A postalnews.com reader posted the following in response to the Federal Times editorial calling for the PMG to take action against Azeez Jaffer:

The Federal Times obviously does not have a crack legal staff or they would have seen that Jaffer was given a Kalkines warning which means he was forced to talk. Forced to talk with the IG because prosectuion was declined by the prosecutor. Which means the IG at least did try to present the case for prosection but got the thumbs down sign. Once that was done and the Kalkines was given the waters are too murky now for any prosecution to be revisited.
actionjackson

What’s a Kalkines warning? When some investigative functions were shifted between the IG’s office and the Inspection Service last year, the APWU Magazine published a discussion of employee rights, which included this on Kalkines:

In Kalkines v. United States (1973), the U.S. Court of Claims elaborated on the Supreme Court’s holdings, finding that an employee can be asked to “answer pertinent questions about the performance of an employee’s duties … when that employee is duly advised of his options to answer under the immunity granted or remain silent and face dismissal.” In other words, if an employee is given immunity, but nonetheless decides not to answer questions, the government may discipline the employee for not answering the questions…

The Kalkines ruling is an attempt to balance the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination with the Supreme Court’s holding that the government has the right to have its employees answer questions about the performance of their official duties. In getting this information from employees, according to Kalkines, the Fifth Amendment is not violated so long as the government also grants the employee immunity from prosecution based upon that information.

Kalkines immunity (correct me if I’m wrong on this, readers!) is what’s known as ‘use immunity’, meaning that the individual’s testimony can’t be entered as evidence against him, rather than a blanket grant of immunity from any prosecution. It does, as actionjackson points out, muddy the waters. It’s worth noting that the “disposition” in the IG’s report says “Referred to the Postal Service for administrative action.”