The Retaliation Case
OSHA’s Quick Dismissal Was Exactly What I Wanted. It Was the Beginning Of Another Battlefield
When billion-dollar corporations and their law firms face exposure, they celebrate every procedural “win.” They call it closure. They call it dismissal. They call it the end.
But the truth? In this case, dismissal was just the start of another front in the battle.
Why You Can’t Just File Retaliation in Court
Under U.S. whistleblower statutes, you can’t simply take a retaliation case straight to court on your own. The law requires you to first file with the government agency that administers the statute.
• Step One: File with OSHA under the Taxpayer First Act. They issue a finding (dismissal or acceptance).
• Step Two: If OSHA dismisses, you may appeal to the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ).
• Step Three: After the ALJ rules, you can appeal to the Administrative Review Board (ARB) and then to federal court.
It’s a ladder, you can’t skip steps.
What Happened With OSHA
I filed my retaliation complaint under the Taxpayer First Act (TFA), which protects whistleblowers who report tax fraud to the IRS.
OSHA quickly dismissed it. They never interviewed anyone. They never requested documents. They never even contacted the employer. Instead, they claimed my protections ended in December 2024 when my job ended. Majority of their cases are about terminations.
Here’s the contradiction: the law doesn’t trigger protections until the IRS issues claim numbers. That happened in April 2025, months after OSHA’s timeline. I haven’t even blown the whistle yet based on their timeline.
So OSHA’s letter wasn’t a true investigation. It was a shortcut. A technical dismissal. And that was exactly what I needed.
Why the Quick Dismissal Was the Best Outcome
A long OSHA investigation would have focused only on “reinstatement” or “backpay” — remedies that don’t even matter to me. I don’t want my job back. I don’t care about back pay. I want the full truth exposed. I just expected OHSA to be doing their part while I’m prosecuting the fraud case.
By dismissing quickly, OSHA allowed me to immediately appeal to the Department of Labor’s Administrative Law Judges. I don’t need to wait. That means:
• Discovery (forced evidence exchange)
• Witnesses & testimony
• Cross-examination
• Real legal rulings
Exactly what billion-dollar corporations try to avoid, and it means I’ll be leading the investigation myself, not leaving it in the hands of an agency.
What Retaliation Looks Like in This Case
Retaliation isn’t just firing someone, the law is broader. It includes harassment, intimidation, threats, and any attempt to discourage communication with the government. Since I filed with the IRS, here’s what has happened:
• Sanction language inserted into filings to intimidate me.
• Public badmouthing meant to discredit me.
• A secret deposit made into my account without notice, intended to manipulate the arbitration process.
• Suppression on social media platforms, with my accounts removed or silenced.
• Procedural obstruction in arbitration meant to exhaust me instead of addressing the fraud.
Each one of these acts is retaliation under the Taxpayer First Act, not just firing, but a campaign to intimidate and isolate a whistleblower after the IRS assigned claim numbers.
Why Contradictions Matter
Fighting billion-dollar corporations isn’t about resources, it’s about catching them contradicting themselves across different arenas. That’s exactly what happens when the same fraud gets dragged into three different forums:
• Federal Court (Fraud & Arbitration):
They argue DRVM was a valid employer in arbitration, even though it was dissolved and illegally issuing W-2s. In federal filings, they’ll have to square that with evidence of Sanofi and Chattem pulling the strings.
• IRS (Tax Evasion):
They want to act like payroll through shells is “normal business.” But IRS claim numbers prove the government recognized Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten as the true entities. That directly contradicts their attempt to keep everything pinned on DRVM.
• Department of Labor (Retaliation):
Now we have a trial about retaliation. They will try to say retaliation only means firing. Yet their own filings, sanction threats, and secret deposit into my account all happened after the IRS filing date. Each is retaliation under the statute, contradicting their narrative that nothing happened.
Every forum forces them to commit to a version of events. And every time they change their story, it becomes another contradiction I can expose.
The Bigger Picture
Now this fight isn’t just in arbitration or federal court. It’s not just before the IRS. It’s also before the Department of Labor.
That means three simultaneous fronts:
• Federal Court: Over the $15 billion arbitration and fraud.
• IRS: Active whistleblower claims assigned to Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten.
• ALJ (Department of Labor): A full retaliation trial under the Taxpayer First Act.
They thought one door closed. In reality, three doors are now open.
Why I’m Telling You This
Most cases like this happen behind closed doors. The public never sees the shortcuts, the contradictions, or the games played by corporations and their lawyers.
That’s why I built this website, to bring you inside, in real time. To show you how the system really works. And to prove that one person, with truth and persistence, can fight billion-dollar corporations on every front.
This isn’t the end. This is the beginning of another trial. Another fight. Another chance to bring the truth into the light.
Disclosure
Unlike my main exhibits page, the way I release information here will be different. Because this retaliation case is now headed into a trial forum, I won’t be releasing raw exhibits that are meant to be presented first in court.
The goal here is not to argue the case in the public eye, but to maintain transparency and let you see inside the process as it unfolds. What I share on this page will be filings that have already been submitted, orders that have already been acknowledged, and explanations that help you follow along. Some exhibits will need to wait until they are properly introduced in the courtroom. But if you are following my case, you’ll see enough here to understand exactly what retaliation looks like and how it’s being fought, step by step.
Exhibit: Original OSHA Complaint (August 13, 2025)
This was my very first filing with OSHA under the Taxpayer First Act. In it, I explained that after I filed IRS whistleblower claims exposing payroll and tax fraud tied to DRVM, Quten, Sanofi, and Chattem, I immediately faced retaliation.
In regular terms, here’s what I told OSHA:
• Digital Suppression: I was banned or throttled on major platforms like X, Reddit, Medium, and TikTok — cutting off my ability to reach witnesses or reporters.
• Arbitration Manipulation: We agreed on qualified arbitrators, but JAMS gave me an unqualified list and tried to sanction me when I pushed back.
• Improper Deposit: Respondents dropped $6,130 into my personal bank account without a paystub, explanation, or forum notice.
• Sanctions Threats: They tried to punish me simply for asking the federal court to enforce the arbitration agreement.
I made it clear that these actions weren’t random, they were retaliation for protected IRS whistleblower activity. My complaint asked OSHA to investigate the retaliation, the corporate shell structure, and even the coordinated bans tied to major shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard.
In short, this document is me putting the government on notice: the retaliation is real, it’s ongoing, and it’s designed to silence my case.
Exhibit: OSHA Follow-Up Questions (August 15 2025)
After I filed my original retaliation complaint with OSHA, the investigator responded with a list of questions. These weren’t about the fraud itself. They were about confirming the basics of my employment, what I reported, and how the retaliation happened. In plain terms, here’s what I told them:
• My Employment: I was hired as a W-2 hourly worker under DRVM LLC inside Costco. All my paystubs listed DRVM, even though the company was already dissolved. I was never told about Sanofi, Chattem, or Quten while employed.
• Confusing Structure: Although my paystubs said DRVM, my handbook was marked “MK Marketing,” emails came from “AMJ,” and managers used the name “Direct Demo.” It was intentionally confusing.
• IRS Filing: I reported DRVM’s use of a dissolved license and shell structure to the IRS. On April 28, 2025, the IRS officially issued claim numbers for Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten. By June, those claims had advanced to the next stage.
• How I Found Out: After being terminated and denied final wages, I emailed “HR” and got a response signed “AMJ” with a Tennessee number — even though DRVM was an Oregon company. That was the red flag that led me to dig deeper.
• Why They Know It Was Me: I disclosed my IRS filings in the arbitration record, attached the claim numbers, and then added them to my federal case. The companies knew by April 2025 that I was the whistleblower.
• Forms of Retaliation: Instead of a simple firing, the retaliation came as bans on my social accounts, procedural sabotage in arbitration, secret money deposited into my account, and threats of sanctions, all after I filed with the IRS.
In short, this exhibit shows how OSHA immediately drilled down on the relationship with DRVM, my IRS disclosures, and how retaliation played out once I made everything public.
Exhibit: Secretary’s Findings (September 9, 2025)
This document is OSHA’s official dismissal of my retaliation complaint under the Taxpayer First Act.
The findings are clear:
• OSHA based its decision entirely on a December 31, 2024 termination date.
• They concluded that because I had no statutory protections at the time of termination, I could not bring a retaliation claim.
• As a result, they disregarded all subsequent allegations of harassment, intimidation, sanctions threats, and the unexplained deposit into my account.
This reasoning is legally flawed. Under the Taxpayer First Act, protections begin once the IRS assigns claim numbers. That occurred on April 28, 2025 — months after the termination date OSHA relied upon. The retaliation I reported occurred after April 28, 2025, squarely within the period covered by the statute.
In short, OSHA’s dismissal did not address the substance of my claims. It relied on an incorrect legal premise about timing. That is why this case now proceeds to a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge, where the correct timeline, the statute, and the evidence can be fully evaluated.
Exhibit: Objection and Appeal of OSHA’s Findings (September 12, 2025)
This filing is my formal objection to OSHA’s dismissal of my retaliation complaint under the Taxpayer First Act. It moves the case to the next stage: a full hearing before a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge.
Here’s what I laid out in the appeal:
• OSHA Used the Wrong Date: They treated my December 31, 2024 termination as the trigger point, but that’s not when the law’s protections begin. Under the statute, protections started on April 28, 2025, when the IRS issued whistleblower claim numbers for Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten.
• Retaliation Happened After April 28, 2025: Since that date, I have faced multiple acts of retaliation:
• False filings in arbitration and federal court with sanction language and personal attacks.
• A secret $7,795.50 deposit made mid-arbitration to obstruct my case.
• Removal of my posts and accounts across social media platforms.
• Public badmouthing in legal filings and forums.
• Premature and false federal court filings designed to discredit me.
• This Meets the Legal Standard: Under Supreme Court precedent (Burlington Northern), retaliation includes any act that would dissuade a reasonable person from whistleblowing, not just firing. What I’ve documented clearly fits.
• DRVM Wasn’t the Real Employer: DRVM was dissolved while still issuing W-2s. The IRS claims were issued to Sanofi, Chattem, and Quten, proving DRVM was just a shell. The retaliation has to be seen in the context of that larger corporate structure.
In short: OSHA dismissed on the wrong timeline and ignored the real retaliatory acts. My objection makes the case that this was timely, that retaliation is ongoing, and that a full trial is necessary to evaluate the evidence.
This is where we are now: the retaliation case has moved beyond OSHA and is officially in the hands of a Department of Labor judge. From here, I’ll continue to share each step as it unfolds. But what matters most is that this isn’t just about me, it’s about setting a legal precedent for how whistleblowers are treated in this age.
Retaliation doesn’t just extend to firing. It extends to how whistleblowers are treated once they speak out — through harassment, intimidation, sanction threats, digital suppression, and attempts to cut them off from the public and the courts. In today’s digital era, retaliation takes many forms, and this case is about proving that the law must evolve to protect whistleblowers where retaliation really happens.