Spin Job: The Odd Case Of Richard Andrew Grove


A newly found and examined public court document places into question the motives and integrity of the founder of the web forum Tragedy & Hope, Richard Andrew Grove. The following essay and research document shows a direct contradiction between what Mr. Grove claims and what actually happened, both in reality and in court. Here we will merely pose the question: Is Richard Andrew Grove truly the official, and therefore a fully, legally protected “whistleblower” he claims to be in public and in his apparently well-funded media entertainment productions? This collection of facts was sent to me by one who wishes to remain anonymous, and has been so altered and verified by myself so as to ensure that the litigious nature of Mr. Grove should not be invoked. I have nothing, so I can only be sued for nothing, and all are welcome to a share of my nothingness. It is presented here purely for the purposes of exposure and honest inquiry, with the intent merely to allow Mr. Richard Andrew Grove an open invitation and chance to disprove the following facts by providing contrary evidence to this damning expose based upon official court records. At this point I can only attempt to remain as neutral as possible on this subject, despite the evidence at hand, and only ask the reader to consider, verify, and demand an accounting and explanation for the following glaring discrepancies between the official court documents and the well laid propaganda in movie/interview form as presented below. –Clint

–=–
Audacity & Hopium
–=–

“Recognize that corporations are mandated to return profit to shareholders; thus it becomes profitable to suppress information, keeping the public ignorant… leading into wars contrived for profit. The cycle continues until we break it by recognizing that ALL WARS ARE CREATED FOR OUR CONSUMPTION, so stop consuming war, stop funding war profiteers, and stop supporting politicians who support the war. Educate yourself by consuming independent media, and avoid the corporate/militainment-produced sound-byte culture which lead us into the Iraq War.”

–Richard Andrew Grove, President, Tragedy and Hope, Inc., from his documentary “A film to end all wars” 2008) [EMPHASIS ADDED]

–=–

“When you consider that almost everything everyone around you consumes, it was produced by corporations for the explicit purpose of profit. Right? A Corporation’s only law of governance, its only motivation, its only mandate, is to return profit to the shareholders. It’s not to keep you safe. It’s not to inform you. It’s not to help you feel, and realize your life dreams. They are there to profit. And the Roman maxim is “let he who would be deceived, be deceived“. Right?”

–Richard Andrew Grove, President, Tragedy and Hope, Inc. (A CORPORATION!), quoted from “American Apathy,” 1:54 ff. [emphasis added]

–=–

Over recent years the online community has provided an over-abundance of alternative media sources to help fill in the gaps where the mainstream, or “corporate media,” has failed at performing their stated purpose as news agencies. One popular online media group, Tragedy & Hope, Inc. (www.tragedyandhope.com), infers itself to be organized for the purpose of filling in these purposeful gaps and exposing misinformation.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After registering slightly higher trust last year, Americans’ confidence in the media’s ability to report “the news fully, accurately, and fairly” has returned to its previous all-time low of 40%. Americans’ trust in mass media has generally been edging downward from higher levels in the late 1990s and the early 2000s.

–Gallup poll, link–>http://www.gallup.com/poll/176042/trust-mass-media-returns-time-low.aspx

–=–

So who do we trust?

How much of this alternative media is just mainstream lite, utilizing the same part-truth model mixed with glaring yet unquestionably accepted, purposeful untruths?

With documentary film productions like “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” the public is led to believe that this particular “alternative” online media group and forum is somehow better, more honest, and more accurate than its mainstream counterparts – such as ABC’s “20/20” or PBS’s “Frontline.” In fact, Tragedy and Hope’s ironically corporate reputation seems to have built its foundation upon this particularly proposed truth.

But is this the reality?

Can that supposed honesty and accuracy be shown throughout this conglomerate website forum and through its own musings and media productions? Or will we see variances to this supposed integrity, just as is exposed in the mainstream media by Tragedy and Hope in justification and contemplation of its own existence and purpose in countering such “corporate” news agencies?

A recently found court document from the U.S. Department of Labor website (which everyone should read for themselves) reveals that Richard Andrew Grove, president of Tragedy & Hope, Inc. and a self-styled “whistle-blower,” may not fit into that heroic persona he proclaims himself to be, and that he may have been more of a conniving, litigious employee than the “whistle-blower” he pretends.

The stated action of this document was as a “DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT,” with instructions at the end as to the appeals process:

Link to case document entitled GROVE_RICHARD_ANDREW_v_EMC_CORPORATION–>http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/ALJ/SOX/2006/GROVE_RICHARD_ANDREW_v_EMC_CORPORATION_2006SOX00099_%28JUL_02_2007%29_111537_CADEC_SD.PDF

–=–

The documentary film created to present the “facts” of this case is located here:

Link To Tragedy & Hope’s production of “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline (part 6 shows the most relevant parts): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hERzXq3xBxk

–=–

Please note that this is but one, stand-alone example, and that it is not the intention of this author to portray anything but the facts of this one example. Again, if the following information is disputable or incorrect in its official capacity as a public court document, then this information needs to be shown and a retraction of this article will be made upon such satisfaction. Other aspects of this Tragedy and Hope, Inc. corporation and its affiliates should be taken upon their own merit. In this expose, the reader should only expect an accurate analysis of the actual court case vs. what is stated about that court case: a comparison of the actual judge’s ruling in Grove’s case based upon and quoted from the official court records to the public claims made by the self-proclaimed “whistle-blower,” Richard Andrew Grove. In other words, the following is a comparative look at how, on behalf of the corporation (artificial person) called Tragedy & Hope, Inc., Mr. Grove re-presents the facts regarding his adventures in that court setting, as well as the facts leading up to that event.

In Hollywood, the depiction of court cases are portrayed as dramatic and intense, where “honest” and “empathetic” attorneys battle to defend and protect the innocent and punish the wicked. In reality, the administration of such things is a quite boring, officious ordeal. Is the “alternative media” documentary film-production portrayal of that court story lived by the founder of Tragedy & Hope, Inc. any less liberal and tragic in its representation of the official facts of that case?

It should be noted here that during the documentary, “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” (Part 1 – 3:59), the narrator Lisa Arbercheski states:

“After reading more than 1000 pages of court transcripts related to this case, Vancouver-based documentary film-maker Paul Verge flew to Connecticut to interview this whistle-blower, and shed some much needed light on these events.”

Link to film, part 1 –>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHOujO-Qnlw

–=–

So if there is fault with this documentary, it is certainly shared by Mr. Verge and Tragedy & Hope, Inc. equally. And, aside from narrating the interview of Mr. Grove, Mr. Verge is also a co-producer.

Now let’s see how an alternative media corporation conducts itself with a documentary on a court case regarding its own president.

From the video “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” quoting Mr. Grove:

(Part 6 – 3:52) “…the other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making… I had won in court by presenting the evidence and getting my story told… I was able to convince the judge…”

(Part 6 – 4:36) “Because the events I claimed did in fact take place.” “Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including… Project Constellation, (Respondent Exhibit #7)…”

(Part 6 – 5:02) “…what you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the statute of limitations… therefore, I have no power as the judge to do anything to this corporation.”

(Part 6 – 5:35) “…these events happened, they are true, they are factual…”

–=–

From the above quotes we are left with the impression that everything Mr. Grove brought forth in court was “proved to be true,” that the judge ignored the facts of the case, and that his whistle-blower status was not thus protected in consideration of his termination. But let’s examine what the presiding Judge Daniel F. Sutton stated on the official court record linked above:

“After careful review of the evidentiary record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, I conclude that Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation predating his termination on January 15, 2004. I further conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving that his termination was unlawfully motivated by any activity protected by Sarbanes-Oxley or that EMC engaged in any unlawful post-termination retaliation. Accordingly, his complaint is dismissed.” (pages 2,3) [emphasis added]

“I find that the evidence is insufficient to establish that EMC / Legato engaged in a series of pre-termination actions that rose to the level of creating a hostile work environment.” (page 19) [emphasis added]

“I find that Grove has failed to establish that his alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough so as to alter conditions of employment and thus create an abusive working environment. (page 19) [emphasis added]

“He also failed to produce evidence that the alleged harassment would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person and that it did detrimentally affect him.” (page 19,20) [emphasis added]

“Therefore, I conclude that even assuming that Grove’s hostile work environment claim is timely, the evidence falls well short of establishing that he was subjected to harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter his conditions of employment and that such harassment would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person.” (page 20) [emphasis added]

“As there is no evidence that Grove raised any GAAP irregularities or concerns of other securities law violations in relation to the Bank of Tokyo deal with Legato officials, I find that his communications with Legato officials about this deal were not protected.” (pages 24, 25) [emphasis added]

“Grove also argues he engaged in protected activity when he reported anomalies and “side-letter deals” in Legato’s Northrop Grumman account… it is clear from context that the complaints that Grove raised with Legato officials concerned his compensation rather than GAAP or any other perceived violations of securities laws. Consequently, these communications, like those in relation to the Bank of Tokyo transaction, were not protected by Sarbanes-Oxley.” (page 25) [emphasis added]

e. Legato Product Functionality

“Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed… There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue.” (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Footnote 29 declares that:

“It is noted that Grove did testify that he reported “the GAAP violations” to the SECconduct whichI have found to be protected by Sarbanes-Oxley. [emphasis added]

–=–

And so it should be noted that this judge separated Groves conduct while in employment and his conduct in reporting as a whistleblower GAAP violations, and concludes that his employment termination was based on his personal conduct and that this case was referential to his seeking of financial gain (compensation) while in employment, not his apparent whistle-blowing efforts. Personal gain is not a protected status. And the document is clear that Richard Andrew Grove blew no whistle in this regard.

f. The November 4, 2003 Email

4. Grove’s protected activity was not a contributing factor in his termination.

“That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (page 26) [emphasis added]

“I find no support for Grove’s interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley in the language of the statute, its legislative history or legal precedent developed under the Act.” (page 27) [emphasis added]

“When Grove’s post-November 4, 2003 conduct is balanced against EMC’s legitimate interest in investigating his reports of serious corporate misconduct and fraud and in having its employees engage in productive work, the scale tips decisively in EMC’s favor.” (page 28) [emphasis added]

“I find that Grove’s conduct after November 4, 2003 is indefensible and, therefore, not entitled to protection under Sarbanes-Oxley. Indeed, his unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues that he raised is the antithesis of the type of employee conduct that the Congress sought to encourage and protect when it wrote section 806.” (page 29) [emphasis added]

“The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004. Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC.” (page 29) [emphasis added]

“Since Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation prior to his January 15, 2004 termination, and since he has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to his allegation of unlawful termination and post-termination retaliation, his complaint under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is DISMISSED in its entirety.” (Page 30) [emphasis added]

 –=–

Reading from the above official case document in comparison to Grove’s interview story, the reasonable reader and fan of this supposed heroic whistle-blower might assume and possibly conclude that this particular case being read from must be different than the one described so vehemently about by Mr. Grove. It certainly seems that the statements made in the film are completely at odds with Judge Sutton’s opinion and ruling. To be clear and accurate, let us double-check the court case number of this publicly posted court document (2006-SOX-00099) as referential with the one quoted in the film. Sure enough, in the documentary film (part 1, 03:15), we see the front page of the court document used and referenced to, which lists the case number as (2006-SOX-00099).

Also to be clear, in order for there to be a whistle-blower under that legal status and the protections it provides, someone would necessarily be required to actually blow a whistle. The film is presented as a sort of “Hagiography” for Richard Andrew Grove, who purportedly blew such a whistle! But let’s examine closer what was actually “blown,” according to the case document.

Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency.” (Page 23, 24) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that, on or about October 24, 2003, after reading (a) story on the internet about an employee of Northrop Grumman subsidiary Logicon being “arrested” by the securities and exchange commission (“SEC”) in connection with Logicon’s dealings with the Legato sales group, he contacted Kevin Gross (“Gross”), an attorney with the San Francisco office of the SEC. He said that this contact was motivated by,” (Page 8) [emphasis added]

“My concern was mainly that it involved an account for which I was responsible, and account for which I had identified numerous events of anomalous activity… I was talking about the GAAP violations. I mentioned that there were numerous accounts, specifically Northrop Grumman, which did not have the end user data being provided for the sale […] I asked about the one-off side letters and side agreements […] and I wanted to know to what effect are those legal or illegal.” (Page 8)

“Grove also told Gross that he had “audio recordings of the people in question” which he was unwilling to disclose because he did not have legal counsel. Grove testified that Gross informed him that since he was not represented by counsel, his dealings with the SEC “needed to be a one-way relationship, which meant that I could voluntarily call him and give him updates.” Id. Grove told Gross that he would rather go to EMC with his information and “see how they react.”” (Page 8) [emphasis added]

“Grove further testified that he told Giametta, “All I did was call them and ask some questionsbut from what the attorney said, it sounds like the questions and concerns could be problematic” with regard to the EMC acquisition.” (page 10) [emphasis added]

“… regarding LEGATO and how their actions are affecting EMC’s investment in purchasing Legato” and that his goal is to be able to have EMC address these issues in a confidential and tactful manner and “allow EMC to act on it’s own accord without any intervention by the SEC.” (Page 11) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that he contacted attorney Kevin Gross of the SEC in October of 2003 and “identified numerous events of anomalous activity… GAAP violations.”. He also informed Gross “about one-off side letters and side agreements” and asked whether such arrangements were legal. HT at 166. Grove further informed Gross of his belief that “the illicit formulae, if you will, were being used at the highest level of Legato to make executive decisions.” According to Grove, Gross asked him to provide his audio recordings which purportedly corroborated his allegations against Legato officials, but he declined to provide the recordings because he did not have an attorney and because “I am not an expert in that area, I’m just an employee if I’m wrong, I don’t want a public investigation coming out.Id. Instead, Grove testified that he told Gross that he “would like to go to EMC … and brief them with my concerns and see how they react.” (page 23) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. TR 84-94. There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue.” (Page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

It seems thus far that no whistle was actually blown, according to Richard Andrew Grove’s own testamentary statements on the official court decision. And yet this is not in tune with what the heroic and apparently victimized Grove tells the media camera.

Combing the facts of the case document further, let’s examine the Legato software functionality issue as to what was actually stated in court. Perhaps the reader may wish to count just how many times Mr. Grove mentions “The Legato software backdoor” in that video?

(Part 3 – 0:00 to 1:32; 2:30; 3:00; 3:40) backdoor in software “July 2003, I found out about the software”; 4:00 – software that allows “nefarious transactions to go on”… I went to my managers and I was told not to talk about it.” (Almost all of part 3 is related to the software issue.)

(Part 4 – 7:09, 7:59) – “…Legato software.”

(Part 5 – 0:35, 1:14, 2:54) – “…software.”

(Part 7 – 1:52) – “…software back door.”

(Part 8 – 7:57) – “…software back door.”

–=–

Many more instances of the email archive “backdoor” are mentioned throughout this misleading documentary. In the hundreds of radio interviews that Mr. Grove has done, this software email deletion function of the Legato software is generally the foundational, predominant subject in the apparent case of purported “whistleblowing.” Likewise, according to Mr. Grove, Project Constellation’s CD was apparently entered into evidence.

But how predominant was this software issue in the actual court case as compared to these hero-worship interviews conducted with Richard Andrew Grove:

Legato Product Functionality

Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. TR 84-94. There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue. (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

The only whistle blowing activity that the judge granted Grove protection under Sarbanes Oxley for was EMC’s share price inflation and its questioning accounting procedures. But this claimed email erasure or back doors in the software…? The software itself is only mentioned two times, on page 25, and only in the final judgment! How can this possibly be? Surely the case is revolved around these software facts represented in this interview by Mr. Grove, and not as the judge portrays merely upon Grove’s own conduct as an employee and the fact of his apparently purposeful failure to properly blow the whistle.

Paul Verge:  “So you proved in court that the General Counsel of EMC, Paul Dacier, to whom you blew the whistle, is the same person who ordered that you be immediately fired for doing so? Isn’t that against the Law? (4:00 part 6) [emphasis added]

–=–

This leading question by the interviewer, which the court document records Grove admitting to have read, proves inaccurate.

Rich Responds (Part 6: 6:31ff, 6:52ff):

“Not only is it against the law, Paul Dacier. When I told him I’m blowing the whistle etc. …His first move was to figure out how to terminate me for cause.” When I questioned them about “cause” they said for “reasons“. It came out in court that Paul Dacier was the one who terminated me, in direct violation of numerous whistleblower laws.” [emphasis added]

–=–

But let’s have a look at what Judge Sutton said about Grove’s termination in light of these determinative affirmations by Grove:

“Though the contributing factor standard places only a relatively low hurdle in the path of a Sarbanes-Oxley complainant, it is one that Grove cannot surmount on this record. That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (Page 26) [emphasis added]

“At this point, Grove had blown the whistle, and EMC was ready to listen. However, over the next several weeks, Grove swallowed the whistle and decided not to cooperate with EMC in investigating his concerns because he objected to meeting with EMC’s General Counsel. Apparently, it was Grove’s belief that having “entered protected activity,” he was eligible for “asylum” which, among other things, would effectively provide him with absolute insulation from any adverse employment consequences. Under this theory, he apparently believed that he was within his rights to unilaterally stop doing the job that he was hired to perform, dictate the ground rules that would govern the manner in which he cooperated in EMC’s investigation of the issues he raised in his November 4, 2003 email, and to refuse to cooperate if his terms were not met. I find no support for Grove’s interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley in the language of the statute, its legislative history or legal precedent developed under the Act. (Page 27) [emphasis added]

“The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004. Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC. (page 29) [emphasis added]

–=–

To be perfectly clear, Grove’s protected activity was not a contributing factor in his termination, but his own actions certainly were.

Once again let’s read those direct quotes from Richard Andrew Grove:

“Not only is it against the law, Paul Dacier…When I told him I’m blowing the whistle etc. .. His first move was to figure out how to terminate me for cause.

“When I questioned them about “cause” they said for “reasons”. It came out in court that Paul Dacier was the one who terminated me, in direct violation of numerous whistleblower laws.”

–=–

And now from page 26 of the judge’s final ruling:

That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  (page 26 ) [emphasis added]

–=–
Employee Of The Month?
–=–

It has been my experience that “fans” will worship and thus defend their particular hero even when the evidence is so overwhelming that no justification can be made for that unreasonable behavior. And so we must examine the reasons for the termination of Richard Andrew Grove a bit closer and according to the official court decision so as to dispel such fallacious behavior.

Why would Judge Sutton claim that EMC had a perfectly legitimate reason to terminate Mr. Grove’s employment there? Let’s examine Mr. Grove’s employment record at Legato/EMC as listed, and try to ascertain why he might not have been an “Ideal Employee” and why his personal “conduct” could not be considered as protected activities by the law.

“For his part, Gheesling testified the expectation that Grove would move from New York City to a location within his assigned sales territory was a “key condition” of Grove’s hiring, “because it made no sense for me to hire somebody in New York City when I could have hired somebody in D.C.”  (Page 4) [emphasis added]

In fact, Grove never did relocate to a place within his assigned sales territory. He did however, leave his apartment in New York City to move in with another Legato sales representative in Princeton, New Jersey “because I was not making the money I expected, [so] I was going to leave my apartment two months early… [and] sublet my apartment … to raise the money to be able to move to Virginia.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

“When Gheesling subsequently learned that Grove had moved to New Jersey instead of a locale within his sales territory, he “was pretty livid, because I felt like, you know, one thing that was very clear, even in my interview with Richard, was that the job was located in D.C.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

“Grove testified that Gheesling had previously raised the subject of his relocation during the quarterly business review on August 14th, 2003. HT at 126.” (Footnote #8) (Page 8)

“Grove stated that he informed Gheesling of his plan to move to New Jersey where he would be working out of a home office and that Giametta never told him that this arrangement was not satisfactory. HT at 117-118.” (Footnote #9) (Page 8)

–=–

Moving further into the case, we find merely a new employee causing problems in his employment and admittedly not fulfilling his obligations under that title while adhering to false beliefs due to his rather grandiose identity crisis of being a “whisle-blower,” as if the actions of being a bad employee are somehow protected activities.

“On October 20, 2003, Grove received email notification of a Legato new employee training session scheduled for November 4-6, 2003 in California.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

Grove initially refused Giametta’s request for a meeting, stating “unless you tell me specifically who said what, you’re not going to see me tomorrow” and “if you want to see me tomorrow, you need to tell me who said what,” but he later relented and agreed to meet with Giametta in New York City. HT at 448-449, 451.11.” (Page 9) [emphasis added]

Gheesling also claimed that Grove’s attitude was negative. As a result of his conversations with Giametta, Gheesling said that he became aware as early as September of 2003 that Giametta “was fundamentally having harder and harder times dealing with [Grove] . . . It was like [Grove was] preaching and . . . on a soapbox about issues . . . it seemed that [Grove] had to persist and to argue in front of everybody, that [he] couldn’t take it offline.” HT at 616- 617. Gheesling testified that he “needed to step back in and make sure both parties [i.e., Grove and Giametta] were clear . . . about the expectations of… working positively.” HT at 713.” (Page 9) [emphasis added]

Grove was aware that the training session was mandatory. As discussed above, Grove was previously scheduled to depart on November 3, 2003 for the mandatory Legato training session in California. However, Grove decided instead “not to go away for a weekbut to stay here, engage my concerns, alert EMC, and continue to work on […] assignments […] pertaining to my 30-day goals.” (page 8) [emphasis added]

Grove did not inform anyone in Legato of his decision to not attend the training session. Gheesling testified that he decided to terminate Grove’s employment on November 6, 2003 after he had learned that Grove was not in attendance at the California training which he considered to be of the highest priority for any newly-hired employee, that nothing was physically wrong with Grove and that Grove had not communicated with him.  In Gheesling’s view, Grove’s actions amounted to unacceptable insubordination. At that point, Gheesling asked Legato’s head of Human Resources, Kimberly Schulze, as well as Sill to immediately initiate action to terminate Grove’s employment. (page 11) [emphasis added]

Grove testified that he was aware of the requirement that he meet with Dacier, and he understood that he had an obligation to follow lawful mandates of the CEO” and that Tucci had directed him to contact Dacier. HT at 499. He also acknowledged that ignoring orders from a superior is sufficient grounds for termination.” (Footnote #33) (page 29) [emphasis added]

Grove acknowledges in his brief that he was terminated for his “{f}ailure to meet with Dacier.” Grove Br. at 6.” (Footnote #34) (page 29) [emphasis added]

–=–
None Dare Call It Blackmail
–=–

On cross examination, Grove indicated that he believed he could unilaterally refuse to meet with his manager under terms of retaliation” and that he felt Giametta was retaliating against him at the time the call was made. (page 9) [emphasis added]

“Grove allowed his tape recorder to continue running after the telephone conversation with Giametta ended, and he is heard discussing the call with his fiancée and Mr. Taylor, his coworker and housemate.. (page 9) [emphasis added]

“During this discussion, Grove discusses his potential next steps, including advising EMC that they were “bringing a cancer into [their] great company, you know, that could kill the whole merger.” (page 9) [emphasis added]

“Grove and Giametta attended a meeting on October 31, 2003 with sales representatives from EMC. While at the meeting, Giametta pulled Grove aside and asked him what he had said to the SEC… Grove said that he refused to discuss the SEC conversations until after his “unresolved issues” (i.e., his complaints about the Bank of Tokyo commission, concerns that that others were working on his McGraw-Hill accounts and the Northrop Grumman “anomalies”) were addressed. (page 10) [emphasis added]

–=–
What Meetings?
What Customers?

–=–

It appears that the judges opinions and final judgement call were that Mr. Grove’s interpretation of the protections offered we an overstepping of logic and reason. He apparently concluded that he would continue to be paid without complying with the mandates of his job and managers, or for that matter showing any respect thereto.

“On November 10, 2003, Grove did not participate in the weekly Monday morning sales call held by Giametta. On or about November 11 – .  Grove did not attend the business review meeting. (page 13) [emphasis added]

“At the same time, he admitted that he did not participate in mandatory weekly sales conference calls with Giametta or the mandatory quarterly business review following his reinstatement in November and that he did not see any customers or try to make any sales after November of 2003. (page 13) [emphasis added]

However, after Grove failed to attend the quarterly business review, Gheesling explained that there were business opportunities in Grove’s accounts that needed to be pursued, and he assigned other representatives to pursue these opportunities:

“[I]f you got an opportunity, you got to close it, you got to get somebody on the deal to get it closed. I can’t wait to figure out if he [Grove] is going to show up to that customer, and I can’t wait to figure out what’s happening . . .  I had to make that judgment […] the bottom line is, to run a company, you got to continue to have somebody tend to it […] working the opportunity.” (page 14) [emphasis added]

“Grove asserts he engaged in six instances of activity protected by Sarbanes-Oxley:

(1) Raising concerns to Giametta regarding the revised revenue forecasting formula;

(2) Questioning the accounting procedures used during the Bank of Tokyo deal;

(3) Raising concerns regarding the “illicit / illegal activity with respect to… Northrop Grumman;”

(4) Questioning the functionality of Legato’s product;

(5) Contacting the SEC; and,

(6) Sending the November 4, 2003 email letter to Dacier and Mollen.” (Page 22)

–=–

Here we see that the judge (marginally) agrees with Grove on only 2 of these 6 points of contention. But let’s compare these claims of what should be “protected activity” by that of Mr. Grove to the above court document:

From the documentary video “20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline,” quoting Mr. Grove:

(Part 6 – 3:52) “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making.”

(Part 6 – 4:40) “The events I claimed did in fact take place.” “Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including “Project Constellation Exhibit #7…”

(Part 6 – 4:55) “What you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the ‘statute of limitations'”

(Part 6 – 5:35) “These events happened, they are true, they are factual

–=–

To be fair to Mr. Grove, the judge agrees with “Case A” and marginally with “Case B” – (“Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. One might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency.”) So although Judge Sutton agrees that protection is granted for certain, specifically defined and limited protected activities, it appears that Mr. Grove interpreted these protections to extend to ALL activities of and by himself .

In other words, it appears that Richard tried to pull a “Fight Club.”

While no whistle was truly blown, according to the case file, the threat of doing so apparently held for Mr. Grove a prima facie production value. But this is a far cry from the half-truth narration provided in this documentary, which states:

“These events happened, slightly outside of the ‘Statute of Limitations.'” (20/20 Part 5 05:35)

–=–

And speaking of narrators (of the film), inconceivably, Richard’s fiance’ Lisa Arbercheski then applied for a job at Legato about three months (in 2004) after this termination. For those that wish to do the search, Lisa’s court documents are also online, as is Richard Andrew Grove’s resume’, where we see his employment cycle to change about every 6-18 months. But due to their litigious nature, we will only stick to the public case at hand so that this information as presented should not be mistaken as either a personal attack or at all libelous.

The court case briefly addresses Mr. Groves claims as such:

“Each instance of Grove’s asserted protected activity is analyzed below…”

a. Revenue Forecasting Formula

“Since Grove believed, and a person with comparable expertise and knowledge would have reasonably believed, that the tenfold inflation of revenue forecasts constituted fraud against EMC’s shareholders, I find that Grove engaged in protected activity when he raised his concerns over the revenue forecasts initially to Giametta, and eventually to EMC management via the November 4, 2003 email. See Platone at 17 (“an employee’s disclosure that the company is materially misstating its financial condition to investors is entitled to protection under the Act”).” (Page 23) [emphasis added]

b. Grove’s Telephone Call to the SEC

“Grove testified that he contacted attorney Kevin Gross of the SEC in October of 2003 and “identified numerous events of anomalous activity […] GAAP violations.” He also informed Gross “about one-off side letters and side agreements” and asked whether such arrangements were legal. Grove further informed Gross of his belief that “the illicit formulae, if you will, were being used at the highest level of Legato to make executive decisions.” (Page 23) [emphasis added]

Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency. (Pages 23-24) [emphasis added]

Case C. The Bank of Tokyo Transaction

I find that his communications with Legato officials about this deal were not protected.” (Page 24-25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Again we can compare here the facts of the case with the spin of Richard Andrew Grove…

To be clear, and according to his online resume, Mr. Grove is a salesman, listing “spin selling” at the end of his resume’ as one of his specialized “sales training” skills.

Just what is spin selling? A brief description is here inserted for the readers consideration:

(Neil Rackham, SPIN Selling, McGraw Hill, 1996) – An absolute classic (originally published in 1987 as ‘Making Major Sales’ which shows through massive research how classic sales techniques fail miserably in big-business, and that you can get greater success by asking a sequence Situation, Problem, Implication and Need-Payoff questions. See also the review of this book…

Neil Rackham, in this classic book shows how classic sales techniques such as closing and objection-handling can actually reduce your chance of selling, especially in big business-to-business sales situations, where buyers are savvy to the classic tricks.

Overall, the method, like many other approaches, is a ‘hurt and rescue’ approach. You find their problem and ‘hurt’ them by exposing the terrible things that might happen (spot the use of tension). Then you rescue them with your product.

The four question types are described below. There’s much more detail in the original book, with even more practical detail in the SPIN Selling Fieldbook.

Situation questions

In big sales, minimize the small talk and focus on finding background detail that can be used to make sense of the buyer’s business situation. Context creates meaning. This is about understanding the wider context before you zoom into the details.

Problem questions

Ask questions to uncover problems which your product can address. If you are selling tractors, ask about maintenance costs, breakdowns and so on. If you are selling life insurance, ask about how many dependents the person has.

A trap here is to dive straight into presenting the benefits of what you are selling. You may know the problem, but they do not! Going straight to the sales pitch will just get you objections.

Implication questions

Instead of telling them the problem they have (which is also likely to raise objections), the goal is now to get them to see (and feel!) the problem. By asking questions which draw out the implications of the problem, they get to feel the pain that will drive them towards your productThis is the ‘hurt’ of Hurt and Rescue.

For example, the person selling tractors might ask about implications of unplowed fields whilst the life insurance salesperson could carefully ask what would happen to the children if the target person died or became very ill.

Need-Payoff questions

Having hurt the target person with your implications, you now give them a straw to grasp at by asking how their pain could be resolved. With careful questions, you can get them to the state where they are asking for your product even before you show it to them. This is a very neat ‘rescue‘ of Hurt and Rescue, where they either rescue themselves or ask you to rescue them.

For example, the tractor sales person can ask how much better the tractor was like when it was new, or whether any of the farmer’s neighbors have solved problems of old and problematic tractors. The insurance sales person could ask questions that build pictures of the target person’s children being safe and secure whatever curve-balls the world might throw at the family.

Overall, this is a superb salesperson’s book, particularly if you are engaged in Relationship Selling and a must-have for persuaders in all professions. If it’s not in your bookshelf, it’s probably because it’s in your hand!

Link–>http://changingminds.org/books/book_reviews/spin.htm

–=–

If we apply these sales techniques to what we have seen so far, we may understand better the disposition of Mr. Grove during this misadventure on all levels. And for that matter, we might even conjecture that Mr. Grove’s web forum Tragedy & Hope could be renamed as Hurt and Rescue.

Case D.  The Northrop Grumman Account.

“Grove argues that he engaged in protected activity when he reported anomalies and “side-letter deals” in Legato’s Northrop Grumman account.” – (Page 25)

It is clear from context that the complaints that Grove raised with Legato officials concerned his compensation rather than GAAP or any other perceived violations of securities laws. Consequently, these communications, like those in relation to the Bank of Tokyo transaction, were not protected by Sarbanes-Oxley. (page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Let’s compare that to the statements by Richard Andrew Grove in this documentary again, where he sells this case with phrases like, “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making… The events I claimed did in fact take place… Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court, put in court, including “Project Constellation Exhibit #7″… What you said is true (referring to the judge referring to RAG), but it happened slightly outside of the “statute of limitations”… These events happened, they are true, they are factual…”

You may know the problem, but they (your audience) do not!

e. Legato Product Functionality.

Grove testified that he and Giametta attended meetings with two Legato clients who reportedly disclosed that they had discovered a flaw in Legato’s email archive product which would enable a corporate malefactor to circumvent the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance requirements for which the product had been designed and marketed. (Page 25)

There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. Therefore, he did not engage in any protected activity in connection with this issue. (Page 25) [emphasis added]

f. The November 4, 2003 Email.

“Though the contributing factor standard places only a relatively low hurdle in the path of a Sarbanes-Oxley complainant, it is one that Grove cannot surmount on this record. That is, the evidence clearly shows that rather than contributing to his termination, Grove’s protected activity, if anything, insulated him from any adverse employment consequences for a time and effectively delayed the terminations decision which, I find, was based on conduct that was not protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” (Page 26) [emphasis added]

When Grove’s post-November 4, 2003 conduct is balanced against EMC’s legitimate interest in investigating his reports of serious corporate misconduct and fraud and in having its employees engage in productive work, the scale tips decisively in EMC’s favor.” (Page 28, 29) [emphasis added]

“It appears that Grove refused to cooperate with EMC’s attempt to investigate his disclosures because he wanted to deal, at least initially, with someone from the HR department instead of the corporation’s general counsel. In view of the fact that he specifically raised issues of fraud in connection with Legato’s revenue forecasting and recognition practices, I find that Grove’s refusal to meet with EMC’s general counsel despite being instructed to do so by both Sill, an HR representative and Tucci, EMC’s CEO, was patently unreasonable, especially where he has offered no evidence that he had a valid reason to be wary of Dacier based on any past dealingsAlso unreasonable was Grove’s belief that he could unilaterally declare that he had “entered protected activity” and then not perform his job without any repercussions. Considering the circumstances (i.e., that he had approached EMC directly with his disclosures, representing that he wished to discuss them internally so as to avoid outside intervention, but then engaged in a course of stalling and dissembling that he was not cooperating on the advice of legal counsel),  I find that Grove’s conduct after November 4, 2003 is indefensible and, therefore, not entitled to protection under Sarbanes-OxleyIndeed, his unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues that he raised is the antithesis of the type of employee conduct that the Congress sought to encourage and protect when it wrote section 806.33 (Page 28-29) [emphasis added]

The evidence in this case shows that Grove’s protected activity served to save him from termination in November of 2003 and that his subsequent unprotected actions caused his termination on January 15, 2004Therefore, I conclude that Grove has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment at EMC. (page 29) [emphasis added]

The Final Court Order:  (FCR)

“Since Grove’s complaint is untimely with respect to his allegations of retaliation prior to his January 15, 2004 termination, and since he has failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to his allegation of unlawful termination and post-termination retaliation, his complaint under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is DISMISSED in its entiretySO ORDERED.” (Page 30) [emphasis added]

–=–

But wait, Mr. Grove claims, “The other side couldn’t disprove the points I was making The events I claimed did in fact take place… Everything that I said in court, everything I proved in court... These events happened, they are true, they are factual…

Spin selling…

–=–
An Appeal To No Appeal?
–=–

As one final exhibit, let us examine the reason (or lack thereof) that no appeal was filed.

In the film, Mr. Verge asks the leading question: “So there’s no “appeals” process?”

In answer, Mr. Grove responds accordingly:

“Well I can continue appealing but, after you’ve already seen what happens; you go in an put it all on the record and it’s all right there, they just do not want to… they’re not going to decide against a multi-billion dollar corporation, whose founder is the ambassador of Ireland to Ireland for president Bush at that time. Right? Or, I believe he might have stepped down at that time as an ambassador at that point, but he was still Bush buddies, and Bush was still in office, so… (raises hands in air in defeat).” (part 6 – 5:46 – 6:11)

–=–

So now George Bush is to blame? I see… Is that not a fallacious appeal to authority, a red herring, and a lame excuse? After all, Richard is the guy who gave up everything to be a whistle-blower, so why would he quit so easily after giving up so much? Doesn’t really make sense. If money and the funding of the appeal would have been the excuse invoked, at least it would have been believable and on par with his drive to “blow the whistle.” But he just  quits without appealing because of a loose connection to President Bush, which without irony and in the same sentence he also disassociates his own claim about that connection?

Let’s look and see, just so there’s no confusion of facts:

  • Richard J. Egan
    • Title: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
    • Appointment: August 29, 2001
    • Presentation of Credentials: September 10, 2001
    • Termination of Mission: January 31, 2003
      –Source: Wikipedia, entry for “United States Ambassador To Ireland”

–=–

Grove’s termination date: January 15th, 2004.

So we know that Bush has nothing to do with this. Just more fallacious spin. In fact, I should point out here that government makes quite a profit off of charging big corporations fines and penalties. It really par for the course, and part of the business model.

But was the question actually answered?

Well, the stated question, which was worded as more of a declaratory statement, perhaps even to fool the viewer with spin, was: “So there’s no “appeals” process?”

For the actual answer, let’s merely consult the instructions listed on the court document in question so as to clear up any misconceptions that our hero whistle-blower could appeal if he chose to.

“NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS”

“To appeal, you must file a Petition for Review (“Petition”) with the Administrative Review Board (“Board”) within ten (10) business days of the date of the administrative law judge’s decision. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(a). The Board’s address is: Administrative Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4309, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. Your Petition is considered filed on the date of its postmark, facsimile transmittal, or e-mail communication; but if you file it in person, by hand-delivery or other means, it is filed when the Board receives it. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(c). Your Petition must specifically identify the findings, conclusions or orders to which you object. Generally, you waive any objections you do not raise specifically. See 29 C.F.R. § 1980.110(a).”

“At the time you file the Petition with the Board, you must serve it on all parties as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-North, Washington, DC 20001-8002. The Petition must also be served on the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.”

“If no Petition is timely filed, the administrative law judge’s decision becomes the final order of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1980.109(c). Even if you do file a Petition, the administrative law judge’s decision becomes the final order of the Secretary of Labor unless the Board issues an order within thirty (30) days after the Petition is filed notifying the parties that it has accepted the case for review. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1980.109(c) and 1980.110(a) and (b).” (page 30)

–=–

Let’s be candid for a moment…

This case was not a case of whistle-blowing, for no whistle was actually blown. This was a case of wrongful termination where damages were sought in monetary compensation. And so it would seem that all of this mountain of 1,000’s of pages of evidence amounting to corruption and theft by these corporations and the software in question were merely sideline items, not introduced to place the company in responsibility and punishment, but instead for the purposes of showing only wrongful termination in an attempt to obtain some unjust compensation from a former employer, presented under the pretense of the protections of the Sarbanes Oxley law, which obviously does not apply to “unreasonable refusal to cooperate in EMC’s investigation of the issues…” for which the judge declared to be “the antithesis of the type of employee conduct” that would be protected by said congressional law. It would seem that this was not a whistle-blower case at all, in fact. And it would therefore seem that this documentary “evidence” presented in media form by the Tragedy & Hope corporation has no basis in the reality of what actually happened. It seems the evidence was never actually considered, in other words, in any fashion or actual case regarding the blowing of a whistle… at least not in this case.

That is to say that there would be no reason for Mr. Grove to file an appeal, for the evidence against him is so overwhelmingly damning. And it seems that he never actually filed a case pertinent to only the corruption, but instead only for his own disposition in the action. There was no appeal to his whistle-blower status or to this case because there was no action taken on Mr. Grove’s part qualified to be under whistle-blower status, at least according to the SEC and the judge in this administrative case.

And so it seems that this mountain of evidence implicating these companies was merely a tool for spin selling, for psychological warfare, and not an actual attempt at whistle-blowing.

And to that there is no appeal… except the fallacious appeals of victimization and heroism to the public and to fans.

Again I state here that if these presumptions and conclusions are incorrect, based on the official evidence provided, I will gladly alter and correct any mistakes in this document and apologize publicly for my incorrectness or mistaken speculation. I’ll only need the evidence of that being the case. But litigious threats, personal attacks, and more spin wont help in that cause.

–=–
In Conclusion
–=–

If there is one thing that needs to happen within this community of those who seek the reality of things, it must certainly be that all of our hero’s must be killed (figuratively speaking). Hero worship leads generally to acceptance of the hero’s claims not because of evidence, but because of that hero status – a personification of correctness based on the costume of legitimacy. But here we see that Captain Spin and his selling sidekicks are neither deserving of this hero (whistle-blower) status (not legally or in reality) nor of the trust that has been granted them because of this falsely presented persona. This whistle-swallower, as the judge refers to him, must not be placed upon any pedestal, be believed, or given some special credit or pass because of his claims, for no man’s pedestal should symbolically replace his burden of proof.

It appears that forums like Tragedy and Hope bring together similar hero’s of the alternative media in order to support one another in their individual claims, and to lend a sense of false security and projection of truthfulness – the Justice League of the truth movement. If anything, this evidence should be nothing more than a kick in the pants of the reader to prove everything and except nothing at face value, for the spin machine reaches into the depths of everything, even sometimes expressing itself from the most truthful among us. We live in a culture of spin, of false simulation, of a rejection of the painful reality of things. And even those seeking the truth often find the one that may best suit their own world view, creating our own truths without evincing them and while dismissing that which causes the most pain, which just happens to usually be the reality of things.

As to this particular case, we obviously have a direct contradiction between the reality and the spin. We have a documentary film called “20/20 Hindsight – Censorship on the Frontline,” which of course is created by and includes exclusively the supposed hero’s and victims of Mr. Grove’s corporate Tragedy & Hope gang. We can listen to Mr. Grove appearing on many radio shows warning us about the “economic nefarious activities” that stem from a piece of Sarbanes Oxley software that has a “backdoor,” which allows corrupt corporations to “hide decisions which imperil our democracy.” This video was presented as the incredible story of a heroic, self-sacrificing, and victimized whistle-blower. Yet the official court record shows that the whistle was picked up, seemingly used as a weapon of trickery in pursuance of “compensation,” but not actually “blown” in any official capacity according to the story told.

Perhaps most disturbing was the notion of an appeal to pity made by Grove to the audience that being a whistle-blower is dangerous and will make us a victim like himself. To the reader I say nonsense! Grove’s case, in fact and according to the record, was not even a true whistle-blower case!

It is also apparent, in consideration of the case itself and in listening to the rhetoric of Mr. Grove in this documentary film 7 years later, that much of the legal knowledge expressed by Mr. Grove was likely learned after-the-fact of the case in question, helping the spin process at least sound a bit more legitimate.

Mr. Grove is on record as personally testifying that he did not in any correct (legal) capacity bring up these issues with the SEC which would have extended any shield of whistle-blower protection; and the court record shows that he never raised the issue with his employer, EMC, except in a vague and questionably tactical rhetoric that would seem to be put forth only to induce a personal gain despite his questionable employment record. And the judge certainly admonishes publicly this notion in this public case.

So the question must be asked in support of this overwhelming evidence against this video presentation’s apparent spinning of the facts… why was this video made?

Let’s reconsider the facts:

Grove did not file or cause to be filed any proceeding before the SEC, and he did not testify, participate or otherwise assist in any proceeding before the SEC. Rather, his testimony shows that he called an SEC attorney to get information and that he specifically refused to provide any evidence, opting instead to pursue his concerns internally with EMC. On these facts, one might conclude that Grove’s contact with the SEC is not protected because he never initiated or participated in any proceeding before that agency. (Page 23 – 24) [emphasis added]

There is, however, no evidence that Grove ever raised concerns with Legato or EMC management about the potential abuse of the product. That is, he never blew the whistle on this situation. (Page 25) [emphasis added]

–=–

Any reasonable and therefore neutral observer of these facts, even and especially the most ardent “fan” of these filmmakers and mostly of Mr. Grove, must ask the same painful question: why is this video about “whistle-blowing” when in fact and in the official evidence no whistle was ever really blown?

I can’t answer that question, and only put forth here the idea that it and the other inquiries posed here certainly should be asked, and the answers should be demanded before any more “media” is accepted from these apparent spin-masters. Quotes from Richard Andrew Grove claim vehemently that he risked everything, including a six-figure job and the sacrifice of never having a house or children. But the facts don’t support the claims.

If only he had just been a good employee…

Then again, if only he had actually blown the whistle…

One final note:

–=–

 “You are the central
nervous system of the planet –
spread this everywhere”

–Richard Andrew Grove, quoted from
“20/20 Hindsight: Censorship on the Frontline”

–=–

–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, July 18th, 2015

Leave a comment

41 Comments

  1. Glad to see this talked about. I’ve had my doubts about Grove for some time.

    Having read the court document, I can promise that all of the author’s claims become abundantly clear if the time is taken to read the document in its entirety. It’s long and mundane but not boring, and it really puts this all into perspective.

    There is an issue, though, that I haven’t seen addressed, here or anywhere: what, exactly, was Richard Grove’s involvement with 9/11? It’s hard to get his resume to jive with his claims. He certainly does seem to get around…

    Reply
  2. andrewjohnson911

     /  July 19, 2015

    Thanks for posting this – very comprehensive and damning, sadly. You also identify one of the ongoing problems in this area “hero worship” causing blindness in people. I had to get past all of this too: http://tinyurl.com/911ftb

    Reply
  3. Thanks for the great work again Clint. I started following this issue last year when I left T&H (and wrote my ‘An Untimely Departure’ blog post on their website as a departing comment about the NVC affair) after seeing the active denials by some of their affiliates and associates in a Facebook thread Jan Irvin started about how NVC was not a good fit with the rhetoric phase of the Trivium. They also covered how it actually constituted a system of mind control through verbal and cognitive manipulation tactics used against the listener (plus all the Carl Rogers connections to it and MK_ULTRA). All points I did and still do agree with. I would also direct any readers here to the two part interview with Bill Joslin on GM where he and Jan break down why and how NVC is mind control.

    http://www.gnosticmedia.com/BillJoslin_NVC_vs_Trivium_Method

    Thanks again Clint your work is excellent as always.

    Reply
    • You are not alone my friend, to be excommunicated for asking questions. It’s becoming a hobby.

      Glad I could contribute.

      -Clint-

      Reply
  4. I also wanted to state my agreement with Recynd77. Read the DOL hearing document. It’s thirty pages our so but it becomes abundantly clear that there are some massive contradictions with Grove’s statements, especially if the reader is at all familiar with Grove’s full story on his ‘Whistle blowing’, as have been repeated over and over in his interviews and in monologues he has done for his podcast.

    Reply
  5. you’re definitely not talking the talk, man.
    https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/comprehensive-annual-financial-reports-and-trfs-vs-common-natural-maritime-and-ucc-law-which-takes-precedence-right-now/#comment-153913
    that’s why.

    don’t dare ever stop what you’re doing.

    Reply
  6. Angelo

     /  July 19, 2015

    A persuasive argument presented against Mr. Grove’s claims regarding his representation of himself. In short, it is not an unreasonable inference, upon consideration of Mr. Richardson’s presentation of facts alone, to conclude Mr. Grove to be an unscrupulous scoundrel, having acted in the past with malice forethought to unconscionably scam a (perhaps equally unconscionable) corporation for the sole aim of short-term financial gain, evincing the beginnings of a devious and well thought-out plan to be executed over a long period of time to scam… who? There’s enough information presented by Mr. Richardson that upon having once digested and processed the same an identification of Mr. Grove as “liar”, “deceiver”, “hypocrite”, etc. would not be perceived as unreasonable by a reasonable mind. Yet, I’m still looking for an “out” for this guy, Mr. Grove,… why? I have listened to scores and scores of hours of his podcasts, and have been educated and edified, thereby. The podcasts are well-produced, professionally presented and edifying, content rich and tremendously informative, cutting-edge and far ahead in time with respect to the extent of the depth of their content and themes than the vast majority of all other internet information dispensing outlets that I’m aware of. What gives? I mean, this guy, Richard Grove, produces highly dense and in depth ten to twenty hour podcasts on subjects and themes that seem to only get picked up and hardly touched upon in comparison by most others many months or, even more often, years later. This liar, this deceiver, this hypocrite is perplexing to me… but time will tell and we shall see what his end-game has been all along. It’ll come… unless I figure it out for myself before then.

    Reply
  7. Mike Foley

     /  July 20, 2015

    Mr Grove has always seemed like a thoughtful and honest person to me. Did you talk with Mr Grove before publishing this? It is not uncommon that proceedings in court and transcripts do not accurately mirror what really happened.

    Reply
    • Can you show me those transcripts please? Did you hear that somewhere, or is that your personal experience?

      As for Richards radio persona, many people think Bugs Bunny is actually a nice guy too. But then, the persona is just a cartoon fiction, and so is personality.

      I will retract anything that is shown to be mistaken by myself here, but “thoughtful and honest”??? Isn’t that what millions say about Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Washington?

      Just the facts, man.

      Reply
  8. One last last contradiction made in the DOL ruling document that I noticed you left out Clint concerns Grove stating to various managers that he would need to consult with counsel before he made any decisions regarding a few different things (releasing the audio recordings, meeting with Dacier etc.). Then in court testimony he is noted as admitting he never retained any attorney. This was noted specifically by the judge in one of the documents notes , that he admitted he never had an attorney. So he also lied to his employees at various points about having counsel or that he needed to consult with an attorney but failed to mention (omission) that he had no attorney. Maybe this was left out by you because it wasn’t relevant to the rebuttal at hand? I think it speaks to his lack of integrity.

    Reply
  9. Matt

     /  July 21, 2015

    Clint,

    As far as your objective of proving;
    “Is Richard Andrew Grove truly the official, and therefore a fully, legally protected “whistle blower” he claims to be in public and in his apparently well-funded media entertainment productions?”
    I think that you have shown that thoroughly.

    However, as we have seen a large percentage of publicly recognized “whistle blowers” are also not ‘legally protected’ e.g. the likes of Assange, Snowden, Binney etc. makes me question the entire point of your post. Is Snowden NOT [considered] a whistle blower for only leaking documentation to the media and not doing under the protection of the law? Is Assange NOT [considered] a whistle blower for the creation of Wikileaks and not following legal means to present his case against the US Government?

    I have no doubt in my mind that Mr Grove did at the time and still does, consider himself a whistle blower, he DID (although not formally) bring his company’s software and practices to the attention of the S.E.C. and further to the attention of the public through way of his media productions.

    As far as the hero worship goes. If you or anyone else has elevated or labelled Mr groves in your minds as a hero regardless of how convincing or misleading a story you have been told, is that the fault of themselves? Fool me once…

    I personally think they (T&H Communications), yourself and all of the truth seeking media communicators are doing a wonderful job of enabling cognitive liberty in the day to day lives of all of us who “consume” it. Though I also believe attacks like these drives a larger wedge in this small community whether truthful or not leads us and more importantly the people we are trying to reach (the vast, vast majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, who love their country, and the ideals they believe it represents and who feel something is not okay with how society is going), and most of all the goals of this community to get people to question everything and send a message of “Hey. We’re different. We’ve got different goals and different dreams, but that’s the beauty of America. If we can all let each other do our own thing, within the realm of getting along, we’ll be just fine. That’s all I want…to be left alone,” The movement as a whole would have a much larger impact and have much better credibility.

    Reply
    • I can only say this in answer to the question of Snowden and Assange, which in my humble belief are merely agents of government used for the purposes of “revelation” if you will. In other words, very much like the mainstream and alternative media, we are presented with information of crime but no recourse or punishment for the crime. Your question should be this: Is Snowden a whistle-blower according to law? Or is he pulling a Richard Grove and using information in another, threatening way, for purposes other than are protected by a legitimate whistle-blower status. Another question might be: Has Wikileaks actually introduce the mountains of evidence in any official capacity to the government that might be a protected activity, or is the whole act and revelation of information exposure just a media lie to make us believe that the information is officially being considered? Do any of these “popular” whistle-blowers actually deserve the legal title and protections of it? Or are we the victims of a Snow-job, a spin selling?

      Perhaps you can help us all out by answering these questions through some research, to find out whether or not these guys have actually blown the whistle in law or whether they are just blowing a smoke screen up our collective asses? Until I see the official record of protected activity by these blow-hards, I will reserve myself from judging the situation fully.

      The question is: is the term whistle-blower being used correctly, legally, and with correct intention… or is it just a media-invented title that has no actual legal standing?

      Grove would be the second option, for Grove is his own media voice!!!

      -Clint-

      Reply
      • Oz

         /  July 23, 2015

        “Do any of these “popular” whistle-blowers actually deserve the legal title and protections of it?”

        I don’t know and I don’t care to know whether any or none of these people did follow the “correct” legal means to blow the whistle. To be perfectly honest it doesn’t matter. Government will and can only ever take actions to protect its own interests and if the people occupying the position to decide that a “whistle blowers” information will harm their interests, they will take any action and use any means to nullify it. As you have blogged about many times.

        As far as us being victims of a snow job or spin selling. I would think they would need something to sell or offer first. Though, I would hazard anyone in purchasing a product just on the notoriety or fame of the salesman being a “whistle blower” and not the value of the product they provide the consumer gets exactly what they deserve.

        As for your last point;

        “The question is: is the term whistle-blower being used correctly, legally, and with correct intention… or is it just a media-invented title that has no actual legal standing?

        Grove would be the second option, for Grove is his own media voice!!!”

        I will respond with two quotes by yourself.

        “And suddenly, once I was able to push all of the little pieces of the much more grand puzzle that I know I will never fully comprehend out of the way, I started to understand the importance of what this smoking, long-haired, long-winded, incredibly intuitive dude was saying. I started to comprehend what trouble we are all in if we don’t do something immediately to reverse the deadly course this country and it’s government have taken.

        And I realized then that he was absolutely correct about these extraneous puzzle pieces… IT DOESN’T MATTER!!!”

        “We are not able to effect change unless we all try and change the same thing, or even the right thing. Concentrating on who did it doesn’t solve the problem, and not acting on it makes you guilty of complicity and sheepleness.”

        Unless we as a movement are all moving in the same direction and stop this petty bickering none of these initiatives will ever get off the ground. Especially initiatives like TRF’s that require group consensus.

        Reply
        • Along the way, you see, I figured out that “the movement” is a lie. It does not move nor will it ever. Most of it follows controlled opposition. The rest of it either quits or wakes up from itself.

          Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no movement, for movement implies some force or change in the system. But everyone in the movement is still in citizenship to the thing they are supposedly moving against. There is no we. There is only you. If you identify as we then you have already been corrupted.

          I am that I am…

          Reply
          • Matt

             /  July 24, 2015

            I’m sorry you feel that way. It must have taken a lot of beating down to become that disillusioned. I wish you well on your future endeavours.

            Reply
            • You mistake enlightenment for disillusionment. That’s what controllers like Alex Jones wants you to do. Never wake up to the suppression of yourself. Stay in the group or forum and preach, complain, and find empathy in the choir. Only you can change yourself, and then show others how to follow. The path is narrow.

              You will either love or hate this, depending on whether you personalize a group or are independently motivated to learn despite popular alternative mind control:

              https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/confessions-of-a-former-truther/

              -Clint-

              Reply
              • Oz

                 /  August 5, 2015

                I read your link and the two others referenced in that article and I think fundamentally we are on the same level, though I am not as articulate as you in describing it. Like you (what I have read of your blog) my philosophical “enlightenment” is a constantly evolving process. I like to think I have evolved past the fear mongering of AJ and crew to a point where I can’t handle the BS anymore and that activists and “truther” groups for the most part end up being professional begging organisations. Through my philosophical ‘awakening’ process I observed that things seemed to be overly slanted towards those who perpetuate the current model (not that it can be any other way) and that my personal code of ethics did not reflect that.

                I have also come to the conclusion that you have to demonstrate the behaviours you want to see emulated in your local communities which is why (and my actions will never have any impact on your life no matter how much I believe I’m changing the world) I spent a lot of my time interacting with and building my local community. I help my neighbours as much as I can completing tasks, I redistribute surplus production to them when I can, I keep an eye on their houses when they aren’t home. I’m a member of groups that philosophically feel the same way (that government doesn’t always have our best interests in mind) and our actions “GASP” don’t always follow the law or government policy.

                Another writer that I follow put it this way (preparedness movement can be interchanged with truther movement):

                “The goal of MISO (Military Information Support Operations) in UW (Unconventional Warfare) is to convince that vast mass to either a) actively support your efforts, or at least b) not actively oppose your efforts. The failing of the preparedness culture is in achieving either of these two goals. This failure is typically instigated as a result of the arrogance and hubris of the “movers and shakers” of the preparedness movement. I’ll let you in on a secret. Let’s call it “Mosby’s MISO Maxim Number One.”

                “When you insult people, you lose the ability to convince them.”

                Calling people “brainless sheep” is, regardless of what you might think otherwise, pretty insulting. So, as soon as you do so, you’ve just lost the ability to positively influence their thinking and actions. The same applies, in large part, to trying to intimidate them. Very few people consider themselves cowards. An overt attempt to scare people into compliance is generally not successful, outside of cultural norms. Sure, the government can intimidate people…they’ve been culturally conditioned to fear the government’s power. Yes, the Mafia can intimidate people….they’ve been culturally conditioned by the media and history, to fear the power of the Mob.”

                The best part is our groups are getting larger and larger because as more and more people observe that government don’t always have their best intentions in mind AND we are actually making positive CHANGE in peoples lives, they want to be a part of the solution.

                Which brings me back to my original comment of not understanding the point of your article getting wrapped around the details of the definition of “whistle blower” and one person’s use of the term, when at a fundamental level you both have the same beliefs (personal liberty) and are trying to achieve the same ends (educating others in how to achieve this).

                But I have enjoyed this enlightening conversation and I probably become a regular reader of this blog now I have found it.

                Reply
      • To belittle a title holder,,,
        You pedantic character analysis is based on a holy virus with copious legal references to wit we all know is a circus of punchy bought out legal monsters. The angles pitched to and fro seldom provide evidence as the terms of reference deliver the verdict, you dolt. That you weren’t paying attention in the early days (no lawyer) takes credence from you as that was the statement of fact. Navigating a legal system with a lawyer at your side is to admit guilt of your own case. The Masonic triangle overseen by the Jewdiciary condemns the man. We are not here to praise Cesar but to bury him.
        What volley can you unleash on that horde which brings them to reason when all the evidence shows that a meeting with his x employees was incinerated and but for tardyness it would have happened to Richard.
        You know enough about common law to know better and yet you show shyte.
        As in ‘Good Will Hunting’
        your suspect
        I don’t know what your reputation is in this town, but after the shit you tried to pull today you can bet I’ll be looking into you. Now the business we have, heretofore
        uckoff

        Reply
        • I’ll reserve comment until I figure out who you are actually addressing. Perhaps you can make some salient points to discuss, a bit more specificity perhaps? Would be glad to answer any questions you might have or quell any misconceptions. Might want to dull the attitude a bit though, since you are in my house.

          -Clint-

          Reply
          • answer to me what a court setting can provide to Richard Grove or his love Lisa?
            Show me the venue where the mighty have fallen?
            Tell me the angle which actually destroy the credibility of Tragedy an Hopes readily understood objectives?
            In your verbosity the common law was being subverted by admiralty law of the sea. Here (this is not your house) in a public arena Mr Warden you have made claims which are presumptions based on what? Circumstances you had filtered and to what end, to destroy his credibility?
            You can buy his BRAIN for fifty bucks and it fills in the web of deceit in which we are enmeshed. What have you got?
            Effectively only the works of others. Even CAFR hasn’t saved us as a body of knowledge that effectively wins even one corps back to the people.
            I’ll hang with John Taylor Gatto, William Binney, Kevin Cole and many others with real credentials who have opened up with Lisa and Richard. I am surprised that most of your following have such little depth of field in their knowledge. Hardly one objection to your hit piece. Talk about sheeple.. Where is their understanding of the Trivium?

            Reply
            • As a primary researcher, I researched a primary document, and copied it word for word. In other words, i told the truth, and even told it from Richard’s own resume that he is well-trained in “spin-selling.” It is a forgone and obvious conclusion that he is not a lawful “whistle-blower” and should not claim the flattering title. The fact that you are trying to diminish my own work and research when I did nothing of the sort to Grove’s research is telling. I am not the subject, fallacy-maker. Jan Irvin has much to say about these two, him and “his love.”

              I am always amazed at how people like you defend what and who they do not know, often defending inanimate objects, and that you have the ability to outright dismiss an official court document as this while claiming my providing it and quoting directly from it is somehow petty or personal.

              Dismiss it at your own peril.

              Reply
              • Call yourself what you want.
                It’s your choice.
                My peril can be summed up simply but it will remain complicated as will yours. The perfect ‘whistle blower’ has yet to be found but I’ll wager that many of them don’t share your disregard and disrespect of Lisa or Richard.
                Legal settings is no place to go looking to find scurrilous arguments these days about anyone who tries to out the corruption of people in corporate towers. The system is debauched from top to bottom. If your not careful to stay out of it those wicked bastards will consume you as another tasty morsel.
                Jan Irvin is often in search of primary citations but when it comes to egoism for both Richard and him, they are text book.
                Jan’s work on Allegro is super, his work with Utter is strange as Utter dabbles in the dark. His hatred of Huxley’s is pointless and he has yet to do some solid work on Richard Alan Miller in tying up many loose ends on those ‘blue sky’ (Miller says) days which turned very dark.
                Be that as it may Jan does not have an eidetic memory or photographic memory nor is a genius. Richard isn’t either but is more resourceful in finding talent that is.
                When ego drives the conversation there is a train wreck and Jan is the weakest of the 2 characters, suffice to say I don’t stand Jan over Richard while both should be more of something they don’t seem to be able to illustrate easily; empathy.
                Empathy for whistle blowers of a high or low stature as they are on one side of the river while the enemies of free man want both banks without responsibilities to honour.
                My quibble with you is over but good luck with rest of the journey.

                Reply
  10. Kitty

     /  July 21, 2015

    Yes, I was wondering about him too. His podcasts, etc. don’t pass the Hitler test. Controlled opposition.

    Reply
  11. Raul

     /  July 21, 2015

    This really bums me out…

    There is no alternative media podcast I look forward to more than Peace Revolution which I have gotten so much from. However after reading everything here, things do not look good for the integrity of Mr. Grove.

    I kept hoping, while reading the decision, that there would be omissions and white washings by the court or EMC to protect my vision of this man, but what stuck out to me throughout the entire document was the complete lack of any mention of the software backdoor; what I thought was the sole object of his whistle blower claims. And when it finally showed up, it was barely an afterthought.

    Very disappointed.

    Thank you, Clint, for the work you do. It is good to ‘kill’ our heroes now and again, if for no other reason than to remind us that men are flawed and we should have no heroes.

    I certainly look forward to Mr. Groves response, however owning up to it after the fact is easy. He should have been honest from the beginning.

    I will continue to listen to Peace Revolution, but I will keep this in mind as I do.

    Trust but verify.

    Thanks again, Clint.

    Reply
  12. jay

     /  July 26, 2015

    Is this page for real?

    Reply
  13. I’m not surprised. Someone I know told me Richard Grove was/ is a slick operator. This was years ago, after this guy had several dealings with Grove in an attempt to interview him. Of course, I found this out after I spent $70 to gain access to Tragedy & Hope. However, Grove led me to you and the CAFR scam.

    I’ve learned: trust no one…to take the primary evidence and run. The problem with that kind of think is that when someone is genuinely working for the benefit of the public, truly trying to find truth–Clint Richardson–I hesitate to support because despite the “truth” gained, and the apparent genuineness of the person or people, there could always be some sort of agenda that I’ve never considered, a huge possibility since I’m of average intelligence. But, my first thought is always how does anyone do this full time and make ends meet? Survive? Yet, everyone I’ve ever given money to has turned out to be controlled opposition and is better off than I’ll ever be.

    Anyway, I guess Grove’s 9/11 story is a lie as well, or at the very least, embellished. Did he even work in the towers at the time? I would love to know the truth behind it since it was one of the things that led me to believe the official narrative was bullshit.

    Reply
    • A.Dundee

       /  September 15, 2015

      You’re not alone. What you ultimately become here, or where your ultimate ending point here is (which will be the springboard of your new starting point) will directly correlate with the intensity of your search. The intensity of that search will supply the corresponding energy that coils the spring in the board. Don’t quit. Don’t ever quit.

      Reply
  14. Aris Tocles

     /  October 12, 2015

    “I guess Grove’s 9/11 story is a lie as well” Which 9/11 story? The one he told Jack Blood that he was stuck in traffic in his Porche Cabriolet on his way to a meeting in the towers or the one he told Lucifer Rudowski recently where he was at work on the 96th floor when the plane hit the first (other) tower and he then evacuated. I could provide links but it is easy enough to find on YT. I don’t trust any of them anymore. Them being the whole fauxlternative media operation.

    Reply
    • Sadly, I agree. I trust no one. And unfortunately, I fear my ignorant association with many pif them has made my own credibility questionable. I suppose there is no way to not associate when we are trying to find the deeper answers, or at least where to look. I will keep doing what I’m doing and keep exposing the seemingly endless fraud. That’s all I can do. Thanks. -Clint-

      Reply
  15. Julean

     /  July 10, 2016

    Awesome dialogue. It is very possible that the “911 truther” people include the very same anti-humanity forces inherent in the 9/11 event. e.g. islamo-marxists embedded in the population, government and security, airports and buildings.

    Iran and the muslim population in general cite the USA, Israel and the UK, as both the origin and actor when it comes to muslims practising their religious obligation to wage jihad. The truth might be: It is muslims and the marxist muslim brotherhood that are embedded in the west that are behind the war on terror. Manifestly, to steal the money from the west to rechannel into funds to support muslim criminal gangs operating worldwide.

    The FBI and CIA require investigation and dismantling, because it seems that the islamomarxists have taken over there too, with impunity.

    There is a muslim in the white house and he has the muslim brotherhood entrenched firmly in the government of America. The secretary of homeland security is a muslim, to mention just one relevant to the current islamic migration jihad occurring due to obama funded jihad in the middle east and africa.

    It seems more likely that the alternative stories about 9/11 comes from the same people whom perpetrated 9/11. The origin of the story is with the French Revelations, mostly emanating from islamophiles, or muslims themselves, in an attempt to confuse the populace with disinformation.

    Reply
    • Absurd. Julean’s politianesque bumper sticker talking point amateurish mini screed, exhibiting so many ignorances of so many facts, indicts none other than Julean.

      Reply
  16. This seems like GREAT and well investigated information! Question: does anyone believe that this expose, diminishes all of the work of Richard Grove in the past 10 to 12 years? I understand sophists, but I really think I have improved my knowledge from Richard Grove’s work with T&H. Note: I do think that this particular human (Richard) would be hard to have a conversation with because, from what I have ascertained, he injects and inputs his voice/words in an overwhelming way in most conversations.

    Reply
  17. Don’t trust anyone – but even controlled opposition can give you a clue or two.

    Reply
  18. Your response to Mike Foley is all I need to hear. You had already made up your mind prior to “investigating” him. Just more smoke and mirrors for the powers-that-be.

    Reply
    • I provided concrete facts as they appear on the record. I took info from his own resume. At what point did I make up my mind about anything, when i volunteered to retract anything that is not true? Please let me know what above is not true? What is my opinion instead of fact? And what the hell does the red herring of “power’s that be” have to do with this?

      Reply
  1. Clint’s article on “Whistleholder” Richard Andrew Grove has been published! | Corporation Nation Radio Archives!!
  2. RBN Gnostic Media Radio 016 – Clint Richardson – Spin Jobs vs. Primary Evidence – 7/20/2015 - Gnostic Media
  3. Spin Job: The Odd Case Of Richard Andrew Grove | PN

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: