Date of Offense
Supporting Document(s)
Statement
Sworn Contradiction by Command Official Regarding Retaliatory Citation Disclosed by Subordinate:
Case Reference: EEO/ORM Case No. 200P-644-2023-150580; Ramirez v. Phoenix VA (Case No. 2:25-cv-0959-CDB, District of Arizona):
A critical conflict in sworn testimonies between Major Joshua Fister and Sergeant Todd Uthe has established a documented Lack of Candor regarding the criminal prosecution of a department whistleblower. On October 26, 2023, while under oath in a compelled interrogatory, Major Fister issued a categorical denial regarding the targeting of an officer with federal criminal charges, stating:
"I did not order anyone to write a citation nor was the citation unjust."
Fister maintained that the citation was an independent action based solely on probable cause for a violation of 38 CFR. This testimony was repeatedly and directly refuted by Sergeant Todd Uthe in multiple sworn forums. In his sworn written affidavit, titled TODD UTHE - ORMDI Testimony.pdf, Uthe explicitly countered Fister's claims, stating,
"I want it to be known that the complainant was given a USDCVN ticket by me, but I was told to give the complainant a ticket by Maj Fister."
Uthe explained the heavy-handed nature of the directive, noting,
"Maj Fister called me on the phone when I was off asking me to come in for two hours to write the citation."
Because of these instructions, Uthe admitted,
"During this situation I did not feel comfortable with issuing a ticket to the complainant."
The evidence of Fister's lack of candor was further solidified on January 12, 2024, during a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hearing (transcribed and available via PACER in Ramirez v. Phoenix VA). During this hearing, Uthe testified under oath and directly stated that he "was instructed by Fister to issue the citation."
The discrepancy is further compounded by Uthe’s account of an internal meeting. In his formal affidavit, Uthe detailed a conversation from December 6, 2023, stating,
"I met with Maj Fister to explain a situation and during our conversation I told Maj Fister that he told me to issue a tick to the complainant. Maj Fister said he remember that he did tell me, but he got the directive from Chief Whitt."
This sequence of events captures a documented shift in Fister's official narrative: an initial sworn denial of involvement, followed by a subsequent admission where he remembered giving the order to a subordinate, and consecutive sworn testimony from that subordinate confirming the directive in federal administrative and judicial records.
Under Giglio v. United States and Brady v. Maryland, this documented contradiction and the submission of a false premise in a sworn interrogatory constitute a substantial breach of integrity and a mandatory disclosure requirement regarding Fister’s credibility as a law enforcement official.
