The World Bank Tokyo Office Telephone: (03) 3597 6650

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT 10F, Fukoku Seimei Building Fax: (03) 3597 6695

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION 2-2-2, Uchisaiwai-Cho Cable: INTBAFRAD TOKYO

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan

February 12, 2017

The Banking Cartel has captured the Secretariat of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. While many staff are aware of this corruption, and some have attempted to resist, there are gatekeepers and corrupt individuals at all levels of the Secretariat. Allied Barton, the security guards, have kept the Bretton Woods organizations under lockdown. I hold a power of attorney as Mandate Trustee over Allied Barton, and have reported this power of attorney to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Due to state capture of the United States, and corruption of the legal profession, the actual legal situation has not been recognized. I represented the Staff Association and the Board of Executive Directors on a special task force to end state capture of the World Bank after the East Asia Crisis at the end of the 1990’s. When the recommendations of this task force, called the “Drysdale Committee”, were simply dismantled, I knew that the Staff Association was on board. Still, the Staff Association has been co-opted by agents of the Banking Cartel. These traitors have “gamed” the elections of the officers of the Staff Association, and made sure that the Pension Committee betrays the interests of Staff. In the Legal Department, I worked on the World Bank’s Pension. That was when I experienced first-hand how the management of the pension was not responsive to Board supervision and was totally corrupt. Some correspondence with members of the Staff Association concerning the Drysdale Committee and correspondence from the organization of retirees, named the “1818H Society”, is attached. Sincerely, Karen Hudes Acting General Counsel, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Overseer Mandate Trustee, Global Debt Facility, TVM-LSM-666

19th March 2015

Dear Ms. Karen Hudes

Organized Corruption At The World Bank.

Several of us at The World Bank (Retirees and Current Staff) have

been following your case with substantial interest. There is no

doubt that you are a victim of injustice.

The attached issues note written by a group of Retirees and Staff

should be of interest to you as it re-enforces the point you have

been making all along. Corruption is endemic at the World Bank

and it is worst at The Bank's Corporate Headquartrs at 1818 H

Street, Washington D.C.

The Bank's Human Resources Vice Presidency in collaboration

with your former colleagues in Bank's Legal Department are trying

to SUPPRESS the issues raised.

Hope this document is of some help to you in your pursuit of

Justice.

Happy Reading

Concerned Staff of the World Bank [the Banking Cartel stripped

off the attachment from my computer’s files]

TO: Executive Committee of the World Bank Staff Association

FROM: Robert S. dayman

RE: Assessment of the Staff Association's Participation as Amicus Curiae in the ProceedingRegarding the Bank's Jurisdictional Challenge to Karen Hudes' Application to theWorld Bank Administrative Tribunal

DATE: July 27, 2007

The undersigned counsel met with Karen Hudes on July 18, 2007. Ms. Hudes

filed an Application with the Administrative Tribunal alleging that the World Bank

violated the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 26, 2006 ("MOU"),

The Staff Association has requested that we assess the Jurisdictional Challenge the Bank

filed in response to Ms. Hudes' Application and make a recommendation as to whether

the Staff Association should participate as an amicus curiae at this stage of the

proceedings.1

Ms. Hudes had asked the Staff Association to support her request for

reconsideration and reversal of the Tribunal's decision. A ruling of the Tribunal,

however, is "final and without appeal." Art XI Statute of the Administrative Tribunal.

The only instance in which an Applicant can request that the Tribunal revise its opinion is

"in the event of the discovery of a fact which by its nature might have had a decisive

influence on the judgment of the Tribunal and which at the time the judgment was

1 A secondary issue Ms. Hudes raised with the Staff Association is the Administrative Tribunal's denial ofher request for provisional remedies pending the disposition of her case before the Tribunal. Ms. Hudesasked that the Bank be enjoined from terminating her employment on July 31. 2007 as provided in theMOU. Under Rule 13 of the Rules of the Tribunal provisional remedies must be provided if the Applicantcan demonstrate "that the execution of the decision would be highly likely to result in grave hardship thatcannot otherwise be redressed." The President of the Tribunal, Jan Paulsson, concluded that by adhering tothe termination provision of the MOU, the Bank would not subject Ms. Hudes to the type of harm thatwould warrant provisional relief.

-2-

delivered was unknown both to the Tribunal and to that party." Art XIII Statute of the

Tribunal. Ms Hudes' request to reopen her case is not supported by any new evidence.

Accordingly, the Staff Association cannot intervene where the Tribunal's decision is final

and the underlying case is closed.

The MOU at issue in this case settled controversies arising from two of her

performance evaluations ("OPE's") Ms. Hudes had received in 2004 and 2005 as well as

a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP") dated February 17, 2005. In assessing whether

the Staff Association should file an amicus curiae, the MOU cannot be viewed in

isolation but must be considered in light of the facts and circumstances that led up to the

signing of this agreement.

Ms. Hudes is an attorney who has been a member of the Legal Department for

twenty years. In the years 1998-2000 she served as the country lawyer for the

Philippines. In 2000 Ms. Hudes advised the Country Director that the take-over of the

Philippines National Bank had violated certain conditions relating to the transparent

privatization of PNB. Her advice was ignored. Subsequently, there was a $500 million

banking failure in the Philippines and the cancellation of $400 million in loans and other

financing. Ms. Hudes has pursued this matter to ensure proper accountability. She

believes that in response to those efforts the Bank has engaged in a campaign of

retaliation.

On November 4, 2005 the Tribunal decided an Application filed by Ms. Hudes in

which she complained that the Bank has improperly extended a PIP and had done so in

-3-

retaliation for the actions she had taken in the Philippines.2 While the Tribunal found that

Ms. Hudes had not shown that the Bank's actions were in response to her current status

as a whistleblower, it did conclude that

"the failure to comply with the provisions of Staff Rule 5.03 relating to thepurported extension of the PEP was a violation of the Applicant's rights. Theviolation is not trivial. She was, as a consequence, subjected to an unusual degreeof monitoring and to the continuing stigma and embarrassment entailed in beingon a PIP, and she is entitled to relief for this violation of her contract ofemployment." par 59.

The Tribunal ordered the Bank to pay Ms. Hudes eight months of salary, $12,000 in costs

and to withhold the evidence of the PEP extension from her personnel records.

In 2004 and 2005 the Bank issued OPE's and a PIP that were very critical of Ms.

Hudes' performance. In response she appealed to the Appeals Committee contending

that these evaluations were issued in retaliation for her having acted as a whistleblower

(Appeals Nos. 1353 and 1374). In settlement of these disputes, the parties entered into

the MOU which provides in pertinent part:

"By signing this agreement, Ms. Hudes accepts the terms offered by the WorldBank Group in settlement of all of her claims and agrees to withdraw withprejudice, no later than one business day of signing this MOU, all unresolved andpending actions, including Appeals No. 1353 and 1374 and any other pendingadministrative reviews." at p. 1.

"Ms. Hudes's 2004 and 2005 overall performance evaluations ("OPE's") and theperformance improvement plan ("PIP") dated February 17, 2005 will be placed inthe limited access section of her career file within 14 calendar days of executionof this agreement. The PEP dated February 17, 2005 and the PEP dated November16, 2000 will not be considered in any future OPE's or personnel actions, but maybe used by the Bank to defend any complaints, grievances or allegations made byMs. Hudes should she initiate any after execution of this agreement." at p 1-2.

2 It should be noted that the Bank, as it has done in the instant case, attempted to have the Applicationdismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected that challenge and decided the matter on themerits.

The MOU requires the Bank to pay Ms. Hudes, inter alia, $150,000 as a lump

sum settlement, $20,000 in legal costs, and a separation grant in accordance with Staff

Rule 7.02. She must end her employment with the Bank by July 31, 2007 unless she

finds "a position of indefinite duration outside of LEGVPU". If she does, the monetary

relief provisions of the MOU become "null and void".

On January 26, 2006 when the MOU was executed, the 2005 OPE had not yet

been signed by a reviewing manager. This did not occur until February 3, 2005 when

Deputy General Counsel, Elizabeth Adu, signed the OPE. In addition, the following

entry was made:

"The Management Review Group (Elizabeth Adu, David Freestone, Scott Whiteand Pauline Ramprasad of FIR) concur with Said's assessment of Karen'sperformance. We note that Karen has had a mixed year which includedperformance issues that culminated in a PIP."3

Ms. Hudes filed an appeal in which she protested the actions of the Management

Review Group ("MRG") and complained that the Bank violated the MOU and engaged in

retaliation. In response to a jurisdictional challenge filed by the Bank, the Appeals

Committee dismissed her case. By treating Ms. Adu's signing of the 2005 OPE as a

ministerial act, the Committee, however, did not have to grapple with the fact that she

and the other managers had undertaken a post settlement review sufficiently thorough to

allow them to endorse Ms. Hudes' evaluation. Instead it concluded that the actions

challenged by Ms. Hudes did not constitute a grievable administrative decision.

Ms. Hudes filed an Application with the Tribunal on March 12, 2007. In addition

-5-

to alleging that the Bank violated the Memorandum of Understanding by allowing the

Management Review Group to assess the 2005 OPE, Ms. Hudes was contending that the

Bank's disclosure of the 2005 OPE to the Management Review Group constituted

retaliation for her whistleblower activities, that the Memorandum of Understanding is a

contract of adhesion and should be deemed null and void, and managers in Legal

interfered with her work program in the spring and summer of 2006 in retaliation for the

same whistleblowing activities.

On April 25, 2007 the Respondent submitted a Jurisdictional Challenge asserting

the same arguments it had successfully presented to the Appeals Committee. As part of

the record the Bank submitted a copy of the 2005 OPE signed by Elizabeth Adu, as

Reviewing Manager. It expunged, however, the paragraph referred to above in which the

Management Review Group concurred in the conclusions raised by Ms. Hudes's

supervisor.

The Bank attempts to explain this deletion by stating that an "initial version of the

2005 OPE contained a comment by the Management Review Group, but the final version

that has been placed in the limited access section of the Applicant's career file contains

Ms. Adu's signature only." The explanation mischaracterizes and minimizes the effect of

the entry made by the Management Review Group. A review and assessment of an OPE

is far more than a mere comment.

The Bank's principal argument in response to the actions of the Management

Review Group are that it adhered to the terms of the MOU and "did not make any new

3 At this time David Freestone was Ms. Hudes' new supervisor, Said Al Habsy was her previoussupervisor, and Scott White was a Deputy General Counsel of the Bank.

determinations about the Applicant's performance." at p. 5. In addition, it points out an

OPE is not considered final until a Reviewing Manager signs it, and only finalized OPE's

can be included in a staff member's career file.

The Bank asserts the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the additional

claims raised by Ms. Hudes. It concludes that because she had not argued to the Appeals

Committee that the Bank's disclosure of the MOU to the Management Review Group

was retaliatory or that the MOU was a contract of adhesion, Ms. Hudes had not exhausted

the Bank's internal remedies. Finally, the Bank contends that the Tribunal also does not

have jurisdiction to decide Ms. Hudes' claim of interference with her work program since

that matter is the subject of a grievance she filed in September 2006 and which is still

awaiting decision by the Appeals Committee.

The issue presented here is whether by asserting a jurisdictional challenge, the

Bank can escape the in-depth scrutiny that attaches to an adjudication on the merits. The

MOU settled two outstanding appeals in which Ms. Hudes challenged her 2004 and 2005

OPE's and a 2005 PIP. The agreement required Ms. Hudes to withdraw two appeals

within one day of signing the MOU. In exchange, these records would only be used to

defend against any complaints or grievances subsequently made by Ms. Hudes. Rather

than treating them as dormant, the Bank -- in a week after signing the agreement -

convened a group of managers that reviewed them in their entirety and concluded that it

should concur with Mr. Al Habsy's findings.

The Bank's action destroys the reciprocity that underlies the MOU. Just as Ms.

Hudes was obligated to end her challenge to the OPE's and the PIP, so was the Bank

-7-

required to cease its consideration and reliance upon these records except in certain

limited circumstances. Instead the Bank took it upon itself to reaffirm the evaluation's

findings contained in the reports and be able to perpetuate the bias the MOU was

intended to prevent.

The Bank would treat the actions of the Management Review Group as

inconsequential—that "it did not make any new determinations regarding the Applicant's

performance" or "take any action that would adversely affect any other aspect of her

contractual relationship with the Bank." at p. 5. It then claims that Ms. Hudes suffered no

harm because the Management Review Group is authorized to review documents that are

placed in the limited access section of the career file. Based upon these arguments, the

Bank contends that Ms. Hudes has "misread" the MOU and cannot responsibly assert that

the Bank violated the agreement. In the absence of a cognizable claim for breach of a

contract, the Tribunal, argues the Bank, is without jurisdiction and should similarly

dismiss her Application.

The Statute of the Tribunal, however, provides that it has jurisdiction to decide

"any application by which a member of the staff of the Bank Group alleges non-

observance of the contract of employment or terms of appointment of such staff

member." Article II, Section 1. Ms. Hudes is clearly alleging that the Bank engaged in

the "non-observance" of the MOU when it had the Management Review Group consider

and endorse the 2005 OPE. Moreover, while members of the Management Review

Group may allegedly review the limited access section of her file, that can readily be

distinguished from their actively assessing and confirming the contents of an OPE.

-8-

Finally, the Bank's decision to delete the agreed comments of the Management Review

Group from the "first draft" of the 2005 OPE belies its efforts to minimize their import.

Are there clearly flagrant abuses of the Staff Rules involved (cite Staff Rules)? As

explained above, the MOU conferred upon Ms. Hudes certain rights that the Bank

violated when it convened the Management Review Group to assess an OPE after she had

withdrawn her appeal of the evaluation in accordance with the agreement.

Is the decision arbitrary or discriminatory (cite previous WBAT decisions)? The

Tribunal has previously asserted jurisdiction so as to enforce the terms of a settlement

agreement. In Brebion Decision No. 159 (1997) it found that the Bank had breached an

agreement which required it to assign the employee continued work. The Tribunal made

clear that,

"If such an agreed settlement were not binding upon the affected staff member,there would be little incentive for the Bank to enter into compromisearrangements, and there might instead be an inducement to be unyielding and todefend each claim through the process of administrative and judicial review. It istherefore in the interest not only of the Bank but also of the staff that effect shouldbe given to such settlements."

See also Courting, Decision No. 144 (1995). (The Bank failed to make the contractually

mandated act to find a position for the Applicant). Similarly, it is within the Tribunal's

jurisdiction to determine if the Bank complied with the terms and provisions of the MOU.

Although the agreement required the Bank to significantly circumscribe its reliance upon

the 2005 OPE, a group of managers assessed the validity of that report and concurred in

the findings of its author.

-9-

Have the policies, process or procedures of the Bank been violated (cite staff

Rules)?

The right of an employee to enforce a MOU is clearly provided for in the Staff Rules

Rule 4.08 states in pertinent part

"Once signed by both disputing parties, an MOU is an enforceable contract whichcan be introduced as evidence of an agreement between the disputing parties ifthere is a breach. By signing the MOU neither party admits fault. In the event of abreach of the MOU the disputing party affected by the breach is encouraged toreturn to Mediation for assistance. If the breach cannot be resolved throughMediation, the staff member affected by the breach can file an Appeal."

As with any agreement, this MOU contains procedures or policies in the form of

quid pro quos. In exchange for Ms. Hudes's commitment to withdraw her appeals, the

Bank agreed that it would not consider the 2005 PIP in any future OPE or personnel

actions, MOU, para 6. ("The PIP dated February 17, 2005 and the PIP dated November

16, 2000 will not be considered in any future OPEs or personnel actions...") A group of

managers engaged in an independent and post settlement assessment of Ms. Hudes' 2005

performance. The Bank in effect issued an OPE that relied entirely upon the evaluation it

was barred from considering.

Furthermore, the first provision of the General Obligations of the World Bank and

IFC states that "The Organizations shall at all times act with fairness and impartiality and

shall follow a proper process in their relations with staff members." Expunging material

evidence from an exhibit provided to the Tribunal is devoid of fairness and contrary to

any notion of "proper process". Not only did the Bank delete the comments of the

Management Review Group, but it relies upon the doctored document to contend that it

-10-

did not violate the MOU. It claims that the evaluation was signed only by Ms. Adu and

she "did nothing more than confirm the evaluations that had been communicated to the

Applicant prior to signing of the MOU, and did not make any new decisions about her

performance." at p 2. Of course it can make that representation only because it deleted

material information from the record. The missing portion refers that several other

managers made a new decision regarding the OPE. Based solely upon their assessment,

they decide to concur with the findings of Mr. Al Habsy.

Is the case precedent setting (i.e. will its outcome provide potential benefits for large

numbers of staff (cite previous WBAT cases)?

Intervention by the Staff Association is warranted in a case where the Bank is

attempting to preclude judicial scrutiny of its conduct by improperly asserting a

jurisdictional challenge. The Bank contends that Ms. Hudes has not and cannot

reasonably claim that it violated the terms of the MOU. As described above, Ms. Hudes

has presented a case that factually and legally warrants fall review of the Tribunal.

MOU's commonly settle matters of critical importance to an individual's

employment and career. The Bank should not be permitted to treat a violation of such an

agreement as some procedural defect which can be summarily dismissed. In addition, its

conduct should be subject to a full adjudication on the merits. Ensuring that kind of

review and preserving the integrity of the administrative and judicial process benefits the

entire staff.

-11-

What is the likelihood of winning the case — sometimes the case has SittSe likelihood

of winning (no chance) whereas the issue is very important and should be supported

please use your judgment based upon previous WHAT decisions.

We believe that the Tribunal will deny the Bank's jurisdictional challenge and will

proceed to adjudicate the case on its merits. Participating as amicus curiae at this stage

of the proceedings is recommended since this matter involves a fundamental due process

protection of the right of the staff to a full and fair hearing to determine the propriety of

adverse personnel decisions. As the Staff Rules and case law establishes, alleged

violations of an employment contract including a MOU are within the province of the

Tribunal and require a hearing on the merits. By interposing a jurisdictional challenge,

the Bank seeks to deprive Ms. Hudes of the kind of proceeding and consideration to

which she is clearly entitled.