“The US will use nuclear weapons against states, which have violated or renounced the NPT” (Barack Obama) - It is the job of the IAEA to denounce those states! “I will not renounce the nuclear weapon ‘guarantor of the security’ of France” (Nicolas Sarkozy) The IAEA, WHO and TEPCO should be a case for the International Criminal Courts

Widespread Corruption at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) An Organization in which the lie is the rule rather than the exception A Story of How the IAEA is secretly “Being Held Hostage” by a Low Level Female Staff Member And, a Story of Established Mobbing at the IAEA

Atoms for Peace = Imposing (a non-existing) peace with nuclear weapons! "A fake organization which depends on the nuclear industry and can therefore not perform properly." (Iouli Andreev, Russian nuclear accident specialist) - WikiLeaks confirms Mr Andreev's assertion! What the IAEA is all about A typical working day of an average IAEA staff member

The "secret/confidential" diplomatic cables of the US Mission in Vienna published by WikiLeaks confirm several assertions made in this page, in particular those concerning Mr Yukiya Amano. Read the summary here!

Headlines Introduction About the author The story in summary The story in detail The document of the story List of additions to the document of the story since it was published on 3 September 2007: The IAEA Board of Governors The IAEA's Management The Director of the Division of Human Resources The Staff Council The Witness The Denunciation to the Austrian Police The Denunciation to the Viennese Commercial Court The United Nations Security and Safety Section (UNSSS) The Austrian Government The Mexican Government The European Parliament The Austrian Ombudsman The Norwegian Nobel Committee Other Additions Related Documents and Websites Contact me

Mr Yukiya Amano A person without dignity! He does not shun using the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a "good" reason for his appointment as DG and perfectly knows that it is those responsible for this tragedy who have the say in the IAEA! “...solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 16 October 2009, WikiLeaks). The luckless DG! Right at his start as DG it was WikiLeaks, soon after it was Fukushima!

A true story, which explains in detail the nature and modus operandi of the Organization, and extensively demonstrates that the following two statements by Mr John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN (who together with Mr Colin L. Powell and later also Ms Condoleezza Rice, former US Secretaries of State, already since 2004 wanted to oust Mr Mohamed ElBaradei), are also true for the IAEA: "We find an organization that is deeply troubled by bad management, by sex and corruption and by a growing lack of confidence in its ability to carry out missions that are given to them." “It wouldn't make a ‘bit of difference’ if the United Nations lost the top 10 (2 for the IAEA) stories from its 39-story (28 for the IAEA) headquarters.”

Mr David Barclay Waller The “playboy” of the IAEA and its problem no. 1! By installing Mr ElBaradei as DG, he secured both the extensions of his appointment up to 18 years now and absolute power in the IAEA! From the facts that there are spies from several countries in high positions in the IAEA, that he is the first official from the US in the IAEA, and that he is there so long, it is most likely that he is also a (CIA?) spy: "He provides insight into Agency operations..." = Breach of Confidentiality! (WikiLeaks). Reportedly, he should have left already at the end of 2010, but managed to have another one-year extension of his appointment, because "he would be unemployed, when he gets back to the US!"

Mr Mohamed ElBaradei A notorious liar! Installed as Director General by Mr David Barclay Waller, he remained Mr David Barclay Waller's marionette all twelve years of his tenure. Unable to run the IAEA with only 2.400 officials, he now wants to become the President of Egypt, a country with over 80 million inhabitants! In retirement since the 1st December 2009, has done nothing against the Mubarak-regime. On the contrary, as he owes his splendid career to Mr Hosni Mubarak, first in Mr Mubarak’s Foreign Service, then thanks to Mr Mubarak, able to join the IAEA in 1984 and become its Director General in 1997. Now he is using his (undeserved) Nobel Peace Prize to steal the Egyptian revolution!

Mr Mohamed ElBaradei was hit in the back by a stone thrown from the crowd as he turned up at a Cairo polling station. “We don’t want you” and “we don't want an American agent” they shouted, throwing stones, shoes and water at him. His car was also hit by rocks.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2005 It is known that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005 was awarded jointly to Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, and to the Organization itself, including here are all other staff members. The prize consisted of a medal, a personal diploma, and a cash award. The cash award of this Prize was then shared one half to Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, the other half to all other staff members. Mr Mohamed ElBaradei received his medal, his personal diploma, and his half of the cash award, which is something more than half a million Euros. All other staff members received only this “worthless” certificate by the IAEA. The question is then raised here, what happened to the other staff members’ cash award? Each staff member should have received some 250 Euros, which they did not! The IAEA says that the IAEA Board of Governors had decided to establish a special fund called the "IAEA Nobel Cancer and Nutrition Fund" with the Organization's share of the cash award, and that Mr Mohamed ElBaradei had said that he would direct his share of the cash award to charitable purposes. It remains to be seen if all this is true.

US, Australia schemed against IAEA (former) chief (Mr Mohamed ElBaradei): "Carlson [Australian Safeguards and Nonproliferation Office (ASNO) Director General John Carlson] commented that ElBaradei was a very bad manager and morale throughout the IAEA staff was 'appalling.'" "Although he acknowledged that the personnel in the DG's office were very loyal to him, Carlson claimed no one below them was. He related that both Deputy DG Pierre Goldschmidt and Technical Safeguards specialist Ollie Heinonen had complained to him about ElBaradei's poor management practices." (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 18 February 2005, WikiLeaks).

	Of interest for IAEA staff members:	Assertion No. 1: This is what the IAEA is all about: Only these states (and no other) have the right to have (and to keep) nuclear weapons (which is the only truth in the Organisation):
	The Two "Pseudo-Tribunals" of the IAEA The ILOAT The IAEA's Rotation Policy The "Reverse Appraisal" The TAs (staff on "Temporary Assistance") The "Exit Interviews" The Commissary (the duty-free shop)	The United States	The United Kingdom	France	The Russian Federation

China

Israel

India

Pakistan

	Indeed, by detonating its atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the USA opened the box of Pandora that it has been desperately and unsuccessfully trying to close since then. The USA fully realized this fact in 1949, when the Soviet Union developed its first atomic weapon. That is why the USA pursued the creation of the IAEA in 1957, with which they hoped to be able to close the box of Pandora (= to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons) they themselves opened. In this sense, the IAEA represents the implicit recognition by the USA of having made a serious mistake that they try to correct with this Organization. These are the proofs here for (for Assertion No. 1): “The US will use nuclear weapons against states, which have violated or renounced the NPT” (Barack Obama); “I will not renounce the nuclear weapon ‘guarantor of the security’ of France” (Nicolas Sarkozy); “19. French Charge Philippe Merlin discouraged STAFFDEL from expecting diplomatic gains, say in the NPT review, through greater generosity on IAEA peaceful use programs. ‘TC (Technical Cooperation) is the price we pay,’ he said, for developing countries’ acquiescence toward the safeguards regime, the thing we really want... UK Ambassador... added that the UK Government ‘doesn’t give two hoots’ about TC (Technical Cooperation), given the small funding level (from the UK Energy Ministry) in comparison to Britain’s official development assistance. TC (Technical Cooperation) was, also in the UK view, the price we pay for the IAEA we want." (Secret diplomatic cable dated 2 December 2009, WikiLeaks). “3. ...the DDG/Safeguards position is the most important at the IAEA to achieving high-priority U.S. national security objectives related to Iran, DPRK, Syria, and the generally rigorous application of IAEA safeguards globally.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009, WikiLeaks). Israel, according to Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, the problem no. 1 in the Middle East (it is already bad enough, that the US, which have caused the Middle East Conflict in the first place, are also the mediator in this Conflict! But it is still worse that the Arabs, who are the victims in this Conflict, recognize this mediation role to the US!)! It is well known that Israel's army is largely funded by the US. Therefore, it would not be surprising if it is known that it is the US that provided Israel with its nuclear weapons, or otherwise helped it to acquire them, thereby fostering the proliferation, it is ready to fight with the same weapons! This might be the reason why the US in this respect systematically vetoes year after year every “Resolution” against Israel in both the UN Security Council and the IAEA. Mr Yukiya Amano is well aware of this and of the fact that Israel has not signed the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and that, therefore, the IAEA has no right to investigate "Israel's nuclear capabilities"! Nevertheless, as if the Israeli Government would listen to him and wasting the money of the IAEA, he traveled to Israel in August 2010 (where he was not even received by the Prime Minister!) to ask it for information on its nuclear program and to sign the NPT, which of course, Israel declined! This, and his recent statement that he has (only) two well-qualified safeguards inspectors [(out of some 150) but just in case he is right in this respect, then this would confirm point C below], raise serious questions about his degree of intelligence [in such a position, it would not matter anyway if this degree was low, because no one would be able to know about it, since he is protected by: His advisers, provided that they are intelligent enough and that he listens to them; The IAEA confidentiality, and his power on appointments (none of his staff would dare saying it)]! Maybe this is the reason why he was elected as DG only at the fifth or sixth ballot-round and with a difference of only one or two votes! Under these conditions, it is clear that he must have accepted long lists of concessions from several Member States, in particular from the US... just the kind of people the US seem to like in such positions, because it can easily manipulate them! Assertion No. 5: And, it is well known that the Member State most interested in his election as DG was the US. And behold, the very first thing Mr Yukiya Amano does as DG is what the U.S. has been tirelessly doing already since years: To attack the Islamic Republic of Iran without any reason (because only on suspicion!)!
	Everything else in the IAEA is either: irrelevant, like many of the IAEA projects, in some of which I have worked for (for example, the y2k problem, which has cost more than $ 100 million, or the projects in nuclear data, because the same are being better carried out in national laboratories and universities). And I shall confirm here what Mr Iouli Andreev (Russian nuclear accident specialist) said about the IAEA's "Incident and Emergency Centre", in which I also participated, "only a think-tank not a working force"; or senseless, like the annual one-week General Conference, the greatest show in the IAEA, as all the decisions are made by the five permanent members of the IAEA Board of Governors (the only with the right to veto) before this Conference takes place, which is the reason why the main hall of this Conference is well attended only on the first day (the other four days one can see delegates reading their statements in an almost empty main hall, as the participants are in the city shopping, sightseeing, or in restaurants, cafés and bars); or false, like the purpose of the Organization, which officially is "to promote the peaceful uses of atomic energy". In reality however, it is to denounce the states, "which have violated or renounced the NPT”, which for the USA and the UK means, as the UN Security Council, only an instrument for justifying their wars; or not true, like a lot of the data published in the IAEA reports on the Chernobyl accident (minimizing a real catastrophe!). And indeed, according to the IAEA report on Fukushima, both the Japanese Government and TEPCO did just the right thing after the accident ("crisis-management 'exemplary'")! It is before the accident that they did not do the right thing! Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) upgraded the severity level of the accident in Fukushima to seven, which means that this accident is as severe as that of Chernobyl! With this, NISA contradicts Mr Yukiya Amano, who stated that it was very unlikely that the accident in Fukushima turned into one like Chernobyl. Mr Amano’s statement that “the accident in Fukushima did not occur because of human error” is flat wrong! Indeed, even his own country's Government contradicts him herewith: The results of an investigation ordered by the Japanese Government stated in July 2012 that "this accident was avoidable", and was therefore "a human-made catastrophe"! The first human error was to build these nuclear power plants in an earthquake zone. The second human error was to build these nuclear power plants safe for earthquakes of magnitude of 7 on the scale of Richter. But it is well-known that the magnitude of this earthquake was 9... with the resulting tsunami, which takes us to the third human error, which was to build these nuclear power plants on the very shore! As it did with the Chernobyl accident, the IAEA did also with the accidents in the nuclear reactors of Fukushima and Onagawa: Minimizing real catastrophes and producing reports full of lies! In fact, as this story demonstrates, it seems that all reports by the IAEA are full of lies! This includes the "Budget", the "Accounts" and the "Annual Report", which the IAEA publishes every year to pretend transparency. But, as the staff of the Division of Budget and Finance does, I know that all these numbers are "adapted" before being published. This fact is also confirmed by points 4 and 9 of the text-box below:

"A fake organization which depends on the nuclear industry and can therefore not perform properly." Iouli Andreev, Russian nuclear accident specialist The following excerpts of the confidential diplomatic cable of the US Mission in Vienna dated 1 December 2009 and published by WikiLeaks confirm Mr Andreev's assertion! "2. ...The French already have undue influence over the Safety Department and often front for Areva,s interests."; "10. ...France, which already has a strong and unhealthy influence in the Department of Safety and Security."; "10. ...The French currently hold several key positions in the safety area, including one of the two D-1 positions directly reporting to the DDG, and there is a French representative in almost every section of the safety department."; "10. ...Many IAEA staff (both U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens) have complained to Msnoffs about the internal politics played by the French management (favoring French staff, giving French staff more opportunities, influencing results and documents to favor French industry, etc.)."; "10. ...One prominent example of this is the undue influence of Andre LaCoste, head of the French Regulatory Body, ASN. LaCoste is the Chairman of almost every important IAEA-sponsored conference, workshop, and committee in the safety field."; "10. ...LaCoste has used these positions to influence the results of IAEA activities with a very blatant French bias. This is coupled with the strong presence at the IAEA of AREVA, the French government,s reactor designer and vendor."; "10. ...Because AREVA is government-owned, AREVA representatives are allowed to participate in IAEA meetings as French government representatives, and often do, giving AREVA tremendous influence over the activities of IAEA..."; "10. ...Lacoste,s role is unhealthy because no one Member State should have so much influence over the safety program, and because it is unfair to other reactor vendors (or uranium mining, conversion, enrichment or fuel manufacturing companies) that are privately owned, including those from the U.S."; "12. ...There are many other examples of French influence on safety documents and IAEA forums to benefit French interests and promote AREVA, or French IAEA staff discouraging Member States from considering other countries, reactor designs."; "12. ...If the French manage to obtain Taniguchi's position, Mission is concerned that the entire Department of Safety and Security may ultimately be indistinguishable from another arm of AREVA.";

Strictly applying its well known "best practice" method of “listing its friends and enemies”, by installing “AmCits” (US citizens) and foreign nationals friendly to the US within the IAEA, the US secures its influence into IAEA operations With the "National Humint [= Human Intelligence (espionage) = intelligence gathering by means of interpersonal contact] Collection Directive”, US Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton, requests from the US embassies to spy on the staff of the UN! (Secret diplomatic cable dated 31 July 2009). Excerpts of the "secret/confidential" diplomatic cables of the US Mission in Vienna published by WikiLeaks: "While the UN discourages its officers from discussing staffing issues with their home country representatives, most U.S. citizen staff members are willing, and even eager, to relay internal information on the hiring process and management decision-making." (Unclassified diplomatic cable dated 11 December 2009). "...the position of Director, Division of Nuclear Installation Safety... This position is important to U.S. interests because the Division handles all safety documents and peer review missions for power and research reactors." (Unclassified diplomatic cable dated 11 December 2009). This is how the US goes about it: "The US looks forward to the reign of the new head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, while listing its friends and enemies within the IAEA system, and noting that some enemies seem to be "burrowing in". (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009); Some of the “AmCits”: Mr David Barclay Waller (US diplomats are no longer too fine to take over services as spies! The case of another “AmCit”, Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard, indicates that Mr David Barclay Waller may have passed on the first “National Humint Collection Directive” to all “AmCits” in the IAEA for them to spy on IAEA staff, in 2004, when it was sent out by the US Department of State!): This confirms Assertion No. 6: “1. ...may also confront the next DG with fixed networks of collaboration that resist supervision.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009); “5. Management (MT) - Incumbent David Waller, U.S., in the job since early 1993, recently reaffirmed... he wishes to remain under a new contract. As in analogous positions in the UN system, there is long tradition for the U.S. holding this job, which has potential oversight of all IAEA programs as well as management policies and budgeting. The Management DDG is the Agency's second-in-command, and Waller is usually the Acting DG when ElBaradei travels outside Vienna... The Japanese Mission tells us Japan understands the management DDG to be the "American seat"... [This confirms Assertion No. 2, upper left corner of page 1, on "The Division of Human Resources (MTHR)" and indicates that my suspicion mentioned in paragraph C below could be true!]: In the latter years of the ElBaradei administration, DDG Waller has not always exercised influence over programmatic areas or staffing as the USG had hoped. On staffing, however, the history of top-floor overrides of the Agency's own recruitment process predates the current leadership.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009); “16. Mission enjoys an excellent relationship with U.S. DDG Waller and counts him as an asset. He provides insight into Agency operations [This confirms Assertion No. 3, "it is most likely that he is also a (CIA?) spy" (this is breach of IAEA Staff Regulation 1.06: “...They shall not communicate to any person or government any information known to them by reason of their official position...” = Breach of Confidentiality!)]... [This confirms Assertion No. 2, upper left corner of page 1, on "The Division of Human Resources (MTHR)" and indicates that my suspicion mentioned in paragraph C below could be true!]: Waller has been highly successful in bringing AmCits into positions in his department, though much less so in other departments. In Management the U.S. currently holds two Director positions, one D-1 and one D-2, and five Section Head positions, with a total of 24 AmCits working in the department. The signals from both Waller and DG-designate Amano are that we may rely on Waller remaining in this function for the time being..." (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009); “10. He (Amano) noted that he was comfortable working with the current American incumbent DDG...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009); This confirms Assertion No. 4: “5. ...Amano stressed his pleasure that DDG for Management David Waller had agreed to stay on in his current position. Amano described Waller as "an old friend, an effective manager and a good speaker." (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 16 October 2009); This confirms Assertion No. 4: “7. Amano... plans to keep DDG Management David Waller... in his current position...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 16 October 2009); “14. ...Rautenbach's AmCit deputy, safeguards expert Laura Rockwood, is also likely to stay on.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009). Some of the foreign nationals friendly to the US: Mr Yukiya Amano: This confirms Assertion No. 5: “5. Amano attributed his election to the very strong support he had received from the United States, Australia and France. While Australia was an early proponent, France was instrumental in securing the support of EU Board members with the exception of Spain. Grateful for U.S. efforts, Amano twice cited, in particular, our crucial influence on Argentina's fifth-round abstention...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009); “6. Amano admitted some unease that Japan can only authoritatively identify 10 of the 12 countries that voted for Minty in the first three head-to-head ballots July 2... the two unknown countries... Japan has not been able to... identify the two "betrayals"... they suspect Malaysia and Saudi Arabia...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009); This confirms Assertion No. 5: “20. ...illustrates the very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA. The coming transition period provides a further window for us to shape Amano's thinking...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009); This confirms Assertion No. 5: “...is ‘director general of all states, but in agreement with us’ (the US)” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 16 October 2009); This confirms Assertion No. 5: “2. ...solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 16 October 2009); “4. ...for political considerations, Amano said he would balance visits to the U.S. with trips to South Africa, Egypt and Malaysia.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 16 October 2009); "3. ...Incoming DG Amano appears receptive to U.S. views on the appointment, in part as he recognizes it as part of the process to maximize the IAEA's contribution to meeting President Obama's policy goals in nuclear security.". (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 1 December 2009); "1. The arrival of Director General Amano offers the best chance in a decade to move U.S. representation at the IAEA back up to historic levels...". (Unclassified diplomatic cable dated 11 December 2009). Mr Herman Nackaerts. The Informant (IAEA Staff Regulation 1.06: “...They shall not communicate to any person or government any information known to them by reason of their official position...” = Breach of Confidentiality!). But Mr Herman Nackaerts was promoted from Director of the Division of Operations B (Department of Safeguards) to Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Safeguards: “11. While Operations C Director Nackaerts ‘was not bad’...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009); “1. ...According to Safeguards regional division director Herman Nackaerts, IAEA inspectors' first visit to the enrichment facility under construction near Qom had run predictably but without extraordinary responsiveness on Iran's part; the Secretariat was still trying to understand the motivation to build the plant as now designed. Nackaerts described the frustrating limitations of Iran's cooperation with the Agency... Nackaerts expressed appreciation...” (Secret diplomatic cable dated 2 December 2009); “2. ...On Syria, Nackaerts said...” (Secret diplomatic cable dated 2 December 2009); “6. IAEA Safeguards Department Operations B (AOR Mideast, South Asia, parts of Europe, the Americas, and all nuclear weapons states) Director Herman Nackaerts briefed STAFFDEL on the inspection he had led a few weeks before to the recently disclosed Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near Qom in Iran... Nackaerts said... he said... Nackaerts pointed out... he noted that... Nackaerts said... Nackaerts replied...” (Secret diplomatic cable dated 2 December 2009); “7. ...Nackaerts related... Nackaerts said... Nackaerts went on... Nackaerts concluded... Nackaerts agreed, saying...” (Secret diplomatic cable dated 2 December 2009); “8. ...Nackaerts replied... He went on that understanding the timeline of Fordow's development was hindered by Iran's practice never to involve people who really know the facts or the government's intentions in discussion with the Agency. The officials with whom inspectors meet clearly are "steered" by unseen observers, who send notes to the Iranian interlocutors during meetings. Iran recorded the meetings, he added, but did not permit the IAEA to do so. Nackaerts added...” (Secret diplomatic cable dated 2 December 2009); “9. The Syria case, Nackaerts said... ” (Secret diplomatic cable dated 2 December 2009). “15. ...One significant loss will be that Kwaku Aning of Ghana, who intends to depart the IAEA at the end of 2010. Aning holds the D-2 position as Secretary of the Policy Making Organs (chief interpreters of rules of procedure and the drafters of most chair's or rapporteur's summaries). This is the only D-level position held by a G-77 country.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009). Mr Kwaku Aning was promoted to Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Technical Cooperation! Mr Denis Flory. The new Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security: "1. ...The U.S. must begin lobbying for a candidate as soon as possible in order to ensure the position is filled with an individual from a like-minded country and aligned with U.S. views on nuclear safety issues.". (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 1 December 2009); "2. ...Thus, Nuclear Safety/Security is potentially wide-open for a like-minded candidate who can support U.S. interests.". (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 1 December 2009). Some of the enemies: “13. Tariq Rauf of Canada... Despite his usefulness on this particular issue and in routine scheduling and information exchanges, Rauf is not wholly trustworthy and is viewed as close to Russian interests. Also, he has been an unhelpful presence on Iran. Amano is aware of all this, and Rauf will be significantly weakened by the change in DG.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009); “Amano says he will get rid of a key agency official, Tariq Rauf, who Washington sees as troublesome.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009); “12. Amano underlined that EXPO's Tariq Rauf ‘was out’...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009) Note here that Mr Tariq Rauf is not yet “out”! He should be thankful to Mr Julian Assange, then, ironically, it is now because of WikiLeaks that Mr Yukiya Amano no longer dares to get him out! “11. ...(Comment: Rauf's characterization was flat wrong. Mission had learned from the Safeguards Department three weeks before this meeting that India had officially "notified" two new facilities (Raps 5 and 6) under its 2008 safeguards agreement, that surveillance systems had been installed, and the facilities were under safeguards. End Comment.).“ (Secret diplomatic cable dated 2 December 2009); "14. ...the Director of the Office of Legal Affairs, Johan Rautenbach... involves himself unhelpfully in Agency-internal debates over tactics in the conduct of sensitive safeguards investigations." (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009). Mr Johan Rautenbach left the IAEA! "3. ...For the past 10 years, the Department has suffered tremendously because of DDG Taniguchi,s weak management and leadership skills.". (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 1 December 2009); "3. ...Taniguchi has been unable or disinclined to resolve internal disagreements, has not provided much leadership or direction, has not worked well with the other DDGs, and has not supported the very important work of the Office of Nuclear Security even to the point of diverting limited security funds to safety activities. This attitude has hindered progress that the Department of Safety and Security could have made over the last several years.". (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 1 December 2009); "14. ...we heard from Amano's staff that Amano will give Taniguchi a &golden parachute8 and remove him from the DDG position in December.". (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 1 December 2009) Note here that Mr Tomihiro Taniguchi (former Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security) left the IAEA shortly after Mr Yukiya Amano took office.

Why is it important to know about this story? For the simple reason that it is your money that is being wasted, because: The IAEA is financed with the contributions of the IAEA Member States, that is, with your taxes, and, you have the right to know how your money is spent; Neither, the former Director General (former DG), Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, nor the Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management (DDG-MT), Mr David Barclay Waller, who, with your taxes, are (was for the former DG) earning a lot of money, are (was for the former DG) qualified for their positions. They have neither technical (for example, nuclear engineering), nor scientific (for example, nuclear physics), nor diplomatic, nor management (administration) education. And, with regard to their experience in these fields, only the former DG could claim some diplomatic experience before joining the IAEA, and both can surely claim management experience, although here only in their bad management of the IAEA. They are only lawyers, but in the case of the DDG-MT, most probably not even in international law! As for their diplomatic experience in the IAEA, Ms Condoleezza Rice, the former US Secretary of State, said it clearly: "The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy. The IAEA is a technical agency..." A simple example: the former DG says that nuclear energy is good for the environment because nuclear power stations do not emit any CO2, which is true, but he does not say anything about how nuclear fuel is produced [the situation in the north of Niger (near Akokan, Arlit and Agadez) prove that this is the dirtiest side of the allegedly clean nuclear energy], for example about the enormous amount of environmentally harmful energy needed for this process. The film "YELLOW CAKE - The Dirt Behind Uranium" by Joachim Tschirner (2005 - 2010, 108 Min.) illustrates very well how, with the help of propaganda, disinformation and lies, this truth has been kept hidden to the public. And, more importantly, he does not say anything about the enormous problem with the nuclear waste either, which has not been solved yet. The case of the nuclear waste site in Gorleben in Germany has proved this fact. Until now several nuclear-power states have been throwing their nuclear waste at sea or they have been sending it to Siberia without the IAEA doing anything against. Indeed, not even mentioning it. The consequences of this practice cannot be predictable at present because nuclear waste is extremely dangerous and will be so for many thousands of years. And he does not say anything either about how nuclear power plants are constructed and dismantled after use. For example about the enormous amount of environmentally harmful energy needed for these two processes. These two processes are also lengthy: For building (including the planning) more than 10 years are needed, for dismantling more than 20 years (for comparison, the lifetime of a nuclear power plant is 30 to 40 years). Therefore, it is also clear that they are incredibly expensive. It is obvious that nuclear power plants are not financed solely from the electricity bills. It is the taxpayers who have to pay for these additional costs over many years after the shutdown of the nuclear power plant, without knowing it. This is also the proof that he is lying to the world public! As a consequence of point B above, many of the other high-level IAEA officials, who, with your taxes, are also earning a lot of money, are also not qualified for their positions. This is the case with Mr Manfred Boemeke and was definitely the case with Mr Magnus Olafsson, whose appointment, in spite of this fact, was extended several times. Therefore, the question arising here is, did he have to pay to the DDG-MT, or to the former DG, or to both for his appointment? And, if yes, how many other IAEA officials had to pay to the DDG-MT, or to the former DG, or to both for their appointments? As a consequence of points B and C above, much of the work of the IAEA is useless, wasteful and tainted by corruption. For example, I myself have witnessed how trucks full of (IAEA published) books to be thrown away because they are not sold, leave the premises every year. Also, the commissary (the duty-free shop for its staff members) is worth mentioning here. At least at the time when I worked there from 1988 to 1990 (still a student) and was in charge of the statistics, I could see how every year some 300.000 to 500.000 Austrian Schillings (some € 22.000 to € 36.000) worth of merchandise was stolen [in particular, French Champagnes, wines and perfumes, and cigarettes (Marlboro and Dunhill)], most of it by staff of the commissary and at delivery, that is, before the merchandise entered the shop. As I well recall, I always wondered why there were no investigations on these losses (the reader will quickly understand why). Instead, these losses were recovered by increasing the prices of all items the year after! Also as a consequence of points B and C above, there is nepotism at the IAEA, which results in that many IAEA staff members do little or nothing at all, but, with your taxes, are not only earning a lot of money, but are even promoted with the credit of the work of those staff members who really work. And, apart from a few exceptions, the staff members who really work are those with short term (of some days, weeks or months) appointments, the TA (Temporary Assistance)s, representing 15 % to 20 % of all staff members. These TAs are recruited mostly to carry out tasks that fixed term staff members (those with fixed long-term appointments) cannot or do not wish to carry out, but these fixed term staff members are those who decide on the extension of the appointments of the TAs. As a result, there are many fixed term staff members, who do little or nothing at all (like Ms X, Mr Raymond Nader and Mr Markus Lané) and, if anything, then only give orders to the TAs [one of the four specialties of Ms X, the other three being writing job descriptions, performance review reports and secret Email-reports full of lies to the IAEA Management against her colleagues]. And, not to forget to mention here that the credit of the work of the TAs goes, of course and without the TAs’ knowledge (thanks to the confidentiality), to the fixed term staff members who command them (this is very much the case in the six translation sections with the temporary translators who are appointed and very well paid for some days or weeks, time during which some of the respective section heads who appoint them, do little or nothing themselves, but officially register the translations produced by the temporary translators as their own work), who remain as real slaves all the time, some of them for many years (5 to 10!), this time depending on how good slaves they are! Assertion No. 6: The former DG and the DDG-MT, who, managing the IAEA as if it was their private enterprise, spend more than half of their working time hiding their lack of qualifications ["Carlson commented that ElBaradei was a very bad manager and morale throughout the IAEA staff was 'appalling.'" (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 18 February 2005, WikiLeaks)] and the resulting misdoings and attacking those who discover them. And they have many staff members working full-time for this purpose and, with your taxes, earning a lot of money. The Special Assistant to the Director General for Management, Mr Johan Rautenbach together with all the staff of the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), Mr Tijani Chaouch Bouraoui together with all the staff of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Ms Gabriele Fouchard (Grade P-4, reportedly without university degree!), Ms Eva-Maria Moosbrugger (Grade P-4, reportedly without university degree!), Mr Douglas John Northey, Ms Angela Jackson, Ms Cynthia Valenzuela, Ms Catherine Monzel [“AmCit”! "Management is always right!", "Mission meets at least monthly with the IAEA's Head of Recruitment to discuss the status of U.S. candidate applications and to exchange ideas about U.S. chances for specific positions." (Unclassified diplomatic cable dated 11 December 2009)], Ms Naomi Bichler-Bell (the very first having learnt about this Story in 2004, she immediately reported it to Mr Verasak Liengsririwat, a very probably reason for her promotion to grade P-4. With regard to the three phrases a, b and c mentioned in paragraph 16 below, this is what she reportedly said sometime in 2005 or 2006: "Everything José said is true!") and Mr Austin McGill are definitely only some of a long list of them.

Indeed, the DDG-MT has had 19 years-time to cover the whole IAEA with the "System Waller", which consists of a dense network of greediness, dependencies, despotism, nepotism and conformism. Those who played along could greatly benefit. Those who resisted Waller were humiliated, threatened, often also under obscure circumstances dragged before the judge [or rather the judges: Joint Appeals Board (JAB), Joint Disciplinary Board (JDB), etc.]. Many have benefited of the said “System Waller”, including low grade staff members, who could receive personally from the management’s hand merit awards, merit promotions and extensions of appointment.

This story extensively proves this fact. And, all the staff members mentioned in this paragraph, together with many other mentioned in this page, are of course, not subject to the IAEA’s rotation policy, which states that appointments for professional staff can be extended up to a maximum of seven years, regardless of the performance of the incumbents. But, according to the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG), “instead of instituting effective performance evaluation, the rotation policy has been used for the purpose of removing poor performing staff from the IAEA payroll.” This assertion by the BoG not only contradicts the official rotation policy and confirms that the Management of the IAEA lies to its staff, but is also wrong, because there are many professional staff members in the IAEA, including several of them mentioned in this page (firstly and most notably Mr David Barclay Waller, but also Ms X and Mr Manfred Boemeke), who are not subject to the rotation policy although they are “poor performing”. This means that the IAEA Management applies this policy arbitrarily and that, in the IAEA, it is not the “highest degree of excellence” that counts, but other criteria like “good relationships”! Therefore, Mr Douglas John Northey’s answer to the BoG about the benefits of the IAEA’s rotation policy is wrong: “...the long term retention of those with the highest degree of excellence”; As a consequence of points B to F above, the results of the work of the IAEA are poor. This fact has even been recognized in several occasions by the former DG himself, but the reason he gave for this was the lack of funds. And, it is well known that the former DG kept asking the IAEA Member States for more money; The fact is that the IAEA has only a history of inability. All it does is: conduct endless investigations, while explaining all the time that more information is needed; ask all the time to let the Organization do its job; and don’t say anything when it is discovered that in something it didn’t do its job. The question arising from point H above is: why do the IAEA Member States tolerate such a situation? The reason for this is simple: the countries having the say in the IAEA are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the USA, the UK, the Russian Federation, China and France), which are also the five permanent members of the IAEA Board of Governors and the only with the right to veto. These countries are at the same time the five declared nuclear-weapon states, whose paramount interest is to keep their supremacy in nuclear weapons in the world. And they have an instrument for this purpose: the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970 and which establishes a safeguards system (used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections, but of course, only in non-nuclear-weapon states) under the responsibility of only one Organization, the IAEA. In accordance to the paramount interest of the five declared nuclear-weapon states, this Treaty allows these five states to keep their nuclear weapons for nuclear deterrence... with a view of “gradually” reducing them (without giving a time frame for this), while impeding other states to acquire them. And the truth here is that the “intention” of “gradually” reducing their nuclear-weapons has been the same intention since 40 years and will continue to be only an intention forever. This fact has been demonstrated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who recently said that he would not renounce the nuclear weapon "guarantor of the security" of France. The former DG has also recognized this: "...it is becoming increasingly difficult to call on non-nuclear-weapon states to renounce such weapons in perpetuity and accept new measures to strengthen non-proliferation if nuclear-weapon states continue to modernise their nuclear arsenals and almost glorify them. A case in point is NATO's current Strategic Concept, which says the purpose of the Alliance's nuclear weapons is 'to preserve peace and prevent coercion and any kind of war.' NATO's strategic nuclear forces are 'the supreme guarantee' of the security of the Allies since 'conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence' " (The DG's Statement to the IAEA General Conference in September 2009). Exactly this fact will be fatal to the IAEA, because it will be the reason for the end of its existence most likely already in a few years time. The nuclear deterrence of these five states is logically directed against each other and they do not and will never trust each other! Neither France, nor the Russian Federation, nor China will want to experience again an invasion like the one they suffered during World War II. The sad reality here is that, once in the world, nuclear weapons will stay and definitely only proliferate. Not even US President Barack Obama, who has recently declared in Prague that he wants a nuclear-weapons-free world, will be able to free the world from such weapons. For this reason, this is the most important matter in the IAEA and any other matter has no much importance. And the proofs for this are the facts that: That the NPT-verification (safeguards) system takes up 60 % of the IAEA’s regular budget (of about € 260 million) while only 40 % (about € 100 million) are dedicated to the "other tasks” of the IAEA [nuclear applications in medicine and agriculture, nuclear energy and nuclear safety and security (technical cooperation depends mostly on voluntary contributions)] ...in its some 150 Member states (although most of these € 100 million are used to pay for the staff), the great majority of which, like Mexico, do not need nuclear energy at all as they have several other sources of energy, for example, a lot of sun energy, and furthermore, they have too many other extremely urgent problems to solve, like poverty and hunger; Only the five declared nuclear-weapon states pay more than 50 % of the IAEA’s regular budget. And because they have the right to a number of professional posts in proportion to their contribution to the IAEA’s regular budget, more than 50 % of the (higher level) professional staff members in the IAEA come only from these five countries, which, together with their right to veto, have so the Organization in their hands. The other less than 50 % of the IAEA’s regular budget is paid by the other some 145 Member states (although it is said that only 17 of them pay their contributions regularly and completely). Under these circumstances, these "other tasks” of the IAEA are no more than “covert-tasks”, which are there to give the impression (to the other Member States) that the IAEA is not there only for NPT-verification (these are the proofs here for). This makes of the IAEA a lie in itself, a fact well known by many other IAEA Member States (a very probable reason why they do not pay their contributions regularly) and by the IAEA’s Management as well, which does not hesitate in taking advantage of. That is the reason why the IAEA Member States (or better to say, the five permanent members of the IAEA Board of Governors) tolerate such a situation within the Organization. For the same reason and in order to keep all other states within the NPT-regime, it is not in the interest of the five declared nuclear-weapon states to uncover any matter, like this Story, discrediting the IAEA. For the USA and the UK the IAEA, as the UN Security Council, is no more than a useful and very cheap [for the USA the IAEA costs only about € 60 million every year, which is about half the price of one American F-35 stealth fighter jet (which costs about € 100 million)] instrument for justifying their wars. For France, the Russian Federation and China it is very important to be in the IAEA (and in the UN Security Council), because only they (with their right to veto) can stop the USA and the UK to do what they want. The degree of desperation of the five declared nuclear-weapon states of keeping all other states within the NPT-regime, has been seen with Iraq and can now be seen with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with the Islamic Republic of Iran and with the new US nuclear weapons strategy, by which the USA for the first time explicitly commits not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states that are in compliance with the NPT. Exceptions are “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that would have violated or renounced the NPT. This is equivalent to a direct threat: “You do not comply with the NPT, so can you expect that I use my nuclear weapons against you.” One should remember that, at the beginning, the signing of the NPT was voluntary. Now it is evident that, once inside, never out! This means that the states which have signed the NPT were actually fooled (it is clear that it is the USA that orchestrated the signing of the NPT and this is how they did it: for the other four declared nuclear-weapon states it was clearly in their interest, some of the other states signed it out of ignorance of their leaders and the other states whose leaders realized what was at stake resisted the signing at first but did it at the end through checkbook-diplomacy). This was particularly the case of Brazil and South Africa, which with good faith, abandoned their nuclear weapons programs. This is an almost "every day issue" in the news headlines, something Mr Mohamed ElBaradei was very enthusiastic of, as he loved appearing on TV and give the impression that he had something to say, when he perfectly knew that he had absolutely nothing to say ["The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy (Ms Condoleezza Rice, former US Secretary of State)."]. It is the five permanent members of the UN Security Council who make the decisions. These five declared nuclear-weapon states do not want to see any other nuclear-weapon State like Pakistan, India and Israel, outside the NPT-regime. This may well be the reason why the IAEA is called "the UN nuclear watchdog" by the international press. In reality it is "the nuclear watchdog of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council". It is quickly forgotten, that after the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles should provide the conditions for a lasting peace, and thus prevent another world war, that however, this Treaty caused exactly the contrary, as it was the reason for the Second World War! As the Treaty of Versailles, the establishment (by the U.S.) of the UN Security Council and of the State of Israel, and the NPT (incidentally, also by the U.S.), should also provide the conditions for a lasting peace after the Second World War, and to prevent a third world war. And exactly the contrary will happen again, as they are founded on the basis of injustice and lies and have therefore already caused several wars, they will also be the reason for the Third World War. By reason of point F above, the IAEA’s Management has attempted several times to destroy this Website!!! The IAEA’s Management has been very busy writing many letters to Permanent Missions of IAEA Member States, to the Austrian Foreign Ministry, to the Austrian Police, to the press, etc., most probably even to Google and to my provider... and, as it has been reported to me, they have one or two staff members {one of them was (in the meantime he has left the IAEA) Mr Massimiliano Falcinelli [Systems Services Section, Division of Information Technology (MTIT)], who used to inform Management by Email (with messages like "read on wed") and has now been replaced by Mr Minori Hara [Japan. Head, Open Systems and Security Unit (MTIT)]} checking every day every change I make (to see if they find something that they could use against me)! “IAEA Personnel Office reviewed the documents published by Mr. M.R. and made a research if any troublesome and alarming message would be found" (Appendix 124). A typical working day of an average IAEA (mostly G-) staff member with a fixed-term appointment starts by checking in (= the official start of his/her working time) between 8:30 and 9:00 and go directly to the Cafeteria, where he/she has his/her breakfast during some 30 minutes, mostly with other staff members. At 10:00 or 10:30 he/she has his/her coffee for 30 to 40 minutes, also mostly with the other staff members of his/her Unit/Section. From 12:00 to 14:00 he/she has his/her lunch. Officially the lunch-time is only one hour to be taken between 12:00 to 14:00, but most staff members in all categories take the two hours with no one saying anything about it. Between 15:00 and 16:00 he/she has his/her coffee and/or goes to the Commissary (the duty-free shop) to do his/her shopping for 30 to 40 minutes. Between 17:00 and 17:30 he/she checks out (= the official end of his/her working time). Although the Austrians have a similar working day, the difference with them is that they start their working day at 7:30 and end it at 16:30 (as there is flexible working time, meaning that a staff member can start anytime from 7:30 to 9:40 and end anytime from 16:00 to 19:30 in winter-time). If we take an example during the winter-time, when the working day lasts 8 hours (in summer-time it lasts 30 minutes less), then, if the staff member started at 8:30, he/she would finish at 17:30 taking the official one-hour lunch-time into account. In reality, however, taking also into account private telephone calls and Emails, the average effective working time (during the winter-time) of a (mostly G-) staff member with a fixed-term appointment in the IAEA is only between 4 and 5 hours, with some extreme exceptions of staff members doing close to nothing at all (this was, or still is, most notably the case with Mr Raymond Nader, who spent, or still spends, much of his working time outside the IAEA Headquarters, and who, for this reason, was denounced to the Head of the Service Administration Unit, Division of Human Resources, at that time Ms Cynthia Valenzuela, whose response was: "There is nothing we can do about it!" Or like a former secretary of the French Translation Section who used to read the French magazine “Paris Match” the whole day for over 15 years; or a Mexican staff member working in the INIS Section who used to play chess with a computer the whole day while from time to time producing microfiches of publications; or some staff members in the Publishing Section whose offices are always closed and no one knows what they do). Little can be said about higher-grade staff members (Grade P-5 and above) as their offices are always closed when they are in their offices (they are often in duty travel). Exceptions to this privilege are TAs (staff on "Temporary Assistance") and “the internal enemies” of the IAEA’s Management. The TAs, because they are the slaves of the staff members with fixed-term appointments and the “the internal enemies”, because the IAEA’s Management uses this (among other things) against them.

Headlines: The Flagrant Evidence of the Widespread Corruption, of Abuse of Power, of Arbitrary Rule, of Deliberate Lies, of Violations of Human Rights and of Violations of the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Rules by the IAEA’s Management: First part (dated 25 January 2009) Second part (dated 20 June 2009) Third part (last updated on 28 May 2008) The Culture of Lie at the IAEA And they continue to lie... More lies in writing by Mr Mohamed ElBaradei and Mr David Barclay Waller will be published here later. Mr Mohamed ElBaradei's Fundamental and Deliberate Lie In line with Ms Condoleezza Rice (the former US Secretary of State)’s statement that "the IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy”, Iran is supposed to talk about its nuclear program only with the “Group of Six”: the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the USA, the UK, the Russian Federation, China and France) and Germany. Isn’t it then strange that: Iran wants to talk about its nuclear program only with the IAEA, not with the “Group of Six”; and Mr Mohamed ElBaradei has been accused by Israel and France of holding back important information on Iran's nuclear program? "Dr Mohamed ElBaradei" has become “Director General Emeritus of the International Atomic Energy Agency” because of "his distinguished and successful tenure as Director General"! The Most Important Secret of the IAEA's Management The ultimate evidence of the administrative conspiracy in this story (Appendix 113) The IAEA recognizes its "internal" corruption! "...fraud and corruption emanating from within and outside the IAEA..." (Fifth point of "Functions / Key Results Expected" of IAEA Vacancy Notice No. 2008/060) The Construction of the “M Building" The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) The Official Lies of the ILOAT Mr Yukiya Amano has asked all Deputy Directors General to leave, (there are six) except one (Assertion No. 4), the Head of the Department of Management, Mr David Barclay Waller, to whom he further extended his appointment, although Mr Amano perfectly knows that it is he the source of most of the corruption in the Organization. This is, of course, very good news for Ms X and for Ms Gabriele Fouchard! My First Achievements (this list is getting ever longer!): The former Director of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Mr Ibrahim Ali Zeekeh, had to leave the IAEA in 2005 after his first three-year appointment reportedly because he did not want to remove this statement from the OIOS Final Investigation Report: "After reviewing the facts of the case, OIOS could not substantiate the alleged 'prima facie' used by the Agency to support the immediate suspension of Mr. M.R." (Paragraph f of page 43 of Appendix 4); The former Director of the Division of Personnel, Ms Unni Vennemoe, had to leave the IAEA in 2006, after her first three-year appointment reportedly because she did not manage to talk to me ("All this is your fault!" This is what Mr David Barclay Waller reportedly said to her); The former Director of the Division of Conference and Document Services, Mr Magnus Olafsson, had to leave the IAEA on 25 July 2008, although his appointment was until 31 August 2009! The Special Assistant to the DG for Management, Mr Verasak Liengsririwat, left the IAEA on 12 November 2008! The Head of the Service Administration Unit, Division of Human Resources, Ms Cynthia Valenzuela, left the IAEA on 31 March 2010! The Director of the Office of Legal Affairs (DIR-OLA), Mr Johan Rautenbach, left the IAEA on 17 January 2011! The Director of the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology, Mr Hans Gunnar Forsström, member of the Joint Disciplinary Board (one of the two pseudo-tribunals of the IAEA), is leaving the IAEA! The former Head of the General Legal Section, Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), Mr Simon Hannaford, in the witness' case before the ILOAT responsible for no less than 207 "IAEA official lies" (which will be published here soon), left the IAEA sometime in 2011 and is now Director of the Legal Support Office at the United Nations Development Programme in New York! The Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management (DDG-MT), the problem no. 1 of the IAEA, Mr David Barclay Waller, left the IAEA on 22 December 2011, “silently and unnoticed”, as it is said, and “through the back door” like a thief, meaning here that there was no (at least not official) farewell-party, no official good-by, etc. ... For someone who had been (successfully!) in the most powerful position in the IAEA for 19 years? This is no good news for Ms Gabriele Fouchard, for Ms Eva-Maria Moosbrugger, for Ms X and for many other staff members mentioned in this page! It is said that he was hospitalized when he heard about his departure, on the first day of the meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors just before the IAEA General Conference in September 2011. The new DDG-MT now is Ms Janice Dunn Lee. Obviously a concession from the US Government that there are problems related to having a "playboy" in such a powerful position... Ms X will have to leave the IAEA very soon because her "protector", Mr David Barclay Waller has left the IAEA! The Head of the Staff Administration Section, Division of Human Resources (MTHR), Ms Angela Jackson, left the IAEA on 30 November 2011; The Head of the Publishing Section, Division of Conference and Document Services (MTCD), Mr Manfred Boemeke, will leave the IAEA soon; The Administrative Officer of the Department of Management, Ms Gabriele Fouchard, the problem no. 2 of the IAEA as she used to do (in the background!) her boss's (the DDG-MT) dirty work (like: mobbing on command, and transmitting Mr David Barclay Waller's so-called "final decisions" to the two "Pseudo-Tribunals" of the IAEA and to the Director of the Division of Human Resources, DIR-MTHR)). She joined the IAEA 35 years ago at G-level and since many years holds, thanks to Mr David Barclay Waller, Grade P-4 without a university degree! It is said that there were very few high ranking officials in the IAEA, including the DDG-MT and the DG, who were not afraid of her. The First Secretary of the Mexican Embassy in Austria, Mr Rubén Inocente Fuentes Sánchez, was transferred some two years ago with the same grade to the Mexican Embassy in Peru; The Head of the Non-Proliferation and Policy-Making Section (Office of Legal Affairs (OLA)), Ms Laura Rockwood, will leave the IAEA in 2013.

Introduction: 1. This story is about widespread corruption, mismanagement, abuse of power and arbitrary rule, deliberate lies, violations of human rights and violations of the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules by the IAEA’s Management (in the IAEA, only the IAEA’s Management can violate the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules at will... and decide who else can do this as well!) and nepotism (godfatherism). With the IAEA’s Management I mean in this story only three persons: the former Director General, Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, the former Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management, Mr David Barclay Waller and the former Special Assistant to the Director General for Management, Mr Verasak Liengsririwat. 2. This story is firstly my personal story. But it is also a story of the world public, because it is about an international Organisation that exists of the money of the contributions (of the tax payers) of the IAEA Member States {at present amounting to approximately $ 490 million [$ 390 million (of the regular budget) and about $ 100 million (of voluntary contributions from member states)], which is about € 370 million}. Furthermore, this story took place at the same time the IAEA and its Director General at that time, Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 3. In addition, this story is not only my personal story because it is in every sense only the tip of the iceberg: the story’s specific case of abuse of power, arbitrary rule, deliberate lies, violations of human rights and violations of the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, and the other cases of corruption and nepotism mentioned here are not at all single cases. This story is also partly or completely [depending on how far the respective staff member went through (endured) the process lasting for years and outlined in this story] the story of many IAEA staff members, who did not have either the possibility, or the courage, or the strength to tell it to the public. 4. Lastly, this story uncovers a clever system of oppression and intimidation implemented by the IAEA’s Management since many years to cover up its errors and its corrupted and criminal doings. In addition to the fact that most of the problems within the Organization are created by the IAEA’s Management itself due to their lack of qualifications for their positions, the IAEA’s Management is also the source of most of the corruption as it has absolute power. It is therefore their utmost interest to hide at all cost both, the problems and the corruption they themselves produce. Ideally, in such an organization the management is expected to establish procedures (like that for reported misconduct) and policies (like that for whistleblowers) to solve problems and to fight corruption. In the IAEA however, the Management did establish such procedures and policies, but with the only objective of identifying reporters (of problems, or of misconduct) and whistleblowers for reducing them to silence and/or attacking them [for example, by accusing them of whatever even without any evidence (for which case the IAEA’s Management uses the word “founded”) and forcing them into a Kafkaesque (endless) process, the only way out of which being for the (as from now) accused abandoning the case!] if necessary (in case they resist), without leaving any trace (meaning here without anyone else knowing about it) thanks to their most important instrument, the confidentiality. The IAEA’s Management has even reinforced such procedures with the recent implementation of the “Reverse Appraisal Report” by which a staff member “is able” to evaluate his/her direct supervisors’ "skills and qualities". Before, only the supervisors were able to evaluate the performance of their staff through the “Performance Review Reports”. But yet again here, instead of evaluating supervisors’ "skills and qualities", the only objective of these “Reverse Appraisal Reports” is the same as that of the procedures and policies mentioned in this paragraph: Identifying staff complaining about their supervisors for reducing them to silence and/or attacking them. "You should immediately remove this!" is what Mr Anthony Watson (a "Staff Representative") keeps saying staff members who write against their supervisors, although he is not supposed to know what they write in such reports as these are "confidential"! A staff member reporting misconduct, or some other problem, or corruption is lost from the start regardless of whether he presented valid evidence [in which case the IAEA’s Management has a magic word: “unfounded” (this can be seen in many of the judgments of the ILOAT)] or no valid evidence (in which case the report is anyway “unfounded”). This is how the IAEA’s Management cleans up the Organization of reporters (of problems, or of misconduct) and of whistleblowers and, at the same time, it gives the good impression to the Member States that it has taken measures to solve problems and to fight corruption. About the author: 5. I graduated in Physics (MSc in Nuclear Physics) at the University of Vienna, have worked many years at the IAEA where I also wrote my thesis and hold the Austrian and Mexican nationalities. The story in summary: 6. This story began in 2003 in the Division of Conference and Document Services (MTCD) with (...) the Division’s Director, Mr Magnus Olafsson and the Division’s Administrative Assistant (AA) (...). 7. This fact was not unperceived by the IAEA’s Management and by other staff members, most of whom preferred not to talk about it. Some of those staff members, however, did not hesitate in taking advantage of. This was the case of Mr Raymond Nader, who, by letting know the IAEA’s Management that he knew about it (and most probably even had proofs of it), managed to have a promotion from grade G-5 to grade G-6. 8. But it was as Mr Raymond Nader, only a few months after his first promotion, wanted to have another promotion, this time from grade G-6 to grade P-3, that I became involved in the affair, as Mr Raymond Nader did not fulfilled the qualifications required for this second promotion and Mr Magnus Olafsson and Ms X, the staff members responsible for organizing these promotions, just thought that they could take my qualifications for Mr Raymond Nader’s second promotion, which itself, would make possible his direct supervisor (Ms Corinne Foote)’s promotion from grade P-4 to grade P-5. This was done by transferring me to the Conference Services Section and having Mr Raymond Nader “coordinate my work” there, whereby my complete work left in the Publishing Section should make possible Mr Markus Lané’s promotion from grade G-5 to grade G-6. At the end, with my qualifications, three staff members should get promotions, not me. Noteworthy is what Indira Gandhi had said in this regard: "There are two kinds of people, those who do the work, and those who take the credit of it. Try to be of the first group. There is less competition."

Mr Magnus Olafsson “...he (meaning the author of this page) does not provide a jot of evidence...!” “I have time only for X and Raymond!” Mr Magnus Olafsson: With grade of "Director" first at the IAEA, now at the UN, in both cases without competition, without university degree and without qualifications! In the summer of 2006, he reportedly took holidays (from 4 to 20 August), when Ms X was in the hospital (where Mr Olafsson reportedly was also seen several times). “The allegation that Ms X owes her achievements to (...) and not to merits is, of course, something that will be on the agenda again, and so will be your decision to highlight this and disseminate.” (2nd Paragraph of page 16 of Appendix 4). “No, I don’t have an intimate relationship with that woman. I have only an intimate relation with my wife.” (7th Paragraph of page 16 of Appendix 4). “Mr. Olafsson became very angry and hit the table with his fist and said then: I apologize for having lost my temper, but this is a serious allegation that hurts a lot. I am married to a very special woman and I love her very much. I have not had intimate relationship with any other woman, or man for that matter, during the nearly 20 years that I have known her.” (Last paragraph of page 16 of Appendix 4). “During the last four years I have not been able to do my job because of 'this case'” (meaning this story). This is what Mr Magnus Olafsson reportedly said before he left for New York in July 2008, during his "farewell-party", which was organized by Ms Rosa Kim [MTCD(Division of Conference and Document Services)'s Administrative Assistant], to which only MTCD's Section Heads were invited! Not surprisingly! Below is a list of (only) "some" of the documents he wrote during the first of these "four years". The date and number of pages are there to give an idea of how much “working time” Mr Magnus Olafsson spent on these documents. Not included in the list below are those documents he wrote in connection with his own complaint to the ILOAT (Judgment No. 2752). With this, Mr Magnus Olafsson seems to have spent his last four years at the IAEA in justifying what he did during his first four years! But, Mr Magnus Olafsson did not write all this alone! He did it together with Ms X. And, it was his secretary, Ms Angela Peake-Herzog, with English as mother tongue, who edited all these pages as they are written in "perfect" English. Moreover, as it is known to me, Mr Magnus Olafsson was assisted in this process by Mr Johan Rautenbach, at that time Director of the Office of Legal Affairs. In addition to the many meetings Mr Magnus Olafsson has conducted in relation to this story [“...there were 9 meetings (each of one hour or longer!) held with Mr. M.R. to discuss his possible transfer...” (first paragraph of page 19 of Appendix 4)], it is easily deduced that as Director (Grade D-1) of a Division of some 160 staff members, Mr Magnus Olafsson seems to have had nothing else to do (which, together with the fact that his position was vacant for one and-a-half years after he left in July 2008, confirms what Mr John Bolton said: “It wouldn't make a ‘bit of difference’...” meaning, higher level positions such as Directors and above are superfluous). THE DOCUMENTS BELOW (all copied, of course, to Mr David Barclay Waller, to Mr Johan Rautenbach and to Mr Verasak Liengsririwat) DEMONSTRATE THAT MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON IS A LIAR AND “A MASTER OF TWISTING FACTS AND OF FABRICATIONS”. THESE DOCUMENTS ALSO PROVE THAT THE EVENTS CONCERNING THE AUTHOR OF THIS WEB SITE AND LISTED BELOW, WHICH TOOK PLACE AT THE IAEA, WERE DELIBERATE AND PREPROGRAMMED, AND THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE IAEA HAS FULFILLED ALL OF MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON’S WISHES IN THIS REGARD. THERE MUST BE A GOOD REASON FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE IAEA TO HAVE ACTED THIS WAY, AND MANY STAFF MEMBERS THINK THAT THIS REASON IS THE M BUILDING. THESE DOCUMENTS ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE IAEA ADMITS TO HAVE MADE A MISTAKE WITH THE SUSPENSION, WHICH IT DOES NOT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE (In parts I to XII here below, where no otherwise indicated, the document cited is Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). I. FIRST, THE AUTHOR OF THIS WEB SITE FILED AN INTERNAL COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON (PROVIDING REAL PROVES); II. BETRAYING THE AUTHOR OF THIS WEB SITE (APPENDIX 26), THE STAFF COUNCIL IMMEDIATELY INFORMED MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON ABOUT IT: “There is evidence that Mr. Olafsson was made aware of Mr. M. R.’s filing of a complaint of misconduct through 'corridor talk' as he himself stated during the interview with OIOS” (“I think it was Mike who told me that José was filing a complaint against Manfred, but he did not mention my name.”). Paragraph d of page 43 of Appendix 4; “...Ms Villard confirmed during the same interview that she informed the President of Staff Council, Mr. Donoho, that Mr. M. R. was going to submit a complaint to DIR-MTPR against Mr. Olafsson.” (Fifth paragraph of page 19 of Appendix 4). “José showed me the complaint after he had sent it. We all knew at the same time.” (Sixth paragraph of page 19 of Appendix 4). And, it was in my presence on 10 November 2004 that Ms Villard called the President of the SC (Mr Donoho) to inform him about it! Mr Donoho said that he didn’t know about it (meaning: Ms Villard hadn’t told him). Mr Donoho said that he could not have said something to DIR-MTCD that he didn’t know. III. AS A RESULT, A WEEK LATER, MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON FILED AN INTERNAL COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST THE AUTHOR OF THIS WEB SITE REQUESTING HIS SUSPENSION AND ALLEGING {AVOIDING SO TO BE HIMSELF ACCUSED OF RETALIATION, WHICH IS AGAINST THE POLICY OUTLINED IN SEC/NOT/1922 (PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 OF APPENDIX 57) AND IN VIOLATION OF STAFF RULE 11.01.1 (B) (6) [MISCONDUCT]} THAT HE HAD NOT KNOWN ABOUT THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM FILED A WEEK EARLIER; IV. FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND SINCE MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON DID NOT HAVE ANY PROVE TO PROVIDE, HE REQUESTED THE STAFF MEMBERS OF HIS DIVISION TO WRITE E-MAIL REPORTS OF THREATS: “...Mr. Olafsson confirmed to OIOS that the allegations (of threats) were reported to him verbally and that he requested the staff members of his Division to have them presented to him in writing.” (“OIOS Comments on Allegation No. 25”, paragraph 44, page 38 of Appendix 4); “...staff members in shock informed me about the events, and I asked them to report these serious threats against them to me in writing.” (Paragraph 41, page 7 of Annex 1 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); V. THE TIMING OF THE SUSPENSION (CHRISTMAS): “The Director (Mr Magnus Olafsson) had received two reports of threats made by him against Ms X (May) and Ms Foote (June), but during the late autumn the flood came in: 13 October (Mr Lane), 28 October (Ms Peake Herzog), 15 November (Mr Nader), 17 November (Ms X) and 17 November (Mr Giller). When the email where Mr H. Giller reports a threat against Mr M. Boemeke arrived, it was decided that this could not wait any longer. This email specified the timing of the threat (Christmas) and the case law is clear: 'an international organisation is liable for the injury a staff member may cause in the performance of duty, and that includes injury to other members of staff'.” (Paragraph 49, page 12); “Six respected staff members from four different Sections, and with unblemished staff records, had reported in writing seven threats made by Mr M. R. When an email was received where Mr M. R. timed a threat (Christmas) against another staff member, it was decided to request his suspension from the VIC (Vienna International Centre, the IAEA Headquarters) in order to protect the staff of the Agency and the Agency itself.” (Paragraph 53, page 13); VI. THE TRIGGER OF THE SUSPENSION: “Working in fear of another staff member should not be acceptable in this or any other working place.” [Last paragraph of Appendix 32 and last paragraph of Mr Magnus Olafsson's IOM dated 18 November 2004 (Appendix 55)]; VII. MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON RECOGNIZES THAT THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEDGED THREATS (which means that the suspension was illegal): “...the explicit and implicit threats he made against six staff members... they are not on paper, but delivered orally on a one-to-one basis, so they are more difficult to prove in absolute terms. However, given the unblemished records of the six staff members and given the documented pattern of behaviour of Mr M.R. towards his colleagues, it is easy to conclude that the threats took place as reported by the six staff members. The balance of probability is, therefore, after weighing all the evidence, that the allegations of threats are true.” (Paragraph 63 e, page 17); “...the Agency has to respect the fact that hard evidence of thefts and threats are not available...” (Paragraph 78, page 22); “...he believes he can threaten others on a one-to-one basis, because there are no witnesses...” (Paragraph 79, page 22); But: “...there is written evidence of verbal abuse by Mr M. R. against his colleagues in MTCD..." [And Mr Olafsson omits here the rest of this phrase: "...there is no reliable evidence from independent sources to confirm the alleged death threats."! (Paragraph 47 e, page 43 of Appendix 4)] ...OIOS had verified 'that Mr M. R. resorted to verbal abuse against his colleagues... [Again, Mr Olafsson omits here the rest of this phrase: "...but could not confirm that the alleged death threats were explicitly made."! (Paragraph 6, page 38 of Appendix 4)] ...the Final Report states that Mr M. R. had '...resorted to addressing threats against her (Ms Foote)' ” (Paragraph 8, page 3 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). VIII. NEVERTHELESS, ACCORDING TO MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON, THE SUSPENSION SHOULD BE EXTENDED... TO FINISH THE CASE: “The Agency has now been without the services of Mr M. R. for six months... While it was not expected that the whole case would take more than three months, the natural course of justice indicates that additional six months from now on would be needed to finish the case...” (Paragraph 76, page 21); IX. IN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON, HE (the author of this website) IS NOT FIT FOR EMPLOYMENT IN AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION: “This action alone is serious misconduct and should not be tolerated lightly in any international organization when it comes to the decision of judging if a staff member is fit for employment in that organization. (Paragraph 59, page 15); “This alone gives a sufficient reason to question if Mr M. R. is fit for employment in an international organization.” (Paragraph 63 f, page 18); “It is clear to all of us... that Mr M. R. is not fit for employment in an international organization... This lack of injury of Mr M. R...” (Paragraph 65, page 18); “It is clear that such a person is not fit for employment in the Agency.” (Paragraph 74, page 20); “...is clearly not fit to work for that organization...” (Paragraph 75, page 21); “Should management decide that he is not fit for employment in the Agency... There are three legal issues at stake; issues that have to be considered to form the foundation of any such decision: the lack of injury, considerations of freedom of speech and considerations of bad faith. These considerations are of importance because the decision to terminate his contractual relationship with the Agency must be given in writing...” (Paragraph 66, page 18); X. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO MR MAGNUS OLAFSSON, HE (the author of this website) SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY AND SUMMARILY DISMISSED FOR SERIOUS MISCONDUCT: “...if the termination of contractual relationship should take place without referring the case to the JDB. ...someone who steals from his organization, threatens to kill his colleagues and accuses them of dishonest acts, unfoundedly and without any evidence...” (Paragraph 75, page 21); “In short, the conception of serious misconduct was introduced to deal with acts obviously incompatible with continued membership of the staff... and where the interest of the service requires immediate and final dismissal. ...” (Paragraph 76, page 21); “...the Agency making clear that on both accounts it considers his actions to be serious misconduct. ...We should give him that chance to defend himself before a decision is taken regarding his continued membership. Having given him this opportunity, and assuming that nothing new tums up, Mr M. R. can be dismissed for serious misconduct. The Tribunal itself will not question the decision of such an immediate termination of his contract; it will only question the way in which it was done and the facts on which it was based, and that the rights of Mr M. R. to be heard have been respected.” (Paragraph 77, page 21); “...he (meaning the author of this web site) is severely confused and suffers from delusions of persecution. ...at no stage has he ever provided any jot of evidence apart from the fabricated ones. ...the nature of the allegations, their malicious content and tone and presentation, is a solid foundation for a conviction of a serious misconduct. It requires bad faith on behalf of Mr M. R., and bad faith requires malice, ill will, improper motive or similar dishonest purpose. And the overwhelming balance of probability is, after weighing all the evidence, that Mr M. R. acted in bad faith.” (Paragraph 79, page 22); XI. THIS IS THE REASON WHY HE (the author of this web site) SHOULD BE DISMISSED [in order to protect himself and all the other staff members who have made common cause with him against him (the author of this web site)], AT THE SAME TIME THE ADMISSION THAT THE IAEA HAS MADE A MISTAKE WITH THE SUSPENSION, WHICH IT SHOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE: “...one must analyse the consequences of judging him to be fit for employment. This means we would have to accept his claims that the reports of the threats are 'lies', that there is a guardian angle (angel) that puts stolen documents his way and that the allegations of a sexual relationship, careers based on sex and blackmailing are merely "explanations". To suggest that the Director General must accept such answers as true is to open the door to dishonesty, invite abuse of freedom of speech and make a mockery of the many staff members who have faithfully adhered to the Staff Regulations and Rules, and who have fulfilled their obligations as international civil servants with the highest integrity. This is not an acceptable option.” (Paragraph 78, page 22); “The only possibility to consider Mr M.R. totally innocent is to accuse the six staff members of having conspired against him, which would be a very serious misconduct indeed... It is therefore also clear that the Agency cannot take the risk of bringing Mr M.R. back to the VIC (Vienna International Centre, the IAEA Headquarters) where he could carry out one of his threats or a new one..” (Paragraph 32, page 10 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). XII. THE FOLLOWING IS AN INDICATION THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (ILOAT) WAS ALREADY INFORMED ABOUT THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHOR OF THIS WEB SITE EVEN FILE THE RESPECTIVE COMPLAINT AND INFORMED THE IAEA HOW IT WOULD JUDGE ON IT (AND SO IT DID): “The Tribunal itself will not question the decision of such an immediate termination of his contract; it will only question the way in which it was done and the facts on which it was based, and that the rights of Mr M. R. to be heard have been respected.” (Paragraph 77, page 21); XIII. OTHER TEXT PASSAGES OF INTEREST: Mr Magnus Olafsson's "Note to the File" dated 26 April 2004, 2 pages; Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 13 January 2005 (Annex V-B of Appendix 4, 2 pages); Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 14 January 2005 (Annex V of Appendix 4, 4 pages); Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 26 April 2005 (Annex C2 of Appendix 4, 19 pages); Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" letter dated 27 April 2005 (Annex C1 of Appendix 4, 8 pages); “(The author of this website) lives in a world of fantasy where he is so important that 16 staff members have joined in a comprehensive conspiracy to dismiss him, supported by OLA (Office of Legal Affairs) and OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) and even DGO (Director General's Office) and DDG MT (Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management).” ("The fabrications", page 6); “It is, of course, the juicy allegations of sex and blackmailing that have captured OIOS' attention, and the limited resources of OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) investigations have been diverted full force into this exciting subject.” ("Sex and blackmail", page 7); “So is also the decision made by OIOS to disseminate this investigation in the draft report to individuals who have no rights, or needs, to know about it.” ("Sex and blackmail", page 8). Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 27 April 2005 (Annex C3 of Appendix 4, 23 pages); Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 10 May 2005 (Annex D of Appendix 4, 11 pages): “...the ‘crime’ of having a (...) relationship with a colleague is not misconduct. So if Mr Nader had knowledge of this imaginary and homemade relationship, then why should anyone give in to blackmail?” (Paragraph 20, page 8). Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005, 11 pages: "...the truth of the three allegations I made in my IOM to DIR MTPR on 18 November 2004 against Mr M. R. has been confirmed. ...the numerous allegations made by Mr M. R. against me have been explicitly and implicitly rejected, and in most cases proven to be totally 'unfounded'". (Paragraph 2, page 1); "...OIOS questions implicitly the integrity of some of the Agency's top managers and explicitly charges them with committing a professional mistake in handling this case... the managers involved are DDG MT, the Special Adviser to the Director General on Management Issues, as well as OLA (in general). ...the Final Report explicitly refutes the decision of the Director General himself to suspend Mr M. R. ...due to serious procedural faults made during the investigation, the Final Report cannot be used by the Agency as a basis of a discretionary decision. The Tribunal will quash such a decision on limited grounds only, for example if the investigation was 'tainted with a procedural or formal flaw', and/or 'if essential facts were overlooked' and/or 'if there was abuse of authority'. The fact is that such grounds can be established in connection with this investigation and the resulting Final Report... At the same time that it questions the actions of the three internal Agency organs in the Final Report, as well as that of the Director General..."" (Paragraph 4, page 1); "...Since my name has been completely cleared of any suspicion of misconduct in the Final Report, and since my allegations against Mr M. R. have been accepted in the Final Report as being true..." (Paragraph 5, page 2); "Lack of impartiality by crucial internal organs of the Agency would be a serious matter, and an allegation of this sort should be neither made nor taken lightly. Impartiality, like any other breach of the principles of natural justice, is a proper ground for later seeking review of a judgment, ruling, or decision. If there is even the slightest possibility that there is a corruption at source, there is a realistic risk that the Tribunal would later question the whole case against Mr M. R." (Paragraph 13, page 4); "...the Final Report OIOS gives support to these allegations - both implicitly and explicitly." (Paragraph 14, page 4); "An attempt is made in the Final Report to let the actions of the three Agency organs look suspicious. First, OIOS stresses the allegation made by Mr M. R. regarding a conspiracy by OLA, DDG-MT and DGO by publishing a small part of a private email from Ms Foote to me (stolen from my office in early July 2004 and submitted to OIOS by Mr M. R.) ...this email strikingly illustrates how deeply one individual may disrupt the lives of colleagues by threatening behaviour and coarse language." (Paragraph 15, page 4); "OIOS then investigates the conduct of the three internal organs and concludes: ‘According to the files of MTPR’... OIOS 'found'... that 'during a meeting between DGO, DDG-MT and OLA’... ‘it was suggested'... to agree to my request for a suspension. It is, of course, disrespectful to these three internal organs to allege that they had made up their minds before considering their recommendation to the Director General... It is, in particular, noteworthy that the Final Report tries to indicate that some secrecy is at work by using the expressions ‘According to the files of MTPR’... and OIOS 'found'... it is very strange indeed to highlight this meeting, and to do so in the same Paragraph where the stolen email is published with its emphasis on Mr M. R.'s conspiracy theory, especially because it is also stated in that same Paragraph that a wrong decision had been reached at this meeting. This strange decision indicates that OIOS believes that there is some abnormality at work. While it is, of course, a totally unfounded allegation... it claims that bias and abuse of power are at work against Mr M. R." (Paragraph 16, page 5); "The third and final step in questioning the integrity of top management is to conclude repeatedly that a wrong decision was made by top management, more specifically that my second IOM to DIR MTPR (25 November 2004...) ...’was not provided to Mr M. R. at that time when he was informed about his suspension’... and therefore he ‘was not given the opportunity to comment on the allegations’... and ‘Mr M. R. was suspended... without being provided a reason for his suspension’... and ‘Mr M. R. ... was not given a reason for his suspension until after several weeks’..." (Paragraph 17, page 5); "OIOS then concludes that after ‘reviewing the facts of the case, OIOS could not substantiate the alleged prima facie evidence used by the Agency to support the immediate suspension of Mr M. R.’. This is truly an amazing conclusion for many reasons and five of them are discussed below." (Paragraph 18, page 5); Annex 1, 8 pages; Annex 2, 22 pages: “Mr J.M.R. has submitted 10 illegally obtained documents with his various written communications to the Agency. These documents, stolen from the office of DIR-MTCD, reveal that someone has systematically entered that office illegally during the period between 1 July 2004 and 13 January 2005. It is not clear if more documents have been stolen or if these thefts had already started earlier. All of the 10 documents are related to the case of Mr J.M.R., have been in his possession and have been used by him as evidence in arguing his case... In statements to OIOS both he and the witness... claim that unknown person(s) had put the documents in question on their desks in November and December 2004.” (Paragraph 3, page 1); “...within the principle of hierarchy applied in international organisations, by virtue of which supervisors have a night and a duty to give orders to their subordinates which the latter are bound to obey while retaining the right to appeal against any decision that causes them injury. In particular, it is management's prerogative to decide on who shall be the staff member's supervisor and with whom he or she shall interact...” (Paragraph 7, page 2); “...the Director's (Mr Magnus Olafsson) decision regarding who should do back up duties for the website and with whom he should interact in the case of the proposed transfer. Both decisions fall within the Director General's authority over the organisation of work and within the principle of hierarchy applied in international organisations by virtue of which supervisors have a right and a duty to make such decisions.” (Paragraph 48, page 12); “The website in question is actually designed for selling and promoting Agency publications, but Mr M. R. seems to consider that it is designed as a tool for web developers and that the purpose of the website is the website itself rather than promoting and selling Agency publications.” (Paragraph 35, page 9); “...he (The author of this website) was convinced that there was a widespread conspiracy against him in the Agency...” (Paragraph 36, page 9); “The problem with his reclassification requests is that since he thinks so highly of himself that he is convinced that he deserves to be promoted to a P grade.” (Paragraph 43, page 11); “Six staff members with impeccable records, coming from four different sections, report them. The implication of arguing that the events did not take place as reported is too disconcerting, as it would mean that the six of them have conspired to smear his name. The balance of probability is, therefore, having weighed all the evidence, that the events took place as reported by the six staff members.” (Paragraph 50, page 12); “...in October and November 2004 when the situation was becoming unbearable from the point of view of Mr M. R. In his defence it must be said that in such an atmosphere, it is hardly surprising that he perceived every requirement of him and every restriction on his absolute freedom to run things as he wanted as a personal affront and an attack upon his dignity.” (Paragraph 52, page 13); “The suspension of Mr M. R. was an interim, precautionary measure, which is to last as long as the investigation. It was ordered without hearing his views on the matter beforehand, but Mr M. R.'s right to be heard was safeguarded since he later has an opportunity to exercise it before any impugned decision is taken.” (Paragraph 54, page 14); “Mr M. R. has claimed that the procedure prior to the suspension was flawed in that he was denied due process and was not allowed to see the evidence on which the Agency based its charges against him. ...if Mr M. R. had received documents before 12 January 2005, he would have received them earlier than other parties. There is breach of equal treatment when staff members in an identical or comparable position in fact and in law receive different treatment from the Agency, but its procedure guaranteed an equal treatment: all parties received the same documents at the same time and are therefore given the same opportunities to defend themselves. The conclusion is that there was no breach of due process on behalf of the Agency.” (Paragraph 55, page 14); “The essence of them is that because of (...) her Director, Mr Olafsson, her career has speedily advanced (...). Mr Nader, who is aware of this (...), is (...) the two of them ('Mr. Nader must be (...) Mr. Olafsson'). In short, therefore, Mr M.R. is alleging that (...) Mr Nader (...) basing (...) careers on (...).” (Paragraph 56, page 14); “Even if the allegations were true, which they are not, there is no harm and no injury to Mr M. R. They would not have affected his career, dignity or reputation. It would surely be misconduct, but not related to his case, i.e. it cannot be construed as harassment against him.” (Paragraph 57, page 14); “...the investigation has been focused, more or less, on these unfounded additional allegations of sex and blackmail.” (Paragraph 58, page 15); “To be accused of owing your career to sexual favours is an allegation that should never be made or taken lightly. The consequences for the accused will be deep, long lasting and painful. All the hard work, university degrees (including a MBA), unselfish long hours, two merit awards (outside and inside MTCD) and a well deserved promotion is suddenly irrelevant: it is all because of a sexual relationship and not because of your own merits. That the Agency has taken these allegations so seriously and actually investigated them in such great details in spite of the total and complete lack of any evidence will make them even more harmful.” ...That the documented facts contradict so strongly the allegation, for instance the timing of promotions, makes it even more clear that the allegations are based on nothing but a dishonest bad will to cause harm and distress among colleagues. (Paragraph 59, page 15); “The most remarkable here are his allegations that have, as a centre stage, a (...) between (...) and Mr M. Olafsson... he needs a role for Mr R. Nader... So Mr Nader very logically becomes a (...), who knows about the (...), and he (...) to get promotions, protection and a P3 post. Ms C. Foote still needs her P5 post... so she keeps her role in the play... Mr Lane... is asked to join the choir along with Mr Boemeke, Ms Peake Herzog and Ms Le Masurier. The music is provided by OLA (Office of Legal Affairs), DGO (Director General’s Office), DDG-MT (Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management) and OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services). The 'mastermind' is (...) he (meaning the author of this page) does not provide a jot of evidence... he has anyway never provided anything in terms evidence.” (Paragraph 60, page 15); “...he (Mr Magnus Olafsson) was even not on the selection panel when Ms X got the P3 post in CSS (Conference Services Section) in 2003.” (Paragraph 61 a, page 16). This does not mean anything!! He was the Director of the division in question! “As a true 'mastermind', Ms X is forward looking and she created herself the P3 post in CSS (Conference Services Section) she later got through (...)...” (Paragraph 61 b, page 16); “Ms X, Mr Nader and Mr Olafsson were in good hands: (...) would take care of them.” (Paragraph 61 g, page 16); A proof that Mr Magnus Olafsson is a liar. This is what Mr Magnus Olafsson originally said: “Magnus suggested that José might like to seek professional help.” (Bottom of last page of Appendix 73). And this is what he claims to have said: “...the Director (Mr Magnus Olafsson) suggested that he should seek professional medical (!!) help...” (Paragraph 46, page 11); “...the Director (Mr Magnus Olafsson) would probably have committed a mistake had he not suggested to Mr M. R. to seek medical (!!) help...” (Paragraph 47, page 12); “As I heard, sometime in summer 2004, Mr. Olafsson, Ms X and Ms Foote (maybe also Ms Peake Herzog, Mr. Nader and Mr. Boemeke?) went to the Medical Service to ask one physician there to write in a report that I am mentally disabled. This physician said to them that he could not possibly write anything like this, as it was not at all the case. ‘Mr. M. R. is healthy’, he said to them" [Fact: this event never took place as one phone call to Medical Services would confirm” (Paragraph 61 h, page 17). Another proof that Mr Magnus Olafsson is a liar: “Dr. Walker called me last week to inform me that the Medical Service did not see any medical problem with the staff concerned. He went and saw a VIC medical doctor on Tuesday and the diagnostic did not reveal any unusual behaviour.” [Mr Verasak Liengsririwat's email dated 26 July 2004 (Appendix 8)]; Note here the word “behaviour”: “...the investigation revealed that Management sought information from Medical Services about Mr. M. R.’s health condition and that Management was informed that Mr. M. R. was healthy and that 'the diagnostic did not reveal any unusual behaviour'. The reference to the behaviour reflects that there was an expressed concern about Mr. M. R.’s mental health.” (Bottom of page 8 of Appendix 4 and page 5 of Appendix 24); This was Mr Magnus Olafsson's answer to Mr Verasak Liengsririwat's email dated 26 July 2004 (Appendix 8): “Your message means that I can now go ahead with my previous plan of requesting of having certain tasks carried out (training of backups, participation in my coordination system, get back my regular reports, etc.”; “...he should not twist the facts, as he knows them. ...these facts of his are fabrications.” (Paragraph 62, page 17); “...the proposed transfer to CSS was conducted in the most correct manner. Mr J. M. R. suffered no injury and no impairment to his dignity...” (Paragraph 63 a, page 17). Yet another proof that Mr Magnus Olafsson is a liar: “OIOS concludes the following: The transfer of Mr. M. R. from Publishing Section to Conference Services Section was mismanaged. Mr. M. R. was abruptly asked to move from Publishing Section to the Conference Services Section and to accept the proposed Job Description." (Paragraph 47 a, page 43 of Appendix 4); “...he clearly holds himself in high regard and, consequently, he seems to believe that he has a moral right to humiliate and belittle the professional competence and integrity of his colleagues...” (Paragraph 63 b, page 17); “...his IOM to the Director General is a continuation of this harassment and attacks on the professional competence and integrity of his colleagues.” (Paragraph 63 c, page 17); “...he has stolen documents in his possession.” (Paragraph 63 g, page 18); “...he does not hesitate to fabricate facts at will...” (Paragraph 63 h, page 18); “...Mr M. R. has suffered no injury.” (Paragraph 63 i, page 18); “The lack of injury and suffering experienced by Mr M. R. on the hands of the Agency... He was never forced to do anything against his will... He never suffered in any respect, his post and tasks were kept intact and so was his dignity and reputation...” (Paragraph 67, page 19); “Since he was not suffering and since the various conspiracy allegations (careers based on sex and blackmailing, personal favouritism, using his "situation", etc.) did not affect his professional or private life in the slightest even lf the allegations were true (which they are not), his motivation must be considered to be driven by malice and ill will or other such dishonest purpose.” (Paragraph 68, page 19); “Since it has now been established that first, he has not suffered any injury and, second, that he has violated his freedom of speech, it is imperative to consider his motivation in the context of bad faith... Bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, theft or similar dishonest purpose. There is plenty of that here... Such are the principles we will apply in determining whether in this case there is evidence strong enough to create a proof of bad faith.” (Paragraph 69, page 19); “...there was no administrative decision to appeal against, there was no injury reported and this was just an opportunity to discredit his colleagues.” (Paragraph 70, page 20); “...the reported threats against various colleagues. ...the only possibility to consider Mr M. R. totally innocent is to accuse the six staff members of having conspired against him. This becomes inherently impossible because there is no evidence of hostility towards Mr M. R. from any of them, so the conclusion must be that the threats happened as reported... If there was not enough admissible evidence, facts or indications to convince the persons making a decision (e.g. the JDB or the Director General), the charges should be dismissed...” (Paragraph 72, page 20); “...his additional allegations of careers based on sex and blackmailing.... the allegations would not contribute the slightest in establishing an injury to Mr M. R.; the allegations are irrelevant to his case and can therefore be judged to be based on malice and bad will; they are made to hurt and wound colleagues and discredit their professional and private reputation and dignity. As such they are plain cases of serious misconduct falling under the definition of being 'wholly unfounded' and have clearly not made 'the slightest contribution to the disposal of the proceedings'... the balance of probability is that such a person is malicious enough to have been behind the thefts and to threaten to kill a colleague.” (Paragraph 74, page 20); “And it is in the light of these principles that Mr M.R.'s various threats, handling of stolen documents, and unfounded allegations of sexual relationship, careers based on sexual favours and blackmailing, should be interpreted.” (Paragraph 80, page 22).

Ms X Apart from those in the group around Mr David Barclay Waller (Ms Gabriele Fouchard and Ms Eva-Maria Moosbrugger), how many other Ms "X" are there at the IAEA? Without the required qualifications and experience, if: First as Administrative Assistant of the Division of Conference and Document Services (MTCD) (Grade G-6); Then as Head of the Meeting Planning and Support Coordination Unit, Conference Services Section (CSS), MTCD (Grade P-3, with 5 to 6 subordinates). This post was created by Ms X herself and, although there was a competition for this post, this was feigned; Then as Publishing Services Specialist, Publishing Section, MTCD (Grade P-3, with several subordinates). Post specially created for Ms X and without competition! Then as Head of the Production Unit of the Publishing Section, MTCD (Grade P-3, with some 30 subordinates). Post specially created for Ms X and without competition! Why not then as Medical Director in the Medical Services? But: "...reclassification is not related to the interest of the person but to the interest and the needs of the Agency. (Paragraph 43, page 11 of Annex 2, of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). And further: "...it is not personal factors that determine classification but the nature and complexity of the Job itself." (Paragraph 44, page 11 of Annex 2, of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005).

Ms Corinne Foote “If your supervisor tells you that this is black, it is black (...no matter what colour it is in reality...)!” = The Illness of Hierarchy... "It is impossible to discuss with her about anything!" This is what everyone says in the IAEA since 25 years! Ms Corinne Foote: "It is X and Magnus who instigated me to do it by promising me a promotion to grade P-5 (from grade P-4), which at the end I did not get!" “The fact is not mentioned that Ms Foote had on 1 January 2004 been given new and completely different tasks than she had before following the decision of the Director General to restructure MTCD; her Section had grown from eight to 17 staff members (in the meantime, and since several years now, it has been reduced back to eight staff members) and she had been given new responsibilities. A request for reclassification was imminent, as most people knew, but Mr M.R. is twisting the facts, as he knows them.” (Paragraph 15, page 4 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). “...that Ms C. Foote was trying to use ‘his situation’ to get a promotion. OIOS has concluded in very clear terms that Mr M. R.'s allegation ‘that Ms Foote has a vested interest for getting a promotion when she revised the JD of Mr M. R. is unfounded'. (Paragraph 7 a, page 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). But: "This is to advise you that on the basis of the review carried out on your post by MTPR-HRPS, the Director General has approved the retention of the current grade level for your post, as indicated hereunder: ...Grade: P-4..." [MTPR (Division of Personnel)’s Interoffice Memorandum dated 21 September 2006]. "lt is a highly personal email, emotional and distressful from a woman, who lives alone, and who had just few days earlier been threatened by Mr J.M.R. She is afrald that Mr J.M.R. would actually carry out the threat of killing her and she fears this could happen if "OLA (Office of Legal Affairs) etc." decide to "be tough" on Mr J.M.R." (Paragraph 51, page 13 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). She signed wonderful Performance Review Reports for Mr Raymond Nader and, at the same time, she declared at the OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services): “...Raymond has a tendency to play the big boss... she was often frustrated with complaints and Raymond’s behaviour. Her concern was that she had no idea what Raymond was doing nor knew where he was at.” [Annex 1 of the OIOS Final Investigation Report (6th paragraph of page 4 of Appendix 72)].

Mr Raymond Nader By (...) Mr Olafsson (...), he quickly found a way of getting a promotion (from grade G-5 to grade G-6) without having to do much work! A "better staff member" and "IT coordinator of MTCD (Division of Conference and Document Services)"... (Paragraph 8, page 2 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). And, "Mr Nader was a better staff member than Mr M. R. (Paragraph 46, page 11 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). But: "All managers make constantly comparisons of staff members..." (Paragraph 47, page 12 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). ...he would have to coordinate certain of his IT activities with Mr Nader, the IT Divisional-wide coordinator in MTCD. (Paragraph 46, page 11 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005). Since 2005 transferred to MTIT (Division of Information Technology) leaving MTCD without "IT coordinator", but MTCD still exists... ...the fact that Mr Nader already coordinates IT activities of all the 10 SHs (Sections) in MTCD... (Paragraph 16, page 4 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "...Mr M. R. had continuously belittled and humiliated Mr Nader's professional competence." (Paragraph 47, page 12 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "Having given in to blackmail, (...) Mr Olafsson ‘(...) even extremely interested (even desperate) in giving him another promotion to a P-3 Post already last year’ " (Paragraph 61 c, page 16 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "Very detailed studies of IT support services provided to the language sections, were carried out in order to prove that Mr Nader is incompetent and I am protecting him. ...the IT problems we have experienced in MTCD are basically network problems and related to our TRADOS translation software and its incompatibility, after an upgrade last summer, with the Agency's security configuration. Mr Nader, who is onIy a part time IT support staff, has been unable to solve these problems. ...how could anyone expect the part time Mr Nader to do that?... Mr Watson was not aware of this when you interviewed him (Mr Magnus Olafsson refers here to points 4 to 11, pages 1 to 3 of “Complaints against Mr. Nader”), and the SHs (Section Heads) were not aware of this when they answered your questions." ("Sex and blackmail", page 7 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" letter dated 27 April 2005 (Annex C1 of Appendix 4); "There was an inventory audit to establish that some items had disappeared from Mr Nader's office... There are implicit, but very clear allegations against Mr Nader that he is using Agency property for his own use. There is, for instance, a discussion of a digital camera [reference is made here to: "Mr. Nader informed OIOS during an interview on 3 March 2005 that the camera was used by Ms X to take pictures during the General Conference last year..." (Paragraph 16, page 4 of Mr Raymond Nader's). "Ms X responded, 'I’ve never touched that camera' " (Paragraph 18, page 4 of Mr Raymond Nader's)]. ("Sex and blackmail", page 7 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" letter dated 27 April 2005 (Annex C1 of Appendix 4).

Mr Manfred Boemeke [Grade P-5, Head of the Publishing Section, Division of Conference and Document Services (MTCD)] An excellent manager... of type of the IAEA: He saves a P-3 position as web-programmer (that of Ms Elena Tomuta) and gives this work just like this to a publications clerk with grade G-5... without promotion, to be noticed! This publications clerk is indeed qualified for this job, but he is already burdened enough with his own work. But because the work as a web-programmer likes him more and he hopes above all a respective promotion, this publication clerk accepts this extra work. However, the merit of his work as a web-programmer is secretly (thanks to the confidentiality of the IAEA) and in writing granted by Mr Manfred Boemeke to another staff member (Mr Markus Lané), who is not qualified for this work, something the publications clerk has, at first, no idea about. But when the publications clerk was almost ready with the project of an electronic bookshop ["...his Supervisor (Mr. Boemeke) made the following assessment of his performance: ...and the almost completed e-commerce facility..." (Last paragraph of page 24 of Appendix 4)], which was a part of his work as a web-programmer, Mr Manfred Boemeke commits a serious mistake: He organizes a working group for the entire work of the publications clerk as a web-programmer and appoints several staff members, who have absolutely no idea about such a work, as its members. With this working group, Mr Manfred Boemeke hoped that his real intentions, namely to give a promotion to Mr Markus Lané from grade G-5 to grade G-6, remain undiscovered by the publications clerk, but this, very soon, was not the case. Subsequently, the publications clerk rejected this working group. This is the reason of this story, which lasts already several years, and which has cost many positions, especially those of high-ranking officials. But Mr Manfred Boemeke, the excellent manager, is still there! He just must really be an excellent manager... of type of the IAEA. He is so clever that it took him about ten years "to realize" that the electronic bookshop project, is "redundant", when the books are also since about ten years already available in electronic form and "free of charge" in the Publications' Website... Having "realized" this, Mr Manfred Boemeke is "implicitly" recognizing that he is not selling enough books in hard copy form, which in turn means "implicitly" that the post of the Head of the Sales and Promotion Unit (Grade P-3, Ms Sophia Jane Le Masurier's post) is also "redundant"! "OIOS obviously takes for granted the truthfulness of Mr. M.R.'s unsubstantlated claim to the effect that Mr. Olafsson submitted his allegations as a consequence of, or in retaliation for, Mr. M.R.'s slightly earlier actions." [Paragraph 7 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "...the entire report is permeated by the most flagrant bias in favour of Mr. M.R. ...the many instances that demonstrate obvious wrongdoing on the part of Mr. M.R. - most notably his threats of bodily harm to numerous members in MTCD and his refusal to carry out instructions of his supervisor - are generally glossed over as relatively inconsequential. Similarly, the highly significant question of the origin of stolen or otherwise illicitly procured documents does not elicit much of a reaction from OIOS." [Paragraph 8 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "...the submission by Mr. M.R. of copies of confidential, personnel sensitive, documents of other staff members are - or should be - highly significant. The Agency must be able to guarantee the confidentiality of a staff member's personnel documents such as PRRs... It is difficult to understand why OIOS does not seem overly concerned by Mr. M.R.'s possession of another staff member's confidential documents. Maybe his and (the Witness)'s story of stumbling across all these documents by chance was just too convincing to warrant even a raised eyebrow!" [Paragraph 9 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "Chief among these extraneous issues are, of course, the despicable accusations regarding Ms X, who allegedly owes her career at the Agency to her (...) rather than her intellectual/professional prowess, and Mr. Nader, who has built his career on a policy of blackmail. ...For example, the results of a questionnaire addressed to Mr. M.R.'s colleagues in MTCD might have been enlightening, indeed. But, then, that was obviously not the thrust of OIOS' investigation." [Paragraph 10 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "By the way, whether or not two staff members have a consensual sexual relationship with each other is none of OIOS's business. It only becomes an issue if this relationship can be proved to have impacted directly on work related matters... one cannot help but wonder how the tired old charge of sexual favouritism as a career enhancing instrument squares with the concerted efforts the Agency... has recently launched to attract more female staff members to professional posts." [Paragraph 11 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "...the fact that staff of the Translation Section(s) of MTCD were “not satisfied with the services provided by Mr. Nader and have complained to his Supervisor" is totally irrelevant in the context of Allegation... Was Mr. M.R. justified in refusing to work with Mr. Nader based on the opinion of staff in the Translation Section(s)?" [Paragraph 16 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "The events of 17 November 2004, which allegedly set in motion some grand conspiratorial master plan." [Paragraph 17 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; I will prove later here that this statement by Mr Manfred Boemeke is a blatant lie: "...I did not find out that Mr. M.R. had lodged an allegation of misconduct against me until the receipt of Mr. Chaouch Bouraoui's IOM of 2005-01-12." [Paragraph 20 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "I could not have systematically denied something that was not systematically requested." [Paragraph 21 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "With regard to my explanation of the inclusion of "Planning and coordinating of Web projects in the Publishing Section" in Mr. Lané's 2001 and 2002 PRRs." [Paragraph 27 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "...while references to planning and coordination of web projects can be found in Part B of Mr. Lané's 2001 and 2002 PRRs, he does not, in either case, claim any "Results achieved" for the activities listed. Clearly, this is due to the fact that Mr. Lané's involvement in web related activities was of a mere routine nature, which did not produce specific results (!!). In no way can it be claimed, therefore, that the listing of Mr. Lané's activities served to detract from Mr. M.R.'s achievements or inflate Mr. Lané's own record." [Paragraph 27 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "Why has OIOS, in months of investigations, not been able to establish who, in fact, was the "mastermind" behind "all of this"? In various parts of M.R.'s rambling exposés that honour goes to Ms X, in others it is bestowed on Mr. Lané, and Ms Foote also shares the spotlight briefly." [Paragraph 28 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "I herewith reserve the right to address those new charges at a later time in an appropriate way. In particular, I reserve the right to pursue all legal options available to me in refuting the pernicious allegations of official corruption and bribery lodged against me by Mr M.R. in his letter to Mr. Chaouch Bouraoui of 28 January 2005 ("Getting Ms Villard on their side", page 8 of Appendix 24). This may include, but may not necessarily be limited to, appropriate actions under Rule 11.01.1(B)(5) of the Agency's Staff Regulations and Staff Rules." [Paragraph 30 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "In its flagrantly one-sided and biased presentation, OIOS assumes 'a priori' culpability on the part of management, Mr. M.R.'s colleagues and, naturally, the Staff Council... no steamy sexual tales; no cloak-and-dagger stories involving blackmail and corruption..." [Paragraph 31 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 May 2005 (Annex F of Appendix 4)]; "...these pernicious allegations of misconduct can only be seen as deliberate inventions by Mr M.R. for the sole purpose of damaging my professional reputation and spreading doubts as to my suitability to serve as a manager at the Agency." [Paragraph 2 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 July 2005, a part of (Appendix 4)]; "...I am pleased to note that OIOS has downgraded two of the four original allegations of misconduct by Mr M.R. (denial of training opportunities and denial of computer equipment upgrade; see Paras. 31 and 32) to the level of 'complaints'." [Paragraph 3 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 July 2005, a part of (Appendix 4)]; "...when he went fishing for possible issues to use as allegations of misconduct against me." [Paragraph 4 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 July 2005, a part of (Appendix 4)]; "...it seems obvious that, in the absence of real issues, Mr M.R. resorted to fictitious and mendacious claims to disparage my reputation and harm my professional standing at the Agency." [Paragraph 5 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 July 2005, a part of (Appendix 4)]; "The last of the original four allegations of misconduct concerns an alleged conspiracy between DIR MTCD and myself to provoke Mr M.R. into committing an action that could then be used as a pretext to have him charged with misconduct (Allegation No. 16). As can be seen from the several documents that Mr M.R. submitted at various times, this alleged plan is considered just a small part of a major conspiracy, involving numerous MTCD staff members and reaching to the highest levels of Agency management (DDG MT, OLA and the DG's Special Adviser for Management). According to Mr M.R., a major concerted effort was made by a good part of the Agency to remove him from office. This idea is as preposterous as it is pathetic." [Paragraph 6 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 July 2005, a part of (Appendix 4)]; "As to my own person, the most serious and outrageous of these new allegations, lodged in Mr M.R.'s letter to Mr Chaouch Bouraoui of 28 January 2005, concerns an accusation of bribing another staff member (Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard) by offering her lucrative overtime arrangements and favourable contractual conditions ("Getting Ms Villard on their side", page 8 of Appendix 24). It would have taken only a few minutes for OIOS to establish the mendacious nature of this allegation..." [Paragraph 12 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 July 2005, a part of (Appendix 4)]. But: "You will understand that I cannot sign the petition, because Manfred has promised to give me a part of José's work. I wanted to call José to ask him how he is doing, but Manfred has told me not to do it!" (Ms Karoline Schneider) "The most portentous of OIOS' conclusions, though, and easily the most difficult to understand, is its inability to substantiate the 'prima facie' evidence used by the Director General to suspend Mr M. R.... Essentially, this conclusion opens the door to the wholesale verbal abuse of any Agency staff member, including death threats, as long as the offending party is clever enough not to leave any traceable evidence and makes sure there are no witnesses around. In this case, the testimony of six staff members from different parts of a division is discounted 'in toto', their verbal and written reports discarded as worthless. How many independent testimonies, then, does it take for OIOS to be convinced of the veracity of particular statements? How high does the level of probability have to be before it becomes acceptable for the Agency's investigators? What are the implications of all this for the Agency's policy on harassment and the seriousness with which complaints by staff members are investigated?" [Paragraph 13 of Mr Manfred Boemeke's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 6 July 2005, a part of (Appendix 4)]; Ms Sophia Jane Le Masurier [Grade P-3, Head of the Sales and Promotion Unit, Publishing Section, MTCD] "It is no small matter for Ms S. Le Masurier, a relative newcomer to the Agency, to be accused of a crime deserving a punishment, as demanded by Mr M. R. Her name will forever be associated with this accusation in the files of the organization, and it might possibly affect her future career inside or outside the Agency and thus cause her injury." (Paragraph 30, page 7 of Annex 2 of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "There is inconsistency in that the work of another staff member (Mr Raymond Nader) is investigated in quite some depth but there appears to be little or no investigation into whether Mr M.R. has a history of obstruction and failure to work with his colleagues... I understand that over the years staff members including, Mr Ramesh, Ms Schiffman (retired Feb 2003), Mr Lané and Ms Idinger have experienced unpleasant and / or obstructive behaviour from Mr M.R." [Paragraph 3 of Ms Sophia Jane Le Masurier's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 27 April 2005 (Annex E of Appendix 4)]; "I wish it were not acceptable to repeat and disserninate to a wider audience, unsubstantiated, libellous and sexist hearsay in a formal document. I find it perturbing that although there is no supporting evidence, a libel is circulated stating that a staff member gained her position not through hard work and competence but through sex." [Paragraph 4 of Ms Sophia Jane Le Masurier's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 27 April 2005 (Annex E of Appendix 4)]; "I regret that OIOS stops short of concluding that the allegations are not only without evidential support but are, in fact, fabrications." (On Point 1 of Ms Sophia Jane Le Masurier's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 24 June 2005); "I listed the names of sorne staff mernbers, who, notwithstanding my very short career history with the Agency, have had a chance to make it known that they had experienced unpleasant and / or aggressive behaviour from Mr M.R. I would be very willing to provide more details but do believe that it would be more valid for OIOS to talk to the people directly. It is regrettable that while OIOS investigated Mr M.R.'s evidentially unsupported but exciting narrative of sexual shenanigans, corruption and conspiracy - based on his assertions such as "this is, in any case, what many staff mernbers in the agency have been saying since years" and I think it must be the case", they did not find it worthwhile to find out from his colleagues whether he has a history of poor behaviour." (On Point 2 of Ms Sophia Jane Le Masurier's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 24 June 2005); "A number of Mr M.R.'s assertions (Annex B) are illogical. For example, he takes my point that the e commerce was stalled by his refusal to work with other people as proof that he was the only person who was or should be contributing. I would restate that he was an important person but that in order that the website met other peoples needs, aside from his own, it was necessary that others have input. This was the view of the SH PUB but Mr M.R. disagreed and so refused to work in this capacity. The project could not then progress according to wishes of the SH PUB. If another member of the group had refused to be involved, there would have also been problems." (On Point 3 of Ms Sophia Jane Le Masurier's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 24 June 2005); "It is no small matter for Ms S. Le Masurier, a relative newcomer to the Agency, to be accused of a crime deserving a punishment, as demanded by Mr M. R. Her name will forever be associated with this accusation in the files of the organization, and it might possibly affect her future career inside or outside the Agency and thus cause her injury." (Paragraph 30, page 7 of Annex 2, of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "...and by exploiting the possibilities inherent in the use of e-commerce..." (Paragraph 32, page 8 of Annex 2, of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "...including e-commerce and online sales..." (Paragraph 33, page 8 of Annex 2, of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "...Ms S. Le Masurier writes as a response that she feels 'that I am being bullied'." (Paragraph 35, page 9 of Annex 2, of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "Ms S. Le Masurier has herself written that his unwillingness throughout 2004 'has had a detrimental effect on web publishing activities. No additional progress has been made on setting up the online bookshop and no clear improvements to the searching and navigability have been made'. She writes to OIOS that he 'has spent the year actively blocking progress and from our first interaction ... has conducted a campaign of non cooperation'. But it is not only his sabotaging of web publishing activities of the Agency that is on her mind; she also states that he is deliberately trying to harm her reputation, saying that his actions have 'hindered me in my work and I believe this and his criticisms of me to my supervisor and to the Director were intended to damage my reputation. Further, I believe that this accusation of misconduct is malicious'. (Paragraph 37, page 9 of Annex 2, of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005); "...his false accusation was made deliberately to harm Ms S. Le Masurier, her work, dignity and professional reputation." (Paragraph 38, page 9 of Annex 2, of Mr Magnus Olafsson's "confidential" Interoffice Memorandum dated 8 July 2005).

9. The reason for these planned promotions was clearly Ms X (...) with Mr Magnus Olafsson and her (...) promotion from grade G-6 to grade P-3, and Mr Raymond Nader’s awareness of it. This is the core of the story that the IAEA’s Management tried to hide by all means, because it discloses that (not only) (...) favours are used to get promotions, appointments and extensions thereof, in the IAEA.

From Assertion No. 2 (upper left corner of page 1, on "The Division of Human Resources") “...making so the selection process a farce” follows that Ms Naomi Bichler-Bell's work and that of the other staff of the Recruitment Unit is senseless. This fact is confirmed by: “Ms X was appointed to one of the two P3 posts of Unit Heads in Conference Services Section (CSS) in August 2003. Ms X and another long-term staff member in CSS were selected from 98 applicants to the two posts. The DDsG (the six Deputy Directors General, as members of the "Joint Advisory Panel on Professional Staff") did not question the panel’s proposal for the other staff member, however, one of the DDsG noted [a clear indication that this DDG had nothing to say in this "Joint Advisory Panel on Professional Staff" and that only the DDG-MT (the Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management) decides here!] that Ms X did not have a relevant university degree and so far had no direct supervisory experience. DIR-MTPR (Director of the Division of Personnel) wrote the following to DDG-MT on 28 January 2003 concerning the ‘Proposal for Professional Appointment’, ‘Ms X meanwhile has obtained an MBA in Business Administration (note here that, as required in Appendix 42, before applying for the post, the applicant should have had the required five years’ experience after having obtained the university degree and that this requirement was clearly not fulfilled by Ms X!). The Interview Panel came to the conclusion that, although Ms X does not directly supervise staff... ’ " [“OIOS’ Findings” (4th paragraph of page 15 of Appendix 4)]. But: “With regard to the staff member who was promoted from grade G.5 to grade P.3 within three years (Ms X), it (the IAEA) asserts that she was promoted on merit." (Paragraph C of ILOAT Judgment No. 2656); Ms Naomi Bichler-Bell [Grade P-4, Head of the Recruitment Unit, Division of Human Resources] “Everything José said is true!” By [“OIOS’ Findings”, Annex 1 of the OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) Final Investigation Report (page 2 of Appendix 72)]: “Mr. Raymond Nader was selected to the G6 post as Supervisor of the Information Support Unit in Document Support Section, MTCD in February 2004. The panel that evaluated the applicants to the vacancy notice consisted of Ms Foote (SH of Document Support Section), Ms Bichler-Bell (Recruitment Officer, MTPR), Ms X (former Administrative Assistant, MTCD), and Mr. Olafsson (DIR-MTCD)...”; “OIOS enquired from MTPR about the other applicant who was also identified as well-qualified and interviewed by the panel. Ms Bichler-Bell informed OIOS that she advised Mr. Olafsson that this candidate (Mr Nikolay Douchev-Schachner) had more technical knowledge as compared with Mr. Nader and would therefore bring MTCD a lot further with IT matters. According to Ms (Naomi) Bichler-Bell, Mr. Olafsson thanked her but went ahead and recommended the appointment of Mr. Nader.” And most notably by “On staffing, however, the history of top-floor overrides of the Agency's own recruitment process predates the current leadership.” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 7 July 2009).

10. But it was when Ms Naomi Bichler-Bell informed Mr Verasak Liengsririwat (the former Special Assistant to the Director General for Management) that I was aware of the reason mentioned in paragraph 9 above (of which she reportedly said sometime in 2005 or 2006: "Everything José said is true!") that the IAEA’s Management organized a series of provocations and intimidations lasting over several months with the clear objective of getting rid of me [for them it was easier to get rid of me only (see paragraph 1 of Appendix 150) than to get rid of all those staff members in the meantime involved in the affair but willing “to cooperate” (meaning here to keep silent about it)]. For the IAEA’s Management it became extremely important that I do not imitate Mr Raymond Nader (...).

Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard “AmCit”! The Staff Representative! Her job is to denounce (= to betray) the staff members "she represents". For her excellent performance doing this job, she was awarded with a promotion from Grade G-5 to Grade P-2!

11. And it was Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard (the Staff Representative!) who, by informing the IAEA’s Management that I had given all my money to my partner (from which she deduced that I was going to kill my partner first, then all those in the group and finally myself), triggered my suspension from duty in December 2004 (see paragraph 5 A of Appendix 150), as the DDG-MT became frightened and ordered to intensify the provocations and intimidations against me. As there was not the expected reaction from my part to these provocations and intimidations, the DDG-MT then ordered that several staff members ("staff members paralyzed by the fear of displeasing, by the fear of losing their jobs") write Email-reports (Appendices 110, 50, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 32) of "unpleasant and intimidating incidents... regarding threats" "allegedly" by myself, which he then used to justify his immediate (before I possibly do anything that would compromise his own post) decision on this suspension. Apart from being itself a huge provocation, the clear intention of this suspension was to force me “to cooperate” (meaning here to keep silent about it and to accept their compromise). 12. In violation of the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, the respective internal investigation was initiated after suspending me from duty and it lasted five months instead of three! 13. In spite of the fact that the IAEA’s Management partly successfully managed to manipulate the five-month investigation’s final report, which was completed in May 2005, it could not prevent its results essentially stating that "After reviewing the facts of the case, OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight

Services) could not substantiate the alleged 'prima facie' used by the Agency to support my immediate suspension (paragraph f of page 43 of Appendix 4)", because the authors of this report threatened to go to the press in case these results were changed. That is the reason why the authors of the said report had to leave the IAEA. These results also provided proofs against the staff members involved in the case, Ms X, Mr Magnus Olafsson [former Director of the Division of Conference and Document Services (DIR-MTCD)] and Mr Raymond Nader, which were embarrassing enough for the IAEA’s Management. 14. Mr Mohamed ElBaradei's Fundamental and Deliberate Lie: According to the results of the five-month investigation, the former Director General had made a huge mistake as this suspension should not have taken place in the first place. But instead of recognizing his mistake and terminating the suspension, in order not to lose face, Mr Mohamed ElBaradei’s reaction to this embarrassing situation was to simply ignore these results and maintain the suspension. This was in 2005, the year Mr Mohamed ElBaradei was seeking the extension of his appointment for another four-year term and was confronted with the efforts by the US and Israeli Governments to oust him. This is the reason why the former Director General, misusing the IAEA’s Confidentiality and abusing of his power, dared making two contradictory decisions on the same matter and at the same time: [Note to "there was...", Appendices 15, 14 and 16]. Mr Mohamed ElBaradei repeated this fundamental and deliberate lie, the source of more than hundred of other lies by several other staff members, among others of the Joint Appeals Board, but in particular of the Office of Legal Affairs, several times in writing to these two (now former) staff members shortly before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005. With this fundamental and deliberate lie, the former Director General decided that I be suspended from duty (because "Mr Magnus Olafsson filed an internal complaint with proofs against me") and that Mr Magnus Olafsson receives a "Letter of Warning" ["because he filed an internal complaint without proofs against me” (hereby recognizing the results of the investigation’s final report mentioned in paragraph 13 above)]. As a result, these two staff members filed complaints at the Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) of the International Labour Organization (ILO) against the IAEA. The flagrant proof of this fundamental and deliberate lie came to light when the ILOAT’s Verdict on Mr Magnus Olafsson’s complaint (Judgment No. 2752, paragraph C) was published on 9 July 2008. The former Director General, Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, a notorious liar! This Story extensively demonstrates that the following two statements by Mr Mohamed ElBaradei are not true: "As in the past, I will continue to hold high the principals and values of international civil service which is impartiality and independence. I will continue to speak truth to power and continue to hold high the rule of law..." (The DG’s press statement delivered on 13 June 2005); "Probably because I'm a lawyer, that goes against my core principles. I don't see how you can accuse someone of something without showing them the evidence. We have to apply due process and not a Kafkaesque (endless) process." (In a recent interview). 15. The continuation of the suspension gave the IAEA’s Management additional nine months time to do find (that is, to invent) “the alleged 'prima facie' (the second, to be) used by the Agency to justify my immediate suspension" [this is how the IAEA’s Management decided that “...the Office of Internal Oversight Services... concluded that verbal abuse (to Ms Corinne Foote) had occurred and this finding is, thus, prima facie evidence of misconduct.” (Paragraph 54, page 14 of Appendix 51)] and, with it, force me to reach a compromise with them, which would be above all orally (to avoid any evidence) and, of course, to the liking of the IAEA’s Management: end of the suspension if I forget the reason mentioned in paragraph 9 above and the illegal suspension (by which my dignity and good name were completely destroyed) and forgive the IAEA’s Management for it. Such oral compromises are imposed by the IAEA’s Management to a staff member during a meeting in which this staff member finds himself alone seating in front of four or five other staff members (and their signatures!) sent by the IAEA’s Management [first the OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services), then the two pseudo-tribunals of the IAEA: The Joint Appeals Board (JAB) and the Joint Disciplinary Board (JDB)]. This constellation makes sure that an oral compromise is reached by all means [exactly like the methods of the CIA: they make a verbal proposal, if one accepts it, one is well rewarded, if one refuses it, one is destroyed. In the IAEA this means: if the staff member does not agree with the compromise proposed by the IAEA’s Management (and to its liking, of course), he is intimidated, threatened and ultimately provoked and falsely accused (of whatever!). See page 4 of the file documenting this story in detail]. In my case, already in November 2004, Ms Elizabeth Delgado Pardo-Figueroa [Mr David Barclay Waller's Office (who apparently went to visit Ms X in the hospital in the summer of 2006, as Ms X's daughter y was born)] called me at home to warn me not to go to such a meeting. She also warned me not to be in the office when no one else is there, i.e. too early and too late during working days, and during the weekends and official holidays. Therefore, and later after the experience with the fundamental and deliberate lie mentioned in paragraph 14 above, for me it was clear that no compromise was possible with the IAEA’s Management. 16. Furthermore, the IAEA’s Management even found a new 'prima facie' (the third!), which it used, this time, for summarily dismissing me on 3 March 2006, 28 days before the end of my appointment (the "hidden" reason being my refusal to compromise): the following three phrases (...) I wrote in my Statement dated 28 January 2005 (page 11 of Appendix 24), one and-a-half months after the suspension, which were conveniently reworded by the IAEA's Management (top of page 11 of Appendix 69): “Ms X’s comet like career in MTCD (Division of Conference and Document Services)“; “(...) alleged (...) with Mr. Olafsson“; “Mr. Nader must be (...) Mr. Olafsson (...).“ These three phrases (...) mentioned in paragraph 9 above that the IAEA’s Management did not want to hear, but its reaction to them was: “...they are unfounded and potentially damaging to Ms X’s reputation and professional career.“ (Fourth paragraph of page 16 of Appendix 4). Three years later though, with Appendix 169, the IAEA’s Management has implicitly recognized that these three phrases are not false allegations, which means that they are the truth mentioned in paragraph 9 above, as according to Austrian law, the new term "Kündigung durch den Dienstgeber" used in the new "Arbeitsbescheinigung" (work certificate, page 3 of Appendix 169) means that the employment was not terminated because of my own fault ("das Dienstverhältnis nicht infolge eigenen Verschuldens beendet worden ist"). This is contrary to the old term "Entlassung" used in the old "Arbeitsbescheinigung" (work certificate, page 4 of Appendix 77), which, according to Austrian law, means that the employment was terminated because of my own fault ("das Dienstverhältnis infolge eigenen Verschuldens beendet worden ist"), "Das Ermittlungsverfahren hat ergeben: Ihr Dienstverhältnis bei der Firma IAEO endete durch fristlose Entlassung" (= The result of the investigation is: Your employment by the IAEA was terminated through summary dismissal), page 2 of Appendix 45. 17. The IAEA’s Management knew about (...) Mr Magnus Olafsson and that Mr Raymond Nader (...). And, this is how the IAEA’s Management went about with this truth: After several months (during the suspension mentioned in paragraph 11 above) unsuccessfully trying to know whether I had proofs for this or not, they affirmed to me and to the ILOAT that the three phrases mentioned in paragraph 16 above were false allegations and accused me of serious misconduct. Ms X and Mr Magnus Olafsson, however, learnt from Mr Verasak Liengsririwat [the former Special Assistant to the Director General for Management (this, together with the failed denunciation to the Austrian Police, being the reasons why he had to leave!)], that their intention was to use the three phrases mentioned in paragraph 16 above (...) as the reason for my summary dismissal.

As mentioned in paragraph 14 above, Mr Magnus Olafsson was being accused by the DG, among other charges, of “incorrect reporting of alleged misconduct” [see paragraph C (3rd) of ILOAT Judgment No. 2752], the alleged misconduct that was the reason for my suspension from duty. In order to protect himself and Ms X against any negative administrative action by the DG, both had to create facts and started work immediately, that is, right after 28 January 2005, the date I wrote my statement. As the first attempt failed early May 2005, she first accused Ms Karen Medina-Jelinek [at that time the OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) investigator] and then, me, of being responsible for this failure. But her second attempt right after worked. And with (...), on 5 August 2006, they had the (...) proof that the IAEA’s Management had deliberately lied and that, based on this lie, made a fatal decision against a staff member (my summary dismissal). In other words, with my summary dismissal Ms X and Mr Magnus Olafsson (...) the IAEA. And, the mastermind of this cover-up is Mr David Barclay Waller.

	18. The two processes at the Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) of the International Labour Organization (ILO): The IAEA’s Management has paid not only my counsel in the case, Mr Jean-Didier Sicault (Senior lecturer in International Civil Service Law at the Universities of Paris I and Paris II, Attorney at the Paris Court of Appeal) but also the ILOAT as both made common cause with it. The following facts prove this: As the IAEA’s Management systematically did, the ILOAT completely ignored every proof and testimony I provided, including those of the Witness of almost all events in this story. My request to the ILOAT to hear the Witness was also refused. A petition to the DG, organized by Ms Stella Attakpah and other staff members of the OIOS (Office of Internal Oversight Services) and signed by 48 staff members, was ignored as well. Whereas the deliberately produced Email-reports of "unpleasant and intimidating incidents... regarding threats" "allegedly" by myself and mentioned in paragraph 11 above, the IAEA’s Management’s reason for the suspension, were all taken for true by the ILOAT. These allegations against me had been dismissed by the five-month investigation mentioned in paragraph 13 above, for "lack of reliable evidence from independent sources to confirm them". Furthermore: The complaints, which were dismissed for no clear reason and whose processes lasted from August 2005 to July 2007, were vitiated by bias and were based on the more than hundred lies mentioned in paragraph 14 above: The verdict of the ILOAT on the first complaint (Appendix 6) against the suspension is illegal because it is annulled by the verdict of the ILOAT on Mr Magnus Olafsson’s complaint [Judgment No. 2752 (paragraph C)], that is by Mr Mohamed ElBaradei's fundamental and deliberate lie mentioned in paragraph 14 above; The verdict of the ILOAT on the second complaint (Appendix 83) against the summary dismissal is illegal because it is annulled by the truth mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 16 above, that is by Ms X (...) and Mr Magnus Olafsson, the proof of which being that mentioned in paragraph 17 above. For these reasons, the two verdicts (Appendices 6 and 83) are “null and void”. This was to be expected as the ILOAT is neither independent nor impartial, which is in violation of Article 10 (see page 81 of the file documenting this story in detail) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ILOAT is part of the ILO against which it also judges and the ILO itself is, as the IAEA, an Organization within the United Nations System. 19. I am thus, after an incredible fourteen and-a-half month suspension from duty, since 3 March 2006, out of work and without any possibility to ever find another employment. The IAEA’s Management deliberately brought me into this situation in order to force me to ask them to help me out of it, that is, to make a compromise with them. However, under the circumstances described here and for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 15 above, such a compromise is not possible with the IAEA’s Management. And the most important of such a compromise is that I sign their "Confidentiality Undertaking". This would make sure that I cannot tell this story to anyone. And this again would make sure that the IAEA’s Management continues undisturbed and unpunished (protected by the functional immunity granted to international organizations) with its corrupted and criminal doings and carries on doing the same to other staff members as it did with me and with many other staff members before and since many years. 20. But not enough for the IAEA’s Management in bringing me into this situation. Shortly after having published this website in September 2007, they even sought to imprison me. To this effect, they sent (twice!) Ms Cristina Vilaplana Milla to make a denunciation to the Austrian Police against me. The objective of this denunciation being: first and above all, to prevent that I discover the proof of (...) Mr Magnus Olafsson mentioned in paragraph 17 above, because this proof annuls the second verdict of the ILOAT (Appendix 83) mentioned in paragraph 18 above; second, to destroy this website; and third, to prevent at all cost that Mr Mohamed ElBaradei's fundamental and deliberate lie mentioned in paragraph 14 above be known to the public. 21. As the denunciation to the Austrian Police did not work, the probability that I discover the proof (...) with Mr Magnus Olafsson was high and real as I was free out there. This is why both had to leave the IAEA as soon as possible, but not dismissed (...). Therefore, Mr David Barclay Waller quickly organized Mr Magnus Olafsson’s position (as in the IAEA, again without competition) as Director (grade D-2) of the UN Meetings and Publishing Division, which he took up in the summer of 2008, while Ms X had still to be trained (!!) in the IAEA’s Publishing Section as Head of the Production Unit (post for which there was no competition). It should be recalled here that in the IAEA, it was Ms X herself who in 2002 created her own P-3 post as Head of the Meeting Planning and Support Coordination Unit [Conference Services Section (CSS), Division of Conference and Document Services (MTCD)] and that although there was a competition for this post, this competition was feigned as the decision on her selection had been taken long before the vacancy was even written. The story in detail: 22. I have documented this story in detail and in English (as all documentary evidence is in English) in the following electronic file, which is linked to 179 appendices, the documentary evidence. The most important part of this story though is summarized in the first 81 pages: My Case Against the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its former Director General, Mr Mohamed ElBaradei Nobel Peace Prize Winners 2005 List of additions to this file since it was published on 3 September 2007: (First in order of importance, then in descending order)
	The IAEA Board of Governors The "Honorable Society" ...as corrupt as the secretariat! This fact is easily explained by the "secret/confidential" diplomatic cables of the US Mission in Vienna published by WikiLeaks, a summary of some of which can be seen here. Note in particular those concerning Mr Yukiya Amano, as he was for more than ten years Governor of Japan in this Board and at times also its Chairman. The Board of Governors is the governing body of the IAEA and consists of Resident Representatives from 35 IAEA Member States. Five of its Members are permanent with the right to veto (the same Permanent Members of the UN Security Council), while the other 30 are elected every two years. Under this constellation, the Non-Permanent Members can only say as much as the Permanent Members allow them. Therefore, the question arises, what are the Non-Permanent Members actually doing there? The answer is that the votes of the Non-Permanent Members are needed (and misused!) by the Permanent Members to create majorities for the enforcement of their respective interests. And it goes indeed in the Board like the bargaining in the bazaar [“5. ...Grateful for U.S. efforts, Amano twice cited, in particular, our crucial influence on Argentina's fifth-round abstention...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009). More on this assertion]: in return for votes, the US for example offers weapons systems, military assistance and meetings with Barack Obama. This is why the Non-Permanent Members are obviously happy to be there... They are there actually only for selling their votes! And this is what happens to the Non-Permanent Members that do not want to sell their votes for a specific issue: “6. Amano admitted some unease that Japan can only authoritatively identify 10 of the 12 countries that voted for Minty in the first three head-to-head ballots July 2... the two unknown countries... Japan has not been able to... identify the two "betrayals"... they suspect Malaysia and Saudi Arabia...” (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 10 July 2009). As it is clearly not “in the best interest” of the Board of Governors (BoG) to disclose the misdoings of the IAEA Management, the following sequence of events within the BoG arise the suspicion that it is actively trying to hush them up: In 2007, the BoG chased Ms X out of the BoG and of the Conference Services Section altogether (although, officially, it was Ms X herself, who wrote an Interoffice Memorandum asking for this transfer), but not out of the IAEA! In 2008, the BoG made clear to Mr Mohamed ElBaradei that it would not elect him for a fourth four-year-term; In 2008, it could be that it was the BoG that forced Mr Magnus Olafsson to leave the IAEA, but not dismissed! They provided him with a similar position and a promotion to grade D-2 in the UN in New York! With this position, he is able to keep his diplomatic immunity! In 2008, the BoG decided that appointments for key positions in the IAEA, up to then decided by Mr David Barclay Waller alone, must be approved by the BoG; In 2009, the BoG awarded Mr Mohamed ElBaradei with the title of “Director General Emeritus”, which might have given him the right to keep his diplomatic immunity; In 2009, the newly elected DG, Mr Yukiya Amano, was happy to be able to keep Mr David Barclay Waller, the DDG-MT since 19 years now (he is of age 62), allowing Mr David Barclay Waller so, to keep his diplomatic immunity! In 2010, the BoG no longer wants to hold its meetings in the M Building, which was inaugurated on 25 April 2008! After only three years, it now wants to return to its old “Board Room”! Note here that the M Building, which was characterized as "M for magnificent" by Mr Magnus Olafsson, has cost € 50 million to the Austrian tax payers and that, if Mr Mohamed ElBaradei was able to keep his diplomatic immunity, then the three principal actors here still have their diplomatic immunity, which protects them from prosecution, a goal the BoG could be pursuing! Appendix 151: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to Her Excellency Ms Taous Feroukhi, Ambassador of Algeria to Austria, Chairperson of the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 152: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to Her Excellency Ms Kirsti Kauppi, Ambassador of Finland to Austria, Vice-Chairperson of the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 153: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Cornel Feruta, Ambassador of Romania to Austria, Vice-Chairperson of the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 154: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to Mr Chen Qiufa, Chairman, China Atomic Energy Authority, Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 155: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to Mr Olivier Caron, Director of International Relations, Commissariat à l’Energie atomique, Governor for France to the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 156: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Grigory Berdennikov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Austria, Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 157: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Simon Smith, Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Austria, Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 158: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Gregory L Schulte, Ambassador of the United States of America to Austria, Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 159: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Alejandro Díaz Pérez Duarte, Ambassador of Mexico to Austria, Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 160: My Letter Dated 3 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Rüdiger Lüdeking, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Austria, Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 161: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Yukiya Amano, Ambassador of Japan to Austria, Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors. It is now up to the Board of Governors to resolve this case, but it does not! And, here is the reason why it does not.

The IAEA's Management Appendix 134: The Basis of the Widespread Corruption at the IAEA - The Most Important Secret of the IAEA's Management - Half of the Truth. (This Appendix was last updated on 20 June 2010); Appendix 123: Very Close to the Truth - Further flagrant evidence of the widespread corruption at the IAEA. (This Appendix was last updated on 27 June 2012); The Flagrant Evidence of the Widespread Corruption at the IAEA: First part (Appendix 150, dated 25 January 2009); Second part (Appendix 170, dated 20 June 2009); Third part (Appendix 104, last updated on 28 May 2008). Appendix 117: The IAEA's "Inner Circle". (This Appendix was last updated on 20 June 2010); Appendix 120: The Evidence of Desperation. (This Appendix was last updated on 20 January 2009).

The Culture of Lie at the IAEA The former Director General (former DG), Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, lies in writing. (A part of Appendix 104); The Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management (DDG-MT), Mr David Barclay Waller, lies in writing; The former Special Assistant to the Director General for Management, Mr Verasak Liengsririwat, lied as well; The IAEA's Management, that is the three officials mentioned above in this list, lies in writing; The Acting Director of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Mr Tijani Chaouch Bouraoui, lies in writing (see Fact Nr. 22, page 5 of Mr Raymond Nader's file); The OIOS Investigator in the case, Ms Karen Medina-Jelinek, lies in writing. Ms Karen Medina-Jelinek had been waiting for more than twenty years for this case in order to force the IAEA's Management to let her go with a "golden check"; The Director of the Division of Human Resources (DIR-MTHR), Mr Douglas J. Northey, lies in writing (this Appendix was last updated on 17 April 2008); The Joint Appeals Board (JAB), lies in writing; The Director of the Office of Legal Affairs (DIR-OLA), Mr Johan Rautenbach, lies in writing; The Staff Council lies as well (see "The Staff Council" of "The Suspension from Duty" of Section 3 of the file documenting this story in detail, page 49). And they continue to lie... More lies in writing by Mr Mohamed ElBaradei and Mr David Barclay Waller will be published here later.

The Two "Pseudo-Tribunals" of the IAEA The so-called “internal means of redress” that, as demonstrated below, are only fake “internal means of redress”! Since about 15 years, these two "pseudo-tribunals" have one and the same “Secretary”: Mr Austin McGill “The Executioner” of the IAEA! {For his excellent performance as such, he was awarded with (a) promotion(s) from Grade P-3 to Grade D-1 [(Division's) Director... without a Division!]} His job is to write the reports for each case in accordance with the respective decisions made by Mr David Barclay Waller, before these Boards convene! Mr Austin McGill then presents these reports to the respective members who only have to sign them. Failure to sign such a report by a member of either of these Boards would mean, among other measures, for example, that this member's appointment is not extended. The result of this praxis is that: The prosecutor (as the "Supreme Chief" of the IAEA, it is he who makes the so-called "final decisions" that are sent to the JDB "for consideration" or "against which" staff members "can appeal" in the JAB) and the judge (as he alone decides in both the JDB and the JAB on "disputes" arisen because of the "final decisions" he himself made!) are one and the same person, namely, Mr David Barclay Waller! This cannot possible make justice! In general, these two "pseudo-tribunals" are actively at the front to “white-wash” the errors of the IAEA’s Management and its corrupted and other misdoings. That is, through these two "pseudo-tribunals" and with the IAEA’s Confidentiality, the IAEA’s Management hides its lack of qualifications and attacks those who discover them. I have already mentioned this fact in Assertion No. 6. In the praxis, and as already mentioned in paragraph 15 above, the only objective of these "pseudo-tribunals" is, in staff disputes, the organization of meetings [indeed, Mr Austin McGill was so desperate to get me to assist to such a meeting that, after many failed attempts through phone calls (I even had to change my phone number!) and letters, he even proposed to rent a meeting room in a hotel and acceded to my condition that the meeting was video-taped with my own video-camera, but only if I left the tape afterwards with them...!! And as all this did not work ("...and taking into account that the Board had made repeated requests for Mr M.R. to meet with the Board, which he declined...", paragraph 100, page 19 of Appendix 69), he had Ms Angela Jackson to retain my salary (Appendices 65 and 66), and finally, he tried with an Email to the witness (“as a staff member, you are expected to cooperate”) and an "unsolicited" letter to me, in which he means to tell me how good my supervisor (Mr Manfred Boemeke) was to me (so I should forgive him!) and that “the supplies and procurement in MTCD (Division of Conference and Document Services)” handled by Mr Raymond Nader "did not get lost", completely ignoring the evidence (Part 2, page 3) provided by Ms Rosa Kim against him. Yes, it seemed that the IAEA’s Management was more afraid of summarily dismissing me than me] in which the staff member complaining finds himself alone seating in front of four or five other staff members (and their signatures!) and is so imposed an oral (to avoid any evidence) compromise to the liking of the IAEA’s Management. This constellation makes sure that this compromise is reached by all means as, if the complainant does not agree with such compromise, he is intimidated, threatened and ultimately provoked and falsely accused (of whatever!). And, referring to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB), in the case that the complainant refuses to assist to such meetings, the IAEA’s Management simply waives the jurisdiction of this Board and the complainant is so able to file a complaint directly to the ILOAT. It is at this point, and, in the case of the Joint Disciplinary Board (JDB) after its referral, the task of the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) to do the job that the respective Board could not do as it was unable to meet with the complainant. Contrary to the respective Board, OLA will do this job in writing, in form of “official” documents addressed to the ILOAT. As Appendix 140 demonstrates, in these documents [called the IAEA’s “Reply” (an example is here Appendix 51) and the IAEA’s “Surrejoinder” (an example is here Appendix 12)], OLA will not only systematically ignore the truth, but also not shun lying hundreds of times if necessary in writing, in order to redress the case in accordance with Mr David Barclay Waller [Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management (DDG-MT)]’s instructions. That is why OLA, Director of which was Mr Mohamed ElBaradei for several years, is “The Official Liar of the IAEA”. At the end, a last intervention by Mr David Barclay Waller to the ILOAT will make sure that this Tribunal ignores all these lies and decides in favor of the IAEA’s Management. The evidence that these "pseudo-tribunals" not only lie, as demonstrated in appendices 139, 141 and 142, but are also vitiated by bias, is given below. The Joint Appeals Board (JAB) Note how the JAB proceeds with "higher-grade (D-staff)" staff members: Paragraph A (3rd) of ILOAT Judgment No. 2752 (on Mr Magnus Olafsson’s complaint): “By a letter of 25 August 2005 the Director of the Division of Personnel informed the complainant (Mr Magnus Olafsson) that the Deputy Director General in charge of the Department of Management (Mr David Barclay Waller), had decided that he should receive a “letter of warning, which shall not be considered to be a disciplinary measure”, in respect of four allegations of misconduct outlined in the report respectively concerning his statements that Mr M.R. needed professional help and that another person (Mr Raymond Nader) was a better staff member, his mismanagement of the transfer of Mr M.R. and his incorrect reporting of misconduct.” Note here that Appendix 19 is the letter of the same date (25 August 2005) I received and which refers to the letter mentioned above that Mr Magnus Olafsson received. In Appendix 19 there is no mention whatsoever of the “letter of warning, which shall not be considered to be a disciplinary measure” and of the “four allegations of misconduct” by Mr Magnus Olafsson. This means, that, as mentioned in paragraph 14 above, Mr David Barclay Waller, misusing the IAEA’s Confidentiality and abusing of his power, made here two different decisions on the same matter and at the same time and "differently" informed the staff members concerned about them! Paragraph A (4th) of ILOAT Judgment No. 2752: “In its report of 30 August 2006, the Board concluded that the letter of warning was inappropriate, given the relatively minor nature of the unsatisfactory conduct described therein, and it recommended that the Director General reverse the decision to issue the complainant with a letter of warning.” But according to Staff Regulation 11.01, “misconduct” equates with ‘unsatisfactory conduct’: "The Director General may impose such disciplinary measures as are in his/her opinion appropriate on staff members whose conduct is unsatisfactory. He/she may summarily dismiss a staff member for serious misconduct." Paragraph 22 of the Considerations of ILOAT Judgment No. 2752: “...the Director General twice characterised the complainant’s actions as “unsatisfactory conduct” which, in the context of Appendix G and Staff Regulation 11.01 and without further explanation, would ordinarily be understood to mean “misconduct”.” Paragraph E of ILOAT Judgment No. 2752: “...the IAEA submits that... It adds that... the Joint Appeals Board’s report according to which there was no misconduct on his part.” Paragraph 14 of the Considerations of ILOAT Judgment No. 2752: “The Board concluded that “given the relatively minor nature of the unsatisfactory conduct... recommended that the decision to issue the letter of warning be reversed.” “The Director General allowed the complainant’s appeal to the extent of the written warning with respect to the statement advising Mr M.R. to seek “professional help.” “In this regard, the Board had concluded that the statement could well have been made to provide assistance rather than to offend.” And this is how the JAB proceeds with "lower-grade (G-staff)" staff members: In its Report dated 10 June 2005, the JAB wrote the following: “...the Board noted that between 15 and 17 November 2004 there was evidence submitted of four alleged incidents of threats or threatening behaviour by the Appellant directed against three different staff members in the Division, at least one of which (involving Ms X concerning an incident on the day before DIR-MTCD made his request for suspension) could be regarded as potentially very serious.” (Paragraph 25 of page 4); “...The Board noted the statement of A/DIR-MTPR (Ms Angela Jackson) in her memorandum of 2 December 2004, which was coordinated with the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), that ”there is prima facie evidence of misconduct by Mr. M.R. Further, his suspension from duty during OIOS’ investigation is appropriate...” ” (Paragraph 26 of page 5); “......the request to the Director General to suspend the Appellant was, therefore, based on two major issues: firstly, and primarily, the physical threats alleged to have been made by the Appellant...; secondly, as a corollary to the first, the perceived insubordination of the Appellant, as well as the lack of trust in working relationships...” (Paragraph 27 of page 5); “...The Board concluded that there appeared to be good reason, backed up by sufficient supporting evidence, at the time the decision was taken, to believe it prudent for the Agency to suspend the Appellant...” (Paragraph 28 of page 5); “...The Board accordingly concluded that the Administration was justified, on the basis of the information presented to it by DIR-MTCD, in concluding that there was prima facie evidence of misconduct on the part of the Appellant and that the Appellant’s suspension from duty was appropriate...” (Paragraph 29 of page 5); “...the Board concluded that it was reasonable for the Administration to continue the suspension until the issue had been fully investigated to its satisfaction... In a case such as the present, involving the suspension of a staff member on purely prima facie evidence, speed is of the essence in resolving the matter and suspension, though clearly a precautionary and not a disciplinary measure, has serious consequences for both the Agency and the staff member.” (Paragraph 32 of page 5); "The Board concluded that:" (Paragraph 33 of page 6) “The Administration was justified, on the basis of the information presented to it by DIR-MTCD in concluding that there was prima facie evidence of misconduct on the part of the Appellant and that the Appellant’s suspension from duty was in accordance with the Staff Rules and in particular with the provisions of AM.II/1, Appendix G, paragraph 5; “The continuation of this suspension beyond the “normal 90-day period” was appropriate, on the basis of Office of Internal Oversight Services’ inability to provide to the Director General any information which might disavow the initial premise. The Joint Disciplinary Board (JDB) Note the following statement by the JDB about the second “prima facie evidence”: Page 18 of Appendix 69: “97. With regard to allegation 2 {‘that Mr. M. R. verbally abused Ms Corinne Foote’ [“If you do anything to Catherine I will kill you!” (Appendix 50)]}, in all the circumstances the Board cannot conclude that the statement was in fact made as alleged, and concludes that this should not be a matter for the imposition of a disciplinary measure.” This statement means that Ms Corinne Foote’s allegation was made “either with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless indifference to the truth”, as it could not be proven to be true! The same happened with these reworded allegations by me (top of page 11 of Appendix 69): “Ms X’s comet like career in MTCD (Division of Conference and Document Services)“ “(...) alleged (...) with Mr. Olafsson“ “Mr. Nader must be (...) Mr. Olafsson (...)“ which according to the JDB were made “either with knowledge of their falsehood or with reckless indifference as to their truth”, as they, could "allegedly" and at that time, according to the JDB, also not be proven to be true; And, because of this statement by the JDB “the Board considered that reckless indifference to the truth was equivalent to deliberate falsehood” referring to paragraph 2 above: “98. With regard to allegation 3 (‘that Mr. M. R. made a number of deliberately false allegations of misconduct’), the Board concludes:” “(i) with regard to allegations a, b and c under this heading (reference is made here to paragraph 2 above), based on the written documentation provided, there is a lack of any evidence of information to substantiate his allegations, which were very serious and potentially harmful to the private and professional lives of those staff members. Considering that Mr. M. R. could not substantiate his allegations and irrespective of whether they were made with reckless indifference as to their truth or were deliberately false, which the Board is not in a position to establish, Mr. M. R.’s conduct involved a serious breach of Staff Rule 11.01.1 (B)(5). In its deliberations, the Board considered that reckless indifference to the truth was equivalent to deliberate falsehood. In the view of the Board Mr. M. R.’s behaviour amounted to serious misconduct." The JDB decided that “In the view of the Board Mr. M. R.’s behaviour amounted to serious misconduct” and, for this reason the JDB recommended that I be dismissed (page 19 of Appendix 69): “100. In the light of its findings and conclusions as summarised above, and in particular in the light of its findings at paragraph 98(i) above, and taking into account that the Board had made repeated requests for Mr M. R. to meet with the Board, which he declined, the Board recommends that Mr. M. R. be dismissed for serious misconduct. It follows that paragraph 3 above should also have been applied to paragraph 1 above. Accordingly, and given the fact that Ms Corinne Foote’s allegation (“If you do anything to Catherine I will kill you!”) is even more serious (a death threat!) than the three phrases mentioned in paragraph 2 above, the JDB should also have recommended that Ms Corinne Foote be dismissed. But it did not!

The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) "...as the successor to the League of Nations Administrative Tribunal, the ILOAT was intended to protect the independence and security of staff members from the irregular and improper actions of administrations, not to act as a shield of management against the consequences of its own illegal or stupid decisions. In recent years however, it seems that the Tribunal cared less about the survival and well-being of the international civil service, and more about keeping the administrations which pay the costs of the Tribunal happy and inclined to continue subscribing to the jurisdiction of the ILOAT." (UNSpecial No. 612 — November 2002). The ILOAT's definition of "prima facie evidence of misconduct": "The phrase "prima facie evidence of misconduct" refers to material which a person determining the facts is entitled to regard as probative and which, if accepted, would establish misconduct. It does not refer, as the argument assumes, to evidence that is ultimately accepted as proof of misconduct." [Considerations (18th paragraph) of ILOAT Judgment No. 2604]. This definition confirms this statement "...the Tribunal as a "rubber-stamp" protector of unaccountable administrators acting with impunity behind the functional immunity granted to international organizations" as it gives the power to (arbitrarily) decide to only one person (in the IAEA "normally" the Director General, but in reality Mr David Barclay Waller, the DDG-MT) what is "prima facie evidence of misconduct" regardless of whether there is actual evidence that proofs misconduct!    On the Reform of the ILOAT: ILOAT Found Unlawful, Archaic by Distinguished Jurists: The text of the Opinion prepared by Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. (a renowned British Barrister and human rights campaigner), Doughty Street Chambers, London; Opinion prepared by Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General of the International Commission of Jurists; Opinion prepared by Dr. Ian Seiderman of the Centre for an Independent Judiciary. The London Resolution; The ILO Staff Union Bullet Points - Ranked By Category; "Reform of the ILO Administrative Tribunal"; "The Tribunal on trial" (page 5); "The need to improve the internal system of justice" (point 3).    Appendix 137: The Official Lies of the ILOAT The evidence that this Tribunal not only lies, as demonstrated in Appendix 137, but is also vitiated by bias, is given below. Note how the ILOAT proceeds with "higher-grade (D-staff)" staff members: Reference is made in this column to the ILOAT’s Verdict on Mr Magnus Olafsson’s complaint published on 9 July 2008 (ILOAT Judgment No. 2752). "Facts relevant to this case are to be found in Judgments 2604 and 2656." [Paragraph A (1st)]. "The background facts as they relate to Mr M.R., who was suspended from duty and ultimately dismissed, are to be found in Judgments 2604 and 2656." [Considerations (1st paragraph)]. "...the Agency regards the actions that formed the basis for its letter of warning as no more than shortcomings in the complainant’s performance as a manager. Indeed, his actions could not be characterised as misconduct. Nor are they properly characterised as “unsatisfactory conduct” for the purposes of Staff Regulation 11.01 which deals with misconduct." [Considerations (18th paragraph)]. "As it is now clear that it is not contended that the complainant’s actions constituted misconduct, there was no basis upon which the letter of warning could be issued. Rather, the case should have been closed in its entirety... Thus, it was an error of law to issue the complainant with a letter of warning under paragraph 4(c) of Appendix G. Accordingly, the Director General’s decision dated 8 March 2007 must be set aside to the extent that it dismissed the complainant’s appeal, and the revised letter of warning of 19 March must be removed from his personal file." [Considerations (21st paragraph)]. "Although Appendix G does not expressly require that reasons be given, the duty to explain a decision is a general principle of administrative law (see Judgment 1369). At the very least, there must be a sufficient statement of the reasons to enable the person affected to defend his rights, including, if necessary, by pursuing an internal appeal in a timely manner." [Considerations (24th paragraph)]. "...the complainant was entitled to know the precise basis on which it was claimed that he had transgressed, information that was available in the recommendation" (the recommendation submitted by the Director of the Division of Personnel to the Deputy Director General in charge of the Department of Management, before the latter took his decision on the allegations of misconduct, as required by paragraph 4 of Appendix G). "Without that information, he was not in a position to make a proper response to the allegations. And in the absence of reasons for the decision to issue a letter of warning, he was not in a position properly to advance his internal appeal... This was a serious failure of due process." [Considerations (28th paragraph)]. "The unlawfulness of the decision to issue the complainant with a letter of warning, the failure to make it clear to him that he had not been found guilty of misconduct until answers were provided to the Joint Appeals Board in March 2006, some seven months after he had been issued with a written warning, the procedural irregularities noted above, particularly the failure to provide information as to the basis on which it was claimed he had transgressed and the reasons for the decision to issue him with a written warning, together with the delay of almost 15 months in finalising his internal appeal, warrant an award of moral damages which the Tribunal fixes at 10,000 euros. Additionally, the complainant is entitled to costs in the amount of 500 euros." [Considerations (29th paragraph)]. “DECISION For the above reasons, To the extent that it dismissed the complainant’s appeal, the decision of the Director General dated 8 March 2007 is set aside. The Director General shall remove the revised letter of warning of 19 March 2007 from the complainant’s personal file. The IAEA shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 10,000 euros. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 500 euros.” According to this Judgment, it would seem that Mr Magnus Olafsson did not have a counsel for writing the required documents to the ILOAT, the complaint and the rejoinder. This was not the case! His counsel was no other than Mr Johan Rautenbach, the expert in that field as he was the Director of the Office of Legal Affairs (DIR-OLA), the “Official Liar” of the IAEA. Both were seen many times seating together for hours in the 4th floor of the C-Building. This is how the ILOAT proceeds with "lower-grade (G-staff)" staff members: Reference is made in this column to the ILOAT’s Verdict on my first complaint published on 7 February 2007 [ILOAT Judgment No. 2604 (Appendix 6)]. "It is contended, by reference to the OIOS report and, also, the subsequent report of the Joint Disciplinary Board, that there was no prima facie evidence of misconduct to justify the Director General's decision to suspend the complainant on 14 December 2004. That argument must be rejected. The phrase "prima facie evidence of misconduct" refers to material which a person determining the facts is entitled to regard as probative and which, if accepted, would establish misconduct. It does not refer, as the argument assumes, to evidence that is ultimately accepted as proof of misconduct." [Considerations (18th paragraph)]. "It is reasonable to infer, as argued, that the Director of the complainant's Division had known about the complaint of misconduct filed by the complainant before he requested an investigation and the complainant's suspension. However, it is not reasonable to infer that his request was either an act of retaliation or was motivated by bias. As said in Judgment 1775, 'evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances.'" [Considerations (20th paragraph)]. "...his behaviour towards his colleagues became problematic with his colleagues reporting threatening incidents, albeit that the last of these was reported some days after the complainant lodged his complaint of misconduct. The reported incidents, if true [note here that the ILOAT does not even know, if these "reported incidents" (Appendices 110, 50, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 32) were true or not. Nevertheless, the ILOAT decided in favor of the IAEA by dismissing this complaint and in doing so, the ILOAT also confirms its own definition of "prima facie evidence of misconduct" mentioned above (Considerations, 18th paragraph), which gives the power to (arbitrarily) decide to only one person what is "prima facie evidence of misconduct" regardless of whether there is actual evidence that proofs misconduct or not!], were of such a nature that it was reasonable to conclude that the Director's request was, as then stated, necessary for 'the effective and efficient operation of [the] Division, the good name of the Agency and [...] the well-being of individual staff members'." [Considerations (20th paragraph)]. "Moreover, it clearly appears that attempts were made to contact the complainant with respect to his complaint before his suspension." [Considerations (21st paragraph)]. "It is argued that an inference of bias is confirmed by “chronological coincidences", namely:" the failure to provide the OIOS report of 31 May 2005 to the Joint Appeals Board before it submitted its report on 10 June 2005; the failure of the Director General to have regard to the OIOS report when making his decision of 21 June 2005 dismissing the complainant's appeal against his suspension; and the failure to provide the OIOS report to the complainant until 27 June 2005. "These matters provide neither confirmation of nor a basis for an inference of bias." [Considerations (22nd paragraph)]. "The OIOS report was not relevant to the question whether there was prima facie evidence of misconduct [this is not true: "The investigation is continuing and I have been advised by DIR-OIOS that his office is not in a position to express any view as to whether all of the evidence obtained to date confirms or casts doubt on my conclusion that there was prima facie evidence of misconduct by you." (Appendix 14)] when the Director General made his decision on 14 December 2004 to suspend the complainant, that being the subject of the appeal before the Joint Appeals Board and, later, the Director General's decision to dismiss the appeal." [Considerations (22nd paragraph)]. "...it is said that the impugned decision "constitutes an obvious attempt [...] to hamper the staff right of appeal". As the complainant did appeal against his suspension... There is simply no basis for such a suggestion." [Considerations (23rd paragraph)]. "...the decision to suspend the complainant from duty and also the decision to extend his suspension are "illegal because of the exaggerated extension of the suspension without valid reasons". In this respect, it is put that the complainant was suspended from 14 December 2004 to 3 March 2006. The complainant's suspension was continued from 9 September 2005 to 3 March 2006 by a separate decision (arbitrarily) taken after completion of the procedures set out in Appendix G [this is not true as these procedures were not completed on or before 9 September 2005 as the date of the Report of the Joint Disciplinary Board (JDB) proves it, 10 February 2006. It is then that these procedures were completed! This so-called "separate decision" was illegal as with an “absence of a decision to the contrary, the suspension continued", no “separate decision” for the extension of the suspension was neither necessary nor possible! This "separate decision" was a trap to force me to appeal (once again!) to the Joint Appeals Board, and thereafter to the ILOAT, which would have lengthened the process for another two years and cost me some additional € 15.000!] and which was not the subject of the internal appeal and thus is not before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the argument is to be considered by reference to the period 14 December 2004 to 9 September 2005. Although the period was lengthy, that was no doubt because of the nature of the OIOS investigation (which, to a large extent, was complicated by the complainant's further allegations) and the necessity to comply with the procedures required by Appendix G." [Considerations (24th paragraph)]. "DECISION" "For the above reasons," "The complaint is dismissed." Note that nothing, not even the € 11,122.80 that I paid to Mr Jean-Didier Sicault for this Complaint were reinborsed to me. Note also the number of lies by the IAEA's Management (listed in Appendix 140) to this complaint that the ILOAT completely ignored: In the IAEA’s Reply 36, in the IAEA’s Surrejoinder 23, this makes altogether 59 lies! And this is again how the ILOAT proceeds with "lower-grade (G-staff)" staff members: Reference is made in this column to the ILOAT’s Verdict on my second complaint published on 11 July 2007 [ILOAT Judgment No. 2656 (Appendix 83)]. "...but the decision is mischaracterised as a summary dismissal..." [Considerations (3rd paragraph)]. "...The statements were to the effect that one staff member had had a “comet like career” as a result of a (...) with a senior staff member (Mr Magnus Olafsson) and that a third staff member (Mr Raymond Nader) had been promoted despite his poor performance because he was blackmailing the other two." [Considerations (4th paragraph)]. "...it appears that the statements to the effect that two staff members were having a (...) and that they were being blackmailed by a third staff member (Mr Raymond Nader) were made deliberately and without supporting evidence of any kind..." [Considerations (7th paragraph)]. "...the decision to dismiss the complainant was illegal because it originated in a mismanaged proposal to transfer him to another post... However, the proposal was abandoned..." [Considerations (8th paragraph)]. "DECISION" "For the above reasons," "The complaint is dismissed." Note that nothing, not even the € 19,734 that I paid to Mr Jean-Didier Sicault for this Complaint were reinborsed to me. Note also the number of lies by the IAEA's Management (listed in Appendix 140) to this complaint that the ILOAT completely ignored: In the IAEA’s Reply 53, in the IAEA’s Surrejoinder 23, this makes altogether 76 lies! As already mentioned above, on "disputes" arisen because of the so-called "final decisions" Mr David Barclay Waller makes, as prosecutor and judge at the same time, it is he alone who decides in the two "Pseudo-Tribunals" of the IAEA. These three Judgments by the ILOAT make evident how long Mr David Barclay Waller’s fingers can be in the pursuit of the enforcement of his own "final decisions": "You dismiss these two complaints" (judgments nos. 2604 and 2656, respectively), "or the IAEA will no longer recognize the jurisdiction of the ILOAT", is what Mr David Barclay Waller most have said to the ILOAT. And, it is surely also Mr David Barclay Waller who has asked the ILOAT not to process the witness' two complaints, as it is now the second ILOAT-session without these two complaints having been processed.

The Director of the Division of Human Resources (DIR-MTHR), Mr Douglas J. Northey The ultimate evidence of the administrative conspiracy in this story (Appendix 113): “Dear Cristina and Lisa... I wish you both the very best, and especially hope that you, Cristina, can find some peace at home... With kind regards..." Reportedly he receives many complaints from the staff and just puts them into a drawer and considers only those from staff members that insist on them (only a few). But this is what he usually responds to queries: “The IAEA fulfills the duty that it owes its staff, namely to perform a good faith and proper consideration of their complaints in accordance with its internal rules and procedures.” It is said that he has one or two staff members changing (manipulating!) the so called “Exit Interviews”. Staff members leaving the IAEA are now being interviewed on their experience in general in the IAEA and on their reason for leaving if it is not for retirement. This measure must have been imposed to the IAEA’s Management by the IAEA Board of Governors. Appendix 169: Mr Douglas J. Northey’s Letter Dated 27 April 2009; Appendix 166: My Letter Dated 23 March 2009 to Mr Douglas J. Northey; Appendix 136: My Email Dated 11 September 2008 to Mr Douglas J. Northey; Appendix 115: Mr Douglas J. Northey’s "Confidential" Letter Dated 26 March 2008; Appendix 111: Mr Douglas J. Northey’s Email Dated 21 December 2007 to the witness; Appendix 107: Mr Douglas J. Northey is Reading my Emails, while, and at the same time, he is asking other staff members not to read them (fourth paragraph of Appendix 113). He perfectly knows the truth mentioned in paragraph 9 above, nonetheless he affirms that "...the facts of Mr. M.R.’s dismissal from the Agency are not as he portrays them.” He does not even have to write the letters he signs. That is the job of Ms Gabriele Fouchard and Ms Eva-Maria Moosbrugger!

The Staff Council The "Secret Service" of the IAEA's Management! Its job is to betray the staff members it represents! (See page 49 of the file documenting this story in detail). Mr Michael T. Donoho “AmCit”! Ousted as President by Mr David Barclay Waller because he lost contact to me! A traitor: “There is evidence that Mr. Olafsson was made aware of Mr. M. R.’s filing of a complaint of misconduct through 'corridor talk' as he himself stated during the interview with OIOS” (“I think it was Mike who told me that José was filing a complaint against Manfred, but he did not mention my name.”). Paragraph d of page 43 of Appendix 4. And: “Staff Council cannot comment on the suspension of Mr. M.R. as we have not been requested to advise or represent him in this regard (page 3 of Appendix 27).” Now in the Standing Committee on Legal Questions, he is reportedly in regular contact since years with Mr Jean-Didier Sicault, although Mr Jean-Didier Sicault has even certified to me (in page 7) that this was not the case! Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard “AmCit”! Supposed to succeed Mr Donoho as President, was rejected by Mr David Barclay Waller because she lost contact to me! A traitor: “...Ms Villard confirmed during the same interview that she informed the President of Staff Council, Mr. Donoho, that Mr. M. R. was going to submit a complaint to DIR-MTPR against Mr. Olafsson.” (Fifth paragraph of page 19 of Appendix 4). “José showed me the complaint after he had sent it. We all knew at the same time.” (Sixth paragraph of page 19 of Appendix 4). And, it was in my presence on 10 November 2004 that Ms Villard called the President of the SC (Mr Donoho) to inform him about it! Mr Donoho said that he didn’t know about it (meaning: Ms Villard hadn’t told him). Mr Donoho said that he could not have said something to DIR-MTCD that he didn’t know. She wanted € 60,000 from me and, as I refused to give her the money, said to the witness (and to the IAEA's Management): "He is going to kill you first, then all those in the group and finally himself! Mr Dean H. Neal Not surprisingly, also “AmCit”! Installed as new President by Mr David Barclay Waller with the hope that the witness would trust him and contact him, which the witness, of course, will never do! This is what he reportedly keeps saying to staff members seeking his help: "You should be happy to have your job. If not, you should leave!" “I have worked closely with senior management in the Agency at the highest levels and I believe I hold the trust of the administration and senior management in working with them on staff issues. I have also met regularly with the UN Chief of Security for several years on staff matters.” Statement submitted as candidate for President of the SC. “I have served for many years on both the Joint Disciplinary Board and the Joint Appeals Board... I attend these Boards (both JAB and JDB) with any staff member who requests my assistance as their representative...” Short biography submitted as candidate for President of the SC (SA/El.43/96 – 8 November 2012). Mr Nabil M. Sahab Also member of the Joint Disciplinary Board (JDB), signed the recommendation of my summary dismissal affirming that the three phrases mentioned in paragraph 16 above, that is the truth mentioned in paragraph 9 above, were false allegations of misconduct! It is very questionable to be a member of the JDB (a pseudo-tribunal), which is there to punish staff members, and, at the same time, to be a member of the Staff Council, which in reality ought to be there to protect staff members... Mr Anthony Watson (Grade P-4) Mr Raymond Nader's "Staff Representative" at that time! Denounced Mr Raymond Nader's poor performance (Part 1, page 1). Mr Watson's testimony was dismissed by the IAEA’s Management as "unfounded"! Still a "Staff Representative", Mr Anthony Watson said that he could not do anything for anyone because he was threatened by (Mr David Barclay) Waller! "I spend every month only half of my salary and it is not at all in my interest to have to leave the IAEA before my retirement, if I want to have a good pension!" Mr Anthony Watson was the second staff representative, after Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard, having had to do with this story at its very beginning in spring 2003, when I discovered that Mr Manfred Boemeke had been giving since years the credit of my work to Mr Markus Lané. For this reason, Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard and I went to see him, and all he did was to hand over the case to Ms X, at that time the Administrative Assistant of the Division of Conference and Document Services, who did not know about it, but was happy to learn it, because instead of doing something against it, she added Mr Raymond Nader as another staff member who should also become a part of the credit of my work. Ms X must have thought that thanks to the IAEA’s Confidentiality, I would never be able to prove this as “...it is important to note that Mr. M.R. is not supposed to know or have access to what is stated in Mr. Lané’s PRR let alone comment on what is written in this confidential document (first paragraph of page 30 of Appendix 4)”. But to her great dismay, in late 2004 I was provided with these documents! Mr Anthony Watson, recognizing his uselessness, when the case had already badly escalated with Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard and Mr Michael T. Donoho (at that time the President of the Staff Council) having betrayed me and therefore having lost contact with me, he called me at home on 10 February 2005, urging the witness to urgently contact Mr Dean H. Neal, at that time only another staff representative, as he wished to interview the witness, “because Mr Dean H. Neal was the only staff member whom the witness could still trust!” This was surely another move from the part of Mr Verasak Liengsririwat...

The Witness This story is far from being over! Appendix 121 starts a completely new chapter in this case! The reader will surely notice that the witness’ complaints listed here below were submitted already in 2008. These complaints prove the truth of this story. The reader will then rightly ask him/herself what happened to these complaints. The answer to this is nothing! All of them were, according to the well-proven method mentioned in paragraph 4 above, blatantly ignored by the IAEA's Management as well as by the ILOAT, because it seems that neither the ILOAT has any interest in processing these complaints! The IAEA’s Management, after having had disappeared all the evidence of the witness, this means nothing other than reducing the witness to silence. This reminds of Ms Piroska Nagy’s case, an economist from Hungary who has worked at the IMF (International Monetary Fund). In its "investigation’s report" on the love affair with her boss, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK), the Managing Director of the IMF, the IMF concluded that "DSK had not abused of his position in her regard.” In the IMF, as in the IAEA (and certainly also in other international organizations) everything is simply covered up, in the IAEA the way I mentioned in Assertion No. 6. But, as in the case of the witness the IAEA's Management simply ignored her complaints, this means that these complaints are not false allegations, because otherwise the IAEA's Management would have accused the witness of having made false allegations, which means misconduct and therefore also her summary dismissal. And this is certainly what the IAEA's Management would very much like to do, but did not. It follows that the more than fifty allegations of the witness in her complaints are true. Ms Marcela Hejtman, Grade G-5. The "ideal" IAEA staff member ("The boss is the best and the greatest!")! Her "unofficial" task is to spy on the witness while in the premises. For this purpose, and following orders of Mr Verasak Liengsririwat, she is sharing the office [this measure was implemented by Mr Verasak Liengsririwat for all G-Staff in the IAEA as a result of this story in order to prevent in the future the loss of "confidential" documents (the reason why this story took place at all) and to achieve that G-Staff spy on and denounce each other] with the witness since 2005 to better check on every of her actions, including how the witness feels and dresses, and reports this daily to Ms Corinne Foote, who forwards these reports to Ms X and to Mr Douglas J. Northey. No wonder she spends about 70 % of her working time chatting on the phone and with colleagues without anyone telling her anything about it! And indeed, by dramatically increasing the time she spends chatting on the phone and with colleagues up to 85 % of her working time recently, she has denounced herself as a spy. Exactly as they did with me in 2004, Ms Marcela Hejtman’s actions are blank provocations, a part of the very evident mobbing-campaign against the witness, organized by Mr David Barclay Waller {the "Executive Project Manager" of Mobbing [and not of the so-called "Agency-Wide Information System for Programme Support" (AIPS), that only for the first stage has cost € 14.5 million and which according to Mr Dean H. Neal (Staff Council President) does not work!]} and with the clear objective of getting the witness to commit misconduct, for example by hitting Ms Hejtman, with which she would be summarily dismissed. It is to hope now that Ms Marcela Hejtman, as well as all the other participants in this mobbing-campaign against the witness, realizes that there were several victims as a result of the mobbing-campaign against me, some of them even in high positions [just in case she forgot, here are some of them: Mr Ibrahim Ali Zeekeh (the former Director of the Office of Internal Oversight Services), Ms Unni Vennemoe (the former Director of the Division of Personnel), Mr Magnus Olafsson, Mr Verasak Liengsririwat and even her direct supervisor, Ms Corinne Foote, as this was the reason why she could not get her promotion to Grade P-5], and that with this website now things have changed considerably, as everything will be registered and published. As demonstrated in this story, to one complaint (report of misconduct) by an IAEA staff member A accusing another IAEA staff member B, there is a contra-complaint supposedly by IAEA staff member B, in reality though, instigated by the IAEA’s Management. It has been reported to me that this is exactly what happened to Ms Rosa Kim, the Administrative Assistant of the Division of Conference and Document Services (DIR-MTCD). When she filed a complaint against a staff member for theft of equipment, she was confronted with a contra-complaint supposedly from the part of this staff member for the very same reason. If this report is true, which I believe it is, then it confirms that this is a systematic practice applied by the IAEA’s Management since years, although it is clearly against IAEA Staff Rule 11.01.1 [(Misconduct), (B) (6) (Retaliation by a staff member against another staff member who in good faith has reported suspected misconduct)]. The reason for this practice is clear: at the end there is no complaint at all as a complaint is destroyed by a contra-complaint... orally, through a personal settlement (a meeting) organized by the IAEA’s Management. The illegality (because against IAEA Staff Rule 11.01.1) of this practice is hidden by the IAEA’s Management’s “Confidentiality”, which makes sure that no one else learns about it. Absence of complaints means good management, which is the objective, as with this image to the IAEA Member States, the IAEA’s Management, that is the three persons named in paragraph 1 above, assures its appointments. This is confirmed by the following facts: Mr Mohamed ElBaradei was the Director General for 12 years, Mr David Barclay Waller is the Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management since 17 years and Mr Verasak Liengsririwat was the Special Assistant to the Director General for Management for 10 years. By applying this practice, a bad management becomes a good management. But this practice is only possible with a personal settlement. Without a personal settlement a complaint can become a real problem for the IAEA’s Management... and for the IAEA staff members involved. This is what happened in my case because I refused such a personal settlement [a meeting (see page 4 of the file documenting this story in detail)] during which the IAEA’s Management lies and uses intimidation, bluff and provocations. And, this is also what will happen in the witness’ case because she will also refuse such a personal settlement. But a contra-complaint is by far not the only practice the IAEA’s Management uses to destroy complaints. Another practice is the complete surveillance of the complainant’s telephone, computer [hard disk and communications (Emails and websites visited)] and even people the complainant talks to. This practice allows the IAEA’s Management to find reasons for producing a contra-complaint. This is exactly what the IAEA’s Management did with me and this is also what it is presently doing with the witness, as it has been reported to me. Appendix 150: The Witness’ Interoffice Memorandum Dated 25 January 2009 to Mr Mohamed ElBaradei [Director General (DG)]; Appendix 144: The Witness’ Formal Complaint against Mr Manfred Boemeke [Head, Publishing Section (MTCD)], Mr Markus Lané [Customer Services Section (MTIT)], Ms Angela Peake-Herzog [Publishing Section (MTCD)], Mr Raymond Nader [Customer Services Section (MTIT)] and Mr Herbert Giller [Publishing Section (MTCD)]; Appendix 143: The Witness’ Formal Complaint against Mr Johan Rautenbach [Director of the Office of Legal Affairs (DIR-OLA)]; Appendix 142: The Witness’ Interoffice Memorandum Dated 21 November 2008 to Mr Douglas J. Northey [Director of the Division of Human Resources (DIR-MTHR)]; Appendix 141: The Witness’ Formal Complaint against Mr Austin John McGill [Secretariat of Policy-Making Organs (PMO)] and against Ms Christine Sevenier (Customer Services Section, MTIT); Appendix 132: The Witness’ Formal Complaint against Ms Corinne Foote [Head of the Document Support Section, Division of Conference and Document Services (MTCD)] and against Ms Angela Jackson [Head of the Staff Administration Section, Division of Human Resources (MTHR)]; Appendix 131: The Witness’ Interoffice Memorandum Dated 31 July 2008 to Mr Douglas J. Northey [Director of the Division of Human Resources (DIR-MTHR)]; Appendix 130: The Witness’ Formal Complaint against Ms Laura Rockwood [Head of the Non-Proliferation and Policy-Making Section, Office of Legal Affairs (OLA)] and against Mr Johan Rautenbach [Director of the Office of Legal Affairs (DIR-OLA)]; Appendix 129: The Witness’ Formal Complaint against Mr Magnus Olafsson [Director of the Division of Conference and Document Services (DIR-MTCD)]; Appendix 128: The Witness’ Interoffice Memorandum Dated 27 June 2008 to Mr Douglas J. Northey [Director of the Division of Human Resources (DIR-MTHR)]; Appendix 127: The Witness’ Formal Complaint against Ms Catherine Monzel [Head, Recruitment and Staff Development Section, Division of Human Resources (MTHR)] and Mr Walter Starzer [Division of Budget and Finance (MTBF)]; Appendix 121: The Witness’ Interoffice Memorandum Dated 2 June 2008 to Mr Douglas J. Northey [Director of the Division of Human Resources (DIR-MTHR)]; Appendix 126: The Witness’ Interoffice Memorandum Dated 23 June 2008 to Mr Douglas J. Northey [Director of the Division of Human Resources (DIR-MTHR)]. (This Appendix was last updated on 20 June 2010); Ms Marcela Hejtman Ms Rosa Kim Administrative Assistant of MTCD (a Division with some 150 staff members) with Grade G-6. She complains openly of being bored because of having nothing to do. She also provided "founded" evidence against Mr Raymond Nader for theft of equipment (Part 2, page 3). This evidence was dismissed by the IAEA’s Management as "unfounded"! In late 2004, she has reportedly been seen placing several “confidential” documents on the witness’ desk, while the witness was not in her office. Ms Angela Peake-Herzog, "protected" by her witnessing of the truth mentioned in paragraph 9 above, she could be at work reading the Emails of her boss, but otherwise doing little or nothing for about five years and was even rewarded with a merit award, and lately also with a promotion from Grade G-5 to Grade G-6! According to a colleague of hers now, as Administrative Assistant of the Division of Budget and Finance (MTBF), she continues to do little or nothing at all, which is no wonder, as she reportedly knows to do nothing! Appendix 122: The Witness’ Interoffice Memorandum Dated 13 June 2008 to Ms Cynthia Valenzuela, Head of the Service Administration Unit [Division of Human Resources (MTHR)]; Appendix 112: The Testimonies of the Witness – Completely Ignored by both the IAEA’s Management and the ILOAT; Appendix 119: The Witness’ Email Dated 19 May 2008 to Mr Douglas J. Northey [Director of the Division of Human Resources (DIR-MTHR)].

Ms Cristina Vilaplana Milla’s Denunciation to the Austrian Police The clear objective of this denunciation, in which Mr Magnus Olafsson [the former Director of the Division of Conference and Document Services (DIR-MTCD)] and Mr Johan Rautenbach [Director of the Office of Legal Affairs (DIR-OLA)] actively participated, was: First and above all, to prevent that I discover the proof of (...) with Mr Magnus Olafsson; second, to destroy this website; and third, to prevent at all cost [to the point of even endangering the live of some IAEA staff members and security officers of the United Nations Security and Safety Section (UNSSS): “The United Nations Security and Safety Section (UNSSS) requests a phone-call back... the Office of the Chief of the UNSSS, when M.R. is interrogated and after having been interrogated, as they want to be prepared for any possible action from the part of M.R.“] that Mr Mohamed ElBaradei's fundamental and deliberate lie mentioned in paragraph 14 above, the basis of all other lies (and decisions) by him and by the IAEA's Management in this case, be known to the public, because one proven deliberate lie by Mr Mohamed ElBaradei means many deliberate lies by him yet to be proven! The confirmation of Mr Mohamed ElBaradei’s fundamental and deliberate lie and of all other lies by the IAEA's Management (Appendix 133) and by Mr Johan Rautenbach came with the ILOAT's Judgment No. 2752 on Mr Magnus Olafsson’s complaint published on 9 July 2008. This denunciation was very official, as she was in the company of Ms Laura Rockwood, Head of the Non-Proliferation and Policy-Making Section, Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), and of Mr Volker Reis, Security Officer of the United Nations Security and Safety Section (UNSSS). ("Since the persons concerned are employees of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organization is also discredited..."). Appendix 118: The Decision of the Viennese Office of the District Attorney on her Denunciation to the Austrian Police: "Prescription of dismissal of the legal proceedings - ...no punishable behaviour can be proven!" Appendix 109: Her Lies to the Austrian Police. (This Appendix was last updated on 20 June 2010); Lie No. 18: "...because he is suspected to have pertinaciously persecuted the victim... in the period from 01.03.2004, 00:00 o’clock, and 24.10.2007, 17:00 o’clock, in Vienna 8..." According to this statement, she was at the door of the house I am living continuously during more than 3 and-a-half years for me to “pertinaciously persecute” her! Is this at all possible? This also means that she did not at all go to work all this time! In any case, I have never seen her “in Vienna 8”. Appendix 125: Second Part. (This Appendix was last updated on 20 June 2010); Appendix 108: First Part. (This Appendix was last updated on 20 June 2010). Ms Laura Rockwood, “AmCit”! Were she a very good lawyer, as she considers herself to be, she would either not have accompanied her to the police, which she did, or her denunciation would have been successful, which it was not! This might be the reason why she has not become Director of the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), although she applied for this position and already has the grade of Director (Grade D-1): "U.S. citizen Laura Rockwood currently serves in OLA as Section Head, Non-Proliferation and Policy-Making Section. Ms Rockwood may be well positioned to rise to the Director position and indicated to Ambassador she will apply; she would merit strong USG endorsement and would be better positioned if she were the only AmCit candidate. Other U.S. candidates are unlikely to match Rockwood's combination of legal background and IAEA experience."(Unclassified diplomatic cable dated 11 December 2009, WikiLeaks). And indeed, it was another "AmCit candidate" who got this Director position, Ms Peri Lynne Johnson... Ms Laura Rockwood

Ms Cristina Vilaplana Milla’s Third Denunciation... this time to the Viennese Commercial Court With this denunciation, she is definitely playing her very last card, for whatever the outcome of this denunciation, it is now too late for everything, since Mr David Barclay Waller, "her protector", has left the IAEA... and so will she have to... As it was the case with the denunciation to the Austrian Police, it might be that this time also the IAEA’s Management (in particular Mr David Barclay Waller) is behind this denunciation, as it would not have been “in the best interest of the IAEA” if this denunciation was made in the name of either the IAEA, or Mr Yukiya Amano (the Director General), or Mr David Barclay Waller (the Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management), or Mr Mohamed ElBaradei (the former Director General). But also the Staff Council (SC), as it is said that this issue is discussed regularly in its meetings and that the contact person with her lawyer is Mr Michael Donoho (Standing Committee on Legal Questions of the SC). The SC would say that it is its duty to be behind this denunciation as it represents the staff members concerned (what they call the “risk group”, reportedly "trained" by the UNSSS in "self-defense": Mr Michael Donoho, Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard, herself, Ms Angela Peake-Herzog, Ms Corinne Foote, Mr Raymond Nader, Mr Manfred Boemeke, Mr Marcus Lané, Mr Herbert Giller, Ms Sophia Jane Le Masurier and not to forget Mr Magnus Olafsson and Mr Simon Hannaford. The last two, although already gone, are still very active in this group... I have to be careful in what I write to this Tribunal because it is said that they distribute each other all documents related to this denunciation). In reality, however, the reason of its being behind is that it is protecting the Management of the IAEA. She usually attacks her enemies (of which she has many) in the IAEA in secret. And for this activity, she spends a considerable amount of her working time! For example, one of her specialties is to write secret Email-reports full of lies to the IAEA Management against her colleagues (like Appendices 110 and 32). Another one is, also in secret, to bring colleagues to mob other colleagues [the “victims“ will notice that they are being attacked, when they receive lots of phone-calls and E-mails from many colleagues (except from her!) with orders containing datelines (the so-called “EOB”, End-of-Business). This psychological “terror” will last weeks and months... until the attacked “victim“ breaks down]. In secret, because she panics when she is discovered. But, this denunciation, as well as that to the Austrian Police, is not at all in secret! All the contrary! That is an indication that she is not alone with these denunciations! The more she panics! This is the reason why, in what is already her second encounter with me that she knows about *), early 2011, when she suddenly stood on the street in front of me and of the Witness together with her husband and two other men, she took her daughter and ran away in panic without saying anything to the men about it. She must have told them only something like that "she had to run because she had a date and was late", because, without even looking at me, the three men slowly continued their way... The Witness wondered very much, why she had run away like this in panic! *) There have been several other times I accidentally met her, but she did not see me. Like on 27 July 2006 at about 17:00, when she was pregnant and walking alone on the Singerstrasse; in late Spring 2009, when she was in the restaurant "Le Bol" at about 13:00 wearing her huge sun-glasses and eating with Ms Dina Yarullina; on 11 December 2009 in the "Piaristenkeller"; in Summer 2010 at about 19:00 when she was walking with her daughter, her husband and another girl; on 30 January 2012 at about 18:00 when she was walking with her husband on the Kärntnerstrasse; and on 2 July 2012 at 11:30 when she was with her youngest daughter. It should be mentioned here that the main reason for this denunciation was her photos (in the meantime already removed), and that the first photos appearing in this website are those of Mr Yukiya Amano, Mr David Barclay Waller and Mr Mohamed ElBaradei. Because everything she says at the IAEA under Mr David Barclay Waller is taken for true [without the need of providing any proof... (...)], thinking that Mr David Barclay Waller’s jurisdiction does not end outside the premises of the IAEA, in this denunciation, as any pathological liar (one of the symptoms of Psychopathy) just do, she repeated some of the same lies she had said to the Austrian Police before ("...because he had uttered threats to a number of staff members, including me... and, After an internal investigation, in which all the allegations were proved as groundless...") and about which the Viennese Office of the District Attorney had decided that "...no punishable behaviour can be proven!" She also claims, without providing any evidence, of course, that everything written about her in this website is not true ("I want to emphasize again that the allegations made against me, which are spread by the defendant, are completely taken out of thin air and absolutely untrue.")! “She was in my office and crying said that he had put me in a black list.“ (Ms Corinne Foote to the witness, sometime in 2004). To how many others did she go and cried on the same issue? Just as Mick Philpott did during his press conference on 16 May 2012. Hon.-Prof. Dr. Gottfried Korn Knows that she is lying. But the truth does not interest him at all, because he is committed to his client, and not to the truth. As the Management of the IAEA already “officialized” her lies, with this denunciation, Hon.-Prof. Dr. Gottfried Korn may now be trying to “legalize” them. The Christmas party of the IAEA's Publishing Section on 11 December 2009 in the "Piaristenkeller" in Vienna

The United Nations Security and Safety Section (UNSSS)’s Intervention in the Case Its job is to protect the unaccountable managers acting with impunity behind the functional immunity granted to international organizations and to cover up all kinds of crimes (including manslaughter) and suicides happening within the extra-territorial premises! Appendix 124: The THIRD Intervention. (This Appendix was last updated on 20 June 2010); Appendix 111: The SECOND Intervention; Appendix 106: The First Intervention.

"It is not possible for me to do anything for you!" (The President of Austria) The Austrian Government Their drive for international recognition makes that they accept the many Austrian victims of the IAEA’s Management and keep silent about it! The Austrian Foreign Ministers (Austrian People's Party) just do not answer my letters, but do not seem to take action on the IAEA's letters either... Appendix 162: My Letter Dated 3 February 2009 to Mr Michael Spindelegger, Austrian Foreign Minister; Mr Günther Platter (Austrian People's Party), at that time Austrian Interior Minister and now Governor of Tyrol, at the request of Mr David Barclay Waller and in a clear abuse of his power, made possible the denunciation to the Austrian Police without any "punishable behaviour" - Making common cause with an US American against an Austrian citizen! Appendix 100: Open Letter Dated 5 November 2007 to Ms Ursula Plassnik, Austrian Foreign Minister; Appendix 174: Letter Dated 28 February 2005 from Mr Heinz Fischer, President of Austria; Appendix 173: My Letter Dated 14 February 2005 to Mr Heinz Fischer, President of Austria.

We cannot do anything for you because, even though Mexican, you were employed at the IAEA as Austrian! The Mexican Government The question here is: Has Mr David Barclay Waller, as he did with the the ILOAT and with Mr Jean-Didier Sicault, paid in some form Mr Rubén Inocente Fuentes Sánchez or even Ms Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, at that time Mexican Ambassadress to Vienna and now Mexican Foreign Minister, for them not to do anything for me? Mr Rubén Inocente Fuentes Sánchez First Secretary of the Mexican Embassy in Austria. Looking for me at a park in Vienna in August 2010. He went to see Mr Verasak Liengsririwat (the former Special Assistant to the Director General for Management) in December 2004 to ask him about the reason for the suspension mentioned in paragraph 11 above. Mr Liengsririwat told him that it was the Email-reports mentioned in the same paragraph, which he believed. Now, he knows that Mr Liengsririwat had lied to him because, as mentioned in paragraphs 13 and 18 above and proven in Appendix 150, these Email-reports could not be proven to be true for "lack of reliable evidence from independent sources to confirm them"! He therefore does not know what to answer to my letter (Appendix 159). Appendix 175: My Letter Dated 4 February 2009 to Ms Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Mexican Foreign Minister; Appendix 177: Email Dated 6 February 2009 from Mr Rubén Inocente Fuentes Sánchez, First Secretary of the Mexican Embassy in Austria: "Yes, I have your letter (Appendix 159) and the Ambassador gave me instructions to prepare the respective response, which will be sent to you as soon as possible." I have never received this response! Appendix 159: My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Alejandro Díaz Pérez Duarte, Ambassador of Mexico to Austria, Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors; Appendix 176: Letter Dated 15 March 2005 from the Mexican Foreign Ministry.

The European Parliament “...your petition... was examined in order to assess whether the issue which you raise with us, falls clearly within the fields of activities of the European Union for which we are competent... Unfortunately... this was not the case...” (Appendix 178).

The Austrian Ombudsman “...however, not acts or omissions of the IAEA. The latter, as an international organization, is not subject to the examination’s competence of the ombudsman.” (Appendix 179).

The Norwegian Nobel Committee Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, who is a notorious liar, because he said the truth one of the very few times in his life, even though this truth (“There are no nuclear weapons in Iraq!”) did not even prevent the war in Iraq. That this award was a mistake, was confirmed in 2009 when the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Barack Obama without any achievement at all in connection to peace and in spite of the facts that he is the greatest warlord these days and that, right there in Oslo, he even justified war as a means for achieving peace! This is the same as to say that war is necessary for having peace = Peace is not possible! As it has been proven by WikiLeaks, it has now become clear that in Iraq and in Afghanistan he is fighting insurgency (which he calls “terrorism”) with terror (thereby lying even to his closest allies!), becoming so himself the greatest terrorist these days! My Letter Dated 2 February 2009 to Professor Geir Lundestad, Ph. D., Director of the Nobel Institute (Appendix 165).

Other Additions Appendix 168: The M Building; Appendix 163: My Letter Dated 3 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Resident Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ambassador to Austria; Appendix 164: My Letter Dated 3 February 2009 to His Excellency Mr Israel Michaeli, Resident Representative of Israel, Ambassador to Austria; Appendix 149: My Letter Dated 17 March 2008 to the Director General; Appendix 148: Mr Herbert Giller’s Email Dated 17 November 2004 to Mr Manfred Boemeke; Appendix 147: Mr Raymond Nader’s Email Dated 15 November 2004 to Mr Magnus Olafsson; Appendix 146: Ms Angela Peake-Herzog’s Email Dated 28 October 2004 to Mr Magnus Olafsson and to Mr Manfred Boemeke; Appendix 145: Mr Manfred Boemeke’s Email Dated 13 October 2004 to Mr Magnus Olafsson and Mr Markus Lané’s Email Dated 13 October 2004 to Mr Manfred Boemeke; "Part 3 - The ILOAT’s Verdict on my second complaint" of "The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT)" of "The Suspension from Duty" of Section 3; Fact No. 61 in Table 5 of Section 5 - "My comments to the ILOAT’s verdict on my second complaint" (ILOAT Judgment No. 2656); Appendix 135: IAEA Grade and Salary Scale; Appendix 138: Confidentiality Undertaking for Staff Members on Separation; Mr Johan Rautenbach Director of the Office of Legal Affairs (DIR-OLA) in the list of page 32; Ms Angela Jackson (MTHR) in the list of page 32; The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) as a Sub-Subsection within Section 3; The Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) at the bottom of page 4; Appendix 114: The Staff Association (“is”) "Protecting" Your Rights: "What it is": it is the "secret service" of the IAEA's Management (see page 4 of the file documenting this story in detail); "What it does": it betrays the staff (see page 48 of the file documenting this story in detail); "What your Staff Rep can do for you": he/she betrays the staff - (see the very real example of Ms Lisa Lorraine Villard. A "Note on the Separation Procedures" in "Facts Related to the Agency’s “Necessary Separation Formalities” After the Summary Dismissal on 3 March 2006" of Section 2; A "Note on the Summary Dismissal" in "The Facts of the Summary Dismissal" of Section 2; Appendices 87 to 99 and 101 to 103. Related Documents and Websites "YELLOW CAKE - The Dirt Behind Uranium", a film by Joachim Tschirner (2005 - 2010, 108 Min.); Top Ten Organizational Commitments Needed to Make IGO Whistleblower Protection Policies Effective; Government Accountability Project; "The Abuse of Functional Immunity Party Almost Over — Last chance, last call ?" By Edward Patrick Flaherty, UNSPECIAL No 620 – July-August / Juillet-Août 2003; "The rule of law" (IO Watch - Pursuing the rule of law and management accountability in the United Nations and other international organizations); LEGAL PROTECTION IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS FOR STAFF — A Practitioner’s View - By Edward Patrick Flaherty; UN complaints procedures under fire - By Sebastiaan Gottlieb (22 February 2005); « Tribunal d’exception » Chapter 4, page 63 of « ONU Violations humaines » of Jean-Loup Izambert, 2003, ISBN: 2-912362-39-3; Rule without Law - Injustice at the United Nations? - By Edward Patrick FLAHERTY and Sarah HUNT; THE IMMUNITY OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE JURISDICTION OF THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS - By AUGUST REINISCH; REFORM THE UN NOW! - A Site for UN Staff Members, Contractors and Whistleblowers; IO Watch - Pursuing the rule of law and management accountability in the United Nations and other international organizations; Centre for Accountability of International Organisations - Promoting the Rule of Law in International Organisations.

Jose Martinez Rico, M.Sc.

Vienna, Austria