|
|
 |

|

District Court Hearing
On Thursday, July 10, 2008, at 2 PM, a District Court hearing will be held in the courtroom of Judge Otis D. Wright, II.
The hearing will likely address the recently re-issued 9th Circuit opinion
reiterating its instructions to enjoin both NASA and Caltech from requiring new, intrusive background investigations.
The hearing is open to the public, and we encourage all supporters to attend.
Where: Courtroom 11, United States District Court,
312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles
When: Thursday, July 10 at 2 PM
Photo ID is required to enter the courthouse. Please dress appropriately -- no T-shirts please. The Court building is walking distance from Union Station, and
paid parking is available nearby.
Current Status as of July 4, 2008
- Injunction: For Caltech employees at JPL, the injunction in place means that NASA
- cannot require new HSPD-12 background investigations or proceed with the
investigations initiated before the injunction was ordered;
- can issue new HSPD-12 badges to those adjudicated favorably prior to the injunction.
- Court Case against NASA:
- A three-judge panel of Federal Appeals Court for the Ninth circuit has found that HSPD-12 investigations
unconstitutionally violate employees' privacy.
- Caltech involvement:
- The Appeals Court directed that any temporary injunction be extended to Caltech as it
appeared to be "...a willful and joint participant in NASA's investigation program".
- After the Appeals Court opinion, the District Court dismissed all claims against Caltech. Employees-Plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal as inappropriate. The matter is now before the Appeals Court.
The Injunction is IN EFFECT
In a major victory for JPL employees, on January 11, 2008 (amended June 20, 2008)
a three-judge panel of the Federal Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit ordered an injunction against NASA's and Caltech's implementation of the HSPD-12
background investigations.
The panel found that the existing process violates employees' privacy rights,
and is not narrowly tailored to a legitimate need.
The panel also found that Caltech's declared policy of terminating those not complying with the rebadging requirement
"raises serious questions as to whether the university has in fact now become a willful and joint participant
in NASA’s investigation program".
On March 13, Judge Otis Wright (presiding judge in the District Court)
ordered
Government defendants to "cease any further investigations of employees", pending resolution of the case.
Under Judge Wright's ruling, however, NASA is allowed to issue
badges to "those employees who have already cleared their background investigations".
Judge Wright has dismissed all claims against Caltech,
a private University which manages JPL for NASA. This decision is being appealed.
For more details on the legal case, please see the
Lawsuit(Updated 06/20) and
Timeline(Updated 06/20) pages.
We have heard reports attributed to
plaintiffs' attorney Dan Stormer that the Appeals Court decision
is applicable to all of NASA, possibly all federal employees. We do not know
the origin of these reports but the statement has been propagated in the media.
Obviously, the decision by the Ninth Circuit court potentially has broad
applications. Certainly, it applies to all employees at JPL. Employees in other
jurisdictions are encouraged to take the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court to
their attorneys and ask about the relevance to any given situation.
Our superb legal team -- Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson & Renick LLP -- is
one of the nation's premier civil rights firms, and has given generously of
their time to fight for our rights. With further legal proceedings contemplated
and expenses mounting, we are urging supporters to contribute to the legal fund.
Please send your donations, payable to "HSKRR", to Bob Nelson,
775 N. Mentor Ave., Pasadena, CA 91104.
Other News:
- NASA now posted the "suitability matrix" on its website, as Attachment 2,
"Office of Personnel Management Issue Characterization Chart" in
NASA Desk Guide for Suitability and Security Clearance Processing (local copy).
It mentions "carnal knowledge", "attitude", "sodomy", "keeping house of ill repute", "bestiality", "displaying of obscene material" as
disqualifying factors. "Cohabitation, adultery, illegitimate children" could also be disqualifying.
- January 31, 2008. Robert Nelson, Dennis Byrnes and Susan Foster, plaintiffs in the matter Nelson et al. vs. NASA,
Dept. of Commerce and Caltech, on behalf of concerned Caltech employees at JPL wrote a
letter highlighting the Appellate Court injunction
decision and seeking help and support from the broader Caltech academic community. This and previous letters, as well as other
material distributed to JPL and Caltech community can be found on the Reference Documents page
- In the ongoing proceedings in the District Court, plaintiffs move to certify the following class (suppl.)
for injunctive and
declaratory relief:
All current and future employees and subcontractors of the California Institute of Technology hired to work at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or required to have physical or electronic access to that laboratory, who hold "non sensitive" or
low risk positions, and are required to complete OPM Standard Form 85 and submit to a background investigation as set forth in
NASA Interim Directive 1600.1.
Plaintiffs are seeking certification as an injunctive relief class, which is a common method to obtain broad
based injunctive relief under the federal rules of procedure. Plaintiffs believe certification, if granted by the court,
will ensure that any injunction ultimately entered applies to all employees and contractors working at JPL. Federal defendants
are opposing any class certification.
- See more details on the Lawsuit, Press releases, and Media
Coverage pages.
Other new things on this site
Interactive timeline of the court proceedings and the associated events.
- If you want a T-shirt, button, mousepad, or mug, please visit cafepress.com/hspd12jpl. This
is the recommended way for people outside of the local area to acquire
these items. (JPLers can also get one by contacting the webmaster.) We don't get any
of this money, but it is still a great way to show your support!
- JPL scientists call for senate inquiry. Read their letter, which is also archived on
the reference documents page.
- See an informational
brochure you can print and distribute yourself. It's on the
reference documents page, too.
Outside JPL
On June 3, 2008 U.S. Reps. Kucinich and Davis addressed HSPD-12
among other NASA workforce issues in the context of
NASA's budget authorization:
...we recommend that H.R. 6063 include a provision that requires that NASA halt implementation
of its new policy of reinvestigating employees in low-risk positions, until the constitutionality
of this process is fully settled by the Courts. The President issued Homeland Security Policy
Directive #12 to mandate that all civil servant and contractor employees who have access to
federal facilities be subjected to standard background checks and be issued standardized
badges that can allow Agencies to reliably verify an employee's identity. While we do
not object to this security measure, its implementation has been flawed. NASA has used
HSPD-12 to instigate a new security policy, NPR1600.1, which establishes periodic
reinvestigation of long-time NASA civil-servant employees who have already passed earlier
background checks. Furthermore, the affected positions include those rated as low-risk.
The process is so intrusive, the 9th circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing
its implementation for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory contract employees pending judicial review.
Regrettably, NASA has decided to interpret this injunction narrowly and to move forward with
re-investigations of low-risk civil-service employees using the same constitutionally suspect
process. We believe that the decision to go beyond HSPD-12 and to subject NASA's civil service
employees to an unnecessary, expensive and intrusive invasion of privacy is unwarranted and unwise.
- On April 9, 2008, U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization and Procurement
(Committee on Oversight and Government Reform) held a hearing,
"Federal Security: ID Cards
and Background Checks."
"The hearing [released] a new Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report finding that the program is
incurring high costs but providing little benefit to date..."
Letters written to the committee are on our Forum. We encourage you to post yours as well.
- No federal agency met the October 27, 2007 deadline
to complete the HSPD-12 background checks
- IRS wasted millions of dollars
implementing HSPD-12, according to an
Inspector General report. The same report cites the estimated 14-year cost of implementing HSPD-12 at
the Dept. of the Treasury (with 1.5x as many personnel as NASA), at $421 Million, a bit over the cost of
a Mars scout mission
- NASA's Johnson Space Center employees and contractors
are concerned about HSPD-12.
- Ames Federal Employees Union is concerned about
aspects of HSPD-12 rebadging.
- Contractor employees of U.S. Department of Education have a problem
with the "security screenings".
Welcome to the fight against JPL's rebadging process. This site contains
information about why the $6 million rebadging process is unfair,
unethical, and illegal. Read about it for yourself, and if you agree
with us, join our fight against it!
You may be shocked when you find out what is really involved, how
dangerous it is, and how much of your freedom you are giving up. To get
rebadged, you don't simply provide information on forms-- you provide
information that begins an investigation of you.
Did you know:
- That the release form on the SF85 or SF85P authorizes an
investigator to obtain "any information" on you from schools,
residences, employers, criminal establishments, and any other sources,
and that the investigation is explicitly "not limited"?
- That each of the neighbors, supervisors, and references you are
required to provide will be sent a questionnaire asking about
your "mental or emotional stability," "financial integrity," and "abuse
of alcohol and/or drugs," among other things?
- That SF85 remains in effect for two years, whether or not you stay
at JPL? In other words, federal agents can use your SF85 release as
permission to investigate you for two full years, even if you are no
longer affiliated with a federal agency
- That the new rules prevent JPL from issuing retiree badges?
- That the official SF85 and SF85p forms describe the process as
"voluntary," but that jpl will terminate your employment if you don't
fill it out?
This is just a sampling of why the process is causing concern. If these
provisions worry you even a little, you may want to read the FAQ and
in-depth research to learn more.
If you are new to how HSPD-12 works at JPL, you may also want to read
this overview of HSPD-12 and the JPL rebadging
process.
|
|
Last updated: July 4, 2008
©2007, 2008 all rights reserved.
Send questions, comments, and corrections to webmaster@hspd12jpl.org
|
|
|
|