Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amicus Curiae Brief of MSPB Watch in O'Donnell v. USDA

Amicus Curiae Brief of MSPB Watch in O'Donnell v. USDA

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,090|Likes:
Published by MSPBWatch
Amicus Curiae Brief of MSPB Watch in O'Donnell v USDA
Amicus Curiae Brief of MSPB Watch in O'Donnell v USDA

More info:

Published by: MSPBWatch on Jan 22, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/16/2014

pdf

text

original

 
2014-3020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
JOSEPH A. O’DONNELL,
Petitioner
v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
 Respondent 
.
Petition for Review from the Merit Systems Protection Board in Case No.
CH-1221-12-0436-W-1
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MSPB WATCH SUPPORTING REVERSAL
David Pardo, Esq. The Law Office of David Pardo 4854 Eisenhower Avenue Unit 447 Alexandria, VA 22304 (703) 829-7432 dp@attorneypardo.com
 Attorney for Amicus
January 2, 2014
 
ii
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for amicus, MSPB Watch, certifies the following: 1.
 
The Full name of every party of amicus represented by me is:
MSPB Watch
2.
 
The name of the real party in interest (if the party names in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is:
MSPB Watch
3.
 
All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
None
4.
 
The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are:
David Pardo The Law Office of David Pardo
 
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF THE AMICUS .................................................... 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4 I. THE BOARD’S
O’DONNELL
DECISION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS CONGRESSIONAL INTENT OF PROTECTING “ANY” DISCLOSURE OF AGENCY WRONGDOING. .............. 4 A. Governing Law ................................................................................................ 4 B. The Text, Purpose, Structure, and Legislative History of the WPA/WPEA ... 5 C. How Clear is Clear? ......................................................................................... 7 II. ASSUMING CONGRESS WAS SILENT OR AMBIGUOUS REGARDING
 MEUWISSEN’S 
 MINOR HOLDING, THE BOARD’S DECISION IN
O’DONNELL
 IS MANIFESTLY CONTRARY TO THE WPEA. .........................10 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................17
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->