Federal employees can support Black Lives Matter on the job, Office of Special Counsel rules

Black Lives Matter is not inherently political so federal employees are free to express their support for the movement while on the job, according to the government agency that polices such matters. The Office of Special Counsel says employees can wear BLM pins, post supportive messages to their social media accounts during work time, or let fellow employees or members of the public know of their support. They can even fundraise for the movement as long as they don’t back a specific political candidate while doing so, the OSC said in guidance sent to federal agencies late last week. “As applied to BLM, this means that an employee is not prohibited by the Hatch Act from expressing support for, or opposition to, the BLM movement while on duty or in the workplace,” the OSC ruled. The agency had previously ruled that the tea party movement was a social force, not a political organization, and the agency said BLM fits the same mold.

The Hatch Act governs what types of political activities are acceptable from U.S. government employees, particularly while on the job. Violations can be punished by reprimands, suspensions or firings. Political campaign slogans are illegal — so workers could not post a “Make America Great Again” sign in a cubicle. But “phrases related to issues” don’t rise to the same threshold, so someone could use “Black Lives Matter” as an email signature, under the guidance. “BLM is a ‘hot-button’ issue and both politically and culturally salient. But BLM terminology is issue-based, not a campaign slogan. Therefore, using BLM terminology, without more, is not political activity,” the OSC said.

The question has apparently roiled federal departments and agencies in recent weeks, as the country has faced protests over policing and racism. Agencies were disseminating the new OSC guidance this week. OSC says its ruling turns on how deeply BLM is involved in partisan politics. According to OSC, BLM leaders have generally kept clean — though in 2016 they did negotiate with the Democratic National Committee to try to sponsor a BLM-themed debate. The party offered them a forum, but refused to add a specific debate. Likewise the Black Lives Matter Global Network, the largest BLM group, which in 2016 pondered endorsing a candidate for president, ultimately did not do so, OSC said.

This election, BLMGN is pushing for increased voter turnout, and is active on issues of policing, education and the like — but has not endorsed any party or candidate. And even though most people might see the group as more aligned with Democrats, “that does not make it a ‘partisan political group’ for purposes of the Hatch Act.” “Considering that BLMGN is overwhelmingly focused on policy issues, not on promoting or opposing political parties or candidates for partisan political office, it is not a partisan political group at this time,” the OSC concluded. The BLMGN didn’t respond to a request for comment on the decision, nor on the comparison between BLM and the tea party, which was the basis for the new ruling.

OSC said that both BLM and the tea party are blanket terms for a movement for social change. And both movements span a number of groups that claim fealty to those ideas. Since OSC repeatedly ruled use of “tea party” by federal employees was allowed, so it deems BLM acceptable. The Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog that has taken a close interest in Hatch Act policies, called the OSC guidance the right balance. “The bottom line is that Black Lives Matter is not a partisan organization, nor is it a partisan issue. And federal employees are and should be free to express their support for it, both in and out of the federal workplace,” said Nick Schwellenbach, senior investigator at POGO. Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said some of BLM’s views of America are “warped and inaccurate,” though as long as the groups avoid politicking they’re on safe legal ground. “But while it may be legally OK for federal employees to post BLM posters on the walls of their office, I think doing so is unwise because it may make many of their clients — the public — who also disagree with BLM uncomfortable or intimidated,” he said.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/13/federal-employees-can-support-black-lives-matter-j/

Bridgewater "Manufactured False Evidence" To Crush Potential Competitors… And Was Jim Comey Involved?

Who knew that part of Ray Dalio's "radical transparency" fetish was accusing potential competitors of stealing trade secrets, and when there is no theft, to radically fabricate "evidence" to shut them down? While it has long been known that in the annals of active management lore, not one hedge fund comes even close to pursuing non-compete clauses and trade secrets lawsuits against its former employees with the same ferocity, tenacity and unbridled glee as the world's biggest hedge fund Bridgewater (despite valiant attempts by RenTec and Citadel they are at best runners up), what nobody knew until now, is that when Bridgewater was lacking enough legal facts on its side, it would resort to simply fabricating them. That's what the world's biggest hedge fund did on at least one occasion according to a panel of three arbitrators, who according to the FT, found that Bridgewater "manufactured false evidence" in its attempt to prove that former employees had stolen its trade secrets.

According to humiliating - to Ray Dalio - court documents which were made public on Monday, and which quote findings from a panel of three arbitrators, Bridgewater - which manages $138BN in assets, and whose billionaire founder prides in the way "radical transparency" is shoved down all employees' throats - was found to have "filed its claims in reckless disregard of its own internal records, and in order to support its allegations of access to trade secrets, manufactured false evidence". The dramatic discovery emerged as a result of a dispute launched by Bridgewater against former employees, Lawrence Minicone and Zachary Squire, in November 2017, in which the fund claimed the duo had misappropriated trade secrets and breached their contracts. However, Bridgewater's attempt to bully not only its former employees from launching a new fund, but also the legal system, promptly suffered a spectacular breakdown, when a panel of three arbitrators found that Bridgewater had “failed to identify the alleged trade secrets with specificity”, knowing Minicone and Squire would have to fight an expensive case in order to defend against the allegations, the court filing states. In other words, even though its former employees - who quit years prior in mid-2013 - did nothing wrong, Bridgewater knew that simply by throwing armies of lawyers after them, it could bankrupt them into submission. And while this strategy has worked over and over, this time it failed. "The trade secrets as described constituted publicly available information or information generally known to professionals in the industry, and . . . Claimant [Bridgewater], a highly sophisticated entity, knew that the trade secrets as described did not constitute trade secrets," the tribunal ruled, according to material quoted in the court filing.

There was more. Just to cover its bases, in addition to the trade secrets claim, Bridgewater also accused its two former employees of unfair competition after they co-founded Tekmerion Capital Management, a systematic macro hedge fund with about $60MM in assets under management, which received backing from billionaire Alan Howard and Michael Novogratz. But here too, Bridgewater hit a brick wall, when the arbitrators found that Bridgewater’s claims had been brought in “bad faith”. "Claimant’s actions in continuing to press its claims constitute further evidence that its intentions were not to prove misappropriation, but rather, were to adversely affect respondents’ ability to conduct a competitive business," the arbitrators ruling stated, according to the new court filing. So how did all of this leak? Simple: Bridgewater was too stingy to pay the falsely accused duo $2 million in lawyer fees, forcing Minicone and Squire to file a court petition against Bridgewater on July 1 to confirm the $2 million in lawyers fees awarded by the arbitration panel in January and, in a move that is set to terminally humiliate and expose Dalio as a consummate hypocrite, to have the full decision by the arbitrators made public.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/bridgewater-manufactured-false-evidence-crush-potential-competitors-and-was-jim-comey

>>9954568

Indeed, and what was moar interesting is how they used the Tea Party as a parallel for justification. Last I knew Tea party wasn't global by any means in addition they really don't seem to be offering any platform these days.