April, 06 2010, 01:48pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dylan Blaylock,202.408.0034 ext. 137,dylanb@whistleblower.org
Bar Complaint Charges Former World Bank Official with Ethics Violations
Bank Finds Former INT Attorney under Wolfowitz Guilty of Unethical Conduct; Same Attorney Involved in AIG Controversy
WASHINGTON
Today, April 6, the Government Accountablity Project (GAP) filed a
complaint with the Washington, D.C. Bar Association against Suzanne
Folsom, former Director of the Department of Institutional Integrity
(INT) at the World Bank from 2006 to 2008. The complaint reveals
unethical actions taken by Folsom as the manager of the Bank's
investigations unit, including improper interference with an external
review, abuse of authority, harassment, and deception of INT staff.
According to the complaint, concerns about mismanagement at INT under
Folsom became so serious in 2007, that then-World Bank President Paul
Wolfowitz was obliged to convene an independent external panel chaired
by Paul Volcker to review the investigative practices in place. In the
two years since the Volcker Panel issued its report, Bank management has
repeatedly heralded the implementation of the Panel's recommendations
as
evidence of effective action to combat corruption. Rulings
handed down in December 2009 by the Administrative Tribunal (AT), the
Bank's internal court, in response to sixteen complaints filed by INT
staff members, however, illustrate Folsom's deliberate and substantial
interference with this supposedly independent commission. The rulings
show that Folsom manipulated the inquiry in order to influence its
findings and weaken its recommendations.
When Folsom managed INT, GAP also released a report on management at
the unit that documented widespread irregularities, in contrast to less
critical conclusions of the Volcker Panel.
The bar complaint is available
on GAP's website by clicking here.
Folsom's Source
inside the Volcker Panel
Specifically, Folsom recruited a member of the Volcker panel to
inform her of the identities of the panel's witnesses, as well as the
content of what they said. Ruling No. 419, for example, describes
Folsom's interference in detail; the text identifies Folsom as "Ms. X:"
In October 2005 the President of the
Bank appointed Ms. X as Acting Director of INT. She became Director of
INT in January 2006.
The INT staff member who exposed Folsom's manipulation is identified
as "the Applicant." In the text of the ruling, the witness for World
Bank management is quoted admitting Folsom's
illicit contact with the Volcker panelist:
[The Applicant] makes reference to
sub rosa conversations [Ms. X] regularly had with a member of the
Volcker Panel during which she would receive information on the INT
staff who registered concerns about INT management with the Panel. [Ms.
X] indeed told me that she engaged in these meetings and even informed
me of the name of the specific panel member. ... [Ms. X] indeed told me
and [the Applicant's supervisor] that [the Applicant] was among the
staff who spoke ill of [Ms. X] and that she would punish him, that he
would never get promoted (AT
Decision 419, para. 45)
Acting on information from her informant, Ms. Folsom then retaliated
against those who criticized her.
"Folsom's action inevitably had a
chilling effect on other INT witnesses before the Volcker Panel," said
GAP International Director Bea Edwards. "The Panel informant violated
the witness' confidentiality and exposed them to Folsom's reprisals.
Other staff members saw that happen. The Tribunal rulings taint the
conclusions of the entire Volcker review."
Misleading the
Panel Regarding INT Practice
The rulings also show that Folsom altered her management practices in
order to mislead the Volcker Panel about the administration of INT (AT
Decision 410, para. 52). The witness for management
explained to the Tribunal how Folsom invented department-wide evaluation
criteria solely for the benefit of the panel:
This change [to the Results
Agreement] was a consequence of [Ms. X's] decision during the latter
part of the third quarter of the OPE [Overall Performance Evaluation]
cycle to have the management team develop and issue across the
department standardized Results Agreements for investigators, without
prior notice to INT staff, and was based on [Ms. X's] stated desire to
showcase the standardized Results Agreements in her submissions to then
impending Independent Review Panel headed by Chairman Volcker.
Instead of presenting the Panel with documents that accurately
reflected INT performance standards, Folsom produced fictitious accounts
of her management practices. Her version of administrative procedures
stood uncorrected when the Panel issued its findings and made
recommendations for "reform."
What the Rulings Do
The sixteen appellants to the Tribunal alleged that they suffered:
violations of due process, breaches of confidentiality, a hostile work
environment, unfair treatment, and abuse of discretion at the hands of
INT management (AT
Decisions 408 - 423, para. 3). Tribunal judges validated
these complaints and attributed the responsibility for the chaos at INT
to Folsom. INT staff members have said informally to GAP that under
Folsom, INT became little more than a "plumbers' unit," dedicated to
plugging the information leaks that embarrassed Wolfowitz as Bank
president. They added that the correctives recommended by the Volcker
Panel were insufficient.
A Separate Ruling
against Folsom
In a separate ruling cited in GAP's Bar Complaint, the World Bank's
Tribunal revealed that Folsom personally intervened in an improper
investigation of the General Counsel of the private sector lending arm
of the Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and conveyed the
impression to a senior manager that the investigation's target was
guilty of misconduct allegations when, in fact, she was not.
The ruling found that Folsom's actions in this case damaged the
former General Counsel's professional and personal reputation, and
forced her into early retirement as a result of the stress of a
protracted, intrusive and investigation.
As a consequence of all seventeen decisions, the Bank will pay the
victims over $2 million in damages and compensation.
Folsom's Departure
& the Lack of Bank Action
Ultimately, Bank President Robert Zoellick forced Folsom to resign in
January 2008.
"Ironically, Folsom was forced out for leaking confidential Bank
documents to the press," said Edwards. "In a sense, the head plumber
herself was fired for leaking."
As a condition of her departure, however, Folsom pocketed a severance
payment of about $400,000. Additionally, an INT staff member claims
that Zoellick allowed Folsom a weekend of unfettered access to INT
offices during which she was free to remove and shred documents.
Although the Lead Internal Investigator at INT, Wayne Nardolillo,
informed the AT that Folsom told him the identity of her informant on
the Volcker panel, World Bank management appears to have taken no action
to hold the panel member to account, to determine the influence this
member had on the panel's final recommendations, or to revisit the
Volcker exercise for the purpose of instituting real reforms in
corruption investigations. On the contrary, Bank management continues to
tout the recommendations of the Volcker Panel as if they were credible
rather than distorted by Folsom's unethical influence.
Folsom's Recent AIG
Controversy
Three months after leaving the World Bank, Folsom was hired by AIG as
the chief compliance and regulatory officer. From AIG, she collected a
second golden parachute of $1 million after less than two years at the
company, even as other AIG executives fought the imposition of the
$500,000 annual pay caps by Kenneth Feinberg, the Paymaster for
bailed-out US corporations and banks. Folsom, who left "to pursue other
opportunities," accompanied AIG's General Counsel, Anastasia Kelly, out
the door, who openly left the company because of the pay caps after
counseling other AIG executives on how to avoid them. Senator Charles
Grassley is inquiring into the generous terms of Folsom's simultaneous
separation.
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
LATEST NEWS
In Dead of Night, Senate GOP Schedules Vote on Trump Fed Pick
"No Republican claiming to care about Fed independence should support moving forward the nomination of Kevin Warsh," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Apr 25, 2026
In the late hours of Friday night, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee scheduled a vote to advance President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Reserve, shortly after the Justice Department announced it was dropping its criminal probe into the current head of the central bank, Jerome Powell.
The committee vote will take place on April 29, putting megarich financier Kevin Warsh on track for full Senate confirmation by the time Powell's term as Fed chair ends on May 15. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the banking panel, said in a statement early Saturday morning that "either the Republican majority is fooled easily or they are hoping to fool the American people," arguing that the Justice Department only agreed to drop its widely condemned probe of Powell—for now, at least—to clear the way for Warsh's confirmation.
"The Department of Justice threatened to restart the investigation into Fed Chair Powell at any time while continuing its probe against Gov. Lisa Cook," said Warren. The senator pointed to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's remark on Friday that the investigation into Powell "is not necessarily dropped, it's just being moved over to the inspector general."
The probe into the Fed's building renovations produced no evidence of a crime and was seen as a politically motivated attack on Powell, whom Trump has targeted repeatedly for not supporting the president's desired monetary policy. Trump originally nominated Powell to lead the central bank in 2017.
Warren said Saturday that "no Republican claiming to care about Fed independence should support moving forward the nomination of Kevin Warsh, who proved in his nomination hearing to be nothing more than President Trump’s sock puppet.”
While the DOJ investigation into Powell was ongoing, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)—a banking committee member—put a hold on Warsh's confirmation. As of this writing, Tillis has yet to indicate he is satisfied with federal prosecutors' announcement of an end to the Powell investigation.
Warren and other critics see Warsh as someone who would bow to Trump's influence at the Federal Reserve. During his confirmation hearing, Warsh declined to say whether Trump lost the 2020 election, which the president still falsely claims was stolen.
"He argues he's going to be an independent Fed chair, but refuses to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election," said economist Justin Wolfers. "If you can't state simple facts when you're in the political spotlight, you aren't independent. You're a coward."
Observers have also raised concerns about Warsh's financial disclosures—or lack thereof. In recent Senate filings, Warsh disclosed owning assets worth between around $135 million and $226 million, but he did not provide specific details about more than $100 million in holdings, citing confidentiality agreements.
Warren told reporters earlier this month that after meeting with Warsh, she spoke with "the White House briefer on the FBI investigation into Mr. Warsh’s background."
"And what I can say about that report," said Warren, "is that I was told that the FBI made zero investigation into any of Mr. Warsh’s financial holdings, including those that he is refusing to disclose, and that they made zero investigation as to why [Warsh] appears in the publicly available Epstein files and whether he appears in other files that have not been made public.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Leaving the US Behind,' 50+ Nations Gather in Colombia to 'Phase Out Fossil Fuels'
"Word on the street is NO fossil fuel lobbyists at the Santa Marta, Colombia 'Transition Away' conference," said one climate journalist.
Apr 24, 2026
Representatives of more than 50 countries on Friday kicked off the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Colombia, a hopeful summit that comes amid a worsening global climate crisis and fossil fuel-producing nations' efforts to block a clean energy transition.
Organizers of the conference—which is taking place in the Caribbean city of Santa Marta and is co-hosted by the Netherlands—said participants aim to "initiate a concrete process through which a coalition of committed countries, subnational governments, and relevant stakeholders can identify and advance enabling pathways to implement a progressive transition away from fossil fuels, creating sustainable societies and economies."
"This process will be informed by the experience and perspectives of national and subnational governments, academia, Indigenous peoples, peoples of African descent, peasants, civil society, workers, the private sector, and other key actors at different stages of the transition," the organizers added.
The conference comes amid widespread disappointment and frustration over what climate defenders called a "shamefully weak" draft text—called the Multirão Decision—produced at last November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Brazil. The final document removed all mentions of fossil fuels amid pressure from oil and gas-producing nations like the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and the presence of a record number of industry lobbyists.
“When multilateral processes move slowly, concrete alliances of the willing can take us a long way," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said this week at the 17th Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Hesse state, where high-level representatives from around 40 countries discussed "concrete steps towards overcoming the climate crisis."
I've worked on #climate and fossil fuels for almost 30 years and the Santa Marta Conference is definitely one of the most hopeful things I've seen. Finally some governments are exploring solutions that meet the scale of the crisis. Good explainer 🧵👇
[image or embed]
— Patrick Reinsborough ❌👑 (@giantwhispers.bsky.social) April 24, 2026 at 7:57 AM
The Santa Marta conference, which will run through April 29, will focus on three main areas:
- Overcoming economic dependence on fossil fuels;
- Transforming energy supply and demand; and
- Advancing international cooperation and climate diplomacy.
Major fossil fuel producers including Angola, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, and the United Kingdom are among the 54 nations represented in Santa Marta.
Notably absent from the conference are some of the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluters, including the United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan. Their absence is fine with Colombian Environmental Minister Irene Vélez Torres, who told The Guardian that “this is not the space for them."
"We are not going to have boycotters or climate denialists at the table,” Vélez said.
Also missing by design are the legions of lobbyists who increasingly swarm COP conferences.
Word on the street is NO fossil fuel lobbyists at the Santa Marta, Colombia 'Transition Away' conference. But it does have some of the best climate scientists in the world for an advisory panel.
[image or embed]
— Bob Berwyn (@bberwyn.bsky.social) April 24, 2026 at 11:15 AM
Former Peruvian Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who heads the World Wildlife Fund's global climate division, said in a statement that "changing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels isn’t a slow problem with a slow solution: We need a rapid, global shift to renewable power, smarter grids, and efficiency, so emissions fall fast and stay down."
"And we need a ‘coalition of the willing’ to show us the way," he added. "Santa Marta is an inflection point and an opportunity that we should not miss.”
The absence of the United States surprised no one, given the Trump administration and Republicans' promotion of oil, gas, and coal. Big Oil invested $445 million during the 2024 election cycle in efforts to elect Trump and other Republicans and promote fossil fuel-friendly policies.
Trump, who ran on a “drill, baby, drill” energy policy, has signed a series of executive orders aimed at boosting fossil fuel production, including by declaring a fake “energy emergency” in a push to fast-track permit approvals. He also tapped former fossil fuel executives to head the Department of Energy and Interior Department, which have pursued a policy of opening up more public lands and waters for fossil fuel development.
At the same time, the Trump administration dropped out of the Paris climate agreement for the second time and moved to roll back the modest climate progress achieved under former President Joe Biden.
Melinda Lewis—who directs the Global Trade Watch program at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen—is attending the Santa Marta conference, where she is working to dismantle the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. The enforced mechanism empowers multinational corporations to sue governments before panels of corporate attorneys and has been denounced by opponents—especially those in the Global South—as a novel form of colonialism.
"While it is tragic that the United States government is failing to meet this critical moment for climate action, we are encouraged that the rest of the world has recognized that it’s high time to take bold action to remove the arcane ISDS extra-legal instrument buried in trade and investment treaties that has been used as a cudgel by fossil fuel and extractive industries to stymie government actions that might reduce their profits," Lewis said on Friday.
As Canadian researcher Joseph Bouchard recently wrote in a Common Dreams opinion piece, "Colombia is especially exposed" to ISDS harm, as "the country has 129 oil and gas projects covered by ISDS provisions, leaving it vulnerable to a wave of potential claims as it pursues its energy transition."
Lewis noted that Colombia's government, led by leftist President Gustavo Petro, "recently announced its intention to renounce its treaties that include ISDS as part of the full package of needed action to usher in a clean energy transition."
Indigenous leaders said more must be done to ensure a just transition.
“We are very concerned. We talk about a just transition, but in practice it is not true,” Oswaldo Muca, General Coordinator of the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon, told Inter Press Service. “Mining continues. Extraction continues. Deforestation continues. The territories and Indigenous peoples continue suffering this problem, and it is becoming more serious every day."
Muca added that benefits from resource extraction "do not reach Indigenous territories, but they destroy the territory and leave the damage."
On Friday, more than 250 legal experts from around the world asserted that "phasing out fossil fuels is not a political choice—it is a legal obligation."
The jurists noted in an open letter that "the International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously confirmed that every state must use all means at its disposal to prevent significant harm to the climate system, including by avoiding the principal activities driving it: fossil fuel production and use."
The letter's signers include former Irish President Mary Robinson and Julian Aguon, an Indigenous human rights lawyer from Guam who played a key role in winning the ICJ climate case.
"The phaseout of fossil fuels is not just scientifically necessary to prevent catastrophic and irreversible harm to the climate system, all peoples, and ecosystems; it is legally required," they wrote. "It is also socially, economically, and environmentally beneficial for present and future generations."
Ultimately, countries participating in the Santa Marta conference will draw their own individual roadmaps with the help of scientists and other experts.
“If we think about it," said Vélez, "the conference is that turning point where, collectively, we decide to be on the right side of history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
TMZ Confronts Hegseth Over Whether He's on a 'Power Trip' When Ordering 'Extreme Level of Violence'
"I’ve never seen the corporate media hacks even dream of having the courage to ask something like this," said one journalist.
Apr 24, 2026
At the latest press briefing at the Pentagon on Friday, in addition to issuing his latest threat to journalists who publish classified information obtained from sources, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth peppered his comments with the violent rhetoric that's become commonplace in his public remarks.
The US military will "shoot and kill" if Iranian boats are found trying to disrupt passage through the Strait of Hormuz, which remains closed following the extension of a ceasefire this week, said Hegseth.
He added, "We will shoot to destroy, no hesitation, just like the drug boats in the Caribbean"—a reference to strikes that have killed at least 180 people the US has accused of trafficking drugs, in an operation that has been widely condemned as one of extrajudicial killings or murder.
"The War Department stands ready for what comes next, locked and loaded," said the secretary, who has also denigrated what he refers to as "stupid" rules of engagement meant to protect civilians. "We'll use up to and including lethal force if necessary."
Amid Hegseth's escalating efforts to control the media's coverage of his department, including the Pentagon's firing on Thursday of the ombudsman of the military newspaper Stars and Stripes and his demand that journalists agree to a policy prohibiting coverage that the department has not approved, an outlet that's new to Capitol Hill made its way into the press briefing room Friday—and asked the top military official a question that hadn't previously come up about the deadly attacks he's ordered in recent months.
“I’ve heard you talk a lot about bombing people and places," said Jacob Wasserman of the celebrity news outlet TMZ, which has recently expanded its political coverage by opening an office in the nation's capital. "And when you give these orders to carry out this extreme level of violence, what’s going through your mind and your body? Do you have, like, an adrenaline rush? Are you scared? Do you feel like you’re on a power trip?"
WATCH: @TMZ’s first question at a Pentagon briefing...@jacob_wass: “I’ve heard you talk a lot about bombing people in places. And when you give these orders to carry out this extreme level of violence, what’s going through your mind and your body? Do you have, like, an… pic.twitter.com/94IHsMHP1D
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 24, 2026
Hegseth appeared perplexed before smirking and dismissing the query as "a very TMZ question." He quickly denied that a "power trip" plays into his decisions to strike targets in places including Iran, where at least 3,375 people have been killed in US-Israeli strikes, including at least 200 children; the Caribbean Ocean and Pacific Ocean, where the boat bombing campaign is continuing; and Ecuador, where US troops launched a joint campaign with the nation's military last month, targeting suspected drug traffickers on land.
He said his "only thought process is to ensure that our war fighters have everything they need to be successful, defeat and destroy the enemy," before adding some more of the violent rhetoric Wasserman had alluded to about bringing "maximum violence to the enemy."
Some scoffed at Wasserman's question, but others, including Drop Site News journalist Julian Andreone, applauded the reporter for publicly suggesting and confronting Hegseth about the possibility that he enjoys ordering US troops to kill people in foreign countries, including many civilians, in operations that legal experts say violate international law.
"I’ve never seen the corporate media hacks even dream of having the courage to ask something like this, yet they continue to shove the fancy name of their organization in everybody’s faces while looking down their noses at TMZ," said Andreone.
Wasserman's colleague, Charlie Cotton, followed up with a question about whether Hegseth, who has claimed the Department of Defense has been renamed the Department of War—although congressional approval would be needed for such a change—would consider again rechristening the agency as the Department of Peace, "since that's what we're all after."
The question prompted Hegseth, moments after demanding "maximum violence," to remark that "the one institution that should win the Nobel Peace Prize every single year is the United States military, because we are the guarantor of the safety and security, not just of our country, but of a lot of people in this world."
TMZ's first appearance in the briefing room and its arrival in Washington, DC come at a time when the corporate media's coverage of the Iran war and other military operations has been compared to the drumbeating tone in the national press ahead of the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in 2003, and as some have called for more adversarial coverage of the White House and the political establishment.
The outlet, which is more accustomed to publishing celebrity gossip, spent recent weeks publishing photos of federal lawmakers vacationing during the partial government shutdown, with TMZ founder Harvey Levin interviewing one Transportation Security Administration worker who had been reporting to work for weeks without pay on the company's weekday show, "TMZ Live."
Levin urged viewers to who saw members of Congress on vacation during the shutdown to "take a picture and send it to us at TMZ. We will post that picture on our website, on our social media, and we will put it on our television shows. We want to show what they are doing at your expense.”
Levin told The Hollywood Reporter earlier this month that TMZ's presence in Washington will “sometimes be fun, sometimes intensely serious."
The headline the outlet chose for its brief write-up of Wasserman's question to Hegseth on Friday was, "TMZ DC to Pete Hegseth: Do You Get Off on Dropping Bombs???"
Journalist Krystal Ball of the online news show "Breaking Points" said that if Wasserman's question to Hegseth was a "'TMZ question,' I’m excited to see more of what TMZ will bring to the table."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


