The Ombudsman Network
 

Advocacy, Mediation, Conflict Resolution, and Independent Investigation

 
 

HOME Advocacy Views Investigations
 
Ombudsman Net Welcome

An ombudsman is an official often within government charged with representing public interests by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individuals. The term arose in Sweden, where a Parliamentary ombudsman agency, independent of the executive branch, was instituted in 1809 to protect citizen rights. The origin of the term is found in Old Norse and derives from umbuds man, meaning representative. The initial use in Swedish dates from 1552. An ombudsman is not necessarily appointed by government, but a non-governmental ombudsman does not always carry any special powers or sanction abilities.
California Dept. of Insurance Ombudsman
California Long Term Care Ombudsman
Calif. Corporate Fraud Ombudsman
The Ombudsman Association
UK Ombudsman Network
Schafer Autism Report Archives
  • 4/05 - OPINION - Senator Harry Reid (Nevada) questions
    'The Nuclear Option'
    Nuclear winter could come as early as this spring if Republicans follow through on their threats to launch the nuclear option. Republicans angered that Senate Democrats have rejected 10 of the President's 214 judicial nominees and desiring absolute power want to end a 200 year-old Senate right to engage in unlimited debate. They want to go "nuclear" and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for President Bush. They want to silence Senate Democrats - the one remaining check on President Bush's power. If they can do away with debate in the Senate, they can get whatever they want - right-wing Supreme Court Justices, Social Security privatization and tax breaks for the wealthy that will plunge us deeper in debt.

    The nuclear option is a shocking power grab in its own right. More stunning is that President Bush has asked Republican Senators to stake their reputations on and break the rules for such shockingly unqualified judges.
    For example, Janice Rogers Brown was twice rated not qualified by the California Judicial Nominations Evaluation (JNE) Commission, The Commission's report indicated that "nothing in [Brown's] legal experience [distinguished] her from other average practitioners," and some of Brown's opinions contained "gratuitous" personal opinions. In addition her opinions on race discrimination and on the rights of the disabled are nothing short of draconian.
    *****************************************
    The Republicans are arrogant with power. If they don't like the rules, they break them. If they don't like someone standing in their way, they attack them. We have Republican Leadership in the Senate that is considering throwing out 200 years of Senate history in order to pack the courts with right wing judges. And we have a Republican Leader in the House of Representatives who attacks judges who don't agree with him and corrupts our government by running roughshod over the ethics committee.

    It's a complete abuse of power by the Republicans and if they can get away with this on judges, they will get away with this on legislation like Social Security too. There is no distinction.

    This is about more than a few unqualified judges, this is about protecting the rights of disabled Americans to work, the rights of minorities to vote, the rights of every American to have clean air, safe drinking water and be heard in Washington.

    *******************************************

    >2/23/05 MORE THAN A THOUSAND WHISTLEBLOWER CASES DUMPED — Special Counsel Dismisses Hundreds of Disclosures and Complaints in Past Year
    Washington, DC — The U.S. Special Counsel has dismissed more than 1,000 whistleblower cases in the past year, according to a letter from the Bush-appointed Special Counsel released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The Special Counsel appears to have taken action in very few, if any, of these cases and has yet to represent a single whistleblower in an employment case.

    In a letter dated February 14, 2005 and addressed to U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Special Counsel Scott Bloch defends his stormy 13 months in office by pointing to a sharp drop in backlogged whistleblower cases.

    “Everyone agrees that backlogs and delays are bad but they are not as bad as simply dumping the cases altogether,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that this letter is the first account that Bloch has released of his tenure and that his office’s report for FY 2004, which ended in October, is overdue. “If the Office of Special Counsel under Scott Bloch is not helping whistleblowers then there is no reason for the office to continue to exist.”

    According to the figures released by Bloch, in the past year the Office of Special Counsel—
    Dismissed or otherwise disposed of 600 whistleblower disclosures where civil servants have reported waste, fraud, threats to public safety and violations of law. Bloch has yet to announce a single case where he has ordered an investigation into the employee’s charges. Bloch says that 100 disclosures are still pending; and
    Made 470 claims of retaliation disappear. In not one of these cases did Bloch’s office affirmatively represent a whistleblower to obtain relief before the civil service court system, called the Merit Systems Protection Board. Bloch says that another 30 retaliation cases remain in the backlog.

    In order to speed dismissals, Bloch instituted a rule forbidding his staff from contacting a whistleblower if their disclosure was deemed incomplete or ambiguous. Instead, OSC would simply dismiss the matter. As a result, hundreds of whistleblowers never had a chance to justify why their cases had merit.

    “According to Scott Bloch there is no waste, fraud or abuse in the federal government that deserves investigation,” stated Ruch, noting that there may be even more dismissals than Bloch reported because the numbers cited above are limited to what was defined as a backlog and do not include new cases.

    Rep. Waxman and Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), the ranking minority party members of the House Government Reform Committee and its Civil Service Subcommittee, respectively, had originally written to ask for an investigation by the Government Accountability Office into Bloch’s forced removal of OSC staff, hiring of cronies and failure to answer Freedom of Information Act requests. http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/1092855.htm

  • >12/31/04 Ohio presidential recount officially ended. Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld, Harvey Wasserman

    Columbus - A new precinct-by-precinct analysis in many Ohio counties indicates that Bush's margin here was likely obtained by fraud. That is the main claim of the election challenge suit now at the Ohio Supreme Court, where Ohio's GOP Supreme Court Chief Justice, Thomas Moyer, has refused to recuse himself, even though allegations of vote switching ­ where votes cast for one candidate are assigned to another in the computerized tabulation stage ­ involve his own re-election campaign.

    Ohio's official recount was conducted by GOP Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, despite widespread protests that his role as co-chair of the state's Bush-Cheney campaign constituted an serious conflict of interest. Blackwell has refused to testify in the election challenge lawsuit alleging massive voter fraud, as have a number of GOP county election supervisors. Blackwell also refuses to explain why he has left more than 106,000 machine-rejected and provisional ballots entirely uncounted.
    The Kerry campaign, which raised millions of dollars to guarantee "every vote will be counted" in the 2004 election, has challenged the results in just one county, where a technician dismantled at least one voting machine prior to the recount. Daniel J. Hoffheimer, an attorney hired by the Kerry campaign has emphasized his belief that despite that challenge, "this presidential election is over. The Bush-Cheney ticket has won."

    Hoffheimer is affiliated with Taft, Stettinius and Hollister, a Cincinnati firm with deep Republican ties to Ohio's current GOP governor, Bob Taft. Hoffheimer said "the Kerry-Edwards campaign has found no conspiracy and no fraud in Ohio," but more serious researchers continue to uncover plenty. While struggling to find the financial resources necessary for the legal challenge, the Election Protection team has continued to uncover deeply disturbing evidence of manipulation, theft and fraud that went unaudited by the official recount.
    Some 14.6% of Ohio votes were cast on electronic machines with no paper trail, rendering them unauditable. But on election night, electronic machines and computer software were used throughout the state to tabulate paper ballots. The contrasts are striking. Officially, Bush built a narrow margin of roughly 51% versus 48% for Kerry based on votes counted on election night. But among the 147,400 provisional and absentee ballots that were counted AFTER election night, Kerry received 54.46 percent of the vote. These later totals came from counts done by hand, as opposed to counts done by computer tabulators, many of which came from Diebold.

    Many of the electronic voting machines with no paper trail also came from Republican-dominated companies, including some from Diebold, whose owner, Wally O'Dell, infamously guaranteed in 2003 that he would deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush.

    Diebold also manufactured many of the tabulators used to count punch card ballots. In the vast majority of Ohio precincts, those tabulations were not rechecked or recounted. In at least two counties, technicians from Diebold and from Triad dismantled all or part of such tabulating machines prior to the recount. In Shelby County, election officials admitted that they discarded crucial tabulator records, rendering a meaningful recount impossible. In many cases, the recounts were conducted not by public election officials, but by private corporations, many of them with Republican ties.

    In other precincts, impossibly high voter turnout figures - nearly all of them adding to Bush's official margin - remain unexplained.

    *************************************
    12/13/04 America's Debt to Journalist Gary Webb
    By Robert Parry (SACRAMENTO) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today warned California consumers to be wary of individuals and companies who advertise themselves as "Legal Aid" or "Legal Services" when, in fact, they are not affiliated with legitimate non-profit legal aid services.

    "The true non-profit legal services organizations in California provide indispensable free legal assistance to consumers who can't afford to hire an attorney but need help while facing dangerous domestic violence situations, evictions from their homes and other emergencies," Lockyer said. "Consumers must be wary of deceptive, for-profit companies that purport to offer services from quality, non-profit legal services organizations but instead may provide shoddy advice that can actually hurt consumers and interfere with their legal rights."

    The warning, one in an ongoing series of consumer alerts issued by the Attorney General, was prompted in part by incidents in which consumers were duped into buying "legal" services from companies and individuals who pose as attorneys with bonafide legal aid organizations. In one case, several Shasta County plaintiffs testified that ads in the Yellow Pages and on the Internet led them to believe the non-lawyer they hired was associated with the local non-profit legal aid office. A jury in 2000 found the defendant, Walter Moore of Modesto, guilty of violating consumer protection laws, practicing law without a license and "acting with fraud, malice or oppression." The case is on appeal and the Attorney General's Office has filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of the plaintiffs.

    Consumers needing legal assistance or help in preparing legal documents should make sure that they are contacting a legitimate legal services organization.

    Under California law, non-lawyers may only make published legal documents available to consumers, type legal documents at the direction of consumers and provide pre-prepared published information that is written or approved by an attorney. They may not represent consumers in court, give legal advice, select or recommend the filing of particular legal forms or offer advice about how to fill them out.

    State law also requires individuals who prepare legal documents for divorce, eviction defense, bankruptcy or other legal matters to register and post a $25,000 bond with the County Clerk's office in each county in which they do business. To verify that an individual has complied, consumers should contact their local County Clerk's Office. Immigration document preparers, commonly referred to as immigration "consultants," must be registere and post a $50,000 bond with the California Secretary of State. To confirm an individual has met those requirements, consumers should contact the Secretary of State at (916) 653-3984, or visit the website at http://www.ss.ca.gov/business/sf/bond_search.htm.

    In addition, document preparers are required to provide consumers with a written agreement. Before paying any fees, obtain the agreement and make sure that it is signed by the document preparer, lists the services that will be provided and states the fee that will be charged.

    When seeking legal services from companies that appear to be affiliated with non-profit legal services organizations, Lockyer offers these additional tips to consumers:

    Be wary when asked to pay fees before meeting with a paralegal or attorney in person. Although non-profit legal aid organizations often charge minimal fees for court filings, service of legal documents, self-help legal classes and other similar costs, they do not charge for attorney time or representation. They also enter into written "retainer" agreements before requesting the payment of any fees.
    Inquire whether the business employs attorneys. All legitimate legal aid organizations have licensed attorneys on staff. To verify that an attorney is licensed to practice in California, consumers should call the California State Bar Association at (800) 843-9053, or visit the Bar's website at http://www.calsb.org/mm/sbmbrshp.htm
    Ensure that the business is a non-profit. Most legal aid organizations are funded in part by the federal government. To find a non-profit legal aid office in your area, check the Legal Services Corporation's website at http://www.lsc.gov/fundprog.htm
    Consumers who feel they have been victimized by a non-attorney document preparer or legal services provider should report it to their local district attorney or call the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit at (800) 952-5225. Consumer complaints also may be filed online at the Attorney General's website at http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers.
  • > 6/27/02 Attorney General Bill Lockyer Warns Consumers about Bogus Legal Services (916) 324-5500

    (SACRAMENTO) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer today warned California consumers to be wary of individuals and companies who advertise themselves as "Legal Aid" or "Legal Services" when, in fact, they are not affiliated with legitimate non-profit legal aid services.

    "The true non-profit legal services organizations in California provide indispensable free legal assistance to consumers who can't afford to hire an attorney but need help while facing dangerous domestic violence situations, evictions from their homes and other emergencies," Lockyer said. "Consumers must be wary of deceptive, for-profit companies that purport to offer services from quality, non-profit legal services organizations but instead may provide shoddy advice that can actually hurt consumers and interfere with their legal rights."

    The warning, one in an ongoing series of consumer alerts issued by the Attorney General, was prompted in part by incidents in which consumers were duped into buying "legal" services from companies and individuals who pose as attorneys with bonafide legal aid organizations. In one case, several Shasta County plaintiffs testified that ads in the Yellow Pages and on the Internet led them to believe the non-lawyer they hired was associated with the local non-profit legal aid office. A jury in 2000 found the defendant, Walter Moore of Modesto, guilty of violating consumer protection laws, practicing law without a license and "acting with fraud, malice or oppression." The case is on appeal and the Attorney General's Office has filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of the plaintiffs.

    Consumers needing legal assistance or help in preparing legal documents should make sure that they are contacting a legitimate legal services organization.

    Under California law, non-lawyers may only make published legal documents available to consumers, type legal documents at the direction of consumers and provide pre-prepared published information that is written or approved by an attorney. They may not represent consumers in court, give legal advice, select or recommend the filing of particular legal forms or offer advice about how to fill them out.

    State law also requires individuals who prepare legal documents for divorce, eviction defense, bankruptcy or other legal matters to register and post a $25,000 bond with the County Clerk's office in each county in which they do business. To verify that an individual has complied, consumers should contact their local County Clerk's Office. Immigration document preparers, commonly referred to as immigration "consultants," must be registere and post a $50,000 bond with the California Secretary of State. To confirm an individual has met those requirements, consumers should contact the Secretary of State at (916) 653-3984, or visit the website at http://www.ss.ca.gov/business/sf/bond_search.htm.

    In addition, document preparers are required to provide consumers with a written agreement. Before paying any fees, obtain the agreement and make sure that it is signed by the document preparer, lists the services that will be provided and states the fee that will be charged.

    When seeking legal services from companies that appear to be affiliated with non-profit legal services organizations, Lockyer offers these additional tips to consumers:

    Be wary when asked to pay fees before meeting with a paralegal or attorney in person. Although non-profit legal aid organizations often charge minimal fees for court filings, service of legal documents, self-help legal classes and other similar costs, they do not charge for attorney time or representation. They also enter into written "retainer" agreements before requesting the payment of any fees.
    Inquire whether the business employs attorneys. All legitimate legal aid organizations have licensed attorneys on staff. To verify that an attorney is licensed to practice in California, consumers should call the California State Bar Association at (800) 843-9053, or visit the Bar's website at http://www.calsb.org/mm/sbmbrshp.htm
    Ensure that the business is a non-profit. Most legal aid organizations are funded in part by the federal government. To find a non-profit legal aid office in your area, check the Legal Services Corporation's website at http://www.lsc.gov/fundprog.htm
    Consumers who feel they have been victimized by a non-attorney document preparer or legal services provider should report it to their local district attorney or call the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit at (800) 952-5225. Consumer complaints also may be filed online at the Attorney General's website at http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers.
  • ombudsman@ombudsman.net
International Ombudsman Institute