Cost of Corruption: Open Letter to Sharmini Coorey, Director of the Institute for Capacity Development –VII, Part 15 in the IMF/WB Annual Meeting 2016

As seen in my last blog Cost of Corruption: Open Letter to Francis Fukuyama – VI, Part 14 in the IMF/WB Annual Meetings 2016, the present paradigm in the West—a Fractured Fairytale American Dream, sustained by ‘window-dressing’ and ‘smoke-screens’ of social-climbing women in ‘Expat Wives Clubs’ everywhere, is explained in my blogs (Fractured Fairytale Deb vs. Deb of the Decade: Observations of a CSO Rep at IMF/WB Spring Mtgs – Part 28, Evil Step-Mothers in the IMF are Supporting the "Penn Ave Quadrant Mafia" (IMF/WB/IFC/GWU): Observations of a CSO Rep at IMF/WB Spring Mtgs – Part 27, The Value of Family Values des Mujeres vs. Se?oras: Observations of a CSO Rep at IMF/WB Spring Mtgs – Part 26, The Value of Family Values parmi des Vipères vs. Bonnes Femmes: Observations of a CSO Rep at IMF/WB Spring Mtgs – Part 25, The Value of Family Values in Women vs. Ladies: Observations of a CSO Rep at IMF/WB Spring Mtgs – Part 24, UN FAWCO Smoke-screens on VAW/DV, CEDAW & Human Rights: Observations of a CSO Rep at IMF/WB Spring Mtgs – Part 23).

One of the erroneous thoughts I had when I came up with the idea for Global Expats, was that if I could just figure out a way for ‘Expat Wives Clubs’ managers and organizers to “get paid” for their work; I could solve the elevated level of mismanagement and “bowing-n-scraping” mentality which is preventing them from being effective—noting that the Federation of American Women’s Club Overseas (FAWCO) is the largest and most well-organized of all of the hundreds of similar models which have sprung up since the ‘80s, and the globalization craze—with less than 1% of their constituency wanting to join their snooty clubs. However, as I have found in the past decade, not only was my experience as a “prized-n-privileged,” “expat-trophy-wife,” but my experiences as a “disposed-trophy-wife” during my 7?year tenure as a “floater” secretary in the IMF—so obviously, someone whose “been around the block” in “This Town”—game-playing goes on whether workers are paid, or not. The reaction of Sharmini Coorey, Director of ICD; on top of Directors of Human Resources (HR) Mark Plant, and later Kalpana Kochhar; Olivia Graham of the IMF Ethics Committee; Geetha Ravindra, Mediator at the IMF; and Lois Petzold, Ombudsman at the IMF, to quite frankly, what is a “model” complaint and documentation of the management problems throughout the IMF, and every other large bureaucratic agency in Washington; IS INCREDIBLE AND LUDICROUS.

But, herein lies the crux of the problem. As demonstrated in my Workplace Bullying in the IMF, bullies in the workplace use the same tactics as bullies in the home (or community). As seen in my last blog, I come from an extremely dysfunctional family, a family where chaos and havoc reign. One of the commentators, being given a voice on CNN, no less, is Amy Kremer of the Women Vote Trump—while the only “Women Vote Clinton” founder is being silenced and disempowered!?!. When one LISTENS to the “Stepford wives” rhetoric of Ms. Kremer, it is chilling to think of Barbie-doll, Stepford wife, Melania Trump, at the helm of a Putin-Puppet Network. When I looked up the “Women Vote Trump” website and read Kremer’s bio,

Amy Kremer is one of the founding mothers of the modern day tea party movement. In early 2009, while organizing some of the very first tea parties in the country, she started a social networking site and named it Tea Party Patriots. Shortly after, other people joined her efforts and one of the largest national tea party/grassroots organizations in the country was born, Tea Party Patriots.

After co-founding Tea Party Patriots, Amy joined Tea Party Express as the Director of Grassroots and Coalitions. She quickly became Chairman and worked to grow the organization into the most well known brand in the tea party movement.

Under Amy’s leadership, Tea Party Express, a political action committee, became the voice of the tea party through engagement in the election process. In January of 2010, Tea Party Express spent approximately $400K on independent expenditures in Massachusetts for Scott Brown. For the first time, activists realized the role they could play in elections outside of their own districts and states through donations, phone banking and social media. This was a game changer for the movement.

as well as Kathryn Serkes bio,  

president and founder of Square One Media Network, a strategic communications firm specializing in non-profit advocacy, coalition-building, media training and crisis communications. Since 1985, it has served business clients such as Boeing, Sheraton Hotels, Time-Warner Communications, Mexicana Airlines, Osler Healthcare and non-profits such as Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, The Pentagon Smart Spending Coalition, Free Speech for People, and the Washington State Dairy Commission. She’s worked with candidates from City Council to Senate to President.

Square One Media regularly hosts free or low-cost workshops for grassroots groups on how to lobby, meet the press and strategic action planning.

For more than 20 years she has worked in healthcare policy, founding the Doctor Patient Medical Association, with a mission to bring medical professionals and patients together to work for health care reform. With an emphasis on “health literacy,” she conducts Patient Power workshops to help people take charge of their own health and become empowered in a complex and confusing medical system…. 

I had a déjà vu moment of “Oh Lawd!!!” when I had left my meeting with the “Daughters of the American Revolution.” The right-wing extremism that is embedded in organizations across the board is horrific. And, ALL of them are financed by corporations, as seen in the case of Women Vote Trump, or the Federation of Americans Women’s Clubs Overseas (FAWCO), and/or taxpayer money in the case of IMFFA, or the Family Network at the World Bank (WBFN).

The dynamics of closed, dysfunctional workplace groups is explained by Gary Namie on the Workplace Bullying website, with ICD (and Expat Wives Clubs) perfect examples of the dynamics, as well as the cover-ups,  

Woman-on-Woman Bullying

Six explanations from us for why women bully other women at work.

Solidarity of the sisterhood is a myth and stereotype. It doesn’t mean it does not exist, it’s just that not all women are nurturant and supportive to one another. Neither is every man macho and hyper-aggressive. Stereotypes are generalizations about sex-role-typed behavior, common acts associated with only one gender and not the other. Many behaviors are gender-typed. 

Workplace Bullying is not gender-typed. Workplace environment factors are better predictors than gender. For example, a culture that carries no accountability or negative consequences, regardless of how harmful the behavior exhibited paves the way for bullies. A place where kissing-up (ingratiation) is the norm is fertile territory, where bullying and favoritism (and its converse, ostracism) thrive.

When we discuss the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill, we speak of “status-blind” harassment. Bullying crosses the boundaries drawn by gender, race, ethnicity, age, and disability. Thus bullying is truly “gender-free.”

What attracts the media to woman-on-woman (WOW) bullying is the fact that women are targeted at a higher rate by female bullies (71%) than by male bullies (46%). Yes, women are crueler to women than they are to men, and that must be explained. But don’t forget that 60% of all bullies are men. 31% of all bullying is men-on-men, 29% is WOW. Why is there so little interest in the more frequent variety of same-gender bullying? Because it’s discounted as routine, expected, predictable. WOW sounds mysterious, counterintuitive, and, I think, somewhat prurient.

So here are some explanations for WOW bullying that rarely make it into TV segments on bullying, print stories and the gabfest which is the blogosphere. We offer this because some readers might get the impression that we are misogynists. We are not! 57% of all bullied targets are women, and the majority of callers seeking help from us are women. We are women’s advocates in the fight against workplace bullying.

The WBI starter list of explanations

A. It’s the workplace, not the people in it. Employers create work environments where aggression is rewarded. women see this (as well if not better than men) and learn to abuse others to get ahead. It’s the way things are done around here.

In male-dominated organizations, where men hold all the executive positions, women tend to adopt male-sex-typed behavior to survive and succeed. Only in female-run organizations (or those run by males who adopt a female-sex-typed style that values quality of interpersonal relationships as much as power and status differences) can there be hope for a less aggressive, more dignified and respectful way to operate.

See the Women and Bullying articles in our Research section for relevant studies about this particular angle.

B. A double standard about women is alive and well and practiced by both men and women. If women are “nice” they are too soft. If they are tough, they are “bitchy.” There are two social psychological explanations for this. 

First, it is gender bias in the causal attribution process. Causal attribution is simply showing a preference for explaining things that happen. Old research found that if a person is described succeeding at a task, the explanation depends on whether the person described is male or female. Success for men is typically explained by a trait, inherent skill, intelligence, ability. With exactly the same information, when it’s a woman, success is the result of the task being so easy anyone could have done it or luck. And both men and women elect those different explanations. 

Second, the first person to break any barrier and be the lone representative of a group (and therefore, be in the statistical minority) is called a “token.” Tokens are subjected to disproportionate pressure. Errors, however tiny, are magnified. Successes can also be blown out of proportion. In practice, token individuals often break from the pressure. Look at what Jackie Robinson had to endure when he broke the race barrier in the white baseball league. Same for the first woman CEO or the first woman to attain a high rank in any organization. Women are natural tokens in male-dominated domains, like business. Men are rarely the only male in any role, but when they are, they, too are tokens and heavily scrutinized.

C. Women targets are less likely to confront in response to being bullied. But targets, of both genders, rarely react with aggression. That’s what makes them targets. Bullies sense who will be an easier mark. Targets are sorted into those who take no action because of a higher moral calling. It could be their religion that tells them to turn the other cheek or to never lower oneself to the level of a tyrant. Other targets walk away in fear, stunned at the surprise attack. Getting away is the only reaction they have. Once away, they hope time will heal the wound or prevent it from happening again. Regardless of motive, targets do not defend themselves because either they are unable (it’s not their worldview and never acquired the skill of self-defense because it’s a fair world, no one will hurt you) or unwilling to do so. Targets are all “easy marks.” It’s not just women.

D. Most bullies are bosses (in the US, 72% of bullies are bosses). All bullies prefer to bully subordinates. It’s a permitted prerogative that makes being a boss attractive to many people. So, bullying flows downhill.

Women are bosses, too. But they are lower-ranking than men bosses (only 15% of executives are women, only 3% of CEOs). So they are more likely managing other women and not other men executives. They bully whoever they can. So, WOW may be nothing more than proximity at work. You bully those within reach.

E. Though I’m not a woman, I’ve had a great deal to do with them during my lifetime (and Ruth educates me constantly). (She says that) women are socialized to judge other girls while growing up. They pay attention to how others look and dress all the time. Self-identity can be almost entirely dependent on how others appear and how they are judged by others. Without comparisons to others, some would not know how to make decisions.

Two factors emerge. First, modeling one’s personal behavior on the actions of others gives a great deal of power to the other person. Clearly in WOW relationships where apparent friendship preceded bullying, the bully may have been respected by the future target. When she is betrayed, the target ruminates (for way too long) about the inexplicable turnaround, searching for a rational explanation. It doesn’t matter, it just happened because the bully wanted it to. Wanting to be like someone else gives away too much personal control over one’s own life and choices made.

Second, the skill of paying attention since childhood determines the adult woman’s perceptual field. Other women are salient in the social world. More information is gleaned from cultivating relationships with women. Abusive, exploitative relationships with one person dominating the other is simply a twisted, sick reliance upon getting information from another woman (to then be used against her). Targets fall into the trap easily.

F. Feminist writers claim that women grow up accustomed to having their personal boundaries invaded and thus learn to treat other women that same way. A girl’s opinions are treated as irrelevant by the father compared to her brother’s. A girl’s ambitions are tamped down, expectations made more “realistic,” dreams treated as impossible. This is denial of her very psychological integrity, a discounting of her humanity. If this is how she is raised, she grows accustomed to being treated rudely or denigrated as not deserving equal status with others. So, when bullied at work, the immediate reaction is rarely outrage and righteous indignation that a fool would dare lie so readily or be so unapologetically cruel. It is more likely a timid turning away, starting immediately to blame herself, buying into the lies (as if some “kernel of truth” is buried in all the manure), and spiraling into a psychologically compromised state.

All of my life I have been observing the bullying tactics of women—within my own immediate family, namely my mother, younger sister, and ex-mother-in-law; in the all-girls boarding schools I attended (Cobham Hall and Foxcroft); in the boards of the Expat Wives Clubs I have worked in; on top of the workplaces, in which I have worked for decades. The contention of ICD secretaries, and IMF HR personnel that I am not “qualified” for any job opportunities due to inefficiencies in administrative skills and/or my “extremism” activism work is AS CRAZY as my mother and cousin’s advice (which is the mainstream in “America”) “pop-a-pill” and “pray!!!”

In the past year, I have produced thousands of pages of rhetoric—rhetoric for lawyers, policy-makers, economists, etc. to use in redirecting not only the American economy on track, but the global economy, and world social order on track as well—USING THEIR WORDS AND REPORTS. And, my mother, in cohorts with my cousin, descend upon me with claims that “I am doing something wrong?!?” Smoking-gun proof, to what extent women are instrumental in perpetuating violence and discrimination against women!!

My mother has been belittling and berating me (and my father), my entire life, in her desire to manipulate and control—and literally her “drug” of choice. My ex-husband used this same tactic our entire marriage—and is what destroyed our marriage, as it destroys countless other marriages I have observed over the years. But, contrary to the targets Dr. Namie describe above I “see” very well, all the manipulations before me. In fact, I “see” them so clearly, that I cannot understand how everyone does not “see” what is happening right under their noses. And, herein is a VERY TROUBLING FACT. All those around me are lawyers, economists, policy-makers, and politicians—ALL who should be extremely savvy in effectively examining evidence and understanding the COMPLEX PROBLEMS FACING THE WORLD, but are so closed up in the ivory towers, they can “see” NOTHING AT ALL.

One of the “excuses” Melania Trump gave in her interview on CNN, for her husband’s bragging about his sexual assault of women (because he “can”) was that it was ONLY “locker talk.” First, what angers me is that men like Trump DO SEXUALLY ASSAULT women ALL THE TIME, because THEY CAN! I agree with Joe Biden. I wish we were in high-school, and Biden could take Trump behind the Gym—as would any “Gentleman.” (Unfortunately, Washington is as sorely lacking in Gentlemen these days, as it is lacking in Ladies!!) One of the biggest problems in the violence against women arena, and the courts, is that lawyers (like Gloria Allred who is representing victims of Trump, Summer Zervos and another new victim) are as much guided by their pockets, as the paycheck-n-pension policy-makers, economists and other “experts” holding up the House of Cards in Washington; that the lawyers SHOULD BE challenging and dismantling. This is why, BOTH Trump and Clinton are at the heads of the MAFIA networks that permeate and control Washington, Wall Street, and now Silicon Valley, with their cronies on the other side of the Pond—caught with their hand in the cookie jar as well in the past decade.

To all of the lawyers, politicians, socialite wannabes, and economists, and their snot-nose secretaries, who have looked down their noses at me, berated me, called ME a liar (or criticized me for NOT committing perjury, because “Everyone, who is Anyone” is Doing it!), or whatever bullying tactic they wish to throw into the pot; I have been documenting ALL of the games. And, I, like Trump, am promising to take everyone to court, if necessary. However, unlike Trump I am not trying to instill a Dictatorship, and Puppet-Putin Dictatorship at that, in Washington. With the current STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE COURTS, “DEATH BY LITIGATION” (whoever has the deepest pockets “wins”), the vice-grip Trump’s Dictatorship would be given over the American people, a people already VERY OPPRESSED, should be of CONCERN TO THE ENTIRE WORLD! (See my blog Harper Lee’s Passing: A Legend Dies, But Not Sa Raison d’Etre- Part 2), from which I quote,

As seen in the text above, not only was the Failed War on Drugs never about combating drug consumption. What it really was about was a backlash to the Civil Rights Movement, and controlling and oppressing minority populations in the USA. The passage of laws, creation of international human rights instruments, as well as constitutional “democracies” around the world in the past 50 years, has done little to change the dynamics within our governments and societies.

America, with their Flag and Consumerism at All Costs, are at the helm of some imaginary Success Story in the Wonderland of Alice where only the Mad Hatter, Queen of Hearts and the like, appear to Perceive the illusionary signs of Success, Prosperity and Happiness! Whereas the rest of the world SEES and LIVES the Reality and Wasteland of the excesses of the One-percenters.  

Most of those belittling and berating me are “highly educated.” ALL of these people SHOULD have the intellectual capacity to understand all of the issues I explore in my blogs—in fact, taxpayers around the world are paying many of these people extremely generous salaries and benefits to produce the analysis and rhetoric that I am producing, at $15/hr. for 5 years, and $57,000/yr. for 2 years. Penny-for-penny and thought-for-thought, I have been the biggest bargain taxpayers ANYWHERE are paying to civil servants ANYWHERE. Yet, I am considered too “stupid” or “problematic” by IMF HR, to be employed in the IMF! The IMF, and every other agency in “This Town” should be filled with hard-working, dedicated, honest personnel, and NOT the slothers-n-slackers, whose only concern in life are their paychecks-n-pensions. Time and time again, I have demonstrated, as a constituent in the case of the American government, and as an employee of the IMF, that public authorities and civil servants have THE WAYS AND MEANS to TRANSFORM their RHETORIC to REALITY, WHAT THEY LACK IS THE GOOD-FAITH TO DO SO—as the black-listing of a CSO Rep, followed by ostrich-playing of the Director of ICD, Sharmini Coorey’s to said black-listing by snot-nose secretaries in HER department, on top of her ostrich-playing to my wrongful termination from ICD, and black-listing from employment from the Fund upon instructions from the Office Manager of HER department, who has been creating chaos and havoc since her inception in April 2015; so DRAMATICALLY DEMONSTRATES!

Ms. Coorey, and other upper Management in the IMF (and World Bank and UN), need to come down from their ivory towers, and start understanding the problems of the “little” people (hardworking taxpayers, who are paying the paychecks-n-pensions) of the world, instead of Corporate Interests (which with in the case of Trump has been exposed DO NOT PAY TAXES).  Trump’s present reaction to the sexual assault allegations, that “these are ALL lies” and he will “sue” those making the allegation is the EXACT reaction of ABUSERS everywhere—and why victims are being revictimized by misogynistic courts, where the rule of law is non-existent. It would behoove Management in ALL the agencies in “This Town” to examine their OWN WORDS and START IMPLEMENTING, IMPLEMENTING. If those in Power in Washington would LEAD BY EXAMPLE, the rest of world would follow suit, and I quote, the UN report "Good practices in combating and eliminating violence against women" states,

At the national and international levels, it is vital that institutions which take a lead in setting standards of policy and practice themselves adhere to these standards: for example, protection and promotion of womens human rights, especially protection from violence, should be an explicit component of all work undertaken in the name of the United Nations…

Responses to violence against women share a number of common issues and concerns, including: 

·        poor and inconsistent implementation of international commitments, national laws and minimum standards;

·        conditions of virtual impunity, due to the failure of States to effectively prosecute perpetrators;

·        abuse still resulting in stigma and shame for victims of violence;

·        violence against women being linked to structures and practices which permit men to believe their rights supercede those of women;

·        a relative neglect in legal reform, policy and practice of sexual violence; 

·        poor resourcing of work to combat violence against women compared to other issues/sectors;

·        little investment in primary prevention as a long term initiative; 

·        an absence of effective oversight mechanisms for action against violence against women at national levels; 

·        limited documentation and reflection on the routes womens movements have developed to speak with a collective voice and build strategic allies at national and local levels; 

·        the need for renewal and adaptation of feminist ideas whilst retaining the vision of ending violence and male domination more widely; and

·        the need for increased investment and capacity-building for research, data collection and monitoring, especially with respect to benchmarking and evaluation on the effectiveness of new practices.       

At the same time, the diversity of contexts and responses to violence against women is especially pronounced in a number of areas, including:

·        the forms and scale of violence to be addressed;

·        gender-specific or gender-neutral response to violence against women;

·        the extent and content of engagements between the State and womens nongovernmental organizations at national and local levels, including possibilities for multi-sectoral work;

·        the extent to which the police and the health and education systems have been targeted for change, and whether there are drivers of change within these sectors;  

·        the scope of strategies/approaches/interventions: whether they are directed at violence against women in a comprehensive manner or one particular form of it, such as domestic violence;

…Taking a global perspective as the present report does requires recognition of the constraints of context and the related possibilities. The form of the State, its commitment to womens equality, its relationship with non-governmental organizations and civil society, whether it is involved in armed conflict, and the resources it has to draw on, make fundamental differences in the forms of practices that are possible to combat violence against women. 8 The challenge, therefore, is to find ways to generalize about interventions and reforms without losing the specificity of current and historical contexts. This requires finding similarity within difference: whilst the demands one can make of the State, and whether and how they might be fulfilled varies across time and place, some aspects of legislation and responses to violence against women can be designated as basic to be instituted/continued across contexts.

The intersection of male dominance with race, ethnicity, age, caste, religion, culture, language, sexual orientation, immigrant and refugee status and disability frequently termed intersectionality and referring to multiple identities that might intersect within a given circumstance and context operates at many levels in relation to violence against women.  Trafficking flourishes where a series of compounding factors combine to limit womens space for action and potentials for sustainable employment. Migrant women, especially those who are undocumented, are not only additionally vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, but have limited options for reporting and intervention without jeopardizing their position. Similarly, many women with disabilities are abused by their caregivers. Multiple discriminations may make women more likely to be targeted for certain forms of violence, because they have less status than other women and because perpetrators know they have fewer options for seeking assistance or reporting.

Intersectionality can also refer to the depth, complexity and interconnectedness of the many forms of violence against women. Despite profound shifts in womens political representation and economic independence, such as in the Nordic countries, violence against women continues to occur at levels similar to those in countries that are ranked much lower on the Gender Equality Index. This situation suggests that whilst poverty and social exclusion may exacerbate violence against women and its consequences, they cannot be considered the sole causes of such violence, and addressing them may not necessarily have a significant impact on its prevalence. Theoretical perspectives therefore need to explore in more depth how violence is structured into male domination/gender-order, and whether it might increase or intensify when gender relations are being contested or are in flux.    

In most States, efforts to address the persistent tolerance of violence against women are neither consistent nor maintained over time. Whilst justification for this lack of systematic efforts vary across place and time, there is no doubt that violence against women is not treated as seriously as other forms of crime or human rights abuse. Much welcome rhetoric has emerged over the last decade, yet the level of investment in support services, let alone prevention, remains minimal compared with many other issues. It would be revealing, for example, to compare recent expenditure for protection against terrorism with the resources spent to protect women and girls from domestic and sexual violence. The scale of harm in lost and diminished lives is incalculable, heightened in recent years through the links between coerced sex and HIV/AIDS.   Whilst research on and documentation of interventions has expanded considerably, the ability to demonstrate what works continues to be limited due to inadequate resources to develop methodologies that can trace the subtle and profound changes necessary to end violence against women. This report offers some basic indicators to begin the process of data collection and trend analysis….

Ending impunity

The failure of justice systems across the globe to effectively charge, investigate and prosecute human rights violations against women and girls has resulted in a system of global impunity for perpetrators, which must be urgently addressed. At the same, time States and nongovernmental organizations must be alert to the risks of differential application of laws: both under-enforcement and over-enforcement constitute a problem for minority groups and victims with physical or mental disabilities. Ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice is, in our view, a more important goal than increasing the penalties for gender-based violence. Sanctions should be appropriate to the crime. Demanding draconian sentences and sanctions may have the unintended consequence of decreasing reporting and convictions. At the same time, women lose faith in justice systems where sentences are minimal and fail to offer them any protection. Negotiating a route through these extremes demands skill and dexterity from governments and the judiciary…

In providing justice in cases of violence against women, rights of victims must be guaranteed under the law. This is a multi-faceted and wide-ranging goal involving a combination of law and its practical application, as well as provision of services and knowledge by women about the rights they have. Too often, however, legal systems alienate women from the very processes that are supposed to offer them justice and redress for their grievances. Skepticism about complaints relating to sexual violence and longstanding myths and stereotypes about womens behaviour and sexuality must be eliminated from legal systems and processes. These historic attitudes are the foundation of the burden of shame and stigma that victims carry. The privacy, dignity and autonomy of all victims must be respected and enhanced in the legal process. No woman reporting a crime against her should be subjected to procedures that are humiliating. Victims should have a right to actively participate in all stages of legal proceedings and to be informed about the process and progress of legal proceedings.

It is interesting to note that Albert Einstein was considered a “loser” by many in his early career, quoting from Wikipedia,

After graduating in 1900, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post. He acquired Swiss citizenship in February 1901, but was not conscripted for medical reasons. With the help of Marcel Grossmann's father, Einstein secured a job in Bern at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner – level III. He evaluated patent applications for a variety of devices including a gravel sorter and an electromechanical typewriter. In 1903, Einstein's position at the Swiss Patent Office became permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he "fully mastered machine technology".

Much of his work at the patent office related to questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time, two technical problems that show up conspicuously in the thought experiments that eventually led Einstein to his radical conclusions about the nature of light and the fundamental connection between space and time.

With a few friends he had met in Bern, Einstein started a small discussion group in 1902, self-mockingly named "The Olympia Academy", which met regularly to discuss science and philosophy. Their readings included the works of Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and David Hume, which influenced his scientific and philosophical outlook.

In 1900, Einstein's paper "Folgerungen aus den Capillarit?tserscheinungen" ("Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena") was published in the prestigious Annalen der Physik. On 30 April 1905, Einstein completed his thesis,[55] with Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, serving as pro-forma advisor. As a result, Einstein was awarded a PhD by the University of Zürich, with his dissertation entitled, "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions."[55][56] That same year, which has been called Einstein's annus mirabilis (miracle year), he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of mass and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world, at the age of 26.

By 1908, he was recognized as a leading scientist and was appointed lecturer at the University of Bern…

As seen in the case of Einstein, the case of my father, William C. Wilcox, MD, as with my case in the IMF in the past 7-years, the traditional workplace, does not encourage information sharing, cooperation, corroboration, or free thought! The issues I have been high-lighting in all of my complaints for bullying, in the workplace and courts, ARE HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES!!  

What is so amusing about all the secretaries in ICD (and co-tenants in group homes), and their game-playing over the years, is that I have been studying them from an anthropological perspective, similar to Laura Nadar’s Berkeley Village Law Project, but “my village” is “This Town” and its habitants. While I had been tracking the bullying in ICD for the 4 years I was employed there, as well as the LUDICROUS response of “Management” in ICD, until the Office Manager, Adrianne Thapa passed me over for a lowly secretarial-staff position, under the contention I was not “qualified,” and then later did not renew my contract in ICDSE (Strategy Evaluation) for the month of December 2015, I did not have a "smoking-gun" case to present. It should be noted, ICDSE division’s other secretary, Ana Rosa Reyes, had taken the entire month of December, off on vacation, and was replaced by a temp. And, as had been the case with me as a temp, that temp did not have access to IT systems, and was as one economist said, “very nice, but useless.” Internal mismanagement of ALL the bureaucratic organizations in Washington is OUT OF CONTROL, to the detriment at the expense of taxpayers everywhere.

Before Ms. Thapa even became Office Manager many of the secretaries in ICD were complaining to me about what a disaster she would be. And, two of the front office secretaries Jocelyn Vanderhaegan and Carla Cullati were “working me” in prodding me to file a complaint against Adrianne Thapa—which I had every intention of doing, and using her as an example of the “house-cleaning” needed in agencies throughout Washington, and the world. They were constantly complaining about their colleague (in the case of Vanderhaegan) and boss (in the case of Cullati). The “bullying” colleague of Vanderhaegan is a LONG-TIME secretary at the Fund, Elizabeth Elliott, who is the perfect example of what is produced by control-freak parents, and whose queen-for-a-day mentality is producing human rights violations of everyone “below” her mile a minute. The way this woman “sucks-up” to everyone above her, and belittles and berates everyone “below” her is disgusting, as well as a perfect example of how and why, the antiquated traditions and norms within the Fund are maintained by the ‘Old Guard’ in Washington.

The berating and belittling by Elliott, who is so over-whelmed with her secretarial duties in an IT world so far above her head, that not only is she wreaking havoc throughout the front office, but throughout ICD as well. As I explained to one of the Directors in ICD’s front office, Ralph Chami, the Admin Assistant to the Director and the Office Manager should be working hand-n-hand, and KNOW EVERYTHING that is going on with EVERYONE IN ICD, so that THEY know what EVERYONE NEEDS before they even know they need it!!! Radars and Klinger’s are what are NEEDED, NOT a bunch of SNOT-NOSE BRATS, PLAYING DRESS-UP and QUEEN-FOR-A-DAY!!! The chaos that is being produced by these two dysfunctional women alone, is reason enough for taxpayers to be irate over their hard-earned money, being wasted so these “ladies” can “schmooze” with the “important” people of the world.

Before submitting my complaint for workplace bullying, I asked Vanderhaegan and Cullati to look it over, and give me any feedback—as they had been goading me to write it, I thought they might be helpful with feedback. But, Vanderhaegan, as usual was too over-whelmed with her work to read it, and was “pissed-off” at me because I did not “whine and cry” in my report, as the “experts” had instructed in the mandatory “Respectful Workplace” workshops ICD has sponsors. When she “reprimanded” for “not having done the complaint ‘right’ and according to ‘instructions’  I thought “Oh, Lawd! yet another one!!” IT IS IMPERATIVE that government and pseudo-government agencies BE FILLED with people with enough COGNITIVE abilities to understand their daily interactions with constituents, and colleagues, alike, under human rights standards—and not the mentality of a 5th grader!!

The other secretary “working me” was Cullati—who I do believe was angling for job of Office Manager of ICD, as I assume Sharmini Coorey believed I was doing, when I filed a complaint with her at the beginning of November 2015, noting I never received any response or even acknowledgement of my correspondence to her. Please see the content of my letter below,

November 2, 2015

Dear Sharmini,

First, I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to have worked at ICD. I have enjoyed working in the department, and will miss my work, as well as many of my colleagues greatly. 

Unfortunately, upon my departure, I am propelled to write to about the bullying within ICD, and how it has been, and is still, escalating. 

First, there is the issue of bullying that I have observed amongst the administrative staff and HR team in ICD. I know this might come as a surprise to you, as I know you are very committed to eradicating this type of behavior.

Unfortunately, the same reasons that the courts are not effectively protecting victims of domestic abuse, are the same reasons that the global mobility industry/HR are being ineffective in combating bullying, etc. within the work-place. (Both are the principle areas of my research of the past 8 years, and the parallels are flagrant). If I can do anything to shed light on the underlying issues and problems, and offer some possible solutions, I would be happy to be of service.

Unfortunately, while I have been the brunt of some of the bullying, for several reasons I have not lodged a complaint about it, until now. Originally, I had hoped that my own situation would not escalate, and wrote a blog on my Huffington Post blogs ([The Right of Passage and Right to Protest: Dead and Buried in Our Nation’s Capitol] see attached) to that end – hoping to ‘close’ the matter there. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that Adrianne Thapa (as OM), has decided to press and escalate the issues.

Briefly, as you can surmise in the attached blog, I was involved in a rather benign altercation with the coffee shop downstairs (Filters Coffeehouse & Espresso Bar) at the beginning of September. As this altercation involves the rights-based issues which I am working on outside the Fund, I felt it not only my right, but my duty to denounce the actions (of the coffee shop manager) -- which are not only reprehensible, but fundamentally immoral, and illegal. I felt I handled the matter in a very appropriate way, which allowed me to fulfill my civic duties, while at the same time respect, and honor, my obligations as an employee of the Fund.

When Adrianne Thapa confronted me with the altercation, and reprimanded me for having spoken out against the civil rights violations of the coffee shop in question, as well as for having identified myself as an IMF employee to the building management, I explained to Adrianne that in no way shape or form had I done anything wrong. It was my duty as an American citizen, to speak out against such violations, and that since I was accessing the building in my capacity as an IMF employee, and in relation to my work; I was obligated to provide that information in my complaint to the building management.

These are issues which not only are omni-present in my activism work, but are also some of the reasons I left the political arena in the ‘80s – and why I have now returned. The altercation at the coffee shop is benign, but the issues behind the actions and altercation are not. At the end of the conversation, Adrianne continued to insist that I had still been in the “wrong” because I had identified myself as an IMF employee, and had utilized the office phone to do so, thereby facilitating the ability of the building to “associate” me with the IMF – the implication being that I was “endangering” the Fund’s reputation through my activism work.

This is not the first time I have been “confronted” by admin staff or members of the HR team with insinuations that my activism work outside the Fund is “inappropriate” and/or “dangerous” to the reputation of the Fund. On all occasions, I have assured everyone that not only is my activism work very, very much in-line with the direction of the Fund under Christine Lagarde, but that I am sure that Ms. Largarde would even be extremely supportive of my work, and my outspokenness. 

Additionally, I have continually told everyone concerned that I maintain blogs on the Huffington Post and Womenalia (Spanish women’s networking site), and that they are at liberty to read my blogs – and see for themselves that their contentions are baseless, and quite frankly ridiculous. If they would take the time to read my blogs, they would understand that nothing I am saying, or doing, jeopardizes the Fund’s reputation, or in any way compromises the Fund – to the contrary. I was even told that I should not divulge the fact that I even work at the IMF (which is on my Linkedin profile).

I requested a clarification from the SAC on what the Fund’s policy on employee activism is, but never heard back from them. I even spoke with the PRW[1] about my incident with Adrianne, and while I explained I would not pursue the issue further, I thought it helpful to bring up the ‘issue’ of employee activism (and any eventual bullying by other staff to silence said activism) to the Fund, so they might address the issues in an appropriate manner.

I have known Adrianne for over 5 years. She was my IMF-HR contact during my time at the IMFFA, and while I have always maintained an amicable relationship with her, her management-style is antiquated, she lacks organizational skills and the ability to coordinate and ‘harmonize’ a working group, and all too often she relies on intimidation, humiliation and bullying tactics to cover-up for her ineptitudes.

Not only have I done extensive research on these topics, but I have observed this ‘management-style’ (within the home, office, and community) on all too many occasions, and ‘see’ the signs very, very clearly. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that not only was my contract terminated because of my activism work, but further that Adrianne is attempting to have me ‘blacklisted’ at the IMF (in regards to future work with the Fund through a temp agency, as a contractual, or in a staff position, if I desired) -- because of that activism work.

Regrettably, the efforts of Adrianne to ‘silence me’ are just one more examples of a very, very long series of “reprisals” I have suffered as a consequence (direct and indirect) of my DV[2] case and activism work. This is the crux of where the issues lay in empowering women to empower themselves – how and why societies are silencing victims, instead of protecting them. This is what needs to be addressed by ‘authorities;’ the social issues which support, sustain, and perpetuate abuses of power in all its forms – because they are exponential, and all inter-related. 

Unfortunately, I am in the process of preparing my case against Spain for submission to CEDAW[3]. In my case, I provide a detailing of all of the reprisals I have received for my DV complaint in Spain (police officers, my lawyers, presiding judges, and a long list of public authorities, including consulates). Additionally, included are all of the violation of my social & economic rights in the past 8 years (illegal evictions & firing, lack of access to healthcare & social assistance systems, etc.) and the absolute, totallack of governance, transparency and accountability in government agencies that I have encountered at literally every turn. It is truly mind-boggling (and enlightening in a bad way) to find out just how profound the social problems and issues are for victims in systems that are so, so profoundly and totally broken. 

What people must understand in dealing with bullies is that people who abuse power will, almost by osmoses support, and cover-up the abuses of others – in the hope that when they bully someone in their turn, they will be ‘protected’ by another bully. And, basically this is how the ‘bullying network’ works. These customs and traditions are so deeply, entrenched and ‘rationalized’ in the belief system of these people that they are incapable of understanding the ethical issues at play. Another issue is that “people” believe “anything they hear” without ever verifying the veracity, or the logic, of what they are being told; with the gullibility and ignorance THE primary problem. And, that is basically how bullies so successfully manipulate everyone.  

I have repeatedly tried to impress upon Adrianne the legal ramifications of her actions – and how she is exposing the Fund to ethical issues. It is she that is putting the reputation of the Fund in “danger” with her “reprisals” against me. But, quite frankly I do not believe that she truly comprehends the consequence of her actions, nor the ethical issues in play – and my efforts to warn her of the ramifications of her actions have fallen on deaf (or uncomprehending) ears.

Unfortunately, anything related to the violation of my social and economic rights as ‘reprisal’ related to my DV/VAW issues must be included in my submission to CEDAW. While I had hope to ‘close’ the issue with Adrianne (and coffee shop) with my blog (and thereby ‘brush’ it off as an isolate incident between two employees), due to Adrianne’s insistence in pursuing the matter, I have absolutely no other option than to report her actions to the ICD/IMF, and provide them with the opportunity to take action. (I cannot provide information about ‘reprisals’ to CEDAW without having previously been completely transparent with the IMF, and provide them with the opportunity to take appropriate action. That would be totally inappropriate on my part. Adrianne has literally given me no choice in how to proceed here.) 

Please note that Adrianne has never said that she is attempting to have me blacklisted, but everything indicates that this is exactly what she is doing (90% of communication is non-verbal, “people talk,” and this is my area of expertise). Additionally, it is my understanding that she is disseminating false information, contending that my ‘transgression’ occurred in the Chinese restaurant, Chalin’s, not the coffee shop. (My understanding is that she is friends with the Russian manager of the coffee shop, and is trying to cover-up for his actions; and, therefore falsely reporting the location of the incident).

I have not directly confronted Adrianne with my suspicions, as I am all too well-versed in these situations. She would never admit to anything, and simple reinforce her tactics -- escalating the issues further.

In the interest of transparency (and what concerns me perhaps the most for ICD in this situation), is that I have become quite well-known amongst the press (and women’s right & human rights groups) on both sides of the Atlantic, for my activism work. It is only a matter of time (probably during the upcoming US elections) that the problems within family courts will ‘explode’ in the press, with me as one of THE experts on the human rights issues within these courts. Also, I am in contact with Ingrid Betancourt about heading up a global campaign on VAW as human rights violations, with her possibly coming to DC in 2016 for an IMFFA sponsored event. (Her sister was a friend of mine, and I supported campaign in Colombia before her kidnapping – the issues haven’t changed, the shoe is just on the other foot this time). Additionally, I am scheduled to informally meet with someone at Women, Business and the Law at the World Bank in regards to my research. Ms. Lagarde was right at the Town Hall when she said many of the issues (but not all) are more appropriately under the purview of the World Bank -- and the WB, as well as the UN, are two doors I am definitely knocking on.

Apart from working in ICD, I have worked in EUR, COM, LEG, MCM, and the IMFFA. I know a lot of people in the Fund, and Adrianne spreading rumors about me (particularly in regards to my activism), and having me blacklisted, will reflect badly on ICD – and the Fund.

I do so very, very truly regret writing this letter, and being obligated to bring these issues to your attention. But, I could not in good-conscious, not inform you as to a situation which might ultimately put you, ICD, or the IMF in an uncomfortable and embarrassing position in the future. Unfortunately, since Adrianne is a part of the HR team, and the OM, I have not felt at liberty to bring this to anyone in the HR team, and felt my only option was to address you directly. 

So many of the problems of this world could be avoided if people would nip them in the bud, instead of sweeping everything under the carpet until they explode in their face – and I so fear that this is one of those situations, if I do not speak-up now.

I hope that this information might be of assistance to you as I know you are very sincere in your effort to have a smooth functioning, ‘harmonious’ department. If you should have any questions, I remain entirely at your disposition.

Sincerely,

Quenby

As one economist in ICD avowed to me, Sharmini is the WORST manager he had ever seen—and I must agree. The department is in shambles, and she walks around with her head down, punching the clock on taxpayer’s money, until her retirement; when, by her own admission, can dedicate herself exclusively to jet-setting on taxpayers hard-earned money. Ms. Coorey’s, Deputy Director, Dominique Desruelle is a much more qualified and appropriate Director for ICD, and in my opinion do a MUCH better job than Coorey—with Ms. Coorey as Director of ICD a perfect example of the dangers of affirmative action. Desruelle has not only impressed me with his intelligence and insight, but also his openness and genuineness (not easy things to do). In fact, it’s thanks to Dominique’s printing of a Francis Fukuyama paper that I found at the printer and “fell upon” Fukuyama’s work, which when I found the “PROOF,” that Governance is THE problem, it was literally a gift from Heaven!!  

The IMF needs to be employing people like me, who are interested in the work and mandates of the Fund, rather than game-playing and seat-warming!!

Cullati’s complaints were mainly directed at her boss, Gina Paone, who I did assist on several occasions, and concur with Cullati that she is TOTALLY disorganized, as well as probably the WORSTE example of parasitic, jet-setting, seat-warming, public authority, than I had ever seen along with her Paone’s other “assistant” Ana Daie. Gina Paone official title is Advisor/SPM, with her Linkedin profile stating Deputy Division Chief, Talent Management. Paone knows about ALL of my work and independent research, however, she is no more interested than anyone else in the Fund, or “This Town.” Please note the “synopsis” of what ICD does is provided on Coorey’s bio,

Sharmini Coorey, a national of Sri Lanka, has been the Director of the Institute for Capacity Development since May 1, 2012, and Director of the IMF Institute since January 2012. (The IMF Institute merged with the Office of Technical Assistance Management on May 1, 2012 to become the Institute for Capacity Development.). The Institute aims to promote stronger synergies and better coordination between IMF technical assistance, training and other elements of capacity development; help the IMF’s capacity development activities better adapt to member countries’needs and priorities; and raise funds from donors for these activities. It also delivers training to country officials through a global network of eight training centers and oversees the management of nine regional technical assistance centers around the world. In addition, the Institute provides internal economics training to strengthen the ability of Fund staff to provide high quality analysis and advice to member countries.

EVERYONE LOVES MY RHETORIC, BUT NO ONE LIKES “MY” REALITY! BECAUSE I REFUSE TO BUY-INTO THEIR HYPOCRISY, DECEIT, and SCHIZOPHENIA!  As previously stated, the reason ICD secretaries in collusion with IMF HR and IMF Security black-listed me from the Annual Meetings was to cover-up for all the “little, dark secrets” of ICD, and the IMF, that they do not want exposed to the world—namely that a “stupid-trophy wife could DO A BETTER JOB THAN Christine Lagarde, or Sharmini Coorey, but I still think the better candidate for the job would be Dominique Desruelle!

Contrary to everyone in “This Town,” I’m NOT “angling” for anyone’s job. And, if I could get some assistance, instead of efforts to destroy and silence me, I could be PRODUCING jobs for thousands of people with Global Expats, and hundreds of thousands with the PLAN I HAVE for CLINTON, WHEN ELECTED!!

VOTE CLINTON!!

[1] Peer for Respectful Workplace (PRW)

[2] (DV) Domestic violence

[3] My case will be the 3rd jurisprudence on violence against women/domestic violence (VAW/DV) as human rights violations. The first jurisprudence is Gonzalez Lenahan vs. USA, 2011 and 2nd Gonzalez Carreno vs. Spain, 2014 (CEDAW). My case Wilcox vs. Spain, challenges the Spanish (rejected defense) in Gonzalez Carreno vs. Spain.

---