In this penetrating, fiery interview, Frank Rafaraci lays bare the saga of alleged federal misconduct and a case of abuse of power that shook the principles of ethical governance. Frank Rafaraci, in this interview, speaks about the legal battle with Trey De La Pena, (a federal agent working at the office of the Inspector General of The US Department of Defence,) who is accused of hypocrisy, conspiracy of negligence, and sheer malice. Frank Rafaraci questions how a person assigned with a federal badge, trusted to maintain honor, service, and integrity, chose to blatantly operate with hypocrisy and misuse that authority to twist the truth for personal gain. Rafaraci’s accountable narrative invokes an alarm concerning the offenses he attributes to De La Pena and a systemic failure that threatens to destroy the reputation of any decent, esteemed institutions like the US Navy and even the disciplined traditions of the Royal Navy. Rafaraci says unflinchingly that this symbol of authority-a badge that was supposed to denote respect and ethical conduct has been turned into a weapon for all intents and purposes to instigate personal gains, masquerading under the cloak of institutional cover-ups, leaving behind the chain of injustices in their wake.
Through the interview, Frank Rafaraci presents his case as a small-scale version of a broader crisis in federal supervision. He complains that Trey De La Pena, while working at the office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Defence dug his own grave, by fabricating evidence, misleading judges and juries, most alarming of which was his undermining of accountability. Rafaraci further compares how the misuse of a federal badge is equivalent to a destructive weapon, emphasizing that authority in bad hands can accomplish harm beyond a missile strike. His in-depth review lays a critique against procedural shortcuts and unwillingness to question high-ranking officers who have left morally questionable practices unchecked. By giving us a sense of his struggles against false accusations and how the fall-out of these charges has soured his esteemed reputation at the cost of his loved ones, Rafaraci claims the high stakes are quite high when integrity is compromised.
This lengthy interview indicates the personal loss dealt by those who step forth in resistance to corruption and also underscores the wider consequences for national security and public trust. Rafaraci fittingly attempts to draw the parallels between the courage cherished by the US Navy and the time-honored discipline of the Royal Navy. Mr Rafaraci’s interview is both a personal lament and a wake-up call for reform; he asks bureaucratic institutions, lawyers, and the public to demand accountability from every officer, regardless of status. In this tell-tale, he challenges us to reexamine our societal standards and demands far more robust integrity over pragmatism at every level of government. It is truly a clarion call for transparency and leadership that seeks to restore our faith in the institutions that are supposed to serve and protect us.
Q1. Mr. Rafaraci, good morning. Can you please share with us why you decided to file a case against U.S. federal agent Cordell Trey De La Pena?
R1. Well, when you hold a U.S. Federal badge you are holding a powerful weapon. The badge implies: service, honor, ethics, respect, and integrity. Agent Trey De La Pena has proven on several instances to lack these qualities. On the contrary, he has manifested that he operates with hypocrisy. A Federal badge can harm more than a Tomahawk’s missile. Would you entrust the command of a U.S. Navy Arleigh Burk destroyer ship to a Commanding Officer who has abused power?
Many questions have arisen, from my team of lawyers and those of the defendants in the United States v. Newland, seriously challenging whether Cordell Trey De La Pena is fit for his job at the office of the Inspector General of The US Department of Defence. It has emerged with no doubt that Trey De La Pena is either incompetent or malicious in his investigations.
Q2. Why malicious, Mr. Frank Rafaraci?
R2. You must have read De La Pena’s affidavit to Magistrate Hon. Robin Meriweather. It is full of lies, all lies, nothing else than lies. Lies for being negligent or incompetent, in a line of business where he leads and lectures or lies to help him create a case to boost his career and his massive ego. He has acted irresponsibly by wielding power from his office in a morally repugnant manner. The Court will dig in and hopefully give us an answer. For sure he has ruined my life and those of my loved ones. Making false accusations and defamation isn’t a joke. It is easy if you hold a federal badge, and you find unprofessional prosecutors who don’t check whether the accusations are substantiated with merit. Trey De La Pena has been found to lie under oath on more than one occasion. He is looking only to achieve a conviction and not searching for the truth. He has misled judges, grand juries, prosecutors, and The US Department of Defence and authorities in several countries worldwide.
Q3. Didn’t you plead guilty to bribery?
R3. I did admit to helping Mr. Randy Alford lending a total of USD 33.500 for a good cause at his transparent and written request. His wife had surgery, and the insurance didn’t cover the full amount. He was late in paying his son’s college tuition which stressed him as his son would be the first in his family to graduate from college. I have known Randy Alford since when he was working with a competitor in Bahrain around 2001. At the time, I had offered him a job with an incentive package which he said he would reconsider in the future as he felt loyal to his employer. There was no quid pro quo and all the benefits De La Pena laid down in his affidavit have been completely dismantled by my legal team. He made the DOJ believe there was a scheme to defraud the US Navy, that my companies benefited from contracts worth billions of dollars, and made my company’s illegitimate profits. In reading emails, he distorted subjects for his benefit, he picked and chose sentences that he used out of context. He emphasized Alford’s role and authority to make it look as if my company got benefits from my loan. This was not only factually incorrect but also downright malicious. Alford pleaded guilty as he was stressed and coerced during his interview, in the absence of legal counsel. I am now pursuing legal action to request the courts to authorize his interview to be made public to validate my position.
If you know the American judicial penal system you know that a plea is a kind of insurance to negotiate your sentence. 98 percent of people being investigated plead guilty as it is costly to defend yourself in an environment where lawyers and prosecutors act like sharks and killer sharks and a local jury, in D.C., I’m told, is influenced by the color of your skin and your social position. The fact that what they tell you or make you believe doesn’t happen doesn’t change anything. You can’t fight the system, and the system protects itself resisting providing you all the information they have. Unwilling to disclose is perceived to hide the truth which sometimes is very embarrassing for the government. It is a scheme by which protection is provided for tortuous and malicious officials. I was astonished at how I resisted my demand for material. The same material of my case was entirely provided in United States v. Newland at the request of the defendant’s lawyers who were able to prove De La Pena’s habit of making investigative mistakes and deceiving the Court. Thanks to my case, the defendants were able to withdraw the plea and negotiate a misdemeanor and a one hundred dollars fine.
I was told by my lawyers that my prosecutors, after withdrawing my fraud and money-lending charges were convinced that there was no bribery, but up the line of command at the DOJ they couldn’t get approval for concerns of the press. One of my longtime lawyers in DC and former assistant Attorney General and White House lawyer during the Nixon administration told me during dinner: Frank, the DOJ cannot be embarrassed. You are paying such a cost. His expression was devastating and shocking for me. What a disgraceful statement. His thinking was in contrast with the meaning of justice. It reminded me of an old famous medieval Latin saying: Mors tua vita mea, Your death my life. Hypocrisy and a complete lack of integrity are evident in this instance.
Q4. Can you tell me your view on the Glenn Marine case?
R4. It has been proven that my company lost at least two large contracts to Glenn Marine due to the Modus operandi of Glenn Marine and the US Navy in Singapore. I always like to understand the genesis of things happening.
You may know that before Operation Husky during World War II in July 1943 the United States was freed from New York’s entanglement. Several ferocious criminals were asking them to prepare the grounds for Allied Forces landing in south Italy to push away the Nazis. After the war, these individuals were in charge of key positions only to continue conducting criminal activities ending up with being arrested again and sent back to US prisons. I call this a Machiavellian decision- the end justifies the means.
Glenn Marine should have never been allowed to work for the US Government. They didn’t have a reputation, but the system needed them for several reasons. Sometimes you need someone to carry the job you can’t do directly, right? Many movies out there describing how the system operates without wanting to know. The US Navy is unable to get competition for their solicitations. The reason stands on how the contracts are written and its unrealistic requirements. Just two small examples: a) Provide fresh water in the Federal Republic of India with the same standards as the United States- You are from India, aren’t you? Beautiful country but its infrastructure isn’t up to standards yet. Therefore, this is an unrealistic request; b) being able to provide services in the Pacific for two battle groups (approx. forty large vessels) at once with 72 hours advance notice. When you look at the immense Pacific Ocean, you ask yourself how can you make it happen? FISC has lacked leadership for a long time providing leaders who don’t know and don’t understand the industry, but they are skilled in preparing tough unbalanced solicitations without considering if they are achievable. No company, small or large, can accept such requirements without investing a huge amount of money or getting advanced information on the ship schedules. Ships schedules are usually known in port bars as ship’ schedules are planned before the battle group deploys. It is classified information, but the information is out there on the market from couriers to prime vendors, not to consider family members, friends, and prostitutes all around the world. This is the reality. Investments to deliver services and means in due time require businesses to pay them out. The Pearl Port concept was given by the Director of the contract of FISC Naples in the nineties for the US Navy to keep up with military readiness. It is not a concept invented by Gleen Marine as the proceeding documents and Craig Whitlock’ Fat Leonard’s interesting book tell us. Contracts are not balanced, and they are written by people who have no operation clue but are only knowledgeable of the FAR and DFARS. It is like making your own home pizza and throwing in it all the ingredients you have in your fridge and your kitchen closets. Who wants a pizza like that? US Navy FISC is lacking leadership, providing solicitation allowing bait and switch fraud to happen on a regular basis which is fully known to NCIS and DCIS but no one is acting; Machiavellian decision? This is a real disaster that started under the leadership of Jerry King. Glenn Marine was instrumental in many objectives in the Pacific till abuses reached an intolerant level. On the contrary, Glenn Marine was able to open doors that the US Government wasn’t able to or wouldn’t want to open themselves. Macchiavelli’s policy again (Machiavelli’s definition of hypocrisy). There is a magnificent book “On the Psychology of Military Incompetence by Dr. Norman F. Dixon”: in WWI General Pershing had to fire two American corps commanders, six division commanders, and 1400 brigadiers, colonels, and other officers for incompetence. Nowadays they get promoted to different positions or they are given awards. They can’t have the term incompetence hitting the press.
Anyway, even in the Glenn Marine case, Trey De La Pena and his prosecutors have proven to operate unprofessionally, and unethically to the extent of forcing Judge Sammartino to outline their outrageous behavior and outline concerns on the way federal badges were used in the United States to pursue objectives and not to search for the truth. This is very scary for our society.
Q5. Are you confident to win your case?
R5. I’m confident the truth will emerge. Trey De La Pena has proven not to be qualified for his present positions either for being negligent, unprofessional, or for being malicious in his investigation. I hope President Trump will bring in better leadership.
On the basis of the evidence in hand, I am confident the Court will find that Trey De La Pena acted at least tortuously. This will help the restoration of my reputation, but the judgment alone is not a sufficient remedy. The false reports about me on the web will need to be cleared too.
Thank you for your time and I wish you good luck.
Thank you, Ms Sing, and God Bless America, and may God free us from negligent, malicious people without integrity.
About the Author
