https://www.change.org/FederalWhistleblowerJustice

 

 

🚨 CRITICAL UPDATE — Petition for Judicial Transparency & Accountability: 🚨

Dear Supporters,

Thank you to everyone who has donated and shown continued support. Your solidarity is making a difference as we work to expose what is happening in this case. https://chng.it/sKg7j9fZhJ

The misconduct continues — and it is now documented in official federal filings.

This is not opinion. It is based on material fact and physical evidence filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board in Docket No. CH-3443-26-0150-I-1 (Scotty White v. Department of Veterans Affairs).

On March 16, 2026, Agency counsel filed a Motion to Compel Discovery containing demonstrably false statements — claiming we had filed "no responses" to discovery requests, despite having provided full answers on December 31, 2025 and re-transmitted them multiple times, including via email on March 11, 2026 with documented proof.

Agency counsel refused to certify their own pleadings. In the official e-Appeal Online Interview for that Motion — and in their earlier February 9, 2026 Jurisdiction Response — counsel answered "No" when asked:

"Does this pleading assert facts from your personal knowledge?"
"Do you declare, under penalty of perjury, that the facts stated are true and correct?"
A pleading that its own author refuses to certify as truthful carries no evidentiary weight and cannot serve as a basis for adverse rulings.

The full 38-page filing (Tab 19, Document No. 3876450, filed March 23, 2026) is now part of the official record. It includes:

Screenshots of the uncertified e-Appeal interviews
The false Motion to Compel itself
Proof of our repeated discovery submissions
A FOIA response (MSPB-2026-00105) confirming zero records exist for the January 7, 2026 status conference — no call logs, no participant lists, no attendance records
Documentation of unauthorized VA medical record access and a coercive blanket-release demand
Additionally, on March 13, 2026, a federal district court in Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction against the VA, finding the agency likely violated the First Amendment in its treatment of employees engaged in protected activity. This judicial finding is directly relevant to the conduct documented in our case. Here is the link to the court order. https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2026/03/judge-orders-va-restore-collective-bargaining/412123/

This pattern — false pleadings, uncertified filings, retaliation, and misuse of federal resources — must be brought to light and stopped.

Please sign the petition, share it widely, and contact your congressional representatives. Whistleblower protections exist for a reason, and accountability starts with public awareness.

Respectfully submitted, Scotty White, Appellant Kevin Ellis, Representative

#VAWhistleblower #StopRetaliation #MSPBCaseCH3443260150I1 #EndFalsifiedPleadings #TaxpayerAbuse #JudicialTransparency #WhistleblowerProtection #EndVACorruption

 

 

🚨 CRITICAL UPDATE to our Petition for Judicial Transparency & Accountability: https://c.org/sKg7j9fZhJ 🚨

Major escalation: The DOJ has outright denied our FOIA requests for the falsified documents sent to Pam Bondi's office, including the USB drive sent to her office concerning the redacted falsified documents authored by John J. Pershing VAMC employees and attorneys. These were delivered directly to her office via FedEx and USPS certified mail—yet her office refuses to disclose their location or any actions taken. Even worse, the DOJ is now threatening us with sanctions just for pursuing these legitimate FOIA requests!

This is urgent—these files are sitting on her desk right alongside the redacted Epstein files she's hiding. There are 18 of us under attack, with some directly targeted by the DOJ, accusing us of ghostwriting when NONE of us are attorneys. This is a blatant abuse of power to silence whistleblowers!

We need MASSIVE support—sign, share, and help us hit Congress with this! Your action could expose the truth and stop the retaliation. ✊

#DOJDenial #PamBondi #FOIAFight #VAScandal #EpsteinFiles #JudicialBias #WhistleblowerProtection #SupremeCourtReform #EndRetaliation #SignThePetition
 

Petition Update: Major Development in the Fight for Judicial Transparency – Collective Rebuke Filed with the Supreme Court (E-218)
Posted on October 21st, 2025 at 0930 AM

 

Hello everyone. We are having a hearing in January about the falsified documents. The Initial Case Management Conference is scheduled for January 20, 2026, at 2:00 PM PST via Zoom videoconference. I've attached the full hearing schedule and court docket for your reference (E-250 Cal Docket 4 25-cv-08605-JST Oct 14th, 2025.pdf), which includes recent updates such as the case reassignment to Judge Jon S. Tigar and the scheduling details.

Below is how you can set up notifications so you don’t miss important dates. This will allow you to receive email notices of new filings and case activity through the court's CM/ECF system. Here's how to set it up, along with the case number: 4:25-cv-08605-JST.

For further assistance or to enter as a plaintiff, please contact Western Attorney Services and reference Case No. 4:25-cv-08605-JST. San Francisco Attorney Service Process Server, Court Filings.

Setting Up Your CM/ECF Account
Registering for a CM/ECF Account
Only Attorneys and Pro Se Litigants May E-File.

All other interested parties, including journalists and interested members of the public, may register to receive email notices of new filings and other case activity. This type of CM/ECF registration is called “Special Mailing Group” (SMG) registration. SMG registrants may not e-file.

For more details on the Zoom hearing, including access information: Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names of all counsel appearing for all parties must be sent in one email to the CRD at jstcrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than 01/16/2026 at 2:00 PM PST.

Civ. L.R. 77-3(d). Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/

Thank you for your continued support. Let's keep the momentum going!

Tagging @KFVS12, @semissourian, and other interested parties for potential coverage and awareness. If you're a media outlet or stakeholder, feel free to reach out.

 

 

 

 

 

Petition Update: Major Development in the Fight for Judicial Transparency – Collective Rebuke Filed with the Supreme Court (E-218)
Posted on August 8, 2025

Dear Supporters,

Thank you for standing with us in our critical fight to end judicial bias, eliminate the use of falsified documents in U.S. courts, and restore true accountability and transparency to our justice system. We've reached 218 signatures and are pushing hard toward our goal of 250 – your shares and signatures are making a real difference!

I'm excited (and determined) to share a significant update: On July 25, 2025, the Office of the Clerk at the Supreme Court of the United States officially received (as stamped: "RECEIVED JUL 25 2025 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT U.S.") a powerful collective filing known as E-218, titled "Rebuke (Scolding) of Clerks June 2025." This document represents a grassroots remonstrance from hundreds of Americans – everyday people invoking their constitutional rights as seen in the 50 State Constitutions – directly addressing systemic barriers to justice. The individual notices within E-218 were autographed by signatories in early June 2025 (with dates ranging from June 1, 2025, to June 9, 2025, reflecting the urgency and timeliness of the People's grievances), before being compiled and submitted for official receipt by the Court on July 25, 2025. 

You can view the full notice here:​ https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:7f1213b7-4c5e-43bd-875e-a16e76db6eb9 It's not just a complaint; it's a formal rebuke demanding answers and reform, echoing the very issues at the heart of our petition.

Who the Notices Were Addressed To:
The notices in E-218 are explicitly directed to key public servants and trustees, including:

Donald J. Trump, as President of the United States (Office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20500),
Pam Bondi, as head of the U.S. Department of Justice (and all members, at 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530),
All Supreme Court Justices as Trustees and Servants, specifically naming: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Justice Elena Kagan (all at 1 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20543),
Ashanda as Trustee and Clerk (and all members),
Katie Heidrick as Trustee and Clerk (and all members).
The filing also requests that additional notice be provided to all agents and trustees serving the People through the Supreme Court, emphasizing the principle: "Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent and Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal."

Who the Notices Were From:
These notices come from "the People" – ordinary Americans acting sui juris (in their own right) as creators and beneficiaries of the constitutional trusts. The document provides the full list of individual signatories, including:

Alan Gerald Jackson,
Andre Franklin,
Beth Ing,
Brandon Hoeye,
Clint Paquette Kieler,
Daryl Klump,
David D Cohen,
David H Miller,
David J Nadeau,
Deborah Woolley,
Denise Dugan,
Diane LaPorte-Klump,
Diane McGowan,
Eddie Cansler,
Fred Falcone,
Gary Lesnick,
Harry Wait,
Ihtishaam Uluh,
Ina Stepanov,
Jacqueline K Cansler,
Jane Fontana,
Jarrin Jackson,
Jeffery E Knight,
Jill Jones,
Kelly Klei,
Kimberly Clark,
Leah Foss,
Leif Fearn,
Leonard Gary Beck,
Mark Correia,
Matthew Spencer,
Melody Morrison,
Michael Felker,
Riley Flack,
Sandra Vanslager Zane,
Seth Spencer,
Sherry Vellenga Miller,
Stanley Clark,
Susan Manning,
Tagg Morris,
Venkat Varada.
It explicitly states that they are representing the collective voice, noting "hundreds more from the People" in a broader context.

Key Highlights from E-218:
Direct Challenge to Clerks' Overreach: The filing strongly rebukes Supreme Court clerks (including named individuals like Ashanda and Katie Heidrick) for obstructing the People's access to the courts. It accuses them of returning grievances, remonstrances, and petitions without proper redress, charging unauthorized fees for guaranteed rights like writs of habeas corpus, and interfering with the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. As one signee powerfully states: "Where in the Constitution does it grant Clerks or Supreme Court Justices the power to refuse Notice, Grievances, Remonstrances of the People?"
References to Constitutional Guarantees and Historical Precedents: Drawing from the U.S. Constitution, state declarations of rights (e.g., Wisconsin's Section 9 on Remedy for Wrongs, Arizona's Article 2 Section 11, and Colorado's Article II Section 6), and even John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Section 239 on breaches of trust), the document demands that clerks and justices show constitutional authority for their actions. It emphasizes maxims of law like "Justice is neither to be denied nor delayed" and declares such obstructions as a "Breach of Trust" that puts officials at odds with the oaths they swore.
Addressing the Justices Themselves: This rebuke isn't aimed solely at clerks – it's a direct notice to all Supreme Court Justices as "Trustees and Servants" of the People. It specifically calls out figures like:

Justice Neil Gorsuch (highlighted as a primary trustee in multiple letters),
Chief Justice John Roberts,
Justice Clarence Thomas,
Justice Samuel Alito,
Justice Amy Coney Barrett,
Justice Brett Kavanaugh (notably, this ties into our earlier update on Case 25A43, where a denial attributed to him raised transparency concerns),
Justice Sonia Sotomayor,
Justice Elena Kagan, and
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The filing demands they openly demonstrate where the Constitution allows clerks to block the People's right to remedy, especially in cases involving harms like those we've highlighted in VA whistleblower retaliation and falsified documents.
Broader Implications: E-218 also extends notice to President Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, invoking "Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent" to ensure accountability across branches. It warns that failure to address these breaches could justify the People reclaiming their power, as no one is above the Constitution. This aligns perfectly with our petition's focus on ending bias in cases like those at the John J. Pershing VA Medical Center, where administrative actors have used "legislative fiat" foreign to constitutional law.
This collective action in E-218 builds directly on our previous updates, including the transparency issues in Supreme Court Case 25A43 (where clerks' roles delayed justice) and the ongoing retaliation evidence from June. It's a clear signal that the People are uniting to demand free, prompt, and complete access to justice – without fees, delays, or denials – as guaranteed by the Founders.

If you've experienced similar injustices – denied filings, charged fees for rights, or seen grievances ignored – share your story in the comments. Let's amplify this rebuke!

Why This Matters for Our Petition:
E-218 reinforces our call to lawmakers: We must implement reforms to prevent clerks and lower tribunals from acting as gatekeepers who shield bias and falsification. By referencing decisions like the Bruen case (which exposed unconstitutional legislative overreach), it shows how these obstructions perpetuate harms in whistleblower, union, and safety cases. Together, we're exposing how the system fails when clerks overstep and justices remain silent.

Next Steps:
Sign and Share: Help us hit 250 signatures today! Every voice counts in pushing for congressional action.
Contact the Court: Reach out to the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office (202-479-3011) and ask about E-218 and Case 25A43. Demand public transparency per Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23.
Hashtag and Spread the Word: Use #EndJudicialBias #JusticeForE218 #SupremeCourtReform to connect with others fighting for accountability.
Donate if You Can: Change.org prompts for tips to promote petitions – your support helps us reach more people.
In the spirit of the filing's closing words: "Please take this notice as being sent in the peace and love of Christ, that you may do those acts which are just, pure and in faith to the Oath you swore to uphold."

We're closer than ever to real change. Thank you for your unwavering support!

In solidarity,

Scotty White

 

Petition Update July 17th, 2025 at 11:22 AM

Petition Update: Supreme Court Case  25A43– Advocating for Proper Judicial Review and Transparency

Supreme Court Case No.: 25A43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court Case No.: 25A43

Thank you to everyone who continues to support our fight for transparency, workplace safety, and government accountability. For those new to our petition, this stems from a whistleblower case challenging Department of Veterans Affairs practices that allegedly endanger workers and suppress accountability—details available in the application PDF at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A43/364890/20250710133521830_25A53.pdf We have a critical update regarding our Supreme Court case that highlights ongoing challenges and why your support is vital.

Clerks' Role vs. Judicial Authority
By law, only Supreme Court Justices have the authority to decide on emergency applications, stays, or substantive relief. Clerks handle administrative tasks like filing and docketing, not judicial decisions. This separation ensures fairness and due process.

What's Happening in Our Supreme Court Case (25A43):

Listed Denial on Docket: The official docket now shows the application for stay, submitted on July 3, 2025, and docketed on July 10, 2025, as "denied by Justice Kavanaugh" on July 10, 2025. However, this denial is not reflected in the Supreme Court's "Orders of the Court - Term Year 2024" page, which lists all issued orders but contains no entry for 25A43 (see screenshot of the orders page as of July 17, 2025, below, showing recent miscellaneous orders on 07/16/25, 07/15/25, 07/15/25, 07/09/25, 07/03/25, and 07/01/25, with no reference to 25A43). This raises questions about the nature and transparency of the denial, as single-Justice decisions are sometimes not publicly detailed beyond the docket notation.
Concerns with Clerk Handling: We have experienced repeated returns of filings, with correspondence from clerks indicating denials that do not appear to originate from a Justice. This raises questions about whether our emergency requests reached a Justice for full review before the listed denial. (See Exhibits E-140 at https://1drv.ms/b/c/c2ab27058f20a686/EfuG0JxI9phFqbYSF_yKmdYBF6Ka2TF7RLV3P-uKampHYg?e=QXmslm E-143 at https://1drv.ms/b/c/c2ab27058f20a686/EfLIfgtqGmxJv_GBtqqGuUkBNNxhHv9PmKK6gi_HkTTGOw?e=tTWebb E-144 at https://1drv.ms/b/c/c2ab27058f20a686/EXRxj7jxIzVKtfxRcRnHQokBU_3msimhm_ypsDkZBeqGcA?e=pToC04 and related correspondence.)
Transparency Issues: These actions appear to delay processing and limit public access to the full record, potentially conflicting with Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and precedents like Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978).
Why This Matters

Judicial Integrity: Decisions should come from Justices with clear, public reasoning to uphold the rule of law and fair hearings. A bare docket notation without an order in the public lists may not provide sufficient transparency.
Public Right to Know: Cases involving workplace safety and whistleblower protections deserve open records for accountability.
Efficient Use of Resources: Repeated mailings and processing delays use public funds unnecessarily.
What You Can Do
We encourage polite, respectful engagement to seek clarity without disruption. Take action now:

Contact the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office: Politely inquire about the status of case 25A43, the basis for the listed denial, and why it is not in the public orders list.Phone: (202) 479-3011 or (202) 479-3027
Alternative: Send a courteous letter or use the Court's contact form at https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contactus.aspx or consider a public records request if applicable.
Demand Transparency: Emphasize the importance of judicial review in upholding public trust, including full disclosure of decisions.
Share This Petition: Spread the word on social media with #JusticeFor25A43 or tag relevant organizations (e.g., @GovAcctProj, @StopFraud, @FixTheCourt, @POGOwatchdog, @wbaidlaw, @AFJustice).
Additional Steps: Sign and share our petition [insert link to your petition, e.g., on Change.org or your website], donate if possible, or contact your representatives to highlight court transparency issues.
Sample Script for Your Call/Letter
“I’m following Supreme Court case 25A43 and support efforts for transparency. The docket lists a denial by Justice Kavanaugh, but it's not in the public orders list. Can you please provide the judge’s order or explain the status? I believe the public deserves clear access to judicial records in cases like this.”

Why This Is Urgent
This goes beyond one case—it's about ensuring our courts remain fair and accessible for all. When processes hinder justice or lack full transparency, it undermines trust and lets potential misconduct persist.

Let’s advocate for accountability together. Only through proper judicial review can we achieve true fairness.

Thank you for standing with us.

References:

Supreme Court Case No. 25A43 (official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a43.html
Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
Exhibits E-140, E-143, E-144, and related Supreme Court correspondence
Orders of the Court - Term Year 2024
(Screenshot of the Orders page as of July 17, 2025, attached or inserted here when posting the update. The screenshot confirms no orders listed for case 25A43 in the recent miscellaneous orders.)

 

 

UPDATE JUNE 19TH, 2025

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Case No: 25-1715 Scotty Lee White Appellant v. Paul Hopkins, Medical Center Director at the John J Pershing VAMC ordered to recuse Judge Limbaugh which means to say that a judge should not be involved in a trial because they have a special interest in its final result. Lets keep this petion going to make changes for everyone.

Petition Update: New Evidence of Retaliation and Interference with Union Rights

Petitioner respectfully submits this update to include newly discovered facts that further substantiate the claims of systemic retaliation, interference with protected union activity, and the exhaustion of all available administrative remedies.

On information and belief, a protection order was filed by Harold Lampley against Kevin Ellis, the Union President at John J. Pershing VA Medical Center, reportedly at the direction of the current Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This information was relayed to Scotty White, Union Safety Officer, by Mr. Ellis. The issuance of this protection order against union leadership—particularly when initiated at the highest levels of agency authority—constitutes clear retaliation and interference with protected union activity, in direct violation of the Master Agreement between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), including but not limited to Article 1 (Recognition and Coverage), Article 2 (Governing Laws and Regulations), Article 6 (prohibiting retaliation or adverse action against union officials), and Article 17 (Employee Rights)[49],[38].

Such conduct is also prohibited under federal law, including 5 U.S.C. § 7102 (guaranteeing the right to union activity without fear of penalty or reprisal) and 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) (prohibiting personnel actions taken as reprisal for lawful disclosures or union activity). The targeting of union officials for performing their representational duties, especially when directed by senior agency leadership, is a textbook example of a prohibited personnel practice and a violation of the statutory and contractual rights of both the individuals and the bargaining unit as a whole[49].

This new fact is not an isolated incident but is consistent with a broader pattern of retaliation and abuse of process at John J. Pershing VAMC, as evidenced by multiple unresolved complaints to the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP), Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and Office of Inspector General (OIG). These channels have been exhausted without any meaningful resolution, further supporting Petitioner’s claim that all administrative remedies have been pursued to their conclusion, and that judicial intervention is both necessary and appropriate[69],[81],[101],[102].

The use of protection orders or similar administrative actions against union leaders, especially without cause or due process, undermines the principles of fairness, due process, and labor-management cooperation that are essential to the VA’s mission. It also supports Petitioner’s claims of ongoing due process violations and the need for injunctive and other relief from this Court[49],[69],[81],[101],[102].

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this new fact be incorporated into the record as further evidence of systemic retaliation, interference with protected rights, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the urgent need for judicial oversight and relief.

 
Citations:

Master Agreement between the Department of Veterans Affairs and AFGE, Articles 1, 2, 6, and 17[49],[38]
5 U.S.C. § 7102; 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)
Evidence of exhaustion and unresolved retaliation: [69],[81],[101],[102]

You won’t believe what they tried to cover up at this VA hospital. Office of Medical inspectors reports and billings!!

Certainly. Here is a step-by-step update for the referenced petition, integrating the latest developments and context from your OSHA complaint, FOIA activity, and ongoing legal and union actions. This update is structured to be clear and accessible for petition supporters, while grounding the narrative in the facts and legal context provided.

 
Petition Update: Ongoing Retaliation, Safety Concerns, and Agency Accountability at John J. Pershing VA Medical Center
June 13, 2025

We want to thank everyone who has supported this petition demanding accountability and a safe, harassment-free workplace at the John J. Pershing VA Medical Center. Your voices are making a difference, and we want to keep you informed about the latest developments.

1. OSHA Complaint and Retaliation
A formal OSHA complaint was filed, detailing ongoing harassment and retaliation against employees who reported hazardous working conditions, including mold exposure and unsafe air quality. Employees who exercised their rights—by reporting hazards, requesting accommodations, or participating in union activities—have faced disciplinary actions, false accusations, and denial of approved accommodations. These actions violate both federal law and the collective bargaining agreement, which guarantee a safe workplace and protect employees from retaliation for reporting safety issues or engaging in union activities [5],[6],[7].

2. Union Involvement and Rights
The union, as the exclusive representative of bargaining unit employees, has demanded full participation in all safety investigations, including those conducted by OSHA. Under the contract, the Union Safety Officer must be notified of all OSHA investigations and scheduled dates, ensuring transparency and union representation throughout the process [5],[6]. The agency has been reminded of its obligation to keep the union informed and to allow union representatives to participate in all workplace inspections and abatement planning.

3. FOIA Requests and Agency Response
A recent FOIA request was submitted to obtain records related to a project that may have exposed employees and veterans to hazardous conditions. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request but denied expedited processing, claiming there was no imminent threat to life or urgent public need. The agency also requested clarification on the scope of the records sought, which is being addressed to ensure the public’s right to know about potential hazards is not delayed or denied [10],[11].

4. Evidence of Document Falsification and Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
There is mounting evidence that agency officials have falsified workers’ compensation records and failed to report or abate known hazards. Union representatives have documented instances where official records were altered or incomplete, and have raised these concerns with both the agency and external authorities. Under federal law, knowingly filing false reports or withholding required information in federal employee compensation cases is a criminal offense [21],[31].

5. Legal Actions and Ongoing Litigation
Multiple legal actions are ongoing, including motions for reconsideration in federal court, based on new evidence of retaliation, denial of accommodations, and agency failure to comply with arbitration awards and settlement agreements. The courts are being asked to intervene to protect employees from further harm, restore lost pay and benefits, and ensure compliance with the law [8],[9],[12],[13],[18],[19],[25],[26],[28].

6. What You Can Do
Share this petition to increase public awareness and pressure the agency to act.
Contact your representatives and urge them to demand accountability and transparency from the VA.
Support union efforts to protect whistleblowers and ensure a safe workplace for all.
We will continue to update you as new developments arise. Your support is critical in holding the agency accountable and ensuring that all employees and veterans are protected from harm and retaliation.

 
References:

Master Agreement between DVA and AFGE, Article 29 & 30 [5],[6],[7]
Recent FOIA correspondence and agency responses [10],[11]
Union and legal correspondence regarding falsification and retaliation [21],[31]
Ongoing federal litigation and motions for relief [8],[9],[12],[13],[18],[19],[25],[26],[28]
Thank you for standing with us in the fight for justice, safety, and accountability at the John J. Pershing VA Medical Center.
 
 

I speak for the poor and injustice of an unjust system that employed falsified documents to rule against my family an experience that has led to much pain and mistrust of our justice system. On March 10, 2025 at 4:36 a post was made by the Daily American Republic named Veterans and allies gather in Poplar Bluff to protest federal job cuts threatening vital services which contains most of the documents, videos and pictures concerning the falsified documents presented as evidence in hearings under oath by Dane Roper who is the attorney for the John J Pershing Va Medical Center 1500 North Westwood Blvd, Poplar Bluff Mo. 63901  Click on this link to see the of the documents that concern the falsified evidence posted during a Protestor Ralley Outside the John J Pershing VA  on March 8, 2025 by Scotty White. Be sure to select all comments. You will see videos, documents, and pictures concerning the falsified information presented by the Department of Veterans Affairs attorney during hearings under oath. These documents are now in District Court at the Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr. U.S. Courthouse.

I am asking the media to get involved by getting in contact with the courts Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr. U.S. Courthouse 555 Independence Street Cape Girardeau, MO 63703 Contact Phone: (573) 331-8800
After Hours: (314)-244-7904 for matters involving falsified evidence during hearings under oath. How to apply for a Media Account in CM/ECF

Case  1:23-cv-00208-SNLJ

Case 1:24-cv-00024-SNLJ

Case 1:24CV00017 SNLJ

Case 1:24-cv-00126-SNLJ

 

 My story is merely one of the countless instances of judicial bias and dishonesty within our courts and hearings under oath, a reflection of an alarming trend that undermines the essence of justice in America.

This clear violation of trust and lack of integrity is simply unacceptable - the American Bar Association states that "all members of the legal profession have a paramount duty to the court to assist in the administration of justice. This duty overrides any conflicting interests of clients or self-interest". Tragically, this is not always the case, with reports showing an increase in the rate of empirical evidence of discrimination within U.S. Courts.

Judges who apply the law impartially, without bias or prejudice, enable our justice system to function appropriately. However, with falsified documents finding their way into the courtrooms, the credibility of our justice system stands challenged. Action is needed urgently to restore our lost faith.

We are calling upon our lawmakers to implement measures to ensure transparency, accountability, and to restore the integrity of our justice system. We must put an end to the use of falsified documents in court hearings - it's time to uphold the true meaning of justice. Sign this petition to demand fairness and truth in our courts.