I

4
I
I
I
I
T

/st
ZL,
July 30e 2009
Susan Mailer
Director, Registry Operations and Policy
Public Senice Labour Relations Board
P.O. Box 1525 Station B
Ottawa, Ontario
KIP 5V2
Re: Danny Palmer - Reference to Adjudication
PSLRB No. 166-20-34057

.:

I- am wnung m response to Mr. Kirk's letter of Jtrne 30d'2009. I am confident that when
Mr. Nadeau, a Vice Chair of the PSLRB at the time, proposed mediation in September
20{i7,he believed that Mr. Kirk and the Service were acting in good faittt. Mr. Nadeau
proposal for mediation came after Mr. Kirk's August 3f 2007letter that stated a final
TCcision hdS beeri'dadd to ileriy me i TopSecret cleardcri.-At the very beginning of our
.

E5ffiy4J_.qffijtien .Stioe_y|tt

Ldr. Nadeau,-

!"

$yS

_E

tp!_tS-!lag1gt

onlei-

reinstatement because of ttre Top Secret clearance denial.

In other words, Mr. Nadeau believed like Mr. Duggan and I, that Mr. Kirk and the
Service were acting in good faith and that the denial was not fraudulent. We believed as
also stated by Mr. Desrosiers, DG of Personal Services, during the mediation meetings,
that the denial of my Top Secret clearance prevented Mr. Nadeau from ordering
reinstatement.

t
:

t
I
I
I
lt

It was only in late 2008, after much probing and many letters from Mr. Mercure, that the
"SCrvice'dilniitted that there was no reason to deny me a Top Secret clearance meaning
letter dated
issue
in
my
The
important
a
and
fiaudulent.
was
actually
ruse
ihe 2007 denial
May 31, 2009 is that the settlement agreement was based on a fraudulent
misrepresentation of facts by Service representatives. Mr. Kirk in his letter dated June
30th 2009 did not refute, did not deny and did not even address the facts that proved the
Top Secret clearance denial was fraudulent. Nor did Mr. Kirk address the motives for the
ruse that is to obstruct the disclosure of evidence despite several verbal directions by the
Board and the June 2007 written order by Mr. Nadeau.
Mr. Kirk did not even deny that CSIS had long ago corroborated my affidavits and this
was the neason for the obstnrction of the disclosure of evidence and the fraudulent denial
of my Top Secret clearance. Mr. Kirk instead cited trvo cases: Maiangowi V. Treasury
Board 2003 PSLRB 6 and Canada V. Lebreux 1994 F.C.J. No. l7l l; however both of
cases do not cite any reference to fraud and coercion. Mr. Khk in fact ignored the real
issue of fraud urd coercion ttrat I put forttr in my letter of May 3lst.

tIl
t
t

I
I
t
n
I
il

t
il

tsL

Mr. Kirk's letter of June 30th is the third challenge by the Service to the Board's
jurisdiction. The first challenge regarded the issue of timeliness for the grievance. The
Chairperson of the PSLRB ruled in 2006 that I won the issue of timeliness on all counts.
There was no doubt by the Chair, after the evidence was presented, that the Service's
objection to the PSLRB's jurisdiction in regards to timeliness was completely unfounded.
The second challenge to jurisdiction was in regards to whether my dismissal was
carnouflaged discipline. The Board decided that the answer to this jurisdictional question
would be determined during the hearing on the merits of the case.

In my two affrdavits (2004 and 2006),I provided several detailed examples of

carnouflaged discipline that were crossed reference to classified documents. As
evidenced in my previous letter of May 3lst the Service conoborated these examples
within the two afrdavits and reclassified them to Top Secret. The Service also withheld
these cross-referenced documents, even after the order for frrll disclosure. As evident in
Mr. Kirk last letter, he no longer disputes this jurisdictional question.
As Mr. Kirk mentions in his June 306letter, that I was given a Secret levet clearance and
Mr. Duggan was given a Top Secret clearance. However, what Mr. Kirk did not mention
was that the Service still wittrheld relevant documents that were ordered to be disclosed.
Mr. Kirk did not mention that he conlided in August 2007 that my Fdrive and e-mails
were located despite several previous assertions that they were erased. Mr. Kirk did not
mention that even at the end of August 2007 ttrat ttrey were still'\r,orking" on disclosing
the rest of my documents. Nor did Mr. Kirk mention that Mr. prrggan put forward a
motion for the Arbifator to order the Service to pay my legal fees because of the
Service's ptrposeful withholding of evidence that included the pretence of destroying
electronic files. Mr Kirk had to admit that the evidence was not destroyed. By June 2007,
it became obvious that the Service caused unnecessary delays and legal costs for me by
without information that it was prcviously directed to disclose.
Mr. Nadeau was seriously considering an order to pay my legal fees prior to the
continuation of the arbitration process. We believed this was the only neason why CSIS
offered to pay my legal fees during the mediation p(rcess. The only cash payment in the
settlement regarded the payment of my legal fees, which we believe we would have
obtained anyway. The cheque by CSIS was written out to Mr. Duggan to pay my legal
fees. Upon my dismissal in 2003, I obtained only one week of severance pay per year of
Service, whereas the norm is three weeks of severance pay per year of Service. Should
the settlement have been devoid of fraud and coercion; anyone would have sought this
standard payment and would have obtained it through mediation.
The non-cash portion of the settlement was for help in tansfening my pension, which
was allowed for in 200En004. The help consisted of Mr. Roussy proving an address and
phone number, In the end, Public Works allowed the transfer of my pension into a LIRA
because of several mistakes that the Service made in 2003. Also in 2003, upon my
dismissal, I was promised six months of psychological services because of the
psychological harassment that I had gone through. However, this was cut offby CSIS

I
I
I

I
t
I
I

t
+

I
I
I
I
I
t

t
I
I
I
t
I
I

after only three rnonths in 2003, despite my request to have it continued for the full sixmonths. The inclusion in the settlement was for the Service to honour its previous
cornmitrnents.
The only added benefit that I obtained in the settlement was a framed CSIS certificate,
which is normally given to former employees upon their departure from CSIS. I take it
that this is the matter of equity that Mr. Kirk writes about in his letter. If this is the case, I
would be glad to return the franred certificate to Mr. Desrosiers, who signed it.

In reference to coercion during the mediation proc.ess, Mr. Roussy provided through Mr.
Nadeau that should I proceed with this fiuitless arbitration, that I would also be denied
ernployment with other Federal deparfinents because of my disclosures of the facts would
be on record. Mr. Roussy had qlsg_advised--me_ 91 previoqs occasions in front of PSLRB
qgr!trtr th4rqt dri scf ollre$g ttg_B9ardg"y_E:1q119gl t{! gl uy .9!t!- !1gslng the
SecGtyE6rmation Aa.-IEs-retsfaton woulilE fo-r tEe*facc'tfiat piesenierlit the
hearing, which would become part of the record. Civen the continuation of the arbitration
process would be for only moral or according to Mr. Roussy "fntitless" reasons this
would result in furtlrer retaliation. This I believed constituted coercion.
30m letter, I mentioned another case that resembled my own in
regards to the omission of facts and manipulation of evidence. The case was that of Mr.

At the end of my May

Harke! where CSIS finally admitted to an omission of important information and the
apparent perjury of two CSIS witnesses. Since then, another case has emerged, that of
Mr. Almrei, which regards similar omissions of faci. In an article dated July 14, 2009 in
*CSIS is Not Above the [.af', the article
the National Post (page Al4) tlrat was entitled
makes the same argument that I have always rnade. In it, the author writes "Lying,
attempting to manipulate the tnrth or omitting significant details - these acts constitute
perjury."
As outlined in my affrdavis while employed with CSIS, I also made similar arguments in
that omitting important facts and manipulating (massaging) other facts caused in the end
the undermining of national and international security. When "massaging the facts"
(CSIS jargon) is for the sole purpose promoting one's career and is placed ahead of
national security, I considered this to be a serious breach of trust. Mr. Kirk appears to
agre that CSIS is above the law, in that it is allowed to omit or manipulate important
facts, mislead and "make a mockery of the judicial process" (National Post) including
that of the PSLRB.

It is very telling at the end of Mr. Kirk's letter that he confirmed that the Service would
no longer reply to Mr. Mercure's letters. Given the questions in Mr. Mercure's last letter
dated May lgth 2009, the reason for not replying is obvious. The Service does not want
to implicate itself further in regards to ttre fraudulent acts that Mr. Mercure was inquiring
about.

I
I

Despite the Arbitrator's order in June 2007, CSIS in September 2007 still refused to
e'
provide either Mr. Duggan or

I
;t
I

r
I
r

I
I
I
ll
T

f
I

t
T

/58

These files would be classified at most - Secret. The files would furttrer confirm if there
were any documents or supporting reasons for the denial of my Top Secret clearance or
whether it was a simply fraud -absent of any legitimate reason for the denial.

As a matter of law, fraud and coercion are causes for a settlement, or any contract for that
matter, to become null and void. CSIS has already admitted to acting fraudulent by
admitting that there was no reason to deny me a Top Secret clearance, therefore the
settlement should also be null and void.
Should the Boad still have any doubt whether the denial of my Top Secret clearance was
fraudulent, this could be dercrmined as a preliminary matter prior to the hearing on the
substance of the case or even during the hearing of the merits of the case itself. A review
of my security screening/security file would only confirm this. As a matter of equity, the
prejudice suffered onto me, by not at least reviewing the fraudulent issues and related
documents, is far greater then that of CSIS, by forcing it to not omit the facts and the
messaging of the information.
Should you need any more information, please do not hesitate to contact either Mr.
Mercure or myself.
Sincerely

Danny Palmer