They Called It a “Whistleblower Distraction” - Here’s How Corporations Try to Bury the Truth (DRVM Official Response)

A $15 Billion Case. A Federal Whistleblower. And This Is Their Response.

On August 14, 2025, the respondents in my federal petition — DRVM and its counsel Fisher Phillips — filed their official response.

It was 9 pages of legal posturing and bashing on a federally protected whistleblower.

And every paragraph shows you how power protects itself, especially when it’s up against the truth.

They tried to frame this as a wage dispute.

They claimed it’s over.

They even questioned whether I’m a whistleblower.

But what they didn’t expect?

That I would make this public.

That the public would see it for what it really is.

And that’s exactly what this article is for.

Context First — Because This Part Matters

Before you even get to what they said, you need to understand what they did.

In federal court, if you can’t afford the filing fee, you can file IFP — in forma pauperis — and the court reviews whether your case can proceed without payment.

That’s what I did.

My petition had not yet been granted.

There was no service yet. Nothing had moved forward.

But they still filed a full response.

That is extraordinarily rare.

You do not respond to a case before the court says it’s officially proceeding.

You do not respond before service unless you’re trying to shape the judge’s view before they even agree to hear the case.

They weren’t just defending themselves.

They were trying to preemptively smear me.

And they did it knowing I’m pro se.

Knowing I’m a federal whistleblower.

Knowing the petition is still in early review.

That alone tells you everything.

They told the court I’m creating a “media spectacle” — as if going public with documented truth is somehow a bad thing. But what they’re really doing is trying to take away the only tools I have: social media, public support, and the ability to find others like me. They’re not just burying this case behind closed doors — they’re actively cutting off my ability to connect with reporters, identify other employees, and expose what’s happening. This is a public interest case, and they know it. So instead, they lie to the court and call me dangerous, accuse me of inciting people, abusing the process, and turning it into theater. But let’s be honest — they’re the ones secretly moving money, hiding entities, and now trying to block the very arbitrators they agreed to. This isn’t a spectacle. It’s a whistleblower refusing to be erased. This is a whistleblower that isn’t letting their influence & roadblocks bury this pharmaceutical scandal.

1. They’re Trying to Pretend I’m Not a Whistleblower

Even though I’ve submitted verified whistleblower filings to the IRS…

Even though I’ve received assigned claim numbers…

Even though I’ve filed a retaliation complaint under federal law…

Respondents still said this:

“Petitioner’s attempt to recast this as a technology or whistleblower matter should be rejected.”

That’s not a legal argument, that’s a character attack.

If a billion-dollar corporation can tell a federal judge I’m “trying” to be a whistleblower — despite the receipts, filings, exhibits, and official claim numbers — then what does it say about how whistleblowers are treated in this system?

2. They’re Fighting Against the Very Arbitrators They Agreed To

Here’s what we agreed on:

The arbitrator needed experience in AI/emerging tech and Oregon wage law, relevant to both the claims and the tools used in this case.

Now they’re objecting.

Now they say “retired judges” are more appropriate.

Now they’re rejecting the very arbitrators who co-wrote JAMS’ own AI rules.

Let me ask this:

If this case was “only about $600,” why are you afraid of experts in technology-assisted litigation?

Why fight against whistleblower-qualified arbitrators… unless you know this case is much bigger?

3. “Retired Judges” — We Know What That Means

They say I refused to accept “experienced, retired judges.”

Let’s be honest — everyone in the legal world knows what that means:

• Corporate-friendly

• Private procedural rulings

• Slow timelines

• No discovery unless forced

Retired judges are selected by institutions that want predictability, not accountability.

So, they can make a payment off the books and have the judge “take one for the team.” That’s what money and power can do.

They don’t want someone who understands AI.

They want someone who will ignore the scale of fraud and treat this like a single paycheck dispute.

But I didn’t uncover a $15 billion structure just to hand it over to someone who thinks this is about one week of wages. Especially when it is as clear as this is.

4. “It’s Just a Wage Claim” — But You Sent Me $7,000?

They say this is a $600 case.

They say it’s moot.

They say there’s nothing left to resolve.

But just weeks ago, they wired me $7,000 out of nowhere.

No breakdown.

No agreement.

No explanation.

If this case was over, why make a random payout?

Because it’s not over.

Because the documents I submitted prove it’s not.

Because they’re trying to sidestep accountability, and block arbitrator assignment before discovery can begin.

5. They’re Calling This “Theatrics” — While Quietly Moving Money and Hiding Parties

Their filing accuses me of:

• Seeking media attention

• Making “conspiracy-style” claims

• Using the case for “theatrics”

But here’s what they don’t explain:

• Why they deposited over $7,000 into my bank account without telling anyone

• Why they all hiding behind one dissolved shell company

• Why they’re suddenly objecting to qualifications they already agreed to

If anyone is manipulating the process, it’s not the pro se whistleblower.

It’s the entities trying to play both sides of every rule and hope no one catches on.

6. This Isn’t My Legal Reply — It’s the Public’s First Look

This article is not my full response.

That will come through the proper legal channels.

But I want the public to see something now:

This is what it looks like when someone tells the truth, exposes the system, and won’t shut up.

When you do that, powerful interests will:

• Try to erase your identity

• Mischaracterize your case

• Undermine you before your case is even accepted

• And beg the judge not to look too closely

They called it a distraction.

They called it a conspiracy.

But the record is public.

The filings are real.

And I’m not backing down.

The Filing Is Now Public

You can now read the Respondent’s August 14, 2025 filing in full:

Ask yourself:

• Why are they trying so hard to spin this?

• Why discredit a federal whistleblower before service?

• Why reject tech-experienced arbitrators for a case they claim is simple?

Because they know what I uncovered is real.

And once truth enters the record, it doesn’t go away.