Click hyperlink below to go to official pdf:
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=673012&version=675024&application=ACROBAT
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Jeff Prather PDF Link DEA Official Document Removal From Job Due To Infranctions
Click hyperlink below to go to official pdf:
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=673012&version=675024&application=ACROBAT
Jeffrey Prather Removal From DEA Due To Infractions
Thanks to the budoseek.com site we have official documents regarding Jeff Prathers removal from the DEA for numerous major infractions. I pasted the document below, but please download the 22 page PDF and check it out for yourself. The first link is the web forum that made me aware of this official document. The second link is the pdf.
http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?24739-Jeff-Prather-Warriorschool-Cult-allegations/page6
OFFICIAL PDF:
In just going to let THIS one stand for itself:
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=673012&version=675024&application=ACROBAT
Regarding Mr. Prather's tenure with the DEA. Warriorschool is mentioned prominently.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
2011 MSPB 100
Docket No. NY-0752-09-0118-I-2
Jeffrey R. Prather,
Appellant,
v.
Department of Justice,
Agency.
December 7, 2011
Thomas G. Roth, Esquire, Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, for the appellant.
Ellen L. Harrison, Esquire, and Carol A. Joffe, Springfield, Virginia, for the agency.
BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman Mary M. Rose, Member
OPINION AND ORDER
he appellant has timely filed a petition for review of the initial decision that affirmed his removal for misconduct. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-13, 7701. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the initial decision as MODIFIED by this Opinion and Order, still AFFIRMING the appellant’s removal.
2
BACKGROUND
¶2 On January 28, 2009, the appellant appealed his removal from the position of Criminal Investigator, GS-13, with the New York Field Division of Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, based on charges of (1) Unauthorized Outside Employment; (2) Unauthorized Use of Official Government Vehicle; (3) Misuse of Government Property; (4) Providing False, Misleading or Inaccurate Information; and (5) Conduct Unbecoming a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent. I-1 Appeal File (AF), Tab 1, Tab 9, Subtab 4d, Tab 10, Subtab 4i. He asserted as an affirmative defense that his removal was the result of religious discrimination. I-2 AF, Tab 13 at 3 (Order and Summary of Telephonic Prehearing Conference).
¶3 In June 2009, the appeal was dismissed without prejudice to refiling, and it was timely refiled on August 31, 2009. The appellant stipulated that the agency proved Charge 2 concerning unauthorized use of an official government vehicle, as well as both specifications underlying Charge 3 concerning misuse of government property. I-2 AF, Tab 22, Joint Stipulations (JS), ¶¶ 101-102. Because the appellant waived a hearing, I-2 AF, Tab 24 at 1, the administrative judge adjudicated the appeal based upon the written record, I-2 AF, Tab 36, Initial Decision (ID) at 2. In a detailed initial decision, the administrative judge sustained the agency’s action, finding that it had proved all of the underlying charges and specifications, there was a nexus between the appellant’s misconduct and the efficiency of the service, and that the penalty of removal was within the bounds of reasonableness. ID at 2-21, 24-26. The administrative judge also determined that the appellant failed to prove his affirmative defense of religious discrimination. ID at 21-24.
¶4 The appellant, who is represented by counsel, has filed a 94-page petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. Although he “does not challenge all of the AJ’s findings with respect to the[] charges, he does challenge that portion of the Conduct Unbecoming charge which relates to his purported
3
sexual misconduct with two women (Charge 5, Specification 2), as well as all of the Falsification (Charge 4) and outside Employment (Charge 1) charges.” Id., Tab 1 at 13-14. He also contends that the administrative judge erred in failing to mitigate the penalty, and in failing to find that the agency discriminated against him based on his religion. Id. at 94. The agency has filed an extensive submission in opposition to the appellant’s petition for review. PFR File, Tab 3.1
ANALYSIS
Charge 1: Unauthorized Outside Employment.
¶5 The agency’s first charge is supported by seven specifications of alleged unauthorized outside employment, which it contended violated its Standards of Conduct. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 3-5; see I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 61. The agency’s Standards of Conduct are set forth at Section 2735.15(E)(6)(a) of its personnel manual, and provide, inter alia, that “[a]ll DEA employees must have received the appropriate approvals prior to engaging in outside employment.” I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 61. The Standards of Conduct define “outside employment” as “any type of employment exclusive of DEA employment, including self-employment, employment by a third party, hobby-income, or participation in any business venture, whether or not there is any profit to the employee.” Id. at 59. “Self-employment” is defined as “any participation or interest in a business, corporation or franchised operation.” Id. The Standards of Conduct further
1 For reasons that are not entirely clear, portions of the record below were apparently reorganized and re-“tabbed” at the Board’s regional level after the initial decision was drafted. As a result, some citations to the record in the initial decision are no longer accurate. For example, the record citations at page 9 of the initial decision to Attachments B, C and D of Tab 16 of the I-1 Appeal File refer to documents that are now located at pages 544, 547 and 549 of Tab 20. This does not affect the outcome of the appeal. As we discuss below, the administrative judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the documentary evidence in the record below. Citations to the record in this Opinion and Order are to the record as currently tabbed. 4
specify that “outside employment” does not include investment activity, such as ownership of stocks and bonds, or income producing real estate, and excludes “[c]ertain volunteer activities,” such as “coaching and leading youth activities, donating time to nonprofit activities, helping senior citizens or disadvantaged persons, community programs, or religious activities.” Id. at 60.
Specifications 1-5
¶6 As discussed below, the administrative judge’s findings with respect to specifications 1-5 are fully supported by the record. The appellant states on review that he is challenging the administrative judge’s determination that the agency met its burden of proof with respect to the charge of Unauthorized Outside Employment. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 14, see I-2 AF, Tab 36, Initial Decision (ID) at 2-7. He offers no specific challenges to the administrative judge’s findings with respect to the outside activities cited by the agency in specifications 1-5, however, other than to repeat his contentions from below that the agency’s definition of outside employment in its Standards of Conduct is too broad and is inconsistent with a “common sense” definition of outside employment. PFR File, Tab 1 at 79-80. His personal disagreement with the agency’s standards, however, does not provide a basis for granting review of the initial decision.
¶7 The agency’s first specification concerns the appellant’s operation of a martial arts school, the Yamaneko Dojo. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 3. The appellant admittedly founded the school in 1990 and was its “chief instructor” while working at the agency. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 72, 74. The appellant stated to the agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that he never sought approval to engage in outside employment with the school. I-1 AF, Tab 18, Subtab 37 at 48. The administrative judge therefore properly sustained this specification. ID at 4-5.
¶8 The agency’s second specification concerns a business called “Executive Terrorism Awareness Courses” (EXTAC). I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 3-4. The
5
appellant stipulated that he founded EXTAC, that it is an instruction course in personal defense for business executives, and that he received compensation for his services to EXTAC. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶ 75. EXTAC existed as a separate corporate entity for approximately 6 years, after which it merged into “the Warrior School,” id., discussed below. The appellant stated to the agency’s OPR that he never sought approval to engage in outside employment with EXTAC. I-1 AF, Tab 18, Subtab 37 at 53. Therefore, the administrative judge properly sustained this specification. ID at 4-5.
¶9 The agency’s third specification arose out of “Life Case LLC,” a company which the appellant stipulated he had founded in or about 2002 to market a bullet-proof briefcase that he had invented and patented. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶ 76; I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4. The appellant stated to the agency’s OPR that he never sought approval to engage in outside employment with Life Case LLC. I-1 AF, Tab 18, Subtab 37 at 56. In his petition for review, the appellant contended that he should not have been required to obtain approval for outside employment with respect to Life Case LLC “at the initial development stage where it is not known whether a single unit of the product would ever be produced or sold.” PFR, Tab 1 at 80. The administrative judge correctly found that Life Case LLC generated fees and profits at various times during the relevant time period. ID at 5. Specifically, the appellant’s income tax returns indicate that Life Case LLC reported profits of $9,800 in 2004. I-1 AF, Tab 21, Subtab 7 at 140. Therefore, the administrative judge properly sustained this specification. ID at 4-5.
¶10 The administrative judge also correctly sustained specification four, which arose out of the appellant’s work as President of “Answer to the Crisis,” a non-profit corporation founded in 2000 or 2001. ID at 5; see I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4. Answer to the Crisis existed to raise tuition funds for individuals to attend “Initiation Camp,” which was a course through Warrior School LLC. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶ 77. The appellant was the sole owner of Warrior School, see
6
id., ¶¶ 79-83, and argues on review that, when he belatedly first applied for approval to engage in outside employment with his “Warrior School” in October 2003, that request “should have included not only his Warrior School business interests going forward but also those businesses which he pursued in the past, which were, in reality, no more than the predecessors of the Warrior School.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 84. The appellant cites no factual or legal support for this argument. Moreover, as the administrative judge recognized, the agency’s Standards of Conduct expressly require approval “prior to engaging in outside employment.” ID at 3, see I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 61.
¶11 The appellant does not offer any specific argument on review concerning the administrative judge’s determination that the agency proved specification five, which concerned his “material participation in a business named ‘Jeffrey Prather,’ [resulting] in a net income for 2003 of $18,701.00.” ID at 4; see I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4. The administrative judge’s determination that the agency proved this specification is supported by the record. See I-1 AF, Tab 21, Subtab 7 at 125.
Specification 6
¶12 Specification 6 arose out of the appellant’s conduct in teaching courses and conducting business as President of Warrior School LLC from November 2003 to 2006. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4-5. As stated above, the appellant began submitting written requests for approval to engage in outside employment with Warrior School in 2003. I-1 AF, Tab 20 at 544-50. In two such requests, the appellant represented to the agency that he intended to “teach and supervise the teaching of classes and seminars, to the general public and particularly disadvantaged youth, on self defense and personal, spiritual development. I see this as another way to fight illegal drug use.” Id. at 544, 547. He also represented to the agency that the teaching “will occur on weekends, weeknights and on annual leave,” and acknowledged that “the use of Government facilities,
7
equipment, or transportation services to further my outside employment is forbidden.” Id.
¶13 In sustaining this specification, the administrative judge determined that “the outside employment for which the appellant received prior agency authorization differed in significant and material respects from that which he actually performed.” ID at 6. We agree. The appellant admitted that the Warrior School actually operated, inter alia, as a government contractor, providing federal firearms training and other courses to a variety of federal agencies and federal contractors, including the National Security Agency, for fees as high as $20,000 a class. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 94-100. He also admitted that he participated in Warrior School courses while on duty. I-1 AF, Tab 18 at 186-88. He also admittedly repeatedly used his assigned official government vehicle (OGV) to further Warrior School business and, as the administrative judge noted, he “provided a variety of DEA equipment, including vests, shields, and weapons, for use by participants in these classes.” ID at 6; I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 101, 102 (stipulating that DEA had proved Charge 2, Unauthorized Use of an OGV and Charge 3, Misuse of Government Property). In light of the appellant’s failure to advise the agency in his requests for outside employment that it would be conducted in part on government time and would involve use of his OGV and government equipment, the administrative judge correctly determined that those requests differed in significant and material respects from that which he actually performed. ID at 6.
¶14 On review, the appellant does not contest the administrative judge’s factual findings, but argues that he should not have been disciplined for his failure to request approval to run a for-profit company which did business with the federal government because Warrior School’s activities benefited society. PFR File, Tab 1 at 81-84. This contention does not provide any basis for disturbing the administrative judge’s findings and conclusions concerning this specification.
8
Specification 7
¶15 The final specification underlying the first charge arose out of the appellant’s admitted participation in 2004-2005 as an actor and/or stunt coordinator in two movies and a documentary. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 5; see I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 70-71. On review, the appellant does not dispute that he failed to obtain approval from the agency for this activity; rather, he suggests that advanced approval was not required because he was not paid for his work on the films, but only received credit. PFR File, Tab 1 at 80. In sustaining this specification, the administrative judge found, and the appellant does not contest, that he had invested $25,000 of his own money in one of the movies. ID at 7. Moreover, the agency’s Standards of Conduct unambiguously defined outside employment to include “participation in any business venture, whether or not there is any profit to the employee.” I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 59. The appellant’s petition for review provides no basis for disturbing the administrative judge’s findings and conclusions concerning this specification.
¶16 Accordingly, the administrative judge correctly determined that the agency proved all of the specifications underlying the charge of Unauthorized Outside Employment.
Charge 4: Providing False, Misleading or Inaccurate Information.2
Specifications 1-3
¶17 The first three specifications underlying the fourth charge arose out of representations that the appellant made to the agency in three written requests for permission to engage in outside employment, discussed above. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 8-9. To sustain a falsification charge, an agency must prove by preponderant evidence that the appellant knowingly supplied incorrect
2 As stated above, the appellant stipulated below that the agency had proven Charge Two, Unauthorized Use of an OGV, and Charge Three, Misuse of Government Property. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 101-102. 9
information with the intention of defrauding, deceiving or misleading the agency. Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Seas v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 422, 427 (1997). The requisite intent may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. Deskin v. U.S. Postal Service, 76 M.S.P.R. 505, 510-11 (1997). The issue of intent must be resolved based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 511. As discussed below, the administrative judge correctly determined that the agency met its burden of proof with respect to each of these specifications. ID at 8-10.
¶18 Specifications 1 and 2 concern the appellant’s written statements in support of his requests dated October 20, 2003, and January 7, 2005, for authorization to engage in outside employment in connection with Warrior School LLC. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 8. In each, he represented that the “nature” of his involvement with the Warrior School was “more vocational than business, in that the primary purpose is philanthopical [sic] and has evolved from volunteerism.” I-1 AF, Tab 20 at 544, 547. The appellant also certified that “[his] services in connection with this outside employment [would] not conflict with [his] duties as an employee of the DEA.” Id. Specification 3 concerned the appellant’s memorandum dated December 23, 2006, again requesting authorization for outside employment with Warrior School. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4-5. In it, the appellant stated: “I understand that the use of Government facilities, equipment, or transportation services to further my outside employment is forbidden.” I-1 AF, Tab 20 at 549.
¶19 On review, the appellant contends, as he did below, that in describing Warrior School as primarily philanthropic and failing to disclose that it was a for-profit corporation, he did not intend to deceive the agency. PFR File, Tab 1 at 72. In support of his position, he contends that Warrior School was primarily philanthropic because it allegedly was serving mankind and had benefited the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan by training service members in firearms use. PFR File, Tab 1 at 65-71. We agree with the administrative judge’s determination that
10
the appellant’s involvement with the Warrior School was “no more objectively philanthropic . . . than if he had instead operated a for-profit dental practice, cleaning the teeth and filling the cavities of departing servicemen and women.” ID at 10. The appellant’s petition for review offers no basis for disturbing that determination.
¶20 Moreover, the appellant stipulated that he had repeatedly used his assigned OGV, as well as agency weapons and other equipment, on Warrior School business. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 101-102. Citing the appellant’s own testimony that his chain of command would not have approved his request if they had known it would involve the use of government equipment, I-1 AF, Tab 18 at 251, the administrative judge correctly determined that these representations were “plainly false, raising the inescapable inference that they were intended to deceive the agency regarding material aspects of this proposed activity,” ID at 10. Furthermore, as the administrative judge noted, the appellant repeatedly certified to the agency that his duties with Warrior School would not conflict with his duties as a DEA employee and expressly stated: “I understand that the use of Government facilities, equipment, or transportation services to further my outside employment is forbidden.” ID at 9; see I-1 AF, Tab 20 at 544-50.
¶21 The appellant also claims that he could not have intended to deceive the agency because his first and second-line supervisors had allegedly accessed the Warrior School website. PFR File, Tab 1 at 72. He offers no citation to the record for this proposition, and we find no evidence therein to support it. The administrative judge therefore properly sustained the first three specifications of this charge.
Specification 4
¶22 The agency alleged in the fourth specification underlying this charge that the appellant submitted biweekly activity reports and time and attendance reports in which he represented either that he was on duty, conducting agency business, or on sick leave, on eleven different dates and times when he was actually
11
participating in training courses at the Warrior School. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 9-10. The record evidence below supports the administrative judge’s determination that the biweekly and time and attendance reports that the appellant submitted were factually incorrect, as demonstrated by the sworn testimony of former Warrior School students and instructors. See, e.g., I-1 AF, Tab 11, Subtabs 2-8, 10-12; see I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶ 59; see also I-1 AF, Tab 17 at 258-301.
¶23 Although the appellant claims on review that he merely made mistakes, PFR File, Tab 1 at 74, intent can be inferred when a representation is made with reckless disregard for the truth or the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of the specific intent to deceive. See, e.g., Christopher v. Department of the Army, 107 M.S.P.R. 580, ¶ 12, aff’d, 299 F. App’x 964 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Haebe v. Department of Justice, 81 M.S.P.R. 167, 181-82 (1999), rev’d on other grounds, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, eleven incorrect reports argue against mere mistake. We find no basis in the appellant’s petition for review to disturb the administrative judge’s conclusion that “it strains credulity to suppose that the appellant was other than fully conscious of his repeated failure to indicate his actual activities and whereabouts on the reports in question.” ID at 12. The administrative judge explained “the appellant could hardly have acted otherwise without revealing the obvious impropriety of his conduct.” Id.
¶24 Finally, the appellant also argues that this specification is actually an allegation that he “committed fraud” in his biweekly and time and attendance reports, and asserts that the agency “can only successfully prove an intent to defraud if it can demonstrate that Special Agent (SA) Prather over-reported the hours that he actually worked with the intention of defrauding or cheating the Agency out of pay that was not properly due and owing to him.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 74-75. The agency, however, did not charge the appellant with fraud, but with providing false, misleading or inaccurate information in violation of its Standards of Conduct. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4(i) at 9-10. Moreover, as stated above, a
12
falsification charge can be sustained if the appellant knowingly supplied incorrect information with the intention of defrauding, deceiving or misleading the agency, and intent can be established by reckless disregard for the truth. Because ample record evidence supports the administrative judge’s conclusion that the appellant supplied incorrect information to avoid revealing to the agency the impropriety of his conduct, ID at 12, he therefore properly sustained this specification.
Charge 5: Conduct Unbecoming a DEA Special Agent.
¶25 As stated above, the appellant does not challenge the administrative judge’s determination that the agency met its burden of proof with respect to the first specification underlying Charge 5. ID at 12. In it, the agency alleged that the appellant, a firearms instructor with access to and responsibility for maintaining custody and control of DEA fully-automatic weapons, provided those fully automatic weapons to civilian Warrior School students, even though he was not present during much of the training. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 3-5. Because we find no error in the administrative judge’s determination, we will only examine the second specification of Charge 5.
¶26 Much of the appellant’s petition for review concerns the second specification underlying Charge 5. In the proposal, the agency alleged that, under the pretense of helping individuals through a practice the appellant developed and called “sexual healing,” he took advantage of vulnerable and struggling women. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 11. Specifically, the agency alleged that he persuaded women to engage in sexual acts with him by telling them that they would be “healed” if they had sexual relations with him. Id. The agency further alleged that, in their sworn statements, two women described their “sexual healings” as “violent and/or a rape, and [he has] been accused of sexual assault by at least one of the women.” Id. In addition, the agency alleged that, in his leadership role at the Connection Institute, he advised a member that her husband had become a homosexual and that the way to bring him back to their marriage was for her to engage in “‘sexual healing’ with [him].” Id. The agency alleged
13
that the appellant’s conduct violated its Standards of Conduct, which, inter alia, provide that “DEA personnel are prohibited from engaging in any criminal, infamous, dishonest, or notoriously disgraceful conduct,” that they “shall always conduct themselves in a professional manner,” that they shall “refrain from omissions or commissions of conduct in their off-duty hours which will impact, influence, impede or in any way effect their DEA responsibilities,” and that they will not “act in a manner which will bring disgrace or disfavor upon DEA or act in a manner that will cause the general public to question, ridicule or attack the efforts of this Agency or its personnel.” Id.; see I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 57.
¶27 In his petition for review, the appellant claims that the agency’s specification amounts to a charge of rape, but that the administrative judge altered the charge “from a rape theory to something substantially less than that.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 49. The administrative judge properly rejected this contention below. ID at 15. Although the agency cited to testimony from the two women which described their encounters with the appellant as “violent and/or a rape,” the administrative judge correctly determined that the question of whether the appellant’s conduct amounted to rape or sexual assault is not part of the essence of this charge. Id.; see Hicks v. Department of the Treasury, 62 M.S.P.R. 71, 74 (1994) (an agency is required to prove only the essence of its charge, and need not prove each factual specification supporting the charge), aff’d, 48 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Table).
¶28 This specification arose out of the appellant’s admitted sexual relations with two women, identified in the initial decision by the initials LW and MM. ID at 15-18; see I-1 AF, Tab 19 at 447-48, 475-76. The appellant confirmed to OPR that LW had contacted him about a problem in her marriage. I-1 AF, Tab 19 at 443-44. He also admitted that he had engaged in “sexual healing” with her and that he “possibly” had told her not to tell her husband (another group member) about the sexual contact. ID at 18; see I-1 AF Tab 19 at 447-48. He also admitted that oral sex had occurred and that he stopped intercourse because LW
14
was not submitting. Id. at 471, 475-77. Moreover, on review, the appellant confirms that MM actively pursued a “sexual healing” because she believed that she was a “mess” and was “damaged by her relationship with her husband and other men.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 58; see also I-1 AF, Tab 15, Subtab 27 at 22-23. Further, the administrative judge found, and the appellant does not dispute that he had a leadership role in the “Warrior School” and in his “Connectionism Institute.” ID at 18. The appellant agreed that “there is somewhat of an implied power” in his role as founder of the organization and benefactor to junior members, I-1 AF, Tab 19 at 411; and he agreed that officers of the Connection Institute ultimately came to believe that his sexual conduct with female followers constituted an “abuse” of his authority, leading to his suspension from the leadership position and a mass defection of members, see id. at 385-90, 415-19. The record below contains the testimony of witnesses who confirmed to the agency’s OPR that they had demanded that the appellant stop conducting “sexual healings” because they believed that his actions constituted an abuse of power. See I-1 AF, Tab 14, Subtab 24 at 48-49; Tab 12, Subtab 17 at 95-98.
¶29 Thus, the record below, including the appellant’s own testimony, supports the administrative judge’s conclusion that the agency established the essence of this specification, i.e., that the appellant misused his leadership role in the institutions he founded to take sexual advantage of vulnerable female followers. ID at 18. The administrative judge therefore correctly determined that the agency met its burden of proof with respect to both specifications underlying Charge 5.
The administrative judge properly found nexus between the appellant’s off-duty misconduct and the efficiency of service.
¶30 An agency may take an adverse action against an employee only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a); Doe v. Department of Justice, 113 M.S.P.R. 128, ¶ 20 (2010); 5 C.F.R. § 752.403(a). In Kruger v. Department of Justice, 32 M.S.P.R. 71, 74 (1987), the Board held that an agency may show a nexus between off-duty misconduct and the efficiency of
15
the service by three means: (1) a rebuttable presumption in certain egregious circumstances; (2) preponderant evidence that the misconduct adversely affects the appellant's or co-workers' job performance or the agency's trust and confidence in the appellant's job performance; or (3) preponderant evidence that the misconduct interfered with or adversely affected the agency's mission. See Doe, 113 M.S.P.R. 128, ¶ 20.
¶31 As the agency stated in its proposal notice, the appellant’s ability to testify in criminal trials has been significantly impaired as a result of his misconduct in providing false, misleading or inaccurate information concerning his activities. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 13.3 We also conclude that the agency established by preponderant evidence a nexus between the proven charges of unauthorized outside employment, unauthorized use of a government vehicle and misuse of government property, and the efficiency of the service. The agency clearly established nexus for these proven offenses.
¶32 The appellant asserts on review, though, as he did below, that there is no nexus between his off-duty sexual conduct unless such conduct constituted rape or forcible assault. PFR File, Tab 1 at 53-57. The agency, however, presented sufficient grounds for finding a nexus between the appellant’s off-duty sexual conduct and the efficiency of the service. See I-1 AF, Tab 9, Subtab 4e at 5; Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 11-14. The administrative judge correctly determined that the appellant’s duties as Special Agent included potential contact with female informants. He thus also correctly concluded that the appellant’s off-duty sexual
3 Under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), investigative agencies must turn over to prosecutors potential impeachment evidence with respect to the agents involved in the case. The prosecutor then exercises his discretion as to whether the impeachment evidence must be turned over to the defense. See Rodriguez v. Department of Homeland Security, 108 M.S.P.R. 76, ¶ 29 n.3 (2008), aff’d, 314 F. App’x 318 (Fed. Cir. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. U.S. Postal Service, 116 M.S.P.R. 453 (2011). A “Giglio impaired” agent is one against whom there is potential impeachment evidence that would render the agent’s testimony of marginal value in a case. Id. 16
conduct with vulnerable women, while misusing his position of authority, reasonably caused the agency to lose trust in the appellant’s ability to independently work with such individuals. ID at 18-21; see Royster v. Department of Justice, 58 M.S.P.R. 495, 500 (1993) (off-duty behavior toward women had nexus to employee’s position as correctional officer in women’s prison); Barnhill v. Department of Justice, 10 M.S.P.R. 378, 380-81 (1982) (off-duty behavior toward women had nexus to employee’s position as border patrol agent whose duties involved contact with female aliens).
¶33 The appellant contends that “the handling of informants had not been part of his job description as a DEA federal agent for many years.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 57. However, by statute DEA Agents are authorized to make arrests. 21 U.S.C. § 878(a)(3). Moreover, the appellant cited his meritorious service as a criminal investigator in arguing against the penalty of removal. See, e.g., I-1 AF, Tab 9, Subtab 4(g), Ex. Z at 1 (award recommendation for the appellant’s 1992 role in a criminal investigation in which DEA received information “from an informant under the control of SI A Prather”); id. at 4 (commendation for the appellant’s 2002 initiation of criminal investigations which led to several arrests). We therefore find by preponderant evidence that the appellant’s off-duty sexual conduct adversely affected the agency’s trust and confidence in the appellant’s ability to perform his job as a DEA criminal investigator.
The penalty of removal does not exceed the bounds of reasonableness.
¶34 The appellant contends that the agency failed to give proper weight to the Douglas factors in deciding to remove him. PFR File, Tab 1 at 84-94. The Board generally will review an agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency considered all the relevant factors and exercised management discretion within tolerable limits of reasonableness. Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 306 (1981). Where, as here, the Board sustains all of an agency’s charges, the Board may mitigate the agency’s original penalty to the maximum reasonable penalty when it finds the agency’s original penalty too
17
severe. Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The record indicates that the deciding official considered the relevant Douglas factors. See I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4e.
¶35 As noted in the initial decision, the agency conceded that it erroneously relied upon the appellant’s prior discipline in contravention of its own regulations, which provide that letters of reprimand are removed from an employee’s Official Personnel Folder after two years. A-2 AF, Tab 32 at 47-48. Where, as here, an agency errs in consideration of prior discipline, the Board determines whether the agency’s penalty selection may be affirmed without regard to the improperly considered discipline. See Stoddard v. Department of the Army, 109 M.S.P.R. 199, ¶ 10 n.3 (2008); Jinks v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 106 M.S.P.R. 627, ¶¶ 22-23 (2007).
¶36 We agree with the administrative judge that the agency’s original penalty of removal is well within the tolerable limits of reasonableness for the sustained charges of misconduct. As the administrative judge recognized, law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard of honesty and integrity. ID at 25; see e.g., Phillips v. Department of the Interior, 95 M.S.P.R. 21, ¶ 16 (2003) (a law enforcement officer was removed for falsifying information on her pre-employment documents), aff’d, 131 F. App’x 709 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Scott v. Department of Justice, 69 M.S.P.R. 211, 243-44 (1995) (same), aff’d, 99 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table). The administrative judge correctly determined that, even absent consideration of the “sexual healing” practices that are the basis for Specification 2 of Charge 5, the agency’s remaining charges, alone or in combination, provide a reasonable basis for the agency’s removal penalty under the circumstances of this case. ID at 24; see Schoeffler v. Department of Agriculture, 47 M.S.P.R. 80, 86 (removal for falsification and engaging in dishonest activity promotes the efficiency of the service since such behavior raises serious doubts regarding the employee’s reliability, veracity and
18
trustworthiness); vacated in part, 50 M.S.P.R. 143 (1991). The appellant’s contentions on review concerning the penalty of removal thus lack merit.
The administrative judge correctly determined that the appellant failed to establish his religious discrimination claim.
¶37 The appellant also contends on review that the administrative judge “failed to properly apply the relevant decisional authority concerning appellant's affirmative defense of religious discrimination.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 94. We conclude that the administrative judge properly considered and rejected the appellant’s affirmative defense under the relevant legal framework.4
The appellant stated below that he was not relying upon theories of disparate impact or accommodation, but was raising a claim that he was “disparately treated by DEA’s OPR based on a comparison of the manner in which it handled his case before and after it learned of his religious beliefs. I-1 AF, Tab 27 at 1, 3. To establish a prima facie case of prohibited employment discrimination based on disparate treatment, an appellant must show that he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that the unfavorable action gives rise to an inference of discrimination. Gregory v. Department of the Army, 114 M.S.P.R. 607, ¶ 40 (2010). Where, as here, the agency has already articulated a nondiscriminatory reason for its action, i.e., the charged misconduct, it has done everything that would be required of it if the appellant had made out a prima facie case, and whether he in fact did so is no longer relevant. Id. Thus, the inquiry proceeds directly to the ultimate question
4 The appellant established that he is the head of “the Connectionism movement.” Although the agency questions on review whether Connectionism is a bona fide religion, see PFR File, Tab 3 at 28 n.7, because the administrative judge correctly determined that the agency would have removed the appellant regardless of his religious beliefs, it is not necessary for the Board to reach that issue in deciding this appeal. 19
of whether, upon weighing all of the evidence, the appellant has met his overall burden of proving illegal discrimination. Id.
The question to be resolved is whether the appellant produced sufficient evidence to show that the agency’s proffered basis for removing him was not the actual reason for its action, and that the agency intentionally discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs. Gregory, 114 M.S.P.R. 607, ¶ 41. The evidence to be considered may include the elements of the appellant’s prima facie case; any evidence produced by the appellant to attack the agency’s proffered explanation for its action; and any further evidence of discrimination available to the appellant, such as independent evidence of discriminatory statements or attitudes on the part of the agency, or any contrary evidence that may be available to the employer, such as a strong track record in equal opportunity employment. Id. Relevant evidence may also include proof that the agency treated similarly situated employees differently than the appellant; that the agency lied about its reason for taking the action; any inconsistency in the agency’s explanation for its action; the agency’s failure to follow its own established procedures; the agency’s general treatment of members of the appellant’s protected class; and incriminating statements by agency officials. Id.
¶38 The initial decision correctly summarizes and applies this settled precedent, concluding that the appellant failed to establish that the agency’s proffered basis for removing him was not the actual reason for its action, and that the agency intentionally discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs. ID at 22-24. In his petition for review, the appellant did not dispute that the charged conduct actually occurred. He did not contend that the agency manufactured false evidence in order to convict him of offenses he never committed. He also failed to identify any similarly-situated employee who received more favorable treatment - that is, any other Special Agent who made multiple false statements and engaged in unauthorized outside employment over a period of years, but who was not removed. See Adams v. Department of Labor, 112 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶ 13
20
(2009) (rejecting discrimination defense where employee did not dispute that the violations occurred and failed to identify similarly-situated comparator employees). As the administrative judge correctly determined, the agency provided convincing evidence that he engaged in a variety of serious misconduct, including making false statements, misusing government property, and engaging in unauthorized outside employment. ID at 24. Because we find that he engaged in the charged misconduct, much of which he does not dispute, he has failed to establish that the agency’s proffered reasons were not the actual reasons for its action.
ORDER
¶39 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113(c) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(c)).
NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
You have the right to request further review of this final decision.
Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review
You may request the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to review this final decision on your discrimination claims. See Title 5 of the United States Codes, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). You must send your request to EEOC at the following address:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20036
You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no
21
later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time.
Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action
If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f); 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
Other Claims: Judicial Review
If you do not want to request review of this final decision concerning your discrimination claims, but you do want to request review of the Board’s decision without regard to your discrimination claims, you may request the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review this final decision on the other issues in your appeal. You must submit your request to the court at the following address:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20439
The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your
22
representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with the court no later than 60 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir 1991).
If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703). You may read this law, as well as review the Board’s regulations and other related material, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov. Additional information is available at the court's website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court's "Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants," which is contained within the court's Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, and 11.
FOR THE BOARD:
______________________________ William D. Spencer Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.
ANOTHER GREAT WEB FORUM TO CHECK OUT:
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-55118-p-3.html
http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?24739-Jeff-Prather-Warriorschool-Cult-allegations/page6
OFFICIAL PDF:
In just going to let THIS one stand for itself:
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=673012&version=675024&application=ACROBAT
Regarding Mr. Prather's tenure with the DEA. Warriorschool is mentioned prominently.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
2011 MSPB 100
Docket No. NY-0752-09-0118-I-2
Jeffrey R. Prather,
Appellant,
v.
Department of Justice,
Agency.
December 7, 2011
Thomas G. Roth, Esquire, Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, for the appellant.
Ellen L. Harrison, Esquire, and Carol A. Joffe, Springfield, Virginia, for the agency.
BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman Mary M. Rose, Member
OPINION AND ORDER
he appellant has timely filed a petition for review of the initial decision that affirmed his removal for misconduct. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-13, 7701. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the initial decision as MODIFIED by this Opinion and Order, still AFFIRMING the appellant’s removal.
2
BACKGROUND
¶2 On January 28, 2009, the appellant appealed his removal from the position of Criminal Investigator, GS-13, with the New York Field Division of Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, based on charges of (1) Unauthorized Outside Employment; (2) Unauthorized Use of Official Government Vehicle; (3) Misuse of Government Property; (4) Providing False, Misleading or Inaccurate Information; and (5) Conduct Unbecoming a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent. I-1 Appeal File (AF), Tab 1, Tab 9, Subtab 4d, Tab 10, Subtab 4i. He asserted as an affirmative defense that his removal was the result of religious discrimination. I-2 AF, Tab 13 at 3 (Order and Summary of Telephonic Prehearing Conference).
¶3 In June 2009, the appeal was dismissed without prejudice to refiling, and it was timely refiled on August 31, 2009. The appellant stipulated that the agency proved Charge 2 concerning unauthorized use of an official government vehicle, as well as both specifications underlying Charge 3 concerning misuse of government property. I-2 AF, Tab 22, Joint Stipulations (JS), ¶¶ 101-102. Because the appellant waived a hearing, I-2 AF, Tab 24 at 1, the administrative judge adjudicated the appeal based upon the written record, I-2 AF, Tab 36, Initial Decision (ID) at 2. In a detailed initial decision, the administrative judge sustained the agency’s action, finding that it had proved all of the underlying charges and specifications, there was a nexus between the appellant’s misconduct and the efficiency of the service, and that the penalty of removal was within the bounds of reasonableness. ID at 2-21, 24-26. The administrative judge also determined that the appellant failed to prove his affirmative defense of religious discrimination. ID at 21-24.
¶4 The appellant, who is represented by counsel, has filed a 94-page petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. Although he “does not challenge all of the AJ’s findings with respect to the[] charges, he does challenge that portion of the Conduct Unbecoming charge which relates to his purported
3
sexual misconduct with two women (Charge 5, Specification 2), as well as all of the Falsification (Charge 4) and outside Employment (Charge 1) charges.” Id., Tab 1 at 13-14. He also contends that the administrative judge erred in failing to mitigate the penalty, and in failing to find that the agency discriminated against him based on his religion. Id. at 94. The agency has filed an extensive submission in opposition to the appellant’s petition for review. PFR File, Tab 3.1
ANALYSIS
Charge 1: Unauthorized Outside Employment.
¶5 The agency’s first charge is supported by seven specifications of alleged unauthorized outside employment, which it contended violated its Standards of Conduct. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 3-5; see I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 61. The agency’s Standards of Conduct are set forth at Section 2735.15(E)(6)(a) of its personnel manual, and provide, inter alia, that “[a]ll DEA employees must have received the appropriate approvals prior to engaging in outside employment.” I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 61. The Standards of Conduct define “outside employment” as “any type of employment exclusive of DEA employment, including self-employment, employment by a third party, hobby-income, or participation in any business venture, whether or not there is any profit to the employee.” Id. at 59. “Self-employment” is defined as “any participation or interest in a business, corporation or franchised operation.” Id. The Standards of Conduct further
1 For reasons that are not entirely clear, portions of the record below were apparently reorganized and re-“tabbed” at the Board’s regional level after the initial decision was drafted. As a result, some citations to the record in the initial decision are no longer accurate. For example, the record citations at page 9 of the initial decision to Attachments B, C and D of Tab 16 of the I-1 Appeal File refer to documents that are now located at pages 544, 547 and 549 of Tab 20. This does not affect the outcome of the appeal. As we discuss below, the administrative judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the documentary evidence in the record below. Citations to the record in this Opinion and Order are to the record as currently tabbed. 4
specify that “outside employment” does not include investment activity, such as ownership of stocks and bonds, or income producing real estate, and excludes “[c]ertain volunteer activities,” such as “coaching and leading youth activities, donating time to nonprofit activities, helping senior citizens or disadvantaged persons, community programs, or religious activities.” Id. at 60.
Specifications 1-5
¶6 As discussed below, the administrative judge’s findings with respect to specifications 1-5 are fully supported by the record. The appellant states on review that he is challenging the administrative judge’s determination that the agency met its burden of proof with respect to the charge of Unauthorized Outside Employment. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 14, see I-2 AF, Tab 36, Initial Decision (ID) at 2-7. He offers no specific challenges to the administrative judge’s findings with respect to the outside activities cited by the agency in specifications 1-5, however, other than to repeat his contentions from below that the agency’s definition of outside employment in its Standards of Conduct is too broad and is inconsistent with a “common sense” definition of outside employment. PFR File, Tab 1 at 79-80. His personal disagreement with the agency’s standards, however, does not provide a basis for granting review of the initial decision.
¶7 The agency’s first specification concerns the appellant’s operation of a martial arts school, the Yamaneko Dojo. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 3. The appellant admittedly founded the school in 1990 and was its “chief instructor” while working at the agency. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 72, 74. The appellant stated to the agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) that he never sought approval to engage in outside employment with the school. I-1 AF, Tab 18, Subtab 37 at 48. The administrative judge therefore properly sustained this specification. ID at 4-5.
¶8 The agency’s second specification concerns a business called “Executive Terrorism Awareness Courses” (EXTAC). I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 3-4. The
5
appellant stipulated that he founded EXTAC, that it is an instruction course in personal defense for business executives, and that he received compensation for his services to EXTAC. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶ 75. EXTAC existed as a separate corporate entity for approximately 6 years, after which it merged into “the Warrior School,” id., discussed below. The appellant stated to the agency’s OPR that he never sought approval to engage in outside employment with EXTAC. I-1 AF, Tab 18, Subtab 37 at 53. Therefore, the administrative judge properly sustained this specification. ID at 4-5.
¶9 The agency’s third specification arose out of “Life Case LLC,” a company which the appellant stipulated he had founded in or about 2002 to market a bullet-proof briefcase that he had invented and patented. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶ 76; I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4. The appellant stated to the agency’s OPR that he never sought approval to engage in outside employment with Life Case LLC. I-1 AF, Tab 18, Subtab 37 at 56. In his petition for review, the appellant contended that he should not have been required to obtain approval for outside employment with respect to Life Case LLC “at the initial development stage where it is not known whether a single unit of the product would ever be produced or sold.” PFR, Tab 1 at 80. The administrative judge correctly found that Life Case LLC generated fees and profits at various times during the relevant time period. ID at 5. Specifically, the appellant’s income tax returns indicate that Life Case LLC reported profits of $9,800 in 2004. I-1 AF, Tab 21, Subtab 7 at 140. Therefore, the administrative judge properly sustained this specification. ID at 4-5.
¶10 The administrative judge also correctly sustained specification four, which arose out of the appellant’s work as President of “Answer to the Crisis,” a non-profit corporation founded in 2000 or 2001. ID at 5; see I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4. Answer to the Crisis existed to raise tuition funds for individuals to attend “Initiation Camp,” which was a course through Warrior School LLC. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶ 77. The appellant was the sole owner of Warrior School, see
6
id., ¶¶ 79-83, and argues on review that, when he belatedly first applied for approval to engage in outside employment with his “Warrior School” in October 2003, that request “should have included not only his Warrior School business interests going forward but also those businesses which he pursued in the past, which were, in reality, no more than the predecessors of the Warrior School.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 84. The appellant cites no factual or legal support for this argument. Moreover, as the administrative judge recognized, the agency’s Standards of Conduct expressly require approval “prior to engaging in outside employment.” ID at 3, see I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 61.
¶11 The appellant does not offer any specific argument on review concerning the administrative judge’s determination that the agency proved specification five, which concerned his “material participation in a business named ‘Jeffrey Prather,’ [resulting] in a net income for 2003 of $18,701.00.” ID at 4; see I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4. The administrative judge’s determination that the agency proved this specification is supported by the record. See I-1 AF, Tab 21, Subtab 7 at 125.
Specification 6
¶12 Specification 6 arose out of the appellant’s conduct in teaching courses and conducting business as President of Warrior School LLC from November 2003 to 2006. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4-5. As stated above, the appellant began submitting written requests for approval to engage in outside employment with Warrior School in 2003. I-1 AF, Tab 20 at 544-50. In two such requests, the appellant represented to the agency that he intended to “teach and supervise the teaching of classes and seminars, to the general public and particularly disadvantaged youth, on self defense and personal, spiritual development. I see this as another way to fight illegal drug use.” Id. at 544, 547. He also represented to the agency that the teaching “will occur on weekends, weeknights and on annual leave,” and acknowledged that “the use of Government facilities,
7
equipment, or transportation services to further my outside employment is forbidden.” Id.
¶13 In sustaining this specification, the administrative judge determined that “the outside employment for which the appellant received prior agency authorization differed in significant and material respects from that which he actually performed.” ID at 6. We agree. The appellant admitted that the Warrior School actually operated, inter alia, as a government contractor, providing federal firearms training and other courses to a variety of federal agencies and federal contractors, including the National Security Agency, for fees as high as $20,000 a class. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 94-100. He also admitted that he participated in Warrior School courses while on duty. I-1 AF, Tab 18 at 186-88. He also admittedly repeatedly used his assigned official government vehicle (OGV) to further Warrior School business and, as the administrative judge noted, he “provided a variety of DEA equipment, including vests, shields, and weapons, for use by participants in these classes.” ID at 6; I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 101, 102 (stipulating that DEA had proved Charge 2, Unauthorized Use of an OGV and Charge 3, Misuse of Government Property). In light of the appellant’s failure to advise the agency in his requests for outside employment that it would be conducted in part on government time and would involve use of his OGV and government equipment, the administrative judge correctly determined that those requests differed in significant and material respects from that which he actually performed. ID at 6.
¶14 On review, the appellant does not contest the administrative judge’s factual findings, but argues that he should not have been disciplined for his failure to request approval to run a for-profit company which did business with the federal government because Warrior School’s activities benefited society. PFR File, Tab 1 at 81-84. This contention does not provide any basis for disturbing the administrative judge’s findings and conclusions concerning this specification.
8
Specification 7
¶15 The final specification underlying the first charge arose out of the appellant’s admitted participation in 2004-2005 as an actor and/or stunt coordinator in two movies and a documentary. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 5; see I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 70-71. On review, the appellant does not dispute that he failed to obtain approval from the agency for this activity; rather, he suggests that advanced approval was not required because he was not paid for his work on the films, but only received credit. PFR File, Tab 1 at 80. In sustaining this specification, the administrative judge found, and the appellant does not contest, that he had invested $25,000 of his own money in one of the movies. ID at 7. Moreover, the agency’s Standards of Conduct unambiguously defined outside employment to include “participation in any business venture, whether or not there is any profit to the employee.” I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 59. The appellant’s petition for review provides no basis for disturbing the administrative judge’s findings and conclusions concerning this specification.
¶16 Accordingly, the administrative judge correctly determined that the agency proved all of the specifications underlying the charge of Unauthorized Outside Employment.
Charge 4: Providing False, Misleading or Inaccurate Information.2
Specifications 1-3
¶17 The first three specifications underlying the fourth charge arose out of representations that the appellant made to the agency in three written requests for permission to engage in outside employment, discussed above. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 8-9. To sustain a falsification charge, an agency must prove by preponderant evidence that the appellant knowingly supplied incorrect
2 As stated above, the appellant stipulated below that the agency had proven Charge Two, Unauthorized Use of an OGV, and Charge Three, Misuse of Government Property. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 101-102. 9
information with the intention of defrauding, deceiving or misleading the agency. Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Seas v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 422, 427 (1997). The requisite intent may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. Deskin v. U.S. Postal Service, 76 M.S.P.R. 505, 510-11 (1997). The issue of intent must be resolved based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 511. As discussed below, the administrative judge correctly determined that the agency met its burden of proof with respect to each of these specifications. ID at 8-10.
¶18 Specifications 1 and 2 concern the appellant’s written statements in support of his requests dated October 20, 2003, and January 7, 2005, for authorization to engage in outside employment in connection with Warrior School LLC. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 8. In each, he represented that the “nature” of his involvement with the Warrior School was “more vocational than business, in that the primary purpose is philanthopical [sic] and has evolved from volunteerism.” I-1 AF, Tab 20 at 544, 547. The appellant also certified that “[his] services in connection with this outside employment [would] not conflict with [his] duties as an employee of the DEA.” Id. Specification 3 concerned the appellant’s memorandum dated December 23, 2006, again requesting authorization for outside employment with Warrior School. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 4-5. In it, the appellant stated: “I understand that the use of Government facilities, equipment, or transportation services to further my outside employment is forbidden.” I-1 AF, Tab 20 at 549.
¶19 On review, the appellant contends, as he did below, that in describing Warrior School as primarily philanthropic and failing to disclose that it was a for-profit corporation, he did not intend to deceive the agency. PFR File, Tab 1 at 72. In support of his position, he contends that Warrior School was primarily philanthropic because it allegedly was serving mankind and had benefited the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan by training service members in firearms use. PFR File, Tab 1 at 65-71. We agree with the administrative judge’s determination that
10
the appellant’s involvement with the Warrior School was “no more objectively philanthropic . . . than if he had instead operated a for-profit dental practice, cleaning the teeth and filling the cavities of departing servicemen and women.” ID at 10. The appellant’s petition for review offers no basis for disturbing that determination.
¶20 Moreover, the appellant stipulated that he had repeatedly used his assigned OGV, as well as agency weapons and other equipment, on Warrior School business. I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶¶ 101-102. Citing the appellant’s own testimony that his chain of command would not have approved his request if they had known it would involve the use of government equipment, I-1 AF, Tab 18 at 251, the administrative judge correctly determined that these representations were “plainly false, raising the inescapable inference that they were intended to deceive the agency regarding material aspects of this proposed activity,” ID at 10. Furthermore, as the administrative judge noted, the appellant repeatedly certified to the agency that his duties with Warrior School would not conflict with his duties as a DEA employee and expressly stated: “I understand that the use of Government facilities, equipment, or transportation services to further my outside employment is forbidden.” ID at 9; see I-1 AF, Tab 20 at 544-50.
¶21 The appellant also claims that he could not have intended to deceive the agency because his first and second-line supervisors had allegedly accessed the Warrior School website. PFR File, Tab 1 at 72. He offers no citation to the record for this proposition, and we find no evidence therein to support it. The administrative judge therefore properly sustained the first three specifications of this charge.
Specification 4
¶22 The agency alleged in the fourth specification underlying this charge that the appellant submitted biweekly activity reports and time and attendance reports in which he represented either that he was on duty, conducting agency business, or on sick leave, on eleven different dates and times when he was actually
11
participating in training courses at the Warrior School. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 9-10. The record evidence below supports the administrative judge’s determination that the biweekly and time and attendance reports that the appellant submitted were factually incorrect, as demonstrated by the sworn testimony of former Warrior School students and instructors. See, e.g., I-1 AF, Tab 11, Subtabs 2-8, 10-12; see I-2 AF, Tab 22, JS, ¶ 59; see also I-1 AF, Tab 17 at 258-301.
¶23 Although the appellant claims on review that he merely made mistakes, PFR File, Tab 1 at 74, intent can be inferred when a representation is made with reckless disregard for the truth or the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of the specific intent to deceive. See, e.g., Christopher v. Department of the Army, 107 M.S.P.R. 580, ¶ 12, aff’d, 299 F. App’x 964 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Haebe v. Department of Justice, 81 M.S.P.R. 167, 181-82 (1999), rev’d on other grounds, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, eleven incorrect reports argue against mere mistake. We find no basis in the appellant’s petition for review to disturb the administrative judge’s conclusion that “it strains credulity to suppose that the appellant was other than fully conscious of his repeated failure to indicate his actual activities and whereabouts on the reports in question.” ID at 12. The administrative judge explained “the appellant could hardly have acted otherwise without revealing the obvious impropriety of his conduct.” Id.
¶24 Finally, the appellant also argues that this specification is actually an allegation that he “committed fraud” in his biweekly and time and attendance reports, and asserts that the agency “can only successfully prove an intent to defraud if it can demonstrate that Special Agent (SA) Prather over-reported the hours that he actually worked with the intention of defrauding or cheating the Agency out of pay that was not properly due and owing to him.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 74-75. The agency, however, did not charge the appellant with fraud, but with providing false, misleading or inaccurate information in violation of its Standards of Conduct. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4(i) at 9-10. Moreover, as stated above, a
12
falsification charge can be sustained if the appellant knowingly supplied incorrect information with the intention of defrauding, deceiving or misleading the agency, and intent can be established by reckless disregard for the truth. Because ample record evidence supports the administrative judge’s conclusion that the appellant supplied incorrect information to avoid revealing to the agency the impropriety of his conduct, ID at 12, he therefore properly sustained this specification.
Charge 5: Conduct Unbecoming a DEA Special Agent.
¶25 As stated above, the appellant does not challenge the administrative judge’s determination that the agency met its burden of proof with respect to the first specification underlying Charge 5. ID at 12. In it, the agency alleged that the appellant, a firearms instructor with access to and responsibility for maintaining custody and control of DEA fully-automatic weapons, provided those fully automatic weapons to civilian Warrior School students, even though he was not present during much of the training. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 3-5. Because we find no error in the administrative judge’s determination, we will only examine the second specification of Charge 5.
¶26 Much of the appellant’s petition for review concerns the second specification underlying Charge 5. In the proposal, the agency alleged that, under the pretense of helping individuals through a practice the appellant developed and called “sexual healing,” he took advantage of vulnerable and struggling women. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 11. Specifically, the agency alleged that he persuaded women to engage in sexual acts with him by telling them that they would be “healed” if they had sexual relations with him. Id. The agency further alleged that, in their sworn statements, two women described their “sexual healings” as “violent and/or a rape, and [he has] been accused of sexual assault by at least one of the women.” Id. In addition, the agency alleged that, in his leadership role at the Connection Institute, he advised a member that her husband had become a homosexual and that the way to bring him back to their marriage was for her to engage in “‘sexual healing’ with [him].” Id. The agency alleged
13
that the appellant’s conduct violated its Standards of Conduct, which, inter alia, provide that “DEA personnel are prohibited from engaging in any criminal, infamous, dishonest, or notoriously disgraceful conduct,” that they “shall always conduct themselves in a professional manner,” that they shall “refrain from omissions or commissions of conduct in their off-duty hours which will impact, influence, impede or in any way effect their DEA responsibilities,” and that they will not “act in a manner which will bring disgrace or disfavor upon DEA or act in a manner that will cause the general public to question, ridicule or attack the efforts of this Agency or its personnel.” Id.; see I-2 AF, Tab 10 at 57.
¶27 In his petition for review, the appellant claims that the agency’s specification amounts to a charge of rape, but that the administrative judge altered the charge “from a rape theory to something substantially less than that.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 49. The administrative judge properly rejected this contention below. ID at 15. Although the agency cited to testimony from the two women which described their encounters with the appellant as “violent and/or a rape,” the administrative judge correctly determined that the question of whether the appellant’s conduct amounted to rape or sexual assault is not part of the essence of this charge. Id.; see Hicks v. Department of the Treasury, 62 M.S.P.R. 71, 74 (1994) (an agency is required to prove only the essence of its charge, and need not prove each factual specification supporting the charge), aff’d, 48 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Table).
¶28 This specification arose out of the appellant’s admitted sexual relations with two women, identified in the initial decision by the initials LW and MM. ID at 15-18; see I-1 AF, Tab 19 at 447-48, 475-76. The appellant confirmed to OPR that LW had contacted him about a problem in her marriage. I-1 AF, Tab 19 at 443-44. He also admitted that he had engaged in “sexual healing” with her and that he “possibly” had told her not to tell her husband (another group member) about the sexual contact. ID at 18; see I-1 AF Tab 19 at 447-48. He also admitted that oral sex had occurred and that he stopped intercourse because LW
14
was not submitting. Id. at 471, 475-77. Moreover, on review, the appellant confirms that MM actively pursued a “sexual healing” because she believed that she was a “mess” and was “damaged by her relationship with her husband and other men.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 58; see also I-1 AF, Tab 15, Subtab 27 at 22-23. Further, the administrative judge found, and the appellant does not dispute that he had a leadership role in the “Warrior School” and in his “Connectionism Institute.” ID at 18. The appellant agreed that “there is somewhat of an implied power” in his role as founder of the organization and benefactor to junior members, I-1 AF, Tab 19 at 411; and he agreed that officers of the Connection Institute ultimately came to believe that his sexual conduct with female followers constituted an “abuse” of his authority, leading to his suspension from the leadership position and a mass defection of members, see id. at 385-90, 415-19. The record below contains the testimony of witnesses who confirmed to the agency’s OPR that they had demanded that the appellant stop conducting “sexual healings” because they believed that his actions constituted an abuse of power. See I-1 AF, Tab 14, Subtab 24 at 48-49; Tab 12, Subtab 17 at 95-98.
¶29 Thus, the record below, including the appellant’s own testimony, supports the administrative judge’s conclusion that the agency established the essence of this specification, i.e., that the appellant misused his leadership role in the institutions he founded to take sexual advantage of vulnerable female followers. ID at 18. The administrative judge therefore correctly determined that the agency met its burden of proof with respect to both specifications underlying Charge 5.
The administrative judge properly found nexus between the appellant’s off-duty misconduct and the efficiency of service.
¶30 An agency may take an adverse action against an employee only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a); Doe v. Department of Justice, 113 M.S.P.R. 128, ¶ 20 (2010); 5 C.F.R. § 752.403(a). In Kruger v. Department of Justice, 32 M.S.P.R. 71, 74 (1987), the Board held that an agency may show a nexus between off-duty misconduct and the efficiency of
15
the service by three means: (1) a rebuttable presumption in certain egregious circumstances; (2) preponderant evidence that the misconduct adversely affects the appellant's or co-workers' job performance or the agency's trust and confidence in the appellant's job performance; or (3) preponderant evidence that the misconduct interfered with or adversely affected the agency's mission. See Doe, 113 M.S.P.R. 128, ¶ 20.
¶31 As the agency stated in its proposal notice, the appellant’s ability to testify in criminal trials has been significantly impaired as a result of his misconduct in providing false, misleading or inaccurate information concerning his activities. I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 13.3 We also conclude that the agency established by preponderant evidence a nexus between the proven charges of unauthorized outside employment, unauthorized use of a government vehicle and misuse of government property, and the efficiency of the service. The agency clearly established nexus for these proven offenses.
¶32 The appellant asserts on review, though, as he did below, that there is no nexus between his off-duty sexual conduct unless such conduct constituted rape or forcible assault. PFR File, Tab 1 at 53-57. The agency, however, presented sufficient grounds for finding a nexus between the appellant’s off-duty sexual conduct and the efficiency of the service. See I-1 AF, Tab 9, Subtab 4e at 5; Tab 10, Subtab 4i at 11-14. The administrative judge correctly determined that the appellant’s duties as Special Agent included potential contact with female informants. He thus also correctly concluded that the appellant’s off-duty sexual
3 Under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), investigative agencies must turn over to prosecutors potential impeachment evidence with respect to the agents involved in the case. The prosecutor then exercises his discretion as to whether the impeachment evidence must be turned over to the defense. See Rodriguez v. Department of Homeland Security, 108 M.S.P.R. 76, ¶ 29 n.3 (2008), aff’d, 314 F. App’x 318 (Fed. Cir. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. U.S. Postal Service, 116 M.S.P.R. 453 (2011). A “Giglio impaired” agent is one against whom there is potential impeachment evidence that would render the agent’s testimony of marginal value in a case. Id. 16
conduct with vulnerable women, while misusing his position of authority, reasonably caused the agency to lose trust in the appellant’s ability to independently work with such individuals. ID at 18-21; see Royster v. Department of Justice, 58 M.S.P.R. 495, 500 (1993) (off-duty behavior toward women had nexus to employee’s position as correctional officer in women’s prison); Barnhill v. Department of Justice, 10 M.S.P.R. 378, 380-81 (1982) (off-duty behavior toward women had nexus to employee’s position as border patrol agent whose duties involved contact with female aliens).
¶33 The appellant contends that “the handling of informants had not been part of his job description as a DEA federal agent for many years.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 57. However, by statute DEA Agents are authorized to make arrests. 21 U.S.C. § 878(a)(3). Moreover, the appellant cited his meritorious service as a criminal investigator in arguing against the penalty of removal. See, e.g., I-1 AF, Tab 9, Subtab 4(g), Ex. Z at 1 (award recommendation for the appellant’s 1992 role in a criminal investigation in which DEA received information “from an informant under the control of SI A Prather”); id. at 4 (commendation for the appellant’s 2002 initiation of criminal investigations which led to several arrests). We therefore find by preponderant evidence that the appellant’s off-duty sexual conduct adversely affected the agency’s trust and confidence in the appellant’s ability to perform his job as a DEA criminal investigator.
The penalty of removal does not exceed the bounds of reasonableness.
¶34 The appellant contends that the agency failed to give proper weight to the Douglas factors in deciding to remove him. PFR File, Tab 1 at 84-94. The Board generally will review an agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency considered all the relevant factors and exercised management discretion within tolerable limits of reasonableness. Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 306 (1981). Where, as here, the Board sustains all of an agency’s charges, the Board may mitigate the agency’s original penalty to the maximum reasonable penalty when it finds the agency’s original penalty too
17
severe. Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The record indicates that the deciding official considered the relevant Douglas factors. See I-1 AF, Tab 10, Subtab 4e.
¶35 As noted in the initial decision, the agency conceded that it erroneously relied upon the appellant’s prior discipline in contravention of its own regulations, which provide that letters of reprimand are removed from an employee’s Official Personnel Folder after two years. A-2 AF, Tab 32 at 47-48. Where, as here, an agency errs in consideration of prior discipline, the Board determines whether the agency’s penalty selection may be affirmed without regard to the improperly considered discipline. See Stoddard v. Department of the Army, 109 M.S.P.R. 199, ¶ 10 n.3 (2008); Jinks v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 106 M.S.P.R. 627, ¶¶ 22-23 (2007).
¶36 We agree with the administrative judge that the agency’s original penalty of removal is well within the tolerable limits of reasonableness for the sustained charges of misconduct. As the administrative judge recognized, law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard of honesty and integrity. ID at 25; see e.g., Phillips v. Department of the Interior, 95 M.S.P.R. 21, ¶ 16 (2003) (a law enforcement officer was removed for falsifying information on her pre-employment documents), aff’d, 131 F. App’x 709 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Scott v. Department of Justice, 69 M.S.P.R. 211, 243-44 (1995) (same), aff’d, 99 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Table). The administrative judge correctly determined that, even absent consideration of the “sexual healing” practices that are the basis for Specification 2 of Charge 5, the agency’s remaining charges, alone or in combination, provide a reasonable basis for the agency’s removal penalty under the circumstances of this case. ID at 24; see Schoeffler v. Department of Agriculture, 47 M.S.P.R. 80, 86 (removal for falsification and engaging in dishonest activity promotes the efficiency of the service since such behavior raises serious doubts regarding the employee’s reliability, veracity and
18
trustworthiness); vacated in part, 50 M.S.P.R. 143 (1991). The appellant’s contentions on review concerning the penalty of removal thus lack merit.
The administrative judge correctly determined that the appellant failed to establish his religious discrimination claim.
¶37 The appellant also contends on review that the administrative judge “failed to properly apply the relevant decisional authority concerning appellant's affirmative defense of religious discrimination.” PFR File, Tab 1 at 94. We conclude that the administrative judge properly considered and rejected the appellant’s affirmative defense under the relevant legal framework.4
The appellant stated below that he was not relying upon theories of disparate impact or accommodation, but was raising a claim that he was “disparately treated by DEA’s OPR based on a comparison of the manner in which it handled his case before and after it learned of his religious beliefs. I-1 AF, Tab 27 at 1, 3. To establish a prima facie case of prohibited employment discrimination based on disparate treatment, an appellant must show that he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that the unfavorable action gives rise to an inference of discrimination. Gregory v. Department of the Army, 114 M.S.P.R. 607, ¶ 40 (2010). Where, as here, the agency has already articulated a nondiscriminatory reason for its action, i.e., the charged misconduct, it has done everything that would be required of it if the appellant had made out a prima facie case, and whether he in fact did so is no longer relevant. Id. Thus, the inquiry proceeds directly to the ultimate question
4 The appellant established that he is the head of “the Connectionism movement.” Although the agency questions on review whether Connectionism is a bona fide religion, see PFR File, Tab 3 at 28 n.7, because the administrative judge correctly determined that the agency would have removed the appellant regardless of his religious beliefs, it is not necessary for the Board to reach that issue in deciding this appeal. 19
of whether, upon weighing all of the evidence, the appellant has met his overall burden of proving illegal discrimination. Id.
The question to be resolved is whether the appellant produced sufficient evidence to show that the agency’s proffered basis for removing him was not the actual reason for its action, and that the agency intentionally discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs. Gregory, 114 M.S.P.R. 607, ¶ 41. The evidence to be considered may include the elements of the appellant’s prima facie case; any evidence produced by the appellant to attack the agency’s proffered explanation for its action; and any further evidence of discrimination available to the appellant, such as independent evidence of discriminatory statements or attitudes on the part of the agency, or any contrary evidence that may be available to the employer, such as a strong track record in equal opportunity employment. Id. Relevant evidence may also include proof that the agency treated similarly situated employees differently than the appellant; that the agency lied about its reason for taking the action; any inconsistency in the agency’s explanation for its action; the agency’s failure to follow its own established procedures; the agency’s general treatment of members of the appellant’s protected class; and incriminating statements by agency officials. Id.
¶38 The initial decision correctly summarizes and applies this settled precedent, concluding that the appellant failed to establish that the agency’s proffered basis for removing him was not the actual reason for its action, and that the agency intentionally discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs. ID at 22-24. In his petition for review, the appellant did not dispute that the charged conduct actually occurred. He did not contend that the agency manufactured false evidence in order to convict him of offenses he never committed. He also failed to identify any similarly-situated employee who received more favorable treatment - that is, any other Special Agent who made multiple false statements and engaged in unauthorized outside employment over a period of years, but who was not removed. See Adams v. Department of Labor, 112 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶ 13
20
(2009) (rejecting discrimination defense where employee did not dispute that the violations occurred and failed to identify similarly-situated comparator employees). As the administrative judge correctly determined, the agency provided convincing evidence that he engaged in a variety of serious misconduct, including making false statements, misusing government property, and engaging in unauthorized outside employment. ID at 24. Because we find that he engaged in the charged misconduct, much of which he does not dispute, he has failed to establish that the agency’s proffered reasons were not the actual reasons for its action.
ORDER
¶39 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113(c) (5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(c)).
NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
You have the right to request further review of this final decision.
Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review
You may request the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to review this final decision on your discrimination claims. See Title 5 of the United States Codes, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). You must send your request to EEOC at the following address:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20036
You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no
21
later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time.
Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action
If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f); 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
Other Claims: Judicial Review
If you do not want to request review of this final decision concerning your discrimination claims, but you do want to request review of the Board’s decision without regard to your discrimination claims, you may request the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review this final decision on the other issues in your appeal. You must submit your request to the court at the following address:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20439
The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your
22
representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with the court no later than 60 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir 1991).
If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703). You may read this law, as well as review the Board’s regulations and other related material, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov. Additional information is available at the court's website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court's "Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants," which is contained within the court's Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, and 11.
FOR THE BOARD:
______________________________ William D. Spencer Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.
ANOTHER GREAT WEB FORUM TO CHECK OUT:
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-55118-p-3.html
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Guilt by Association with Jeff Prather
Here is another great list of websites and names of people who have associated with Jeff Prather in the past or who continue to do so. Jeff Prather runs the cult called Warriorschool. Many of the people who claim to have trained with Prather in the past may not have known about his problems. But now they are easily discovered with a quick google search.
Thanks to Richard Van Donk Jeff Prather can sell his DVD courses online.
http://www.ninjutsustore.com/store/home.php?cat=137
VH1 lists Prathers film accomplishments
http://www.vh1.com/movies/person/443712/personmain.jhtml?personid=443712
Miracle at Sage Creek a movie with David Carradine.
http://www.vh1.com/movies/movie/273827/moviemain.jhtml
and Christmas Miracle at Sage Creek
http://www.vh1.com/movies/movie/354970/moviemain.jhtml
Also see an old school seminar Prather did in 2000.
http://www.winjutsu.com/seminars/prather_seminar.htm
http://www.fudomyodojo.com/
The Bujinkan Yamaneko
Fudo Myo Dojo
Dojo-Cho: Shihan Jeff Prather, 15th Dan
Shibu-Cho: Domonic Lees, 4th Dan
Mr. Domonic Lees is a true believer, if he is still affilliated with Mr. Prather. They appear to be one of Prather's franchise dojos in Albuquerque.
http://vegasbujinkan.com/DavidEstorga.html
Here is yet another Yamaneko Prather Dojo, but in Las Vegas of all places.
Bujinkan Yamaneko Dojo: Las Vegas Shibu
David Estorga, Yondan, shibucho
Go to the web site to see his happy clappy pictures.
Mr. Estorga is a Warrior and father with 16 Years experience in the martial arts. He has trained in judo and kenpo and has black belt rank in both. He has trained in the Bujinkan for 10 years. In 2006, he earned his Warrior bracelet under benefactor Tim Pinnow. Mr. Estorga is also contracted with Warrior School to help teach Close Quarter Combat to military personel.
Bujinkan Yamaneko Dojo: Las Vegas Shibu is a satelite dojo under Jeffery Prather, Jugodan, dojocho, and his Bujinkan Yamanenko Dojo in Tucson, AZ. Mr. Estorga is a student of Prather Shihan's and teaches with license from Prather Shihan.
E-mail Mr. Estorga: dav.ten@gmail.com
Tim Pinnow is definitely one of Prather's super cult members.
Yet another victim of Prather's indoctrination. I am surprised that these people advertise their affiliation with Mr. Prather. Don't they have access to Google. Don't they know his reputation. I guess they just don't care. Well then, here it is for all the world to see. All in one spot.
http://www.tacticalselfdefense.com/Bujinkan/YorkDojo/instruct.htm
Assistant Instructor - Martin Hucik III, 3rd Dan
Marty has been training in several different martial arts for over ten years. His primary interest has been under the guidance of Greg Stough and the fellow members of the York Bujinkan Dojo. In addition to training regularly at the York Dojo, Marty has trained in Japan with Hatsumi Sensei and many other Japanese Shihan. To continue his training in the warrior arts he has attended many seminars conducted by top Bujinkan Instructors. These instructors include Phil Legare, Mark O'Brien, Ed Martin, Charles Daniel and Jeff Prather to name a few.
In addition to martial arts training Marty has attended a variety of wilderness survival workshops offered by Larry Neubaum and Greg Stough, and he also finished the student version of Warriorship School headed by Jeff Prather, under the tutelage of Phil Legare.
Marty has been a self-employed construction contractor for over 15 years. He is also a certified Shiatsu Therapist. In addition to his martial arts training Marty's hobbies include nature identification, hiking, fishing, just hanging out with friends, and enjoying life.
http://dojo.freeshell.org/bios3.html
About the Instructors
The instructors of the Bujinkan Taka-Seigi Dojo Vancouver hold black-belt ranks of sandan (3rd degree black belt) or higher in the art of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu and teach according to the philosophies, techniques, and guidelines of Soke Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, Shihan Phillip Legare, Shidoshi Scott White, and many of the senior Bujinkan Instructors of Japan. In addition to ranks in Budo Taijutsu, all of the instructors have several years of training in other martial arts styles such as kung-fu, karate, kick boxing, etc., which helps them to better bridge and accommodate the previous training of students coming from those styles.
About Paul Mann
Dojo leader Paul Mann , Shidoshi-ho under Shidoshi Scott White, is a registered member of the Bujinkan Shidoshikai (Bujinkan Instructor's Organization) and has been studying the art of Budo Taijutsu since 1997.
Over the past five years, he has made three trips to Japan to go to the "source of Budo". In Japan, he has had the privilege of training under Soke Hatsumi and senior Japanese Shihans such as Nagato, Noguchi, Oguri, Shiraishi, Nagase, and Someya. Each of these Shihan have focused their training on different aspects of Budo Taijutsu and they are all phenomenal!!
In addition to training in Japan, Paul has attended many seminars by respected Bujinkan instructructors such as Phil Legare, Michael Pearce, Jeff Prather, Brin Morgan, Natasha Morgan, Bill Atkins, Ed Martin, Dale Seago, Jeff Mueller, Shawn Gray, Ed Lomex, and Tim Bathurst.
PLEASE CHECK BACK AT A LATER DATE TO see PICTURES & ARTICLES from the various trips.
http://www.freewebs.com/birminghambujinkandojo/shihanjayzimmerman.htm
Jay currently holds the rank of Judan (10th dan) in Budo Taijutsu; with 20 years of Budo training and 9 of them spent studying Budo Taijutsu. Jay has, in the last nine years, attended 55 seminars and TaiKai here in the USA with the likes of Shihan Dick Severance, Shihan Phil Legare, Shihan Joseph Adriance, Shihan Jack Hoban, Shihan Mike Pearce, Shiahn Larry Hamilton, Shihan Ed Martin, Shihan Jeff Prather and more. Jay has made 5 trips to Japan since 2003 and has trained with Soke Hatsumi Sensei, Nagato Sensei, Noguchi Sensei, Seno Sensei, Oguri Sensei and Someya Sensei. Jay and his wife Beth (also Shidoshi) travel to Japan twice a year for training; trying to understand Hatsumi Sensei’s budo. Jay has preformed seminars for the Fort Wayne, Indiana Army National Guard, Bluffton, Indiana Army Air Cavalry National Guard, performs seminars in the United States and host seminars for many high-ranking Shihan. Jay is head teacher at Bujinkan Goshin Budo Dojo in Garrett, Indiana (www.bushindojo.com). Jay is currently employed as an Industrial Maintenance Technician, owner of Midwest Blanks LLC (www.midwestblanks.com), and involved in real estate. Jay is involved with physical fitness via Crossfit (thanks Mike P.) and an avid handgun (trying long-gun) shooter, as well as a drummer.
http://www.bushindojo.com
http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~jmh253/Who%20I%20am.htm
WHO I AM
(A Profile of John-Paul Michael Hodnett)
I've studied Budo Taijitsu, "the divine body arts", for about six years now. The pictures above are from the Bujinkan group I belonged to in Tucson Arizona (I'm third from the right in the back row) which happen to have me in them. This style has taught me much on how to be a better man, a warrior in modern times, and to have a broader awareness of my surroundings (which includes reading people and to walk softly with open eyes). This style, most commonly referred to Ninjitsu, is one of the most extreme fighting styles taught to today. My sensei, Shihan Jeff Prather (above picture: taking on his students. I'm the one facing right in front of him) has been one of my greatest teachers and his influence still is with me today. His discipline and experience harden both mind and body to take on any event in life. The biggest lesson I learned is that there are few true warriors in the world who help the common man. I try to live by the warrior code and help those in need.
More mentions of people training with Prather
http://www.livingvalues.com/archives.html
Jeff Prather Shinkengata
http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/seminars-events/20400-shinkengata-summit-june-2006-a.html
Default Shinkengata Summit June 2006
The First Annual Shinkengata Summit
Shinkengata (real combat methods) was originally developed by Takamatsu Soke and then refined by Hatsumi Soke. Through Menkyo Kaiden, a Judan in Shinkengata was given to Phil Legare, Jeff Prather, and Michael Pearce for the purpose of further development into Shinken Taijutsu to be a relevant art in the 21st century. Shinken Taijutsu was formed from the Shinken of Shinkengata, the Taijutsu of the Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu and the modern application of many combat methods.
In the spirit of the Bujinkan honoring the tradition established by Dr. Massaki Hatsumi Soke
Featuring Shihans: Jeff Prather, Phil Legare & Michael Pearce
with special guest: Shihan Dick Severance
Saturday, June 24, 2006 & Sunday, June 25, 2006
Pointe Hilton Tapatio Cliffs - Phoenix Arizona
602-866-7500 for lodging and reservations
Registration: 8:00 AM
Training times: 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM & 1:30pm - 4:00pm
Price: $125 - students of featured/guest Shihans (for those registered and PAID by June 10th, 2006)
$150 - all others and at the door
$80 - one day only
For more information, see http://www.bujinkanusa.com/seminars.htm
Thanks to Richard Van Donk Jeff Prather can sell his DVD courses online.
http://www.ninjutsustore.com/store/home.php?cat=137
VH1 lists Prathers film accomplishments
http://www.vh1.com/movies/person/443712/personmain.jhtml?personid=443712
Miracle at Sage Creek a movie with David Carradine.
http://www.vh1.com/movies/movie/273827/moviemain.jhtml
and Christmas Miracle at Sage Creek
http://www.vh1.com/movies/movie/354970/moviemain.jhtml
Also see an old school seminar Prather did in 2000.
http://www.winjutsu.com/seminars/prather_seminar.htm
http://www.fudomyodojo.com/
The Bujinkan Yamaneko
Fudo Myo Dojo
Dojo-Cho: Shihan Jeff Prather, 15th Dan
Shibu-Cho: Domonic Lees, 4th Dan
Mr. Domonic Lees is a true believer, if he is still affilliated with Mr. Prather. They appear to be one of Prather's franchise dojos in Albuquerque.
http://vegasbujinkan.com/DavidEstorga.html
Here is yet another Yamaneko Prather Dojo, but in Las Vegas of all places.
Bujinkan Yamaneko Dojo: Las Vegas Shibu
David Estorga, Yondan, shibucho
Go to the web site to see his happy clappy pictures.
Mr. Estorga is a Warrior and father with 16 Years experience in the martial arts. He has trained in judo and kenpo and has black belt rank in both. He has trained in the Bujinkan for 10 years. In 2006, he earned his Warrior bracelet under benefactor Tim Pinnow. Mr. Estorga is also contracted with Warrior School to help teach Close Quarter Combat to military personel.
Bujinkan Yamaneko Dojo: Las Vegas Shibu is a satelite dojo under Jeffery Prather, Jugodan, dojocho, and his Bujinkan Yamanenko Dojo in Tucson, AZ. Mr. Estorga is a student of Prather Shihan's and teaches with license from Prather Shihan.
E-mail Mr. Estorga: dav.ten@gmail.com
Tim Pinnow is definitely one of Prather's super cult members.
Yet another victim of Prather's indoctrination. I am surprised that these people advertise their affiliation with Mr. Prather. Don't they have access to Google. Don't they know his reputation. I guess they just don't care. Well then, here it is for all the world to see. All in one spot.
http://www.tacticalselfdefense.com/Bujinkan/YorkDojo/instruct.htm
Assistant Instructor - Martin Hucik III, 3rd Dan
Marty has been training in several different martial arts for over ten years. His primary interest has been under the guidance of Greg Stough and the fellow members of the York Bujinkan Dojo. In addition to training regularly at the York Dojo, Marty has trained in Japan with Hatsumi Sensei and many other Japanese Shihan. To continue his training in the warrior arts he has attended many seminars conducted by top Bujinkan Instructors. These instructors include Phil Legare, Mark O'Brien, Ed Martin, Charles Daniel and Jeff Prather to name a few.
In addition to martial arts training Marty has attended a variety of wilderness survival workshops offered by Larry Neubaum and Greg Stough, and he also finished the student version of Warriorship School headed by Jeff Prather, under the tutelage of Phil Legare.
Marty has been a self-employed construction contractor for over 15 years. He is also a certified Shiatsu Therapist. In addition to his martial arts training Marty's hobbies include nature identification, hiking, fishing, just hanging out with friends, and enjoying life.
http://dojo.freeshell.org/bios3.html
About the Instructors
The instructors of the Bujinkan Taka-Seigi Dojo Vancouver hold black-belt ranks of sandan (3rd degree black belt) or higher in the art of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu and teach according to the philosophies, techniques, and guidelines of Soke Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, Shihan Phillip Legare, Shidoshi Scott White, and many of the senior Bujinkan Instructors of Japan. In addition to ranks in Budo Taijutsu, all of the instructors have several years of training in other martial arts styles such as kung-fu, karate, kick boxing, etc., which helps them to better bridge and accommodate the previous training of students coming from those styles.
About Paul Mann
Dojo leader Paul Mann , Shidoshi-ho under Shidoshi Scott White, is a registered member of the Bujinkan Shidoshikai (Bujinkan Instructor's Organization) and has been studying the art of Budo Taijutsu since 1997.
Over the past five years, he has made three trips to Japan to go to the "source of Budo". In Japan, he has had the privilege of training under Soke Hatsumi and senior Japanese Shihans such as Nagato, Noguchi, Oguri, Shiraishi, Nagase, and Someya. Each of these Shihan have focused their training on different aspects of Budo Taijutsu and they are all phenomenal!!
In addition to training in Japan, Paul has attended many seminars by respected Bujinkan instructructors such as Phil Legare, Michael Pearce, Jeff Prather, Brin Morgan, Natasha Morgan, Bill Atkins, Ed Martin, Dale Seago, Jeff Mueller, Shawn Gray, Ed Lomex, and Tim Bathurst.
PLEASE CHECK BACK AT A LATER DATE TO see PICTURES & ARTICLES from the various trips.
http://www.freewebs.com/birminghambujinkandojo/shihanjayzimmerman.htm
Jay currently holds the rank of Judan (10th dan) in Budo Taijutsu; with 20 years of Budo training and 9 of them spent studying Budo Taijutsu. Jay has, in the last nine years, attended 55 seminars and TaiKai here in the USA with the likes of Shihan Dick Severance, Shihan Phil Legare, Shihan Joseph Adriance, Shihan Jack Hoban, Shihan Mike Pearce, Shiahn Larry Hamilton, Shihan Ed Martin, Shihan Jeff Prather and more. Jay has made 5 trips to Japan since 2003 and has trained with Soke Hatsumi Sensei, Nagato Sensei, Noguchi Sensei, Seno Sensei, Oguri Sensei and Someya Sensei. Jay and his wife Beth (also Shidoshi) travel to Japan twice a year for training; trying to understand Hatsumi Sensei’s budo. Jay has preformed seminars for the Fort Wayne, Indiana Army National Guard, Bluffton, Indiana Army Air Cavalry National Guard, performs seminars in the United States and host seminars for many high-ranking Shihan. Jay is head teacher at Bujinkan Goshin Budo Dojo in Garrett, Indiana (www.bushindojo.com). Jay is currently employed as an Industrial Maintenance Technician, owner of Midwest Blanks LLC (www.midwestblanks.com), and involved in real estate. Jay is involved with physical fitness via Crossfit (thanks Mike P.) and an avid handgun (trying long-gun) shooter, as well as a drummer.
http://www.bushindojo.com
http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~jmh253/Who%20I%20am.htm
WHO I AM
(A Profile of John-Paul Michael Hodnett)
I've studied Budo Taijitsu, "the divine body arts", for about six years now. The pictures above are from the Bujinkan group I belonged to in Tucson Arizona (I'm third from the right in the back row) which happen to have me in them. This style has taught me much on how to be a better man, a warrior in modern times, and to have a broader awareness of my surroundings (which includes reading people and to walk softly with open eyes). This style, most commonly referred to Ninjitsu, is one of the most extreme fighting styles taught to today. My sensei, Shihan Jeff Prather (above picture: taking on his students. I'm the one facing right in front of him) has been one of my greatest teachers and his influence still is with me today. His discipline and experience harden both mind and body to take on any event in life. The biggest lesson I learned is that there are few true warriors in the world who help the common man. I try to live by the warrior code and help those in need.
More mentions of people training with Prather
http://www.livingvalues.com/archives.html
Jeff Prather Shinkengata
http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/seminars-events/20400-shinkengata-summit-june-2006-a.html
Default Shinkengata Summit June 2006
The First Annual Shinkengata Summit
Shinkengata (real combat methods) was originally developed by Takamatsu Soke and then refined by Hatsumi Soke. Through Menkyo Kaiden, a Judan in Shinkengata was given to Phil Legare, Jeff Prather, and Michael Pearce for the purpose of further development into Shinken Taijutsu to be a relevant art in the 21st century. Shinken Taijutsu was formed from the Shinken of Shinkengata, the Taijutsu of the Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu and the modern application of many combat methods.
In the spirit of the Bujinkan honoring the tradition established by Dr. Massaki Hatsumi Soke
Featuring Shihans: Jeff Prather, Phil Legare & Michael Pearce
with special guest: Shihan Dick Severance
Saturday, June 24, 2006 & Sunday, June 25, 2006
Pointe Hilton Tapatio Cliffs - Phoenix Arizona
602-866-7500 for lodging and reservations
Registration: 8:00 AM
Training times: 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM & 1:30pm - 4:00pm
Price: $125 - students of featured/guest Shihans (for those registered and PAID by June 10th, 2006)
$150 - all others and at the door
$80 - one day only
For more information, see http://www.bujinkanusa.com/seminars.htm
Jeff Prather Cult Leader Info Compiled By Another Web Page
Here is a clever web site that keeps track of peoples names. It did a really good job of compiling negative data on Jeff Prather.
http://www.isthisyour.name/jeff_prather.htm
Related Videos
These results courtesy the YouTube public videos feed.
* Yamaneko Kids 1
* Yamaneko Kids 2
* Escaping an Attack at the Car
* Tactical Medicine
* Active Shooter Response Course - Passing the Test
* Active Shooter Response Course - Sharpening the Skills
Related Blog Posts
Results are courtesy of Google Blog Search (RSS). Is there content here you want removed? Please read the message in red at the bottom of this section.
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather: Names associated ...
By: somebody121 on Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:12:00 GMT
Names associated with Jeff Prather and Darin Ashley. Here are three comment responses to an older post. Not sure if it has been prominently displayed before. Can't hurt to do it again. Blogger Kamereon said. ... ->
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather: Negative Reports ...
By: somebody121 on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:21:00 GMT
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather. Warriorschool Initiation Camp Warrior School Cult Analysis Recovery and Skepticism with Compassion. Wednesday, July 22, 2009. Negative Reports On Warriorschool Cult and Prather ... ->
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather: Mike gives more ...
By: somebody121 on Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:18:00 GMT
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather. Warriorschool Initiation Camp Warrior School Cult Analysis Recovery and Skepticism with Compassion. Monday, July 27, 2009. Mike gives more information on Warriorschool Prather Jeff and ... ->
BULLSHIT Detection Kit for Warriorschoolers
By: somebody121 on Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:58:00 GMT
Here is something I learned about from Shermer's Skeptic Society. Sometimes called the Baloney Detection Kit, here it is the Bullshit detection kit. Read, learn and apply to liberate yourself from Jeff Prathers' Warrior Cult. ... ->
Dr Persinger and the God Helmet and God
By: somebody121 on Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:50:00 GMT
That is a video of a church service. You can see mob think and mass hysteria at work here. If you get the right leadership, the right followers and the right experiences you can give people outrageous feelings. ... ->
Science and Reason
By: somebody121 on Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:20:00 GMT
If you want to improve the world and improve yourself then keep these quotes in mind. Russell’s Rule Try to convince people not to believe in things for which there is no evidence. Or It’s better not to believe in things for which there ... ->
Melvin Conner Review of Beyond Belief Lecture
By: somebody121 on Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:09:00 GMT
I highly recommend you watch the video. The link is here. But for those of you who want to copy and paste the best points, look no further. Read, watch and weep at the brilliant analysis of God belief. Jf Prathr if only we had all known ... ->
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather: Darin Ashley and ...
By: somebody121 on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:49:00 GMT
If Jeff Prather is removing his bad name from Warriorschool, then Darin Ashley must be the next guy in line to expose. Here is a quick biography of him. Instructor Darin Ashley graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, ... ->
The 'Related blog post' section presents results 'on the fly' from a Google blog search. The content is not held on IsThisYour.Name, and we have no control over the results Google returns. Once the content no longer appears in Google blog search, it will no longer appear here. To see the original Google results, click here.
Around the Web
Results are courtesy of Yahoo!
Jeff Prather
Stunts: Seven Mummies. Visit IMDb for Photos, Filmography, Discussions, Bio, News, Awards, Agent, Fan Sites. ... Jeff Prather has 1 in-development credit available on IMDbPro.com. To view these credits click here. Stunts: Seven Mummies (2006) (stunt coordinator: fights) (stunts) ...
At: www.imdb.com/name/nm0695365 -- last found on 2008/08/31 ->
Staff Bio Bo
Jeff Prather. With decades of experience in the food and wine business, Jeff Prather shares his wealth of knowledge through engaging, and often amusing, wine ... Having been an actor in his earlier years, Jeff is a natural as one of our entertaining tasting class instructors. ...
At: www.fpwm.com/about_us/jeff.html -- last found on 2009/02/24 ->
Elevation of Wine - Program
HOME FORUM PRESS / ARTICLES TRANSCRIPTS PHOTO GALLERY RESEARCH SPONSORS MAP / LODGING REGISTRATION PROGRAM. Jeff Prather. Ferry Plaza Wine Merchant. With decades of experience in the food and wine business, Jeff Prather shares his wealth of knowledge through engaging, and often amusing, wine ...
At: www.theelevationofwine.org/program/jeff_prather.shtml -- last found on 2009/06/12 ->
Jeff Prather: All About Jeff Prather - Moviefone
Jeff Prather - Associate Producer ... Enemies. Shrink. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The Ugly Truth. Up. Jeff Prather ... See All Jeff Prather Filmography. Netflix FREE Trial. Rent as many movies as you want! Start Your FREE Netflix Trial Today. New on Moviefone. Horror Squad ...
At: www.moviefone.com/celebrity/jeff-prather/453312/main -- last found on 2009/08/02 ->
Jeff Prather Filmography - Yahoo! Movies
Jeff Prather : find the latest news, photos, filmography and awards at Yahoo! Movies ... Jeff Prather. Main Page. Biography. Filmography. Photos. Awards & Nominations. Msg Boards & Groups. Web Sites. Often Works With... DJ Perry. Garret Dillahunt ...
At: movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1808905228 -- last found on 2009/08/13 ->
http://www.isthisyour.name/jeff_prather.htm
Related Videos
These results courtesy the YouTube public videos feed.
* Yamaneko Kids 1
* Yamaneko Kids 2
* Escaping an Attack at the Car
* Tactical Medicine
* Active Shooter Response Course - Passing the Test
* Active Shooter Response Course - Sharpening the Skills
Related Blog Posts
Results are courtesy of Google Blog Search (RSS). Is there content here you want removed? Please read the message in red at the bottom of this section.
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather: Names associated ...
By: somebody121 on Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:12:00 GMT
Names associated with Jeff Prather and Darin Ashley. Here are three comment responses to an older post. Not sure if it has been prominently displayed before. Can't hurt to do it again. Blogger Kamereon said. ... ->
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather: Negative Reports ...
By: somebody121 on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:21:00 GMT
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather. Warriorschool Initiation Camp Warrior School Cult Analysis Recovery and Skepticism with Compassion. Wednesday, July 22, 2009. Negative Reports On Warriorschool Cult and Prather ... ->
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather: Mike gives more ...
By: somebody121 on Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:18:00 GMT
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather. Warriorschool Initiation Camp Warrior School Cult Analysis Recovery and Skepticism with Compassion. Monday, July 27, 2009. Mike gives more information on Warriorschool Prather Jeff and ... ->
BULLSHIT Detection Kit for Warriorschoolers
By: somebody121 on Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:58:00 GMT
Here is something I learned about from Shermer's Skeptic Society. Sometimes called the Baloney Detection Kit, here it is the Bullshit detection kit. Read, learn and apply to liberate yourself from Jeff Prathers' Warrior Cult. ... ->
Dr Persinger and the God Helmet and God
By: somebody121 on Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:50:00 GMT
That is a video of a church service. You can see mob think and mass hysteria at work here. If you get the right leadership, the right followers and the right experiences you can give people outrageous feelings. ... ->
Science and Reason
By: somebody121 on Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:20:00 GMT
If you want to improve the world and improve yourself then keep these quotes in mind. Russell’s Rule Try to convince people not to believe in things for which there is no evidence. Or It’s better not to believe in things for which there ... ->
Melvin Conner Review of Beyond Belief Lecture
By: somebody121 on Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:09:00 GMT
I highly recommend you watch the video. The link is here. But for those of you who want to copy and paste the best points, look no further. Read, watch and weep at the brilliant analysis of God belief. Jf Prathr if only we had all known ... ->
Warriorschool - Cult Deception of Jeff Prather: Darin Ashley and ...
By: somebody121 on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:49:00 GMT
If Jeff Prather is removing his bad name from Warriorschool, then Darin Ashley must be the next guy in line to expose. Here is a quick biography of him. Instructor Darin Ashley graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, ... ->
The 'Related blog post' section presents results 'on the fly' from a Google blog search. The content is not held on IsThisYour.Name, and we have no control over the results Google returns. Once the content no longer appears in Google blog search, it will no longer appear here. To see the original Google results, click here.
Around the Web
Results are courtesy of Yahoo!
Jeff Prather
Stunts: Seven Mummies. Visit IMDb for Photos, Filmography, Discussions, Bio, News, Awards, Agent, Fan Sites. ... Jeff Prather has 1 in-development credit available on IMDbPro.com. To view these credits click here. Stunts: Seven Mummies (2006) (stunt coordinator: fights) (stunts) ...
At: www.imdb.com/name/nm0695365 -- last found on 2008/08/31 ->
Staff Bio Bo
Jeff Prather. With decades of experience in the food and wine business, Jeff Prather shares his wealth of knowledge through engaging, and often amusing, wine ... Having been an actor in his earlier years, Jeff is a natural as one of our entertaining tasting class instructors. ...
At: www.fpwm.com/about_us/jeff.html -- last found on 2009/02/24 ->
Elevation of Wine - Program
HOME FORUM PRESS / ARTICLES TRANSCRIPTS PHOTO GALLERY RESEARCH SPONSORS MAP / LODGING REGISTRATION PROGRAM. Jeff Prather. Ferry Plaza Wine Merchant. With decades of experience in the food and wine business, Jeff Prather shares his wealth of knowledge through engaging, and often amusing, wine ...
At: www.theelevationofwine.org/program/jeff_prather.shtml -- last found on 2009/06/12 ->
Jeff Prather: All About Jeff Prather - Moviefone
Jeff Prather - Associate Producer ... Enemies. Shrink. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The Ugly Truth. Up. Jeff Prather ... See All Jeff Prather Filmography. Netflix FREE Trial. Rent as many movies as you want! Start Your FREE Netflix Trial Today. New on Moviefone. Horror Squad ...
At: www.moviefone.com/celebrity/jeff-prather/453312/main -- last found on 2009/08/02 ->
Jeff Prather Filmography - Yahoo! Movies
Jeff Prather : find the latest news, photos, filmography and awards at Yahoo! Movies ... Jeff Prather. Main Page. Biography. Filmography. Photos. Awards & Nominations. Msg Boards & Groups. Web Sites. Often Works With... DJ Perry. Garret Dillahunt ...
At: movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1808905228 -- last found on 2009/08/13 ->
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Science and Reason
If you want to improve the world and improve yourself then keep these quotes in mind.
Russell’s Rule
Try to convince people not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
Or
It’s better not to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
-Bertrand Russell
Bertolt Brecht
The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set some limit on infinite error
The Life of Gallilleo
Religion is humanities best effort to ease the fears and yearnings that remain after science has done all that it can do.
-Melvin Conner
Melvin Conner Review of Beyond Belief Lecture
I highly recommend you watch the video. The link is here. But for those of you who want to copy and paste the best points, look no further. Read, watch and weep at the brilliant analysis of God belief. Jf Prathr if only we had all known this before we met you. We wouldn't have been such easy victims.
Melvin Conner Beyond Belief 2007
Arguments Against Belief
Thoughts on the God Belief / Lack of Belief
There is almost no evidence to support religious claims, and all testable claims fail.
Science has closed the “gaps”.
What is called the soul is just brain activity.
Religion has evolved just like any other trait.
Religion causes violence, hatred and war.
Religion is “the opium of the people”
God is the product of human yearnings for
A perfect parent
Reward and punishment
Companionship
Meaning
Life after death
And of the human penchants for agency-detection and imagining other minds.
Religion more generally is the product of human yearnings for
Identity
Belonging
A sense of superiority
Blameworthy enemies
Narrative
All sacred texts are characterized by…
Errors and lies
Internal contradictions
Mutual contradictions
“Supernatural” (i.e. highly implausible) origins
Silly or cruel behavior of gods and religious heroes
None of these objections in the slightest way are new
All have been heard or independently thought of by most intelligent people.
None has posed or is likely to pose a serious obstacle to belief in the minds of the vast majority of believers
Once upon a time there were major religious leaders who thought they could explain how the physical world works, they also cared a lot about proofs of God’s existence.
Thanks to Galileo, Newton et al. these people have been in retreat for four centuries.
But most religious people don’t care about proofs…
It is not news to them that religion has caused great harm.
Or that their sacred texts are flawed.
Or that science explains most things.
They have been meeting those objections with aplomb for centuries.
Most don’t care, they will proudly tell you about argument. They don’t care about evidence. They don’t even care that they can’t clearly define “God.”
Most think that all these conversations are silly.
So what do they care about?
Faith
The assurance of things hoped for the assurance of things not seen
Hebrews 11 1
Some aggressive critics of Religion say:
Religious faith forms a kind of perverse cultural singularity a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.
-Sam Harris (author of the controversial book The End of Faith)
Dr. Conner thinks it is futile to tell people not to believe in God and says if you don't understand that fact then....
If you don’t understand it then try this
When you present arguments against religion to a person of faith, you might as well tell her to care as much about other people’s children as about her own…
Or urge her to stop her ears, give up music, and learn sign language…
Or harangue an oenophile about the dangers of alcohol and try to enlist his support for a return to Prohibition.
BULLSHIT Detection Kit for Warriorschoolers
Here is something I learned about from Shermer's Skeptic Society. Sometimes called the Baloney Detection Kit, here it is the Bullshit detection kit. Read, learn and apply to liberate yourself from Jeff Prathers' Warrior Cult.
How does science deal with such subjective biases? How do we
know when a claim is bogus or real? We want to be open-minded
enough to accept radical new ideas when they occasionally come
along, but we don’t want to be so open-minded that our brains
fall out. This problem led us at the Skeptics Society to create an
educational tool called the BULLSHIT Detection Kit, inspired by
Carl Sagan’s discussion of how to detect “BULLSHIT” in his marvelous
book The Demon-Haunted World. In this BULLSHIT Detection
Kit, we suggest ten questions to ask when encountering any
claim that can help us decide if we are being too open-minded in
accepting it or too closed-minded in rejecting it.
1. How reliable is the source of the claim? As Daniel Kevles
showed so effectively in his 1999 book The Baltimore Affair
investigating possible scientific fraud there is a boundary problem
in detecting a fraudulent signal within the background noise
of mistakes and sloppiness that is a normal part of the scientific
process. The investigation of research notes in a laboratory affiliated
with Nobel laureate David Baltimore by an independent
committee established by Congress to investigate potential fraud
revealed a surprising number of mistakes. But science is messier
than most people realize. Baltimore was exonerated when it
became clear that there was no purposeful data manipulation.
2. Does this source often make similar claims? Pseudoscientists
have a habit of going well beyond the facts, so when individuals
make numerous extraordinary claims, they may be more than
just iconoclasts. This is a matter of quantitative scaling, since
some great thinkers often go beyond the data in their creative
speculations. Cornell’s Thomas Gold is notorious for his radical
ideas, but he has been right often enough that other scientists
listen to what he has to say. Gold proposes, for example, that oil
is not a fossil fuel at all, but the by-product of a deep hot biosphere.
Hardly any earth scientists I have spoken with take this
thesis seriously, yet they do not consider Gold a crank. What we
are looking for here is a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently
ignores or distorts data.
3. Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically
pseudoscientists will make statements that are unverified, or
verified by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask
who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers.
The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for example,
was not that scientists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman
were wrong; it was that they announced their spectacular discovery
before it was verified by other laboratories (at a press
conference no less), and, worse, when cold fusion was not replicated,
they continued to cling to their claim.
4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the
world works? An extraordinary claim must be placed into a
larger context to see how it fits. When people claim that the
pyramids and the Sphinx were built more than ten thousand
years ago by an advanced race of humans, they are not presenting
any context for that earlier civilization. Where are the rest of
the artifacts of those people? Where are their works of art, their
weapons, their clothing, their tools, their trash? This is simply
not how archaeology works.
5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has
only confirmatory evidence been sought? This is the confirmation
bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and
reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence. The confirmation bias
is powerful and pervasive and is almost impossible for any of us
to avoid. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking
and rechecking, verification and replication, and especially
attempts to falsify a claim are so critical.
6. Does the preponderance of evidence converge to the
claimant’s conclusion, or a different one? The theory of evolution,
for example, is proven through a convergence of evidence
from a number of independent lines of inquiry. No one fossil, no
one piece of biological or paleontological evidence has “evolution”
written on it; instead there is a convergence of evidence
from tens of thousands of evidentiary bits that adds up to a
story of the evolution of life. Creationists conveniently ignore
this convergence, focusing instead on trivial anomalies or currently
unexplained phenomena in the history of life.
7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and
tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of
others that lead to the desired conclusion? UFOlogists suffer
this fallacy in their continued focus on a handful of unexplained
atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions by eyewitnesses,
while conveniently ignoring the fact that the vast majority
(90 to 95 percent) of UFO sightings are fully explicable with
prosaic answers.
8. Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the
observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the
existing explanation? This is a classic debate strategy—criticize
your opponent and never affirm what you believe in order to
avoid criticism. But this stratagem is unacceptable in science. Big
Bang skeptics, for example, ignore the convergence of evidence of
this cosmological model, focus on the few flaws in the accepted
model, and have yet to offer a viable cosmological alternative that
carries a preponderance of evidence in favor of it.
9. If the claimant has proffered a new explanation, does it
account for as many phenomena as the old explanation? The
HIV-AIDS skeptics argue that lifestyle, not HIV, causes AIDS.
Yet, to make this argument they must ignore the convergence of
evidence in support of HIV as the causal vector in AIDS, and
simultaneously ignore such blatant evidence as the significant
correlation between the rise in AIDS among hemophiliacs
shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood
supply. On top of this, their alternative theory does not explain
nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory.
10. Do the claimants’ personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions,
or vice versa? All scientists hold social, political, and
ideological beliefs that could potentially slant their interpretations
of the data, but how do those biases and beliefs affect their
research? At some point, usually during the peer-review system,
such biases and beliefs are rooted out, or the paper or book is
rejected for publication. This is why one should not work in an
intellectual vacuum. If you don’t catch the biases in your
research, someone else will.
There is no definitive set of criteria we can apply in determining
how open-minded we should be when encountering new
claims and ideas, but with mathematical calculations on the
odds of weird things happening and with an analysis of the sorts
of questions we should ask when we encounter weird things, we
have made a start toward coming to grips with our weird and wonderful world.
Monday, July 27, 2009
God on the Brain Documentary BBC
Another great BBC Documentary. Called "God on the Brain". They interview Dr. Ramachandran and the before mentioned Dr. Persinger and also Dr. Dawkins about the God experience in the Brain.
There is controversy regarding the research of Dr. Persinger.
Mike gives more information on Warriorschool Prather Jeff and Darin Ashley
Yet more comments from posters. More prominently displayed.
"The Hidden Mountain Bujinkan Dojo"
1 Comment - Show Original Post
Blogger Mike said...
Go to Google and type in warriorschool manual torrent. The manual is out there. Download it and look at page 32 and 33. List of bracelets. Compare the list of bracelets to staff members (http://www.budosites.com/hmbd/index.cfm?page=4)
Check out these web sites:
http://reenchantplanetearth.com/pipermail/talkingstick/2009q1/000216.html
http://www.reenchantplanetearth.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72
http://www.serveprotectheal.com/
http://www.reenchantplanetearth.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=76
March 15, 2009 8:02 PM
"The Hidden Mountain Bujinkan Dojo"
1 Comment - Show Original Post
Blogger Mike said...
Go to Google and type in warriorschool manual torrent. The manual is out there. Download it and look at page 32 and 33. List of bracelets. Compare the list of bracelets to staff members (http://www.budosites.com/hmbd/index.cfm?page=4)
Check out these web sites:
http://reenchantplanetearth.com/pipermail/talkingstick/2009q1/000216.html
http://www.reenchantplanetearth.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72
http://www.serveprotectheal.com/
http://www.reenchantplanetearth.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=76
March 15, 2009 8:02 PM
Names associated with Jeff Prather and Darin Ashley
Here are three comment responses to an older post. Not sure if it has been prominently displayed before. Can't hurt to do it again.
Blogger Kamereon said...
You should also add the tags:
Attention to the Crisis (Prather's bogus charity)
Women's Fightback (Prather's intro to drinking kool-aid)
Passages (Karl Koch's offshoot branch of Prather's cult (see: http://www.budosites.com/hmbd/index.cfm?page=15))
You might also consider adding tags for his chief worshippers as well:
Amber Meesenburg
Jocelyn Meesenburg
Darrin Ashley
Christa Ashley
Amber Pinnow
Tim Pinnow
Rachel Prather (formerly Rachel Breton)
Louis Breton
Of course there are many others, but the above list are still active and have caused the most damage.
February 27, 2009 3:00 PM
Delete
Blogger somebody121 said...
Thanks Kamereon,
I will post up your information right now.
March 11, 2009 9:46 PM
Delete
Blogger Spuds said...
He used to use an alias of Jay Frazier or Frasier.
May 20, 2009 9:04 PM
Delete
Blogger Kamereon said...
You should also add the tags:
Attention to the Crisis (Prather's bogus charity)
Women's Fightback (Prather's intro to drinking kool-aid)
Passages (Karl Koch's offshoot branch of Prather's cult (see: http://www.budosites.com/hmbd/index.cfm?page=15))
You might also consider adding tags for his chief worshippers as well:
Amber Meesenburg
Jocelyn Meesenburg
Darrin Ashley
Christa Ashley
Amber Pinnow
Tim Pinnow
Rachel Prather (formerly Rachel Breton)
Louis Breton
Of course there are many others, but the above list are still active and have caused the most damage.
February 27, 2009 3:00 PM
Delete
Blogger somebody121 said...
Thanks Kamereon,
I will post up your information right now.
March 11, 2009 9:46 PM
Delete
Blogger Spuds said...
He used to use an alias of Jay Frazier or Frasier.
May 20, 2009 9:04 PM
Delete
Dr Persinger and the God Helmet and God
That is a video of a church service. You can see mob think and mass hysteria at work here. If you get the right leadership, the right followers and the right experiences you can give people outrageous feelings.
I had already posted other videos that mentioned Dr. Persinger. Here is another quick and short video. Also at the bottom there will be small wiki article on him. He is the creator of the "God Helmet". There appears to be a slight controversy concerning his device and his research. But if you notice, the things he talks about and describes are very similar the other activities that bring about the same effects. Extreme stress, astronaut training, sleep deprivation, food deprivation, isolation chambers and all can bring about these mystical / alien experiences. In Dr. Persingers case he is proposing that electromagnetic fields can powerfully influence the most creative and suggestable people. Especially those with a tendency towards wishful thinking.
Early life
Persinger was born in Jacksonville, Florida and grew up primarily in Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin. He attended Carroll College from 1963 to 1964, and graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1967. He then obtained an M.A. in physiological psychology from the University of Tennessee and a Ph.D. from the University of Manitoba in 1971.
[edit] Research and academic work
Persinger focuses much of his work on the commonalities that exist between the sciences, and aims to integrate fundamental concepts of various branches of science[citation needed]. He organized the Behavioral Neuroscience Program at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, which became one of the first to integrate chemistry, biology and psychology[citation needed].
During the 1980s Persinger stimulated people's temporal lobes artificially with a weak magnetic field to see if he could induce a religious state (see God helmet). He claimed that the field could produce the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room".
Susan Blackmore, a former academic psychologist and parapsychology researcher: "When I went to Persinger's lab and underwent his procedures I had the most extraordinary experiences I've ever had." "I'll be surprised if it turns out to be a placebo effect." [1]
Michael Persinger has also contributed to research into the Miracle of the sun at Fatima and other Marian apparitions. He theorized that the stimulation of the cerebral-temporal lobe may have been the actual cause of the Marian apparition phenomenon. He believes the religious content of the experiences many have been a result of their obsession with religious themes and their lack of education. He has contributed to 2 papers about The Fatima UFO Hypothesis. [2]
The last video is probably the best of all. It offers testimonies of the test subjects.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Negative Reports On Warriorschool Cult and Prather
Older Posts from February 2009
Not sure if I posted these before, but I reread them and they sounded interesting.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33265747&postID=6182672412436022587
I can see that, espically in this Warriorschool case. I also think that there is something going on in our (western/American) society where males feel as if their "normal lives" are not enough. I refrence an article on my blog about the "Suburban Warrior Syndrome":
http://tgace.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/suburban-warrior-syndrome/
The author there states:
"A friend of mine is dissatisfied with the modern world–its strip malls and ATM machines, its speed limits and mediated experiences. “I would rather try my luck at a horde of orcs with a broad sword,” he says, “than pay the Visa bill and look for parking.”"
Which I think illustrates part of the reason behind this phenomena. People (mostly males) long to be seen as brave, powerful, respected..and they dont seem to be finding it in their daily lives. People like this Prather character seem to be tapping into this.
Ive read your posts about the whole "lack of western rites of passage", and I agree with you. There are obvious rites of passage in our society but for some reason they do not seem to be enough for some.
26 October, 2008 20:03
Blogger JL said...
Hello everyone,
This is all fascinating to me. I trained in Tucson with Jeff, Todd, PJ, all the bracelets. I apprenticed and went through 2 initiations (one as "initiate" and one as "apprentice"). I went all the way thru Questing before that "uneasy feeling" I'd had since joining finally brought me to my senses. After Prather claimed he was "born, died, and resurrected," I came to my senses and got the hell out of there. This is the first I've heard of all these allegations and accusations albeit I have no doubt of there validity. I saw and heard many very questionable things during my time in WS. I spent many nights at the Prather home in Sonoita "training."
I started training in WS because I thought it would be a great melting-pot of disciplines: Native American, Christian, Japanese, etc. After some time as an apprentice, I was asked to help with "ceremonies" (aka exorcisms). Whenever I asked a question or somehow tried to bring up concerns that I didn't completely buy into the whole thing, I was reprimanded. I left with only a letter to my benefactor explaining my concerns. Since then I was deployed to Iraq with the army and now live and work near Phoenix for Homeland Security.
I hate to think of the people that have been hurt and continue to be hurt. I'm glad I got out when I did...
02 February, 2009 10:10
Blogger jarad said...
JL:
Thank you for writing. It is a relief to read your post. Very few people who get that far along...well, most of them are completely brainwashed.
It's nice to see that there are people who can still keep their wits about them. Glad you got out.
I would still love to speak with you if you get the time. You can find me over at www.myspace.com/warriorschool
02 February, 2009 13:51
Blogger Mike S. said...
Warriorschool is now called Passages. Only difference is that the name has changed and Karl Koch is the leader now. (URL http://www.budosites.com/hmbd/index.cfm?page=15 ). They practice all the same stuff that Warriorschool was doing; using the same Warriorschool manual. They practice the use of putting people in fear of something to control them. Then they use group to lie about and undermine people that do not believe in or practice the Passages program. People that practice Passages program, must be in the Bujinkan under a instructor that in Passages program. Jeff Skillman has been teaching and recruiting at various Bujinkan seminars for the Passages program. Jeff Skillman is one of higher ups in the organization. At dojos that run Passages, they rank people in Passages program real fast to increase there ego. Even if there very bad at doing the Bujinkan training.
13 February, 2009 21:04
Not sure if I posted these before, but I reread them and they sounded interesting.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33265747&postID=6182672412436022587
I can see that, espically in this Warriorschool case. I also think that there is something going on in our (western/American) society where males feel as if their "normal lives" are not enough. I refrence an article on my blog about the "Suburban Warrior Syndrome":
http://tgace.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/suburban-warrior-syndrome/
The author there states:
"A friend of mine is dissatisfied with the modern world–its strip malls and ATM machines, its speed limits and mediated experiences. “I would rather try my luck at a horde of orcs with a broad sword,” he says, “than pay the Visa bill and look for parking.”"
Which I think illustrates part of the reason behind this phenomena. People (mostly males) long to be seen as brave, powerful, respected..and they dont seem to be finding it in their daily lives. People like this Prather character seem to be tapping into this.
Ive read your posts about the whole "lack of western rites of passage", and I agree with you. There are obvious rites of passage in our society but for some reason they do not seem to be enough for some.
26 October, 2008 20:03
Blogger JL said...
Hello everyone,
This is all fascinating to me. I trained in Tucson with Jeff, Todd, PJ, all the bracelets. I apprenticed and went through 2 initiations (one as "initiate" and one as "apprentice"). I went all the way thru Questing before that "uneasy feeling" I'd had since joining finally brought me to my senses. After Prather claimed he was "born, died, and resurrected," I came to my senses and got the hell out of there. This is the first I've heard of all these allegations and accusations albeit I have no doubt of there validity. I saw and heard many very questionable things during my time in WS. I spent many nights at the Prather home in Sonoita "training."
I started training in WS because I thought it would be a great melting-pot of disciplines: Native American, Christian, Japanese, etc. After some time as an apprentice, I was asked to help with "ceremonies" (aka exorcisms). Whenever I asked a question or somehow tried to bring up concerns that I didn't completely buy into the whole thing, I was reprimanded. I left with only a letter to my benefactor explaining my concerns. Since then I was deployed to Iraq with the army and now live and work near Phoenix for Homeland Security.
I hate to think of the people that have been hurt and continue to be hurt. I'm glad I got out when I did...
02 February, 2009 10:10
Blogger jarad said...
JL:
Thank you for writing. It is a relief to read your post. Very few people who get that far along...well, most of them are completely brainwashed.
It's nice to see that there are people who can still keep their wits about them. Glad you got out.
I would still love to speak with you if you get the time. You can find me over at www.myspace.com/warriorschool
02 February, 2009 13:51
Blogger Mike S. said...
Warriorschool is now called Passages. Only difference is that the name has changed and Karl Koch is the leader now. (URL http://www.budosites.com/hmbd/index.cfm?page=15 ). They practice all the same stuff that Warriorschool was doing; using the same Warriorschool manual. They practice the use of putting people in fear of something to control them. Then they use group to lie about and undermine people that do not believe in or practice the Passages program. People that practice Passages program, must be in the Bujinkan under a instructor that in Passages program. Jeff Skillman has been teaching and recruiting at various Bujinkan seminars for the Passages program. Jeff Skillman is one of higher ups in the organization. At dojos that run Passages, they rank people in Passages program real fast to increase there ego. Even if there very bad at doing the Bujinkan training.
13 February, 2009 21:04
Why people believe in Religions
I will do an analysis of this movie as I get a chance. This man talks about all the reasons people follow religion or say they believe in God. What issues do people have with Religion and God, but do not affect them? Why do they not care?
Beyond Belief '06 - Melvin Konner (Part 3 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T8e465xzuA
This is 3/4 of the video. Feel free to watch all of them. I highly recommend you read all of his slides. They are very informative as to the nature of Religion. Once I saw it all laid out like this, I thought to myself: "I am reasonable, mature and intelligent. I don't need all this BS about God and Religion. I'm just going to give it up." Might help some of you.
Beyond Belief '06 - Melvin Konner (Part 3 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T8e465xzuA
This is 3/4 of the video. Feel free to watch all of them. I highly recommend you read all of his slides. They are very informative as to the nature of Religion. Once I saw it all laid out like this, I thought to myself: "I am reasonable, mature and intelligent. I don't need all this BS about God and Religion. I'm just going to give it up." Might help some of you.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Creepy Pictures of Prather Cult Disciples and Future Dojo Victims
Here are some pictures from one of Prathers Dojos Bujinkan parties. Don't these people have access to Google? You'd think these people would do a quick search and realize that the people they are involved with are shady and troubled. Good luck people.
Darin Ashley and the Bujinkan Yamaneko Dojo Cult Leader Enabler - Prather Lite
Darin Ashley
The Cult Leader Enabler
If Jeff Prather is removing his bad name from Warriorschool, then Darin Ashley must be the next guy in line to expose. Here is a quick biography of him.
Instructor
Darin Ashley graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD and received an M.S. from the University of Arizona in Tucson. He served in the active duty Marine Corps for five years and is a veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He also served in the Marine Corps Reserves where he was the commanding officer of a Reconnaissance unit. In the Marines he received certifications for dive, parachute, mountain leader, and combat swimmer. He is currently the Chief Operations Officer for Warriorschool in Tucson, AZ where he teaches tactical shooting, driving and fighting skills under contract to government and corporate personnel, as well as to private citizens. He began training in the Bujinkan in 1992 under Jeffrey Prather. He is currently a Yondan and teaches both adult and kids classes. He resides in Marana with his wife Christa.
Here are more people who are associated with Prather through the dojo:
Instructor
Amber Meesenburg is a Nidan (second degree black belt) and has been training under Shihan Jeffery Prather since 2004. Amber currently serves as the Shibu Liaison coordinating training opportunities between shibus (branches of the main dojo) around the country, and issuing the dojo newsletter. She is also an Assistant Instructor for both women's FightBack and children's Safe Kids courses through Warriorschool. She graduated with a B.A. in Art History in 2002 from New Mexico State University. She has a fourteen year background working with children and families in recreational and educational programs in the southwest. She is an artist, teacher, daughter, sister, and friend. Amber believes in "finding what is of real value to humanity and putting yourself in service to it", and it is that philosophy that leads her to dedicate so much of her time and attention to this dojo.
imgInstructor
James Webb first found out about the Bujinkan while attending the University of Arizona in 2003. Having been interested in Martial Arts for some time, but not wanting to learn a tournament or sport driven art the Bujinkan was a perfect fit due to its emphasis on natural, relaxed movement. James is a Nidan and received his black belt in January of 2008. In his spare time he enjoys, reading, painting, drawing, snowboarding, travel, studying Japanese and playing video games.
imgGuest Instructor
Mitch Hayes is the former Sempai of the dojo and started training in the Bujinkan in June of 1997. Mitch received his 1st dan (first degree blackbelt) in November of 1998. Since then he has achieved 4th dan and has been instructing for over 10 years. He has also taught courses for the military CQC (Close Quarter Combat) and Fightback (women's self-defense), both of which were developed by Shihan Jeffrey Prather from this art. In August of 2008 Mitch moved from Tucson and stepped down from being Sempei, he travels to Tucson and teaches as often as time permits. Mitch dedicates much of his time to the dojo because he loves the art and loves teaching. He also enjoys spending time with his wife and learning to play guitar.
Coming soonKids Instructor
Mike Delich is a Shodan and has been training in the Bujinkan for more than six years and is currently teaching the weekday kids classes. He enjoys working with young people and has extensive experience in coaching a number of sports, including at the junior Olympic level. Mike has three daughters, two of which graduated from the U of A. His hobbies include sailing, surfing, and Guitar.
And then of course, how could we forget these folks?
Who are the Founders
imgBujinkan Founder
Grandmaster Hatsumi is the founder and International Director of the Bujinkan Dojo with it's Hombu Dojo residing in Noda City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan, in an office attached to his home. Dr. Hatsumi is the inheritor of the three Ninjutsu and six Samurai traditions from the late Toshitsugu Takamatsu Soke in the early 1970's, just before Soke Takamatsu's passing in 1972. Hatsumi is an accomplished painter who's art has been presented to various leaders throughout the world. Hatsumi also has received Honorary Doctorates from the USA Human Sciences and Philosophy, Honorary Texas Ranger, Title of Knighthood from Germany, and Blackbelt magazine's Instructor of the Year, and the list continues. For more information on Hatsumi Soke's Dojo located in Japan, please visit his website at www.bujinkan.com.
imgYamaneko Dojo Founder
Jeffrey Prather has trained for over 35 years in Japanese martial arts and is one of a very few 15th-degree blackbelt Shihan (master or gentleman instructor) in the world. He is licensed by Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, Bujinkan Soke, the grandmaster of Budo Taijutsu. The Yamaneko Dojo is an official branch of Hatsumi Soke's dojo. Shihan Prather is a double recipient of Hatsumi Soke's Gold Medal. The first was awarded for his development of the Close Quarter Combat course for the U.S. Marine Corps. and the Army Special Operations Forces, the second for hosting the 1995 Tai Kai, which he had the honor of hosting a second time in 99'. Shihan Prather also has a 10th degree blackbelt in Shinkengata (real life combat). He has written for publications such as Black Belt magazine and has taught the police and military all over the world. Documentation and references available.
Who are the Instructors
imgHead Instructor
David Petersmarck was introduced to the Bujinkan and Budo Taijutsu while living in Germany in 1988. After leaving Germany in 1991, he found it difficult to find a school teaching authentic Budo Taijutsu and continued to train in a variety of martial arts until arriving at the Yamaneko Dojo in 2004. David is currently a Yondan and in 2008 he stepped into the role of Sempai for the dojo. He has also taught courses in Special Weapons and Tactics, Law Enforcement Defensive Tactics, and Hand-to-Hand Combat, as-well-as the military CQC (Close Quarter Combat) Course, which was developed by Shihan Prather. David is an accomplished musician and enjoys playing guitar. Click here to email Dave Sempai.
Warriorschool Contact Info
How do you like that retarded image of the Warriorschool training manual for Airline De-fence? Sweet.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=ivl&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=76618ed7951d39e82d8eb437f2a35878&tabmode=list&cck=1&au=&ck=&_so_list_sort9a15dfc9a75119393533747dabcfae37=fname%3Aasc
Amazing what is disclosed on the internet.
I like how it says Woman-Owned Business
Maybe it is true that Prathers new wife owns the business. Clever. I wouldn't be surprised if their are benefits to this as well.
Ashley Darin WARRIORSCHOOL, LLC
8987 E TANQUE VERDE RD #309-245
TUCSON AZ 857499610 USA
Email: darin.ashley@warriorschool.com
Phone: 5208184510 Contracts, For-Profit Organization, Limited Liability Company, Service Provider, Woman-Owned Business 928110, 922120, 611430, 611519, 611699
Courses Registered
U--Weapons Handling Training
Solicitation Number: M0026409T0152
Agency: Department of the Navy
Office: United States Marine Corps
Location: Marine Corps RCO - Northeast Region/Quantico/National Capital Region
U--Defensive Driving Course
Solicitation Number: M0026409T0149
Agency: Department of the Navy
Office: United States Marine Corps
Location: Marine Corps RCO - Northeast Region/Quantico/National Capital Region
Leadership Structure of Prathers Warriorschool Cult
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=381059536&blogId=442366336
Here is an article written by Jarad that I didn't recognize. Nicely put.
Monday, October 20, 2008
What Does It Take?
Current mood: awake
Category: News and Politics
I am agitated. Recently I have learned that an acquaintance of mine is still involved with WarriorCult (Warriorschool). This is the same guy that asked me if Prather had done anything harmful to his daughter (meaning: is Jeffrey Prather a pedophile). So, a year ago he is asking me if he needs to take action against Prather for harm against his daughter and now he is cool with training with Prather and co. Freakin' sick! To me this is a lot like saying "you know Hitler - crazy guy, he just isn't for me, but those Nazis...wow, what a gang!". Sounds nuts, but take a look. Yes, there was a mass exodus, but Prather still has a number of mindless followers. These automatons are roaming various campuses seeking new recruits. I can't stress enough how important it is to encourage Prather's worshipers to divest themselves of this lunacy. Recently I met with a former insider and heard of horrors that I hoped weren't true. I will expound on this later, but suffice to say Jeff is the homophobe racist and possible pedophile that I thought he was. We all should be looking at everyone involved in this. Anyone who is supporting Prather needs a serious evaluation. Prather has had rape charges filed against him. Prather has purposefully given third degree burns to one of his students. Really, we should consider anyone who helps somebody like Prather as aiding and abetting. Think about it, if you have heard that Prather had possibly raped a young girl and you go to a school and recruit a new young girl - what does that make you?! I have noticed that Prather has become aware that his name is a deficit. Darrin Ashley is in charge of all the military-wanabee aspect of WarriorCult and his borrowed wife (Rachel Breton-Prather) is in charge of the rest. All the leftovers have been relegated to the Meesenburgs (Amber and Jocelyn). I am kind of getting of on a tangent here. What I want to say is that any affiliation with Warriorschool (warriorcult) is detrimental to society at large. If you are training with Dominic Lees, Jeffrey Prather, Jocelyn Meesenburg, Amber Meesenburg, Christa Ashley, or Darrin Ashley - then your are headed down a very wrong road. My personal opinion is that you are evil. Please Take Care and contact me if you need help. God bless, Jarad (aka Kamereon)
9:58 AM
Quick review:
Nice exposition of who is in charge of what. As to Prather being a homophobe, I would say that sounds very unlikely. There were many homosexuals that were part of Warriorschool. Some of Prathers top people were gay. So I don't see how that could be true. I also clearly remember Prather talking about gay people, how he had seen their souls and there is no difference or damage between them and non-gay people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)