|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 21, 2009 12:05:14 GMT -4
We ask that you visit this website - www.savestacy.com to learn about a current case of extreme whistleblower retaliation right here in Queen Anne's County. Ms. Bernstein is hopeful that the appropriate regulatory agencies will act quickly on her behalf. Any positive support of Ms. Bernstein and her fight would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jun 21, 2009 12:55:39 GMT -4
Would like to learn more about this, but the website give very little information, the links give very little or no information, and there is a statement that Stacy is unable to discuss the case.
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 21, 2009 13:07:43 GMT -4
Sorry. The issue is that, while the criminal charges against her are pending, she is not allowed to discuss her case in order to preserve her 5th Amendment Rights.
She filed many complaints with various regulatory agencies against her former employer from October 2008 through April 2009; however those investigations take a long time.
Prior to a hearing and their deposition in May & June of 2009, the former employer charged Ms. Bernstein with wrongdoing. By doing this, it stays all civil actions in the case, meaning the former employer does not have to be deposed, and it also harms her credibility as the main witness.
With regards to the complaints Ms. Bernstein filed, they are a matter of public record and can be obtained by a FOIA request or a request for documents in the Conversion/negligence case.
Sorry that we cannot provide more information. The system encourages employees to report wrongdoing, which Ms. Bernstein did. And in return Ms. Bernstein is being savagely retaliated against.
Thank you for taking the time to visit the website!
|
|
|
Post by jake on Jun 21, 2009 18:47:14 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 21, 2009 19:42:16 GMT -4
Yes, and if you look at the page titled "Stacy's Story" you will see the list of complaints that she filed from October 2008 through April 2009 with the various federal and state regulatory agencies.
Then in May & June 2009 she is charged with crimes having occurred back in September 2008. The complainants were her previous employer.
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jun 21, 2009 21:10:48 GMT -4
What a nightmare! Am totally confused. Is Q.A. County the "former" employer? Are Stacy and her legal counsel aware that you've posted this information here and have you been advised that doing so would not harm her case? I certainly hope so. And what is your relationship with Stacy?
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 21, 2009 22:18:50 GMT -4
No, the former employer is not Queen Anne's County. Not in any way, shape, or form.
Yes, legal counsel has been consulted, and hence the lack of full disclosure regarding the situation. Information can be posted that leads people to find public records, and that is pretty much all that can be posted. As you will note on the website and posts, very little information has been given out. The rest is a matter of public record.
I am family of Stacy, and the hope is that the appropriate regulatory agencies will do a thorough investigation and protect her from this type of retaliation and harassment. Keeping the situation quiet and under wraps is not the best course of action in this case - people need to be aware that whistleblowing can lead to these types of retaliatory actions.
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 23, 2009 10:54:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by foiiinobody on Jun 23, 2009 12:53:38 GMT -4
Please also keep in mind that Md. is an Employer Friendly state. Meaning that in litigation, most Judges/decisions go in favor of the Employer. This type of firing occurred to my sister a few years ago, when she called someone out for threatening her and some other in the work place. The Employer didn't have an SOP in place to handle this type of complaint/situation, so the easiest thing was to fire sis and cover the whole deal up. There are Federal laws that can assist her too, but again, Md is an employer friendly state.
Good Luck, Stay Safe...
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jun 23, 2009 16:38:15 GMT -4
Follinobody -- what statistical and case decision information do you base your statement on?
Shoregurrl -- I wish Stacy well and my hopes are that she kicks their asses. The separate case you posted -- incredible -- and in this day and age. Thank God the Judge ruled with wisdom although I can't imagine why anyone would even want to work for a company like that. I also hope Stacy requests a jury trial.
|
|
|
Post by foiiinobody on Jun 24, 2009 6:17:29 GMT -4
Primarily the cases involving MOSH... In the case of my sibling, it was ruled by an arbitrator
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 24, 2009 7:53:10 GMT -4
Thanks, Sequel - I will pass on your well-wishes. We really appreciate it. This is the most difficult thing we have ever gone through.
Yes, Stacy's criminal trial will indeed be a jury trial. Stacy did not even have a choice in that matter, as Circuit Court criminal cases of this "magnitude" are automatically jury trials.
Sadly though, keep in mind that a Grand Jury (a jury of our peers) indicted Stacy on these charges based SOLELY on the "evidence" presented by the prosecutor and former employer. The "evidence" was conspicuously lacking all of the complaints filed against the former employer.
As for Stacy's civil case(s), she will indeed be requesting a jury trial for those.
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jun 24, 2009 12:06:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 24, 2009 12:44:33 GMT -4
Sequel, you will love this one...
Ms. Bernstein's attorney issued subpoenas for the documents required in order to prove her innocence. The State's Attorney office turned around and filed a "motion to quash," meaning they do not want to allow those subpeonas by Ms. Bernstein's attorney to go through.
That most likely means 1 of 2 things: Either the State Attorney's office does not care about a person's ability to prove their innocence, or they are afraid that the information subpeonaed would be quite damaging to their own case...
|
|
|
Post by kl on Jun 24, 2009 13:10:03 GMT -4
Having been in the civil court system in Queene Anne County for going on 4 years now, I can honestly tell you, if Stacey's lawyer, can in anyway move that case to another county, then that lawyer should. State's Attorney, to lawyers, to the judges in QA have little respect for the law. Good luck!!
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jun 24, 2009 13:25:19 GMT -4
I don't think it is the job of the State's Attorney to aid a defendant in proving their innocence. The prosecutor's job is to prosecute. They need to follow the law, but they don't need to assist the defense.
In a previous post it was mentioned that the complaints filed against the former employer were not brought into the Grand Jury testimony. If these complaints are the same evidence the subpoenas are for, then perhaps the argument is that this evidence has no bearing on whether Ms. Bernstein is guilty or not. Sure, it might speak to why charges were filed, but her guilt or innocence does not depend on the reason why the charges were brought against her, only on whether she committed the crimes she is being accused of.
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 24, 2009 14:08:33 GMT -4
Very good points.
The subpoenas are indeed directly related to the charges.
No, it is not the prosecutor's job to assist the defendant. However, the prosecutor is required by law to use good faith efforts and allow the presentation of evidence for the case, both good and bad. They should not use tactics that completely halt the defendant's ability to prove their innocence. The defendant's lawyer issues a subpoena - the state should have no ability to take away that person's right to prove their innocence.
|
|
|
Post by shorti on Jun 24, 2009 14:21:25 GMT -4
problem is - and I'm guessing here... but the subpoenaed evidence is being subpoenaed from the company (the ones who filed the charges)
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jun 24, 2009 14:42:20 GMT -4
All's fair in love and war. This is war. They are expected to fight like cats and dogs within the confines of the law, that's their job. Shorti, it's called request for production of documents. Both sides are entitled to do it. Don't understand the motion to quash but I'm sure it's explained in their motion. It's up to the judge; hopefully, he will deny the motion. I do agree with KI in attempting for a change of venue. I'm very concerned for Stacy. This is very serious. Again, what a nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 24, 2009 14:46:51 GMT -4
You are correct Shorti.
Apparently a company can file false charges against you, and not be required to produce documents that you as the defendant ask for!
If they aren't going to produce documents, then drop the charges. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jun 24, 2009 15:16:15 GMT -4
My take: If there is enough evidence that a judge/commissioner will agree to file charges, the company has something to go on, just makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by jetdoc on Jun 24, 2009 16:49:16 GMT -4
My take: If there is enough evidence that a judge/commissioner will agree to file charges, the company has something to go on, just makes sense. In most cases I agree, but there are plenty of cases where corp. have fabricated evidence to support their charges. So if this is the case hopefully it will be uncovered in court. Hopefully "stacey" has contacted OSHA and if her claims of retaliation are true they will support her and pursue charges against her former employer. www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 25, 2009 9:08:37 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jun 25, 2009 15:30:41 GMT -4
Excellent, shoregurrl.
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jun 25, 2009 16:11:19 GMT -4
Thanks, Sequel.
It's amazing how so many things come to light all at once!
|
|