Skip to main content

Anthony T. Rivera v. U.S. Department of Energy

Image
By scooby

 

Here is the timeline of my Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case # 20-16012,
"Anthony T. Rivera v. U.S. Department of Energy":

2-18-21: I file my "Opening Brief”

3-15-21: DOE requests and is granted an extension of time to file their
"Answering Brief”

4-21-21: DOE files their “Answering Brief”

5-12-21: I file my “Reply Brief” (which was optional)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Mr. Rivera's case may be legitimate or illegitimate. Having said this, the DOE OHA has shown their indifference to whistleblower employee cases in favor of the contractor in most cases. Take a look at the Sandra Black case that essentially required 3 Senators to compel the DOE IG to compel the DOE OHA their determination was incorrect, a determination that frankly, a 2nd grader could comprehend.

https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/srns-ordered-to-reinstate-fired-worker-remit-371-000-in-back-pay-damages/article_9595092f-cc26-5508-abbd-b1b8241bac7b.htm
7/22/2021 3:28 PM
Anonymous said…
The DOE and NNSA bureaucrats have decided to ignore their workforce at almost every level in favor of political expediency.
7/23/2021 7:40 PM
Anonymous said…
"The DOE and NNSA bureaucrats have decided to ignore their workforce at almost every level in favor of political expediency"

True, but only transparency of past events will bring compelling light to your point, and to that of likely future similar events.
7/23/2021 9:23 PM
Anonymous said…
Why doesn’t Rivera just post his incriminating LLNS docs on Youtube for all to see?
8/03/2021 7:43 PM
Anonymous said…
Why doesn’t Rivera just post his incriminating LLNS docs on Youtube for all to see?

8/03/2021 7:43 PM

Because someone who actually knows some facts might refute them online, thus embarrassing Rivera and his lawyers before trial?
8/06/2021 6:11 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more