ca senate, california, California Military Department, California National Guard, california senators, California State Senate, complaints, coverup, discrimination, Feres, Feres intra-military immunity doctrine, Government, inspector general, Jerry Brown, national guard, National Guard of the United States, national guard scandal, ninth circuit court, rehearing en banc, Sacramento Bee, Ted W. Lieu, time-barred, United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
I cited California Senate Bill 921, in my complaints at the Ninth Circuit Court against the California National Guard. Upon my petition for rehearing en banc, I referenced the bill as being effective sometime in 2011, when the bill was initially introduced.
The actual effective date of California Senate Bill 921 is January 1, 2013.
I must say that although this bill sheds light on the past egregious activities in the California National Guard, it will not be easy to obtain a remedy in Court. The head of the agency, the Secretary of the Air Force or Army National Guard will deny everything. Yes, everything.
In the media (reported in the Sacramento Bee) the California Guard appears willing to resolve its past complaints in front of California Senators and the public, but that is not the truth.
CA SB921 is useful because it proves the California National Guard or California Military Department is being held accountable for its past egregious activities. I believe Federal employers who tolerant illegal activities should be held accountable.
If you are considering filing a complaint in federal court, it may appear that California Senate Bill 921 is useless, let me tell you why:
A. The Secretary’s (Defendant) will argue that your claims are time-barred. California Senate Bill 921, will be effective when most claims are time-barred. You may have a tough time and spend a long time explaining why YOU were unaware of what was going on or why YOU were unaware of your employers alleged negligent and reckless policies and practices. The Defendants will argue some sort of time issue with your complaint; you either waited to long to file at your Unit and in Court.
The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Johnson’s Rehabilitation Act claim and her Privacy Act claim arising from the alleged disclosure of her medical information. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1
(establishing two year statute of limitation for personal injury claims); Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 823 & n.11 (9th Cir. 2001) (forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injuries applies to Rehabilitation Act claim), abrogated on other grounds by Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002); Rose v. United States, 905 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The Privacy Act provides a two year statute of limitation, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5), which commences when the person knows or has reason to know of the alleged
B. The Feres intra-military immunity doctrine. Your claim may be barred based on the Feres intra-military immunity doctrine. The Courts will not so much look at the California National Guard (the Employer), but will Review YOUR actions because you are a service-man or woman. Here is what the Defendants stated and the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Defendants:
We review de novo both a district court’s dismissal under the Feres intra-military immunity doctrine, Jackson v. United States, 110 F.3d 1484, 1486 (9th Cir. 1997), and a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district properly dismissed Johnson’s employment discrimination and
tort claims as precluded by the Feres intra-military immunity doctrine. See Zuress v. Donley, 606 F.3d 1249, 1250, 1252-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that Feres doctrine applies “whenever a legal action would require a civilian court to examine decisions regarding management, discipline, supervision, and control of members of the armed forces of the United States[,]” and affirming that Feres doctrine precluded dual status military and civilian employee’s Title VII claims (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Stauber v. Cline, 837 F.2d 395, 399-401 (9th Cir. 1988) (Feres doctrine precluded dual status military and civilian employee’s common law tort claims arising from workplace conduct); see also Jackson, 110 F.3d at 1489 (“Feres bars suits for medical malpractice even when the treatment was not for military-related injuries.”).
C. Your evidence or information will be Stricken and/or Spoiled. The Secretaries (Air or Army) will argue to Strike articles written by Journalist or News Reporters who cover the allege Corruption in the California National Guard and the Court WILL agree. I filed my claim BEFORE California Senate Bill 921 was passed. However, I continually submitted articles or evidence written by Charles Pillar in my Complaint to the Ninth Circuit Court as part of my Supplemental Excerpts of Record and this is what the Court stated:
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Johnson’s request to file a late supplemental excerpts of record is granted. Defendants’ motion to strike those portions of Johnson’s supplemental excerpts of record that were not part of the district court record is granted.
As you can see the Secretarys will deny everything, by arguing to Stricken your information or arguing its time-barred and barred under the Feres intra-military immunity doctrine. The Defendants style of litigation will leave you with nothing.
At the Ninth Circuit Court, I felt like I had been “bullied” “robbed” in a court of law. It appeared the Courts were not concerned with the past illegal activities of the California National Guard.
Despite my defeat at the District and Appellate Courts, I remain hopeful and filed a petition for rehearing Enbanc. To read my petition for rehearing, you will need a Pacer account, my case number is 10-16450.
SACRAMENTO – Gov. Jerry Brown today signed into law a bill by Sen. Ted W. Lieu to provide greater oversight of the California National Guard and improved protections for military and civilian whistleblowers.
“The abuses ranged from misuse of taxpayer funds to allegations of misconduct and retaliation,” Lieu, a lawyer and former U.S. Air Force prosecutor, said about Senate Bill 921. “By working with Adjutant General David Baldwin, SB 921 was crafted to help restore confidence in the Inspector General system, the chain of command and the Military Department.
“Gov. Brown’s leadership as commander in chief is commendable and I’m proud to have worked with him to clean up the abuses of the prior administration,” Lieu said. “These abuses simply cannot be allowed to ever happen again.”
Lieu, a Democrat, said years of legislative hearings and media investigations have revealed repeated examples of National Guard members illegally receiving excessive pay and benefits because of false and misleading record keeping.
Many of the violations uncovered separately by the Senate Veterans Committee and The Sacramento Bee were due to a lack of internal oversight within the chain of command, Lieu said.
In 2005 and 2006, for example, the Legislature reviewed mismanagement and abuse from earlier in the decade, and recent Bee reports documented excessive pay for flight duty and related overpayments for services not performed.
Lieu said SB 921 also establishes the California Military Whistleblower Protection Act to ensure employees and service members of the department have protections when reporting waste, fraud and abuse. The state military Inspector General and the whistleblower protections mirror the responsibilities and protections in federal law.
SB 921 goes into effect Jan. 1, 2013.
- Seeking A Remedy: Discrimination and Corruption in the National Guard (themissingmoney.wordpress.com)