January 2012
The RAND Corporation and Mary Catherine Kelly Beyond the Long Shadow of 9/11
As many of you have surmised, Mary Catherine is a pseudo name to protect her and her family from additional retaliation by RAND’s law firm, representatives and insurance company.Unbeknownst to Mary is the fact that RAND’s surrogates were and are informing future employers that she is not eligible to return to RAND while leaving out the fact that RAND told Kelly to look for new employment less that 20 days after September 11, 2011— Pentagon ground zero. So it appears that MC Kelly is not telling the truth about her work experience. However she is speaking the truth about her DoD detail. It is RAND not articulating the truth. Kelly understood from the paper work and DoD officials that her position would continue for FY 2002 at the Pentagon.
Not until the last few months ending in 2011 did Kelly learn that RAND maintains a couple of records stating she was an IPA. Yet orally RAND states that she was strangely never an IPA assigned to DoD. Why is The RAND Corporation denying that Mary Catherine Kelly was ever detailed to the DoD as an IPA for FY 2001 and FY 2002? A fiscal year begins in October and ends on the last dayof September (October 1, 2011-September 30, 2012 is FY12)?Why would RAND representatives after 10 years finally inform Mary Catherine that she NEVER served as an IPA detailed to the DoD during FY01 & FY02? And the DoD can’t seem to find any of her national security clearance records. The fact is that the DoD paid RAND to pay Kelly. RAND was not using any of its own funds for Mary Catherine’s salary and benefits to her knowledge. In fact after completion of her IPA, Mary Catherine was obligated to share what she learned at the DoD with RAND. But what did RAND convey to DoD as the reasons why Mary Catherine would not be completing her DoD detail? RAND never shared those communications with Mary. Why?
As many of you have surmised, Mary Catherine is a pseudo name to protect her and her family from additional retaliation by RAND’s law firm, representatives and insurance company.Unbeknownst to Mary is the fact that RAND’s surrogates were and are informing future employers that she is not eligible to return to RAND while leaving out the fact that RAND told Kelly to look for new employment less that 20 days after September 11, 2011— Pentagon ground zero. So it appears that MC Kelly is not telling the truth about her work experience. However she is speaking the truth about her DoD detail. It is RAND not articulating the truth. Kelly understood from the paper work and DoD officials that her position would continue for FY 2002 at the Pentagon.
Not until the last few months ending in 2011 did Kelly learn that RAND maintains a couple of records stating she was an IPA. Yet orally RAND states that she was strangely never an IPA assigned to DoD. Why is The RAND Corporation denying that Mary Catherine Kelly was ever detailed to the DoD as an IPA for FY 2001 and FY 2002? A fiscal year begins in October and ends on the last dayof September (October 1, 2011-September 30, 2012 is FY12)?Why would RAND representatives after 10 years finally inform Mary Catherine that she NEVER served as an IPA detailed to the DoD during FY01 & FY02? And the DoD can’t seem to find any of her national security clearance records. The fact is that the DoD paid RAND to pay Kelly. RAND was not using any of its own funds for Mary Catherine’s salary and benefits to her knowledge. In fact after completion of her IPA, Mary Catherine was obligated to share what she learned at the DoD with RAND. But what did RAND convey to DoD as the reasons why Mary Catherine would not be completing her DoD detail? RAND never shared those communications with Mary. Why?
One of the problems RAND has created for Mary Kelly and the federal government is that her employment cannot be verified, if one relies solely on RAND's documents and statements. It also provides RAND and the Insurers with on-going justifications why they should not be required to reimburse Mary for her out of pocked medical expenses pursuant to a 2003 award. Kelly is fighting several wars: receiving her out-of pocket medical expenses directly related to being in ground zero on 9/11/2001 and trying to stay focused on her medical treatment using her own funds and cleaning up her credit ratings since she has taken from Peter to pay Paul. Companies don't hire those with a bad credit rating.Which FFRDC, if any, would strongly advise an employee to seek new employment after she barely survived a deadly attack at the Pentagon and was working to “stand-up” one of DoD’s first office in homeland security and defense? The wealth of knowledge about the inner workings of the DoD would have been invaluable to RAND and any other FFRDC or defense contractor.
Instead RAND trampled on Mary’s career and health. Mary now fears that RAND’s plans are to ask the courts to determine who should be responsible for her medical care directly related to 9/11 especially if she does not qualify under the Zadroga Act which tilts additional future health care towards those located in New York City. In Chapter Fifteen “The Link Between National Security and Compensation for Terrorism Losses” in The LONG SHADOW of 9/11, RAND’s authors acknowledge that it would be “…an unfair burden would fall on the victims themselves (to pay for their own medical care)......that could exacerbate the economic and psychological effects of the attack and serve the terrorists’ interests.” Yet, RAND does not mind placing the economic and psychological burden on Mary Catherine. “Little guidance has emerged from the courts on when private firms can be held responsible for losses caused by terrorist attacks.”
Are RAND and its Insurers using Mary Catherine’s experiences in 9/11 as a “test” case to escape reimbursing her while providing free health care to those employees who were not located in ground zero and set a legal precedence for all other corporations? RAND’s competing theories: having Mary Catherine responsible for her own 9/11 health care versus publically advocating for a compensation system that could “promote social cohesion and unity”.With RAND’s close affiliation with the U.S. military, is Mary Catherine vulnerable to the 2012 Defense Authorization Act which allows for the unlimited detention of American citizens?Due to RAND’s blood relationship with the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government, should Mary Catherine live in fear that her experiences with the federal government’s representative RAND makes her susceptible to the provisions of the 2012 Defense Authorization Act? Will she be labeled as an “enemy” of the State under the provisions of the Act?
Would Mary Catherine be held in detention so that RAND could continue speaking about survivors of terrorists attacks (even natural disasters) with a forked tongue ?Who is really in control of RAND and why would RAND risk its corporate reputation on one 9/11 survivor? Mary Catherine is still paying for her own 9/11 medical care -100% out of pocket. Her credit has been ruined. Her employment has been unstable since RAND advised Mary to seek new employment opportunities less than 20 days after 9/11/2001. And RAND still denies that she was detailed to the DoD.But friends in high places continue to protect each other. And RAND is protected by Kelly’s own representatives: U.S. Senators Cornyn and Hutchison. Now that is loyalty at the cost of a constituent and the truth. RAND is still a FFRDC receiving funding from the federal government to conduct policy studies impacting very aspect of our lives but their work behind the scenes is another story.
On another front, the local bar counsel in Washington DC ruled that there was not enough evidence to determine that Kelly’s former attorney maintains any original documents or that he failed to return Mary Catherine's files timely. Is timely delivery considered more than 4 months in any other jurisdiction? Mary Catherine responded to her former attorney's withdrawal notice by asking him to send all files to her either in hard copy or on disc by email and certified mail. Neither the former attorney nor his world-wide law firm would respond to Catherine's simple request for her files. Simultaneously, this venerable law firm never informed Mary Catherine that they were writing the administrative body presiding over the case for the release of all of her sealed records subject to protective order and never informing Kelly of their actions to one administrative judge in particular.
How could Mary find new representation as soon as possible with either no documents or time frame to anticipate receipt of her files? The local bar counsel disregarded Mary's notice that the electronic files were different than the hard copies. Her lawyer was the repository of every document in this case: depositions , errata sheets as well as award documents. He cannot locate crucial evidence given to him for safe keeping. So where are the rest of the Kelly’s files including the video of her opening of the 9/11 mortuary bar returned to Mary after it was recovered in ground zero by the Pentagon (DoD).
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar