Interim measure – Any form of action brought by a court that grants an injunction to one of the parties to protect their interests until the court takes other measures. Seizure – A court case in which one debtor`s money held by another (called garnishment) is applied to the debtor`s debts, such as when an employer garnishes a debtor`s wages. Judicial review – The power of a court to review the official acts of other branches of government. Also the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of other branches. Pursuant to Commission Rule 2.10, 16 C.F.R. Section 2.10, a party may object to a subpoena or IDC by filing a request for restriction or revocation. These petitions are decided by the Commission as a whole. The Commission may apply to a federal district court to enforce the subpoena or CID in the event of non-compliance, even if the authorized place in an enforcement of the CID is more restricted than in a subpoena enforcement case. If I file a complaint with MSPD and am not satisfied with the outcome, can I request a review elsewhere? Yes. The Commission`s decisions may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1), (b)(1). If you allege prohibited discrimination under 5 U.S.C.

§ 2302(b)(1), you may also seek review in U.S. District Court and then in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the numbered district in which the district court is located. In a very limited number of cases, certiorari may be granted by the U.S. Supreme Court following a decision by one of the circuit courts of appeal. Res judicata – An issue or issue that has already been decided by a court. A final judgment on the merits is final with respect to the rights of the parties and constitutes an absolute obstacle to further action in respect of the same claim, claim or cause of action. The force of res judicata precludes the repetition of the same plea between the same parties where an earlier judgment has been delivered. In comparison, the forfeiture of the guarantee prevents the recurrence of a particular problem or fact. Compare collateral estoppel. What does the history of the provision say about the purpose of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(13)? Both the Senate and the House of Representatives issued reports on the provisions and purposes of the legislation after reviewing the bills that became the WPEA.

The House Report, H. R. Rep. 112-508, 112th Cong., 2d Sess. 7 (30. May 2012), simply notes that the bill “includes, as a prohibited personnel practice, the implementation or application of a policy, form or confidentiality agreement of the organization that does not contain a specific statement that its provisions comply with requirements that confirm the right of federal employees to disclose illegality, waste and cannot replace it, fraud, abuse or threats to public health or safety. Void Contract – A contract that has no legal effect and cannot be enforced under any circumstances. For example, a contract to commit an illegal act is null and void. Trust – A legal instrument for the management of real or personal property made by one person (the settlor or settlor) for the benefit of another person (the beneficiary).

A third party (trustee) or settlor manages the trust. Lawyer – A licensed lawyer or legal advisor authorized by the courts to prepare, administer and negotiate court cases, prepare legal documents or otherwise represent the interests of citizens. Immediate cause – Action that caused an event. A person is generally liable only if the damage was caused directly by his act or inaction when he had a duty to act. Pro Se – In its own name, is often used to refer to a party who represents himself or herself in legal proceedings rather than being represented by a lawyer. Injunction – A court order requiring or prohibiting an action until a decision can be made on whether to issue a permanent injunction. This is different from an injunction. Will – A legal statement that disposes of a person`s property upon that person`s death. If an employee appeals an adverse action, claiming that it was the result of a PPP under Section 2302(b)(12), how is a violation proven? First, the onus is on the appellant to prove any allegation of PPP. See 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(B), 5 C.F.R.

§ 1201.56(a)(2)(iii). As regards the mode of evidence, the Commission has only recently acknowledged that its case-law has not previously established the precise elements to prove a violation of this article. In Jenkins v. Environmental Protection Agency, 118 M.S.P.R. 161 (2012), the Commission considered the Appellant`s allegations that her dismissal was the result of two PPPs, 5 U.S.C.