomplishment in your career.
Again, as I mentioned, you may wish to meet with me one more time so that I can answer any questions you may have. You may also wish to bring these matters to the attention of Secretary Daniels and even Vice President Cheney.
This is not Miller time. It is a Maalox moment.
With the best regards,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time."
--H. L. Mencken
To The FBI:
July 14, 2002
Mr. Robert S. Mueller, III
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001
Dear Mr. Mueller:
Subject: Sabotage, fraud, and malfeasance at the Information Systems Division of the IRS.
More than a month ago, I met with Special Agent Christopher Hinkle regarding the above subject.
Subsequently, I have also given him a copy of my resignation letter addressed to Commissioner Rossotti, in which I have alleged illegal activities by a gang of managers and executives in the Information Systems Division of the Internal Revenue Service. Because of this sabotage and malfeasance, it has been estimated that the direct loss to the taxpayers is anywhere from $10 Billion to $13 Billion.
The information systems modernization has failed for the third or the fourth time.
The indirect cost due to those repeated failures has been estimated to exceed that amount by several times over.
I urge you to open a criminal investigation of this matter.
Should you be hesitant or concerned that this may reflect badly on the current administration, you can rest assured that this kind of sabotage and illegal conduct has been going on for several years. Indeed, no administration can be faulted other than the managers and executives involved in these nefarious and toxic conduct.
There is absolutely no need for the FBI to accept even a single word of what I say. If you open a formal criminal investigation, there are other honest people within the IRS who may be willing to come forward and testify regarding what has been happening at the IRS, provided their jobs and safety are not threatened.
I sent my resignation letter to Commissioner Rossotti on September 10, 2001.
I surrendered my badge and the Key Card that allows entry to the IRS Federal Building along with my resignation letter.
Subsequent to my resignation, some managers/executives started a rumor that they saw me illegally enter the building on October 11, 2001, log into what used to be my computer, and sent an electronic mail threatening to “kill someone”.
After I was physically assaulted, I had to run out of the New Carrollton Federal Building on August 22, 2001.
I assure you, I never dared to go back, and chose to resign.
This matter has been brought to the attention of Commissioner Rossotti asking him to clear my name. Months have passed, and he has not yet done so. Why? Indeed, upon receiving my resignation letter, the Commissioner should have promptly referred the contents of the allegations contained in that letter to the FBI for possible criminal investigation. I should not have to write this letter at all. Why is this cover-up?
What should concern the FBI is that this is not a minor “misdeed” by one or two managers or executives. It has been perpetrated by a whole gang of managers and executives through blackmail and intimidation over a period of years.
Upon investigation, you may find that these illegal activities span the multiple predicates in the Federal RICO statutes. At this point the only benefit that may accrue because of an investigation by the FBI is the possibility of stopping this illegal conduct from continuing into the future years.
If I may, I urge you to meet with me for a few minutes. I fully understand that your time is precious in the light of all the terrorist activity.
With the best regards,
Sincerely,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."
--H. L. Mencken
To The Senate Committee:
June 01, 2003
TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
Senator Norm Coleman, Chairman
Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Minority Member
Senator Ted Stevens
Senator George V. Voinovich
Senator Arlen Specter
Senator Robert F. Bennett
Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald
Senator John E. Sununu
Senator Richard C. Shelby
Senator Daniel K. Akaka
Senator Richard J. Durbin
Senator Thomas R. Carper
Senator Mark Dayton
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Mark Pryor
Dear Senators:
Subject: Fraud, sabotage, and malfeasance at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
(NOTE: THIS IS NOT CONSTITUENT SERVICE. PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD.)
I respectfully bring to the attention of all the members of your committee the fraud, sabotage and malfeasance that have been going on at the Information Systems Division of the Internal Revenue Service for the past several years.
Some of you may already know that the information systems modernization at the IRS has repeatedly failed, costing the taxpayers of this country several billion dollars in direct cost alone, and several times that in indirect costs as well.
This is in-your-face fraud and sabotage, perpetrated by executives and managers at the IRS with cold, calculated cunning, unmitigated malice, repeatedly lying to the United States Congress, all held together through blackmail and extortion, and celebrating it all as though they are significant accomplishments.
I fully understand that this topic may not interest all of you to the same extent for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I decided to write you anyway, because I believe this is a serious matter and only members of Congress can put an end to this degree of well-orchestrated pattern of fraud, sabotage and malfeasance perpetrated over a period of years by a gang of managers and executives at the IRS.
We are talking several billions of dollars here and not a few thousand dollars illegally charged to a Government credit card to get a breast implant.
As you may already know, the previous Commissioner, Charles O. Rossotti, was appointed to modernize the IRS’ information systems. He is supposed to be one of Mr. McNamara’s “wiz kids”. He completed his term and left without bringing about information systems modernization at the IRS. The executives and managers at the information systems Division never really told him the facts and the truth. Key information was kept away from him by the “inner circle”, while mocking him behind his back.
Recently, a new Commissioner, Mr. Mark Everson has taken over as the Commissioner. He may not have an opportunity either to know or find out what is going on behind his back, namely, an immense fraud, perpetrated by an “inner circle” comprised of managers and executives. The only qualification required for entry to this “inner circle” appears to be the ability to scam the system, and an unadulterated willingness to commit fraud with reckless abandon, all at the expense of the taxpayers.
Congress had several hearings on fraud by private corporations such as Enron, WorldCom, etc. These private corporations had a Board of Directors, independent auditors, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and financial institutions looking over their books and shoulders. Despite all that, fraud did take place. I leave it to your imagination on how much fraud that must be going on at the Government agencies which do not hold themselves accountable to anyone.
Fraud. Sabotage. Conspiracy to repeatedly commit fraud. Blackmail. Extortion. Repeatedly and systematically Lying to Congress. Creating an ‘inner circle” of deceit. Physical assault. Misleading contractors so that they fail. Actually taking pleasure in these, as though it is a joke.
I have attached a Sworn Affidavit that may give you an inkling of the extent of the shameless criminal activity that has been going on over a period of years. Regardless of your political affiliation, whether Republican, Democrat, Independent, conservative, liberal, left or right, all of you should be able to find common ground in taking a stand on corruption, blatant fraud and dishonesty in the Federal Government.
I urge you to open a criminal investigation of the Information Systems Division of the IRS. You need to put the witnesses under oath, under penalty of criminal perjury to get at the truth. (They commit civil perjury just about every day.) You may wish to find out how these criminal elements are able to rise to managerial and executive positions in the Federal Government—and remain there-- without any qualifications, while being delinquent in their fiduciary responsibilities.
Even if you are not inclined to open this criminal investigation for whatever reason, you may wish to do it in the public interest—after all it is the American taxpayers who pay the Government managers and executives to protect them and take care of their interests. You may discover how a legitimate enterprise has been turned into a criminal enterprise through a pattern of illegal activities.
You may also wish to find out whether the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has been colluding and cooperating in this fraudulent fiasco and cover-up. We are not talking about “cost overruns” here—it is outright fraud and sabotage of information system modernization to the tune of several billion dollars. Even more, you may also want to investigate how the attorneys for the IRS have been aiding and abetting this illegal conduct.
Someone told me that as a “brown-skinned, black-haired, damn foreigner with a thick accent”—a mere fourth class citizen—I am only one-fourth of a human being. May be so. He meant well and probably rightly so. Nevertheless, you must agree that the American people who pay their taxes and trust their Government deserve at least one eighth justice.
Even more, you need to answer an essential question: What kind of national security you have with this kind of ethically challenged so-called managers and executives running the Federal Government?
There is no greater travesty than having a set of laws, a Code of Ethics, and NOT enforcing them.
You cannot claim no one told you. I just did.
With the best regards,
Sincerely,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
Notarized: _____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Attachments:
1. Minutes of the meeting with OMB
2. Two Miscellaneous documents
3. Sworn Affidavit
4. Public Law 96-303 (CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sworn Affidavit:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I hereby authorize the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) AND the Department of the Treasury, upon demand from PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIGATIONS, its investigators, and ANY member of Congress, or Congressional Committees, to release a copy of my resignation letter, all Attachments to that resignation letter, copies of all reports, White Papers and memoranda I had written, or co-authored, including copies of all electronic mails, during my employment with the IRS, including my personnel and payroll records.
I hereby waive all protections afforded to me under the Privacy Act of 1974 and any other Act(s).
Among those records outlined above, the following should definitely be included:
1. Copy of the electronic mail I sent to Ms. Toni Zimmerman and Mr. Bob Albicker wherein I stated that:
“I believe that no one has a right to coerce me into performing illegal and unethical activities that may constitute "Waste, fraud, and Abuse" in the Federal Government. All of us in the Federal Government, especially those in management, have a fiduciary responsibility.” This electronic mail also contains verbiage as follows: “....... any destruction and/or alteration of Government records, including electronic mail may constitute illegal acts.”
The qualifications of Ms. Toni Zimmerman and Mr. Bob Albicker, if any.
2. A complete copy of the SC5 Report.
3. Copies of the entire sequence of electronic mails in one of which I asked these questions: “Are you all a bunch of imbeciles? Do you understand what an impact assessment is? Have any of you done an impact assessment in your life? What are you talking about??? Do any of you have an engineering background?” By “sequence” it is implied the ENTIRE sequence, both tangential and tertiary, forward and backward, the people involved in those exchanges, and their qualifications, if any, including their educational background.
4. Copy of the electronic mail I sent to John Reece, the former CIO, that has in its body the following text:
“I am planning to resign soon, because I can't stand the extensive malfeasance, illegal activities and well-orchestrated sabotage that is going on. It is not one or two people-- it is a whole gang that is involved in this. They employ means that are too subtle for people from outside to detect. Your predecessors were set up, so were the other people brought in by Mr. Rossotti. Every modernization related project is in trouble at present. If you are willing to meet with me, I can point out some areas that you may want to look into. In a year from now, you will not be able to recover from the massive failure that is about to occur. There will be Congressional inquiries where you will be asked to testify.”
5. Copies of all electronic mail exchanges between Mr. Behrooz Sabet and X. XXXXXXXXXX.
6. Copies of all electronic mail exchanges between Mr. Cecil Hua and X. XXXXXXXXXX.
7. All information pertaining to the so-called TCP-3 program that squandered millions of dollars of taxpayer money with nothing to show for it, and the people involved in it, including who led the effort, their qualifications, if any, and how it completely escaped the attention of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).
8. The sabotage of the SIAM taskforce and the people involved in it.
9. Blackmail of X. XXXXXXXXXX by Mr. Curt Turner to change his cost estimate.
10. The sabotage of the Tax return Database (TRDB) using the NCR’s Teradata machine, and the names of all the people involved in it, and their qualifications, if any.
11. Attempting and conspiring to subvert the source selection process in stealth especially after the award of the contract to Unisys.
12. A copy of the Service Center Recognition and Image Processing System (SCRIPS) project report authored or coauthored by X. XXXXXXXXXX, a list of all the project office personnel involved in that project at that time, the names of all the people X. XXXXXXXXXX reported to, their qualifications, if any, and copies of all electronic mails exchanged on this project.
13. Information regarding any and all investigations, if any, relating to the malicious and fallacious rumor started and circulated by the so-called managers and executives at the IRS that “they saw” X. XXXXXXXXXX enter the IRS Federal building illegally after X. XXXXXXXXXX resigned and surrendered his badge and the Key Access Card on September 10 2001, and his alleged illegal and improper use of a Federal Government property, namely the computer belonging to the IRS, when he was no longer an employee, and the alleged electronic mail he is purported to have sent to someone within the IRS “threatening to kill someone”. This information should include, but not limited to: When the Commissioner was notified, what action, if any, he took in response, When the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was first notified, what action, if any, TIGTA took in response, When the IRS Chief Counsel was notified, and what action, if any the Chief Counsel took, if and when the FBI contacted the IRS officials, and if indeed X. XXXXXXXXXX had committed those criminal acts, why he has not been arrested so far. Even more, if the IRS had found those alleged incidents are false, why has the IRS officials kept quiet without clearing his name, and why the IRS has not made a criminal referral to the United States Attorney’s office to prosecute the alleged perpetrators of the said rumor, and the conspirators that were involved.
14. A copy of the United States Department of the Treasury’s Investigative Report and a copy of the Supplementary Investigative Report [United States Department of the Treasury].
Signed: __________________________________
Printed: X. XXXXXXXXXX
Notarized: ____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H. L. Mencken
Cecil,
Oh Cecil! You are dripping with such synthetic sincerity in your written correspondence, but every time we meet you show your fangs drenched in venom! Not only that, you have assembled a whole retinue of collaborators such as Steve Benigni in this nefarious activity, only the Good lord knows who else that are willing to serve as hatchet men and women.
I respectfully submit that neither you nor Steve Benigni may be qualified xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
I want you to forward a copy of this e-mail to Mr. John Reece, our current CIO. Let him read what I have written here. No, I am not copying him in this e-mail—I want you to deliver this to him.
What have you done in the past six years as a Systems Engineer—not just by the title, but in fact?
Remember TCP-3? What a circus that was! And what a colossal failure that was! You led that effort didn’t you? No one even knows what TCP-3 stood for! It violated every principle in systems engineering! No wonder it crashed and burned! How many millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money was lost in that magnificent TCP-3 endeavor? Who else was involved in that ignominious activity? How many contractor personnel? You didn’t follow any architectural principles, did you? Did you follow any systems engineering concepts in that odious affair? I don’t want to mention other kinds of malfeasance that have been going on here.
What has Steve Benigni done in the last six years—especially when he is not doing his crossword puzzles, when he is not on vacation, and when he is not taking those training classes?
............................
............................
At the IRS, it has been one fiasco after another! It reeks of a cheap perfume!
Remember George Z? Remember Jim LoudeX? Remember John O'KX? Remember Wayne JanXxx? Within months of their hiring they were gone! They figured that this place was up to no good. They had figured in short order that this place will not let anyone do Systems Engineering the way it ought to be done. In hindsight, I should have known better and bailed out too—I had an offer to be the Chief Engineer at the FBI headquarters within a month of joining the IRS. I thought it would be unethical to leave the IRS within a month of joining! Yes, I still have a copy of that job offer. That job paid more too!
Coming back to our original question, either you don’t know or have forgotten what systems engineering is all about. I had high hopes when you took over as the Director. In the last six months since you took over, it has been chaos and pandemonium. All these so-called “Alternatives Analysis” is a tiny part of systems engineering and none of you even understand how to do them according to systems engineering principles.
I want you to give Mr. John Reece a copy of that nonsensical “Counseling Letter” that Steve Benigni threw at me. I want him to see that even my name has not been spelled right in that piece of paper! I want you to provide him a copy of all the electronic mails that have been exchanged on that subject of the so-called “Impact Assessment” in their chronological order. To be fair, Mr. Reece should demand it from you, without any omissions or alterations. You may already know that any destruction or alteration of Government records, including electronic mails may be illegal.
I want John Reece to understand what really passes for systems engineering around here.
By the way, ................... I have a couple of questions for you. Mr. Reece may want to ask you the same questions also. Here they are:
..................................
..................................
..................................
I heard that TXX XX got a rating of “Outstanding”—a guy who didn’t even show up for work for months while some of us were busting our chops! How did I know this? It is the talk of the town!
.........................................
I want you to explain these “concepts” and modus operandi to John Reece. He should know. He has a right to know. There are fiduciary responsibilities involved here.
How was the training budget being spent? On whom? Who are the individuals who have been consuming the training budget just for the last year?
Is this place being run for just “friends and family”?
Cranking out something in the name of “Alternative Analysis” is NOT systems engineering. The real “alternative” is to “Modernize”—and that you see we don’t want to do!
Let me ask you this simple question: “Have you ever stood up and said that this is the wrong way to do business? This is unethical. This will fail.” I have—with clear explanations. And they are well documented. I am willing to produce them to John Reece and the Commissioner.
Have you shown loyalty to the profession—in this case, Systems Engineering? Only those who have demonstrated their commitment to the profession and the ethics that go along with it are professionals. Groveling does not count. Coercing people to perform unethical work that may be called “Waste, fraud, and abuse” does not count, even though that may get you a promotion or two. Producing obese documents do not count.
I believe that you and several others have a completely mistaken notion of what loyalty means. It appears that you are confused between the loyalty to the person and the loyalty to the profession. It is not always possible to give “pleasing answers” to difficult questions. If you have a serious illness, you would want your doctor to tell you the truth, don’t you? If you were having a quadruple bypass surgery, you wouldn’t necessarily want your best friend operating on you, would you?
Look sir, every time I came to talk to you in the first five months of your taking over, you didn’t have five seconds to talk to me. How is it Reggie McFadden always found time to talk to people—not just to me, but also to everyone in the Division? Not only that, he understood what I was talking about in ample measure—the real technical and engineering issues. He had integrity—real professional integrity. He refused to indulge in subversions.
Many of us know how most of you got your promotions. They go by various names such as, “networking”, “making connections”, “simple groveling”, and an unquestioning willingness to do “assassinations” when ordered to. Professional qualifications never mattered. If you find an honest fellow, just get rid of him or her—whatever it takes.
Cecil, I am sick to my stomach—literally. I will be out for the rest of the week.
With the best regards, as always,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
_______________________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:51 PM
To: Albicker Bob F; Zimmerman Toni
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL.
Dear Mr. Albicker and Ms. Zimmerman:
I am reluctant and actually regret that I have to write this.
It is not even an exaggeration to say that I have been compelled by circumstances beyond my control to write this.
This is in response to the "Counseling Letter" thrown at me by Mr. Steve Benigni.
I believe that no one has a right to coerce me into performing illegal and unethical activities that may constitute "Waste, fraud, and Abuse" in the Federal Government.
All of us in the Federal Government, especially those in management, have a fiduciary responsibility.
I respectfully request that the following be done:
1.Retract the "Counseling Letter",
2.Issue a letter of apology,
3.Restore all of the sick leave I have been forced to take because of all the harassment I have been subjected to--I have developed an ulcer and a severe stomach pain,
4.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5.Stop the harassment immediately.
I have repeatedly tried to bring all these to the attention of Mr. Steve Benigni, and Mr. Cecil Hua to no avail.
Instead of attending to these matters, they continue to aggravate the situation, increase the harassment and retaliation, and other activities that may only be called prejudicial, unethical and nefarious. You may wish to talk to Mr. Steve Benigni and Mr. Cecil Hua and get the true story of what is happening-- if they would tell you the truth. As part of your investigation, you may want them to construct and reproduce a chronological record of all the events that have happened so far and all the electronic mails that have been exchanged on this subject, including the so-called "Impact assessment". You may also want to point out to them that any destruction and/or alteration of Government records, including electronic mail may constitute illegal acts.
I consider myself a loyal employee of the IRS.
You and I may differ on how this or that is done, or how modernization should be done. Those differences do not constitute disloyalty. Often, only through expressing our differences, the real solutions emerge.
I am sure you know that I have done a lot of good work in the past six years I have been with the IRS. I don't need to list them here. I am here to serve, and I have. If you want me to leave the organization, I will leave. But before that, the issues outlined above must be resolved. It is widely perceived that this "Counseling Letter" is an underhanded way to get rid of honest people.
I have given below some of my correspondence that may help you in sorting out this matter.
If this matter is not resolved quickly, I will be forced to raise these issues with others--I don't have a choice, including but not limited to the filing of a lawsuit, which will entail airing the issues in public.
Please note that my original response to that nonsensical "Counseling Letter" ran to fifty pages-- fully notarized. I chose not to file that fifty page response, but instead I filed only an abbreviated three page filing.
With the best regards,
X. XXXXXXXXX
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
This paper was written in response to a request by the scoundrel Behrooz Sabet asking the author to commit fraud. The author of the following paper told him that he does not commit fraud nor accept bribes.
In response, this rascal went on to say in the presence of others something related to sex and even pointed out at a picture hanging on the wall. This guy further added that Senator Grassley and Dean Zerbe have been put in their places by Rossotti. Hey, committing fraud can get you promoted all the way to the Senior Executive level in the Federal Government.
How Do We Communicate The New Functionality
Resulting From
Information System Modernization To Our Stakeholders?
Or
The Enterprise Architecture, Release Architecture,
Sequencing Plan and Other Miscellany.
A White Paper.
August 08, 2001
Executive Summary
We have a problem: How to communicate our modernization-related annual incremental functionality and related items to our stakeholders?
The answer to this problem is to be found in the Enterprise Architecture (EA) itself by definition, and not outside of it in some other “Deliverable”. That is exactly the purpose of the Enterprise Architecture (EA). If it is not there already, the IRS should insist that the PRIME Contractor (CSC) create another chapter or “View” to the EA that will portray this required information. No separate “tasking” is required to accomplish this. This tasking was created on the day the contract was signed with the PRIME Contractor.
This paper explains why this is so. This paper also explains why items such as “Release Architecture” and “Release Engineering” are concepts that do not make sense and serve no useful purpose, merely causing confusion and wasting money.
1.0 Background
There was an informal meeting on July 31, 2001. The purpose was to discuss the need expressed by John Reece (Deputy Commissioner of Modernization & CIO) and Bob Albicker (Deputy Associate Commissioner, Systems Integration) to explain to the stakeholders what they are getting and when.
The attendees were Behrooz Sabet, Peter Wade, and X. XXXXXXXXXX.
It was agreed that XXXXXXXXXX would define the problem by August 09, 2001. While the problem definition was in progress, its solution also became perceptible. Hence, this White Paper not only defines the problem, it also proposes a solution that does it at the least cost.
2.0 Introduction
IRS now has four business units that have been created as a result of organizational modernization initiated by the Commissioner, Mr. Rossotti. These are:
1.Large and Mid-size Business (LMSB),
2.Small Business and Self-employed (SB/SE)
3.Wage and Investment (W & I)
4.Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE)
These four units have already “stood up” and are fully operational.
In addition to the above four entities, the Information Systems organization has other customers and stakeholders as well, such as the office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Human Resources, etc.
It all starts with “Business Needs”, both tactical and strategic.
Strategic planning, both by our stakeholders and our own Information Systems (IS) organization if done properly, is intended to address and link the goals and objectives to the budget and appropriations. Indeed, this is a natural process that is widely practiced in the private sector.
However, since this process is not widely practiced within the Government, the Congress enacted legislation called the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and the Clinger-Cohen Act (also known as the Information Technology and Management Reform Act) to bring all these into alignment.
The “Goals” and “Objectives” resulting from strategic planning are translated into a variety of projects, among them, modernizing the information systems and related business processes. Information system modernization is done over a period of time depending on its magnitude, the available funding and other resources, commensurate with risk.
It is not entirely unreasonable for our customers and stakeholders to ask us, “We have expressed our needs through our strategic plans. What have you done for us lately? And what are you going to do for us in the coming years so that we can achieve our objectives?”
We should be able to answer them even before they ask us.
The Mission, Goals, and Objectives expressed in the Strategic Plans of the four Business Units, the other stakeholders and the Information System organization are the desired products or the desired end states, also known as the “Target Vision”.
Producing these products requires a process. And the process needs to be tailored to the product. Producing automobiles requires a process, producing ships requires a different process, and producing software requires yet another process. In other words, the product and the process required to produce it are intimately linked. Indeed, stated differently, the product determines the process—not the other way around.
3.0 What Is The Process?
We have already said that it all starts with the business needs.
For after all, if there are no business needs, you might as well sit and breathe, watch the grass grow and the paint dry.
What does the Information System organization do in response (or proactively if it has vision)?
Translate the business needs into system level requirements (sometimes also known as functional requirements, non-functional requirements, performance requirements, security requirements, etc.) stated in plain English. No special tools are required at this stage. Indeed, you shouldn’t. The English language is more than adequate at this stage.
We are not talking here about writing one page of COBOL code or Assembly Language Code. Business needs can be contemplated and explored only at the system level—also known as the Enterprise Level.
These system level requirements are used to design a system that will deliver the information system to meet the business needs, the goals and objectives of the stakeholders.
The key phrases here are “system level”, “design”, “system”, and “design a system”.
The business needs together with the system level requirements and available proven technology are the inputs or drivers to what has come to be called “Information System Enterprise Architecture”.
Why an “Architecture”?
The word “Architecture” is a metaphor borrowed from the construction industry to elucidate and explain some complex concepts that used to fall under what is known as Systems Engineering—a rigorous, mathematically intensive discipline. Being gullible, we want to make things easy and touchy-feely. Being “sensitive” that we are, we like to hold hands and have good cry. We take a couple of computer programming courses, and presto—we are computer scientists! Even more, we can call ourselves “Information System Architects.”
Having degraded ourselves, our immune system became susceptible to this new religion called “Architecture” and we became infected. We have always liked new religions, especially the ones that make us comfortable with our vices.
Every religion has its high priests. Thus we have the gospel according to Zachman, the gospel according to Boar, the gospel according to the Treasury and so on. Being of religious proportions, there are no agreements among these various sects, especially when there is a lot of money to be made. Throw in the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), we have a good thing going here!
However, the important thing to realize here is that “Architecture” is here to stay. So, we might as well accept it and extend the conversation to maximize any benefits that we can derive out of it.
Since there are several disagreements on what constitutes an information system architecture, the situation became ripe for creating a “Standard.” Thus was born the IEEE Standard 1471-2000, “IEEE recommended Practice for Architectural Description."
(“Architecture” is considered “conceptual”. The concept has to be “described” in an artifact called “Architectural Description”. Hence the phrase “Architectural Description”. Inside the IRS, this artifact is called the Enterprise Architecture or EA for short.)
IEEE being a big pooh-bah in this business of creating standards, we are going to use their Standard in our discussions. Several illustrious people participated in developing this standard, and consequently, it has merits.
Let us explain what constitutes this “Process” briefly and move on to the question with which we started.
An “Information System Architecture” or an “Enterprise Architecture” should always be accompanied by systems design, which requires systems engineering—there is absolutely no way of getting away from it. Otherwise, you cannot answer questions related to the desired response time, reliability and availability, the required processing power, the number of processing sites, communications capacity, disaster recovery and so on. By the way, all these things cost money.
Simply writing a few banal sentences in broken English is not sufficient for an “Architecture” however obese this “Architecture” document may be. You can put it on a CD, put it on the Web—what is banal will remain banal, merely a high tech banality—an inchoate, jejune, and an incoherent document that is repeatedly called into question as to its completeness and veracity.
After completing the overall system design, systems engineering requires that you verify that the proposed design will indeed meet the business needs as portrayed by the system level requirements. Corrections are made as necessary.
At this point, you will notice that the system has become far more well defined, and hence much more amenable to a far more accurate cost estimate. So you do a cost estimate. This is sometimes called a [program] control estimate or a baseline estimate. If you have proper configuration management practices in place, this establishes the system design baseline—not the Configuration Items (CI), not the Computer Software Configuration Items (CSCI), and definitely NOT the so-called Configuration Units—because, there are no such things defined in the standards.
(The overall system design is also sometimes called “Preliminary Design”.)
The system design is followed by the creation of subsystems within the overall system context. Partitioning the overall system into a set of subsystems is a systems engineering activity—not a random act done with reckless abandon. There are established criteria to do this. Functions are allocated to these subsystems. You have an allocated baseline at the subsystem level. Still no CI, no CSCIs.
Each subsystem should deliver some subset of end-to-end functionality, with properly defined interfaces between the subsystems. Thus, you have an interface definition document, which you place under configuration control.
The subsystems are translated into projects. The subsystem functions are allocated to the projects. At this point, you go back and verify that the functions from the system level to the subsystem level and on to the project level have been accounted for. You also go back and validate that the sum total of all project level requirements add up to the business need with which we originally started, and thus the system level requirements. This whole process is called verification and validation. Then and only then, the CI’s etc. are created at the project level. Design at the project level is also sometimes called Detailed Design.
You might have noticed that this whole process is not linear at all.
Contemporaneous with the creation of the system level requirements, you create a Test Plan and the corresponding test data. You refine this as you go along the life cycle. Along the way, you create and establish metrics.
There are always minor variations that are permissible in the overall approach outlined above, but the essential concepts and processes remain.
Has the IRS done any of these? Do we need to answer that question at all?
What did the IRS really do?
Instead of first creating a systems view through an Enterprise Architecture, we created the projects first—thus going back to the earlier days of creating stovepipe systems. Then we decided under pressure from the GAO that we have to have an architecture—without really having any requirements technical or otherwise—we just decided to wing it. And then we decided it would be nice to create some requirements. So we created a group called “Vision and Strategy” to create the “Business Needs”. Even more, we have a separate organization called “Strategic Planning”. What is the relationship between the “Vision & Strategy” organization and the “Strategic Planning” organization—no one knows. If Strategic Planning is not Vision and Strategy, what is?
“If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.”
--Voltaire.
This is not modernization, this is pandemonium. It appears we are trying to chase away one problem with another problem, one crisis with another crisis, etc.
No wonder we are in deep yogurt.
A large project is not a bigger version of a small project, neither is a large bridge a bigger version of a small wooden bridge across a village creek.
IRS information system modernization is not about writing a one page COBOL program.
Since the “Information System Architecture” or the “Enterprise Architecture” is at the nexus of Business Needs, System Level Requirements, and System Design, we need to explore a little bit on what constitutes an “Architecture”. In this brief exploration, we are going to follow the gospel according to the IEEE as mentioned earlier.
4.0 What Is An Architecture?
4.1 The Definitions
Architecture: The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution.
(Note the words “system” and “design”. Architecture presupposes a “system”, and a “system” has to be “designed”.)
System: A collection of components organized to accomplish a specific function or set of functions.
A system inhabits an environment.
A system exists to fulfill one or more missions in its environment. A mission is a use or operation for which a system is intended by one or more stakeholders to meet some set of objectives.
[Translation: mission = function]
4.2 The Stakeholders are at the Core of the Architecture
A system has one or more stakeholders. Each stakeholder has interests or concerns related to that system. Concerns are those interests that pertain to the systems development, its operation, or any other aspects that are critical or otherwise important to one or more stakeholders. Concerns include system considerations such as performance, reliability, security, geographic distribution, and the ability to evolve and extend.
(Italics are added for emphasis.)
Stakeholders include taxpayers, end users, auditors, Revenue Agents, Revenue Officers, Customer Service Representatives, the architect, developers, other beneficiaries, and evaluators.
The concept of an “Architecture” is especially important for software intensive systems, such as the IRS information system modernization.
Architectural concepts apply throughout the entire life-cycle
The architecture facilitates:
Expression of the system and its evolution
Communication among the system stakeholders
Expression of the persistent characteristics and supporting principles of a system to guide acceptable change.
There is a general consensus on the importance of the architectural level of systems development, and that level consists of early decision making about overall design structure, goals, requirements, and development strategies.
Every system has an architecture. An architecture can be and is usually recorded by an architectural description. An architectural description is organized into one or more constituents called architectural views. Each view addresses one or more of the concerns of the system stakeholders. Each “view” addresses one or more of the concerns of the system stakeholders, for example, the functional view, physical view, and technical view, etc. The functional view provides the stakeholders on what functions the system will perform for them, when, under what conditions, and under what constraints. Additional information that are usually presented as part of the documentation practices are system overview, the system context, the system stakeholders, and their key concerns, and the architectural rationale.
(The word “Thread” is sometimes used rather loosely. “Thread” is not synonymous with “View”. A “Thread” may be used to explain a “View”.)
An architecture is prepared in response to current and expected user needs expressed through tactical and strategic planning.
4.3 The Quality of an Architecture
The quality of an architecture description refers to its capability to meet the needs and concerns of the stakeholders for whom it was constructed.
Prediction of the quality of the systems resulting from the architectural description includes such qualities as feasibility, efficiency, and reliability.
Identification of stakeholders and their concerns is an important part of an Enterprise Architecture. An architectural description in order to be complete should identify the stakeholders in formulating the architectural concept for the system.
At a minimum, the stakeholders identified shall include the following:
4.3.1 Business units, Users and other beneficiaries of the system,
4.3.2 Acquirers of the system,
4.3.4 Developers of the system,
4.3.5 Maintainers of the system.
At a minimum, the concerns identified should include the following:
4.3.6 The purpose or missions of the system
4.3.7 The appropriateness of the system for use in fulfilling its mission
4.3.8 The feasibility of constructing the system
4.3.9 The risks of system development and operation
4.3.10 Maintainability and deployability, and evolvability of the system.
As stated earlier, an architectural description consists of viewpoints. Each viewpoint shall be specified by
4.3.11 A viewpoint name,
4.3.12 The stakeholders to be addressed by the viewpoint,
4.3.13 The concerns to be addressed by the viewpoint,
4.3.14 The language, modeling techniques, or analytical methods to be used in constructing a view based upon the viewpoint.
Each stakeholder and each concern identified in an architectural description shall be addressed by at least one viewpoint.
5.0 So, What Do We Do and Where do We Go From Here?
The essential question is, “How should we approach complexity?”
“With simplicity”, is the answer. You don’t meet one complexity with another complexity. The problem should be resolved at its source.
We started with a simple question. We have provided a simple, yet straightforward answer. To do so, we had to recapitulate some background material such as the role of systems engineering, its relationship to the architecture, and the importance of configuration management, to place the problem in its proper context. Once we placed the problem in its proper context, the problem actually resolved itself—it sort of vanished-- vanished in the sense that we don’t need to start a separate activity distinct from the architecture itself to provide us the answers.
The answer to the problem is to be found in the Enterprise Architecture itself. That’s where the answers to the stakeholders’ questions are to be found., simply because the work on the Enterprise Architecture is presumed to have started with the stakeholders’ business needs as articulated in the various tactical and strategic plans.
All that is necessary is for the IRS’ Architect to get together with the PRIME’s Architect and create another chapter or another “View” in the EA that will provide the details on the year-to-year release in functionality, plus the details on how those functions are distributed geographically, distributed among the various phases of the processing cycle such as pre-filing, filing, post-filing, compliance, etc. After all, these are the IRS’ core business functions. If the EA does not address this what else does?
On the surface all these problems we encounter may appear to be disparate, each requiring its own solution. Epistemological considerations tell us that all these seemingly dissimilar problems may have a common thread, namely, we never really laid the right foundation at the beginning of this round of modernization either. We are merely time-driven, more interested in checking the boxes rather than really solving any of these problems. This is the height of immaturity.
6.0 On the “Other Miscellany”
Let us look at this concept called “Release Architecture”. Pray tell what is it? “Architecture” we understand, “Release” we understand—but can you really bring these two words together and create a new phrase that has any meaning in a technical sense?
As we said before, the term “Architecture” is borrowed from the construction industry—a mere metaphor. An architect creates the architecture for the whole building or structure. For a multi-story building, the architect does not create an architecture for the basement, a separate one for the first floor, another one for the second floor and so on. There is just one architecture. The building gets built incrementally—not the architecture itself—all the necessary engineering having been duly completed for the entire building. Hence, there is no such thing as “Release Architecture” and “Release Engineering”. We spit out these phrases with uncontrolled glee, and end up drowning in our own spit—in that process we delude ourselves that we are really smart and we start giving each other the so-called “awards”.
The architect portrays the architecture using multiple views: orthogonal projections, plan, elevation, sectional elevation, the isometric view, and so on. Sometimes, wooden and clay models are built and placed in public view, which I am sure we have all seen. If the “customer” has any questions, the architect pulls out the “architectural drawings” and answers the customers’ or the stakeholders’ questions. Please note that these questions may come from the county and municipal authorities, who are also considered the stakeholders.
So, before these nonsensical concepts carry us too far towards the deep end, let us abolish them—no “Release Architecture”, no “Release Engineering”. Incremental releases in functionality are legitimately the responsibility of the “Systems Engineering and Systems Integration” organization of which configuration management is an integral part, along with the Project Engineering organization. Configuration management takes care of the “increments”.
I mentioned these points at a recent meeting. I was told that we are “committed” to these concepts and our job is to keep the train running on these tracks. We are also feverishly creating the “CI’s” and “CU’s” at a furious pace at an inappropriate time in the program life-cycle.
There arises in this context an apparent question of why do we have this insatiable propensity to come up with these cockamamie concepts.
Do we see because we have eyes, or do we see because of our desire to see?
7.0 Conclusion
Why this lengthy paper to answer a seemingly simple question?
It is always possible to say, “Here is the answer, take it or leave it!” It is far more important to explain and justify why and how the answer was arrived at—the reasons behind it. After all, systems function according to the laws of physics and certain mathematical principles. This is technology, not theology. Taking great leaps without a conceptual anchoring will break our limbs or even result in fatalities as prior modernization attempts have proved.
What have we accomplished?
We have answered the question: How to communicate our modernization-related annual incremental functionality and related items to our stakeholders?
The answer to this problem is to be found in the Enterprise Architecture (EA) itself by definition, and not outside of it in some other “Deliverable”. If it is not there already, the IRS should insist that the PRIME Contractor (CSC) create another chapter or “View” to the EA that will portray this required information. Along with this we can also add additional “slice & dice” information such as the functionality associated with pre-filing, filing, post-filing, compliance, etc. All these are legitimately part of the Enterprise Architecture Description. Indeed, without these items spelled out in the EA, we have not defined the “system” at all—for, this description is the system.
No separate “tasking” is required to accomplish this. This tasking was created on the day the contract was signed with the PRIME Contractor.
Hence, it is fair to conclude that all the projects we have created are without any foundation and hence, invalid, vacuous and a nullity. Everyone, including the GAO know that the projects such as CAP, CADE, STIR, and e-services were started well before we embarked on the Enterprise Architecture. Even to this date the EA has not become stable. We have gone ahead and exited Milestone 3 on some of these projects!
Simply creating a page for each incremental “Release”—an 8.5” X11” sheet of paper that you can hold in your hand and actually read—can solve this problem. If there are altogether seven “Releases” contemplated for the entire modernization, then there would be seven pages each for each stakeholder. Maybe we should allow a summary page to introduce the other seven pages. Finished.
By the way, why is the PRIME Contractor still working on the Enterprise Life Cycle (ELC) and charging the IRS? The PRIME Contractor is supposed to be in possession of a fully valid life-cycle at the time the IRS signed the contract. Almost three years into the contract, we are still working on the “Life-cycle”?
To be simple is simple. And that is not a cliché.
“Morituri te salutamus”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Randy Bellows
Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Mr. Bellows:
I am grateful to you for your help in contacting the Treasury Inspector General’s Office in investigating the rumor and allegation concocted by a bunch of thugs at the IRS that I entered the IRS Federal Building illegally (after I resigned from the IRS on September 10, 2001), logged on to their computer, and sent an electronic mail threatening to “kill someone”. I have learned that the IG’s Office is planning to clear my name.
One of the reasons I resigned from the IRS is because I did not want to participate in the ongoing sabotage of the computer modernization by some of the managers and executives at the IRS. After I resigned, I thought I will hold my nose and keep quiet. However, what I saw is deeply troubling. I will be remiss if I did not report this matter.
I contacted the FBI field office at Tysons Corner on May 24, 2002.
The matter I want to report is too intricate, sophisticated, and too serious to be ignored. The IRS has squandered $10 Billion so far. It is NOT due to ignorance or errors in judgment. It is due to a malicious, well-orchestrated sabotage to prevent modernization from happening. Indeed, in hindsight, the rumor the IRS managers and executives started about me entering the building illegally, etc. appears to be calculated to discredit and slander my name, because they know that I have discovered what is happening. They also know, I have the evidence that can “connect the dots”. It runs all the way to the top.
I would once again be grateful if you would be kind enough to put me in touch with a high official within the FBI who can understand the magnitude and subtlety of what is happening.
I am sorry for encroaching on your time. I know you are busy.
Sincerely,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
___________________________________________________________________________________
Anything to commit fraud!
Don't bite the hand that feeds you!!
Subject: Fw: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon. Contracting Officer's denial of XXXXXXXXXX's request to meet with Logicon.
Subject: FW: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Propst Mark L
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 8:50 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
Cc: Henby Ramona C; Perry Yolanda M; Burfening Tara L
Subject: RE: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
XXXX,
I have reviewed your request to meet with the SCRIPS Contractor and provide the following response.
Based on the contractors workload supporting both the current SCRIPS I Tasks: Annual application changes, just approved critical system component upgrades, associated development, integration/testing schedules and deliverables; and the SCRIPS II RFP solicitation efforts, a face to face meeting is denied. However, as previously discussed in the email history a conference call is authorized for next week based a mutually agreed to time for all parties and with the following requirements:
1. Conference call length will be approximately an hour.
2. Your team shall provide me with an agenda identifying the topic(s) and any associated questions. I will forward the agenda to the
Contractor.
3. The COTR and the Project Office will participate in the technical discussion.
Please provide your agenda and availability timeframes so that I can coordinate this with the contractor's availability.
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 10:18 AM
To: Propst Mark L
Cc: Gountias Constance
Subject: FW: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
Mr. Propst,
I have been asked to do a study on SCRIPS. I have been working with the SCRIPS project team at the National Office on this project. I have also visited the Austin Service Center.
At this point, both my associate Constance Gountias and I would like to meet with a Logicon technical person since Logicon is the overall contractor. We would like to do this in person instead of over the telephone. I don't anticipate this taking more than an hour. We can do this at either Logicon's facility or here at the National Office-- whichever is convenient. Both you and Yolanda are welcome to be at this meeting.
We will be much obliged if you will be kind enough to arrange for this meeting for next Tuesday or Wednesday. We would like to wrap this up soon.
regards,
XXXX XXXXXXXXXX
(IS:PM:A)
-----Original Message-----
From: Perry Yolanda M
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:45 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
Cc: Henby Ramona C; Propst Mark L
Subject: RE: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
Mark Propst is the SCRIPS COTR, and his phone number is 3-6885.
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 7:48 AM
To: Perry Yolanda M
Cc: Gountias Constance
Subject: FW: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
Yolanda,
Who is the Contracting Officer for SCRIPS? Maybe, I will try to arrange a meeting through the Contracting Officer.
regards,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 6:33 AM
To: Perry Yolanda M
Subject: RE: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
Yolanda, it is surprising that Logicon can't spare an hour!
The meeting does not have to be here at NCFB.
Both Constance and I are willing to go to Logicon's facilities for the meeting.
Constance will be out Thursday and Friday. We can meet with Logicon early part of next week.
Please let me know.
|
