The Master Chronology and All Files
This will be a complete chronological record of my application process, appeals, all the key documents, my polygraph report, rejection letter, and all other communications. It includes my applicant file, MSPB file, FOIPA requests, miscellaneous correspondence, and my libel case. It's filled with lessons to be learned, which I intend to add as annotations in the PDFs as well as comments in the following table. It's going to take a while to put it all up. Initially I was going to do only my applicant file on here, but it's just easier to put everything on this page and then categorize the documents through the links at left.
Try not to judge too harshly; I wrote some unfortunate letters and some really unfortunate filings with the Merit Systems Protection Board. Much of this was due to my flailing around trying to get answers without understanding how they do things. Now that I understand more, there are certainly letters and filings I wish I could take back. Oh well.
I'm putting these up out of order as I find time. It will take a while to complete. My appeal provides a nice summary of everything, see the 2/7/2010 entry below.
My redactions are in light gray; theirs are in black (MSPB file) or white with a black border (FOIPA file). The file produced in response to a court order from the Merit Systems Protection Board is more complete than what I initially got under FOIPA, so I'm mostly using that file. The FOIPA file has every single person's name redacted and numerous documents omitted, so it's basically worthless. The MSPB file is way better and allowed me to reconstruct numerous useful bits of information. The key documents are mostly from the PSI in May 2009 and on, so I put most of those up and will be adding everything else in chronological order.
Quick Links
| Date/Download | Document or Event | Comments | Related Documents |
2008-12-02 [592 KB PDF] | Original online application | They review it and note positive/desirable factors on the first page at the top. I assume JD's, with experience, who do civil litigation are desirable, as they may be suitable for document-intensive white collar cases, among other matters. | Resume. |
2009-01-08 | Phase I Examination | The extensive written test described in the section at left. | Non-Disclosure Agreement |
2009-01-12 [260 KB PDF] | Phase I results letter | Nothing of interest. | PFT Self Assessment. |
2009-05-01 | Phase II Interview and Written Exercise | This was the highlight of my application process. I flew to another state and stayed at a 4-star hotel at government expense, and had the best interview of my life. I can't wait to see what my scores were (FOIPA request pending). | |
| 2009-05-12 | Physical Fitness Test | I got 15 points but I failed the pushups portion of the event. My second attempt was set for July 2009 but it didn't happen. | Official PFT score report |
| 2009-05-18 | I turned in my SF-86 | I thought hey, why not drop it off at the Field Office? In the elevator on the way up I encountered three Special Agents who were on their way to work. We all pretended not to recognize each other for who we were, and we all failed. | SF-86 SF-86 Cover Sheet |
2009-05-27 [3,788 KB PDF] | Personnel Security Interview | A lengthy form filled out by the interviewer plus supplemental documents like my passport and drug use questionnaire. Numerous errors were made including not reading the preamble, not advising me that the scope of investigation is age 18 and up, not including the word "serious" in the "serious crimes" question. I've no doubt that is typical. The FBI appears to intentionally collect information from applicants' entire lives and all possible negative conduct, when in fact they are only authorized to collect data from age 18 and up except for arrests or workplace violations (see form), and there are issues of privacy involved in having to disclose "minor" crimes or subjectively negative conduct that may not be criminal. Bottom line, ask to read the form if you have any doubts about the scope of the questions. | SF-86 Cover Sheet SF-86 |
| 2009-05-28 [1,642 KB PDF] | Fitness For Duty Exam | A comprehensive medical physical conducted by an occupational medicine specialist. Although Headquarters personnel make the final decision, the doctor pronounced me "fit for duty" at the end of the exam. It was pretty cool in that I found out my blood type and visual acuity, two things I'd never known before. The less palatable aspects of the exam included coughing up blood during the spirometry exam (blowing as hard as possible through a small tube), and having to return "hemoccult" slides. Just google it, it's gross. At least I didn't have to have a prostate exam, which I would if I were over 40 I think. | |
| 2009-06-09 [116 KB PDF] | Polygraph report and examiner's notes | This is the key document folks. Everything you see here was approved by the FBI, and it was officially determined that I told the truth. This figures prominently in my application and appeal, for reasons I discuss elsewhere. | FD-302 of SA Coder Adjudicative Recommendation of Analyst Halle Applicant appeal |
| 2009-06-15 [289 KB PDF] | Initiate Background Investigation | Internal memorandum from Field Office to SACU requesting initiation of my background investigation. | None |
| 2009-06-22 [786 KB PDF] | Scattered Castles/Unknown/CIA request form | A National Agency Check is part of the preliminary stages of the background investigation. This form shows SACU requesting a search of Scattered Castles and an undisclosed database, and no matches were found. Scattered Castles is maintained by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and is a repository for interagency data such as polygraph results and security clearance adjudications. I speculate that the undisclosed database is the classified counterpart of Scattered Castles as described below. | ODNI FOIPA request, denial, and appeal |
| 2009-06-22 [590 KB PDF] | OPM records search | The FBI searches the Office of Personnel Management's databases to see whether I've ever been a Federal employee and whether I've ever been investigated by OPM. | |
| 2009-06-22 [320 KB PDF] | Search in unknown database | The unknown database shown in the Scattered Castles request form. It appears that Scattered Castles and the unknown database are somehow related, as the first page of this results page is not full but there is a second page with more information. Both probably show my name, date of birth, place of birth, SSN, and the fact that there was no match. So, working theory: Scattered Castles is the unclassified database, and the unknown database is the classified one. | |
| 2009-06-22 [527 KB PDF] | CJIS check on associates | My former roommates and immediate family members are checked for criminal convictions in the FBI Criminal Justice Information System. They're all clean, of course; what a surprise. I didn't include several blank pages with markings indicating redactions based on privacy grounds. | |
2009-06-24 [450 KB PDF] | Email from Analyst Abby M. Halle to OGC requesting a legal opinion | Why is she emailing the Office of General Counsel? The Special Agent Applicant Unit (SAAU) is the component of the FBI that is responsible for making the call on all drug-related incidents, according to the manual. Perhaps she noticed that SAAU had approved this incident in the polygraph examination, where it was discussed. This is a CYA email to insulate Ms. Halle and the folks at SACU from responsibility. What probably happened is that the OGC attorney wrote back with a list of questions or a request for more information, and that's when I got the call from... | |
2009-06-25 | Phone call from Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | My first telephonic interview with Special Agent Coder. The second one occurs on June 30, 2009. | FD-302 of Special Agent Grahm L. Coder |
| 2009-06-25 [114 KB PDF] | FD-302 of Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | A falsified investigative record prepared by a Special Agent who is so obviously unworthy of the office that he holds that I really am concerned how someone like this could have come to work in such a powerful position. Did it occur to him that by libeling me and intentionally failing to do his job correctly, he created various claims against himself and potentially his bosses, for which they may not be immune under the Tort Claims Act, Privacy Act, and even potentially the Freedom of Information Act? Apparently not. | Everything. |
| 2009-06-30 | Phone call from Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | Second telephonic interview with Special Agent Coder. Despite taking place after the date of his FD-302, this phone conversation is recorded in his prior FD-302. The document was backdated. | FD-302 of Special Agent Grahm L. Coder |
| 2009-06-30 [47 KB PDF] | Email to Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | Email to SA Coder with my friend's contact information for verification purposes. He had called me about several subjects and said that he needed my friend's contact information after all. Except for my friend's contact info, the other subjects we discussed appear in his FD-302 of June 25, 2009. This proves that he backdated his FD-302 and could not have written, dictated, transcribed, or signed it on June 25, 2009. He also withheld my friend's contact information from the file and did not file this email. I wonder if it occurred to him that I might be sending him confirming emails intentionally? | Emails FD-302 |
| 2009-06-30 [167 KB PDF] | Adjudicative Recommendation of Analyst Abby M. Halle | The suitability determination. It's initialed by Supervisory Personnel Security Specialist Valrie R. Kosh and Acting Unit Chief Montchell C. Brice. On a second review I noted that this is labeled as being from the Special Agent Applicant Unit, despite that Ms. Halle works for the Special Agent Clearance Unit (see email above). I am still considering the implications of this. | Thin letter of 7/1/2010 |
| 2009-07-01 [359 KB PDF] | BPMS screen printout | The Bureau Personnel Management System contains a summary of the key information about every applicant and employee. Here we see a screen generated shortly before Ms. Halle finalized my thin letter. | |
| 2009-07-01 [60 KB PDF] | Thin letter signed by Acting Unit Chief Brice rescinding my conditional offer | No reference of any kind to the basis for the decision. False implication that competitiveness of the applicant pool was a factor, when the contents of the file show that is not the case. | None |
| 2009-07-06 [36 KB PDF] | Email to Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | I simply ask him why I was disqualified. It was a completely legitimate message with no ulterior motives, hidden messages, or other drama. Instead of responding with the truth or not replying at all, he responds with... | Email of 7/6/2009 |
| 2009-07-07 [63 KB PDF] | Email from Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | A completely uncalled for, deceptive message in which he toys with me and pretends not to know why I was disqualified. My response now? Dear Special Agent Coder, FUCK YOU ASSHOLE. | Email of 7/6/2009 Email of 9/21/2009 Email of 10/12/2009 |
| 2009-07-07 [35 KB PDF] | Email to Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | I respond to his email in a slightly suspicious fashion. I wanted to believe he was not bullshitting me, but at the same time, his email was written in a snake fashion. I'm glad this is all I said. | Prior and subsequent emails. |
| 2009-09-14 [242 KB PDF] | CIA rejection letter | Proof that government agencies share information, and once you're toast with one of them, you could be toast with all of them. First of all, I did not apply for the Clandestine Service Trainee position mentioned in this letter. I told the recruiter that I would make a pretty bad collection officer overseas, and that I could more ably serve in a headquarters position. He said that was fine, and he made a number of suggestions as to how I might prepare for a headquarters career. Second, the recruiter did not mention competitiveness of the applicant pool. In fact, he asked me whether I would consider positions other than the one I originally applied for. Ergo, I was rejected for reasons other than competitiveness. There's an interagency index that contains certain types of determinations made on applicants, but they can also request information from each other. That's why this case is about more than the FBI. What clearly happened here is that the CIA asked the FBI why I was rejected, and the FBI gave them the Adjudicative Recommendation. The CIA should have given me a chance to explain or deny what was in the Adjudicative Recommendation, but they didn't. Who could blame them? The Adjudicative Recommendation is unequivocal, and that's part of the problem. This matter is about honesty and accountability, as well as my future prospects with other agencies, if any. The fact that a single Special Agent can end someone's Federal career is very disconcerting. | |
| 2009-09-16 [507 KB PDF] | Letter from me to Acting Unit Chief Brice | I simply ask for notice of how to appeal whatever determination was made. This is a couple of weeks after I got my partial applicant file under FOIPA, which omitted the suitability determination and other key documents. It's a reasonable letter, is it not? | SACU tracking sheet of 9/20/2009 |
| 2009-09-20 [408 KB PDF] | SACU correspondence tracking sheet | When they get a letter, the recipient gives directions to other personnel. Here, I sent in a letter on September 16, 2009 asking how to appeal the suitability determination. Acting Unit Chief Brice instructs Program Manager Kevin Benson to respond to my letter. He writes, "Explain appeal process." I never received a response. This is proof that there is an appeal process and that applicants are supposed to be informed of it. | SACU tracking sheet of 2009-10-08 |
| 2009-09-21 [35 KB PDF] | Email to Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | I respond with my own email pretending not to know exactly what happened. No response obviously. | Prior emails |
| 2009-09-23 [507 KB PDF] | Letter from me to Acting Unit Chief Brice | I speculate that the Merit Systems Protection Board has jurisdiction over whatever determination was made (it doesn't). I ask for notice of the decision and I note that it doesn't appear in the file. I provide them a really accurate index of what was produced to me under FOIPA. Another reasonable letter. | SACU tracking sheet of 10/8/2009 |
2009-09-25 [492 KB PDF] | Merit Sytems Protection Board appeal | My online notice of appeal. It summarized the facts as I understood them at the time. I turned out to be wrong about the basis for disqualification, which I only learned after the judge ordered the FBI to produce documents as described below. | |
| 2009-09-29 [205 KB PDF] | Merit Systems Protection Board Acknowledgment Order | This court order from the Administrative Judge orders me and the FBI to comply with the MSPB procedures and other matters. The FBI disobeyed this order; I admire the judge for holding them accountable. Otherwise I would still be trying to get the FD-302 and Adjudicative Recommendation. | |
| 2009-10-01 [170 KB PDF] | Merit Systems Protection Board Appellant's Initial Disclosure | As required by the Acknowledgment Order, I disclose the information I am required to disclose. The FBI disobeyed this order as well. | |
| 2009-10-05 [1,486 KB] | Merit Systems Protection Board Special Interrogatories, Set One | My interrogatories to the FBI. Had they been required to answer these, they would have been toast. This is exactly what I would have asked if I had been in any other litigation matter with them. | |
| 2009-10-05 [87 KB PDF] | Merit Systems Protection Board Requests for Admission | I seek the FBI's admission of various facts. Had I known they wouldn't respond, I would have sought admissions of many more things. | |
| 2009-10-05 [116 KB PDF] | Merit Systems Protection Board Inspection Demand | This is the basis for my later FOIPA request for evidence that would hose the wrongdoers in my case. | |
| 2009-10-06 [435 KB PDF] | BPMS screen printout | Another BPMS screen. This was printed on 2009-10-06 after I had sent in letters asking how to appeal. And yes, I failed the PFT. Another screen in the file shows that I got 15 points; I did twenty seven out of thirty pushups so I got a zero on that. Now I can do fifty perfect form pushups. Too little too late, as they say. | |
| 2009-10-07 [23 KB PDF] | Merit Systems Protection Board, Requests for Admission, Set Two | Further requests for admission of other facts. | |
| 2009-10-08 [403 KB PDF] | SACU correspondence tracking sheet | This tracking sheet instructs the Program Manager to consult with the Office of General Counsel for advice in preparing the letter he was instructed to prepare on September 20, 2009. I never received the letter. | SACU tracking sheet of 9/20/2009 |
| 2009-10-?? [617 KB PDF] | Analyst Halle's draft presentation to Review Board | This is how I know there is an appeals board and that my case was either never heard or heard prematurely. The document is undated but it was clearly prepared in October 2009 because one year and five months from May 2008 is October 2009. The file was produced on October 26, 2009. It's possible that a decision was made after that and they purposely never sent me the result; my FOIPA request is pending. I think it's more likely that my case was not presented to the board, but only time will tell on that. As for the merits of this "presentation," I have never seen such a one-sided argument in my life. How convenient that my favorable ethical choices in other ethical dilemmas disclosed in my application were not mentioned even though the form says to put in mitigating information. This is further addressed in my appeal below. The section where it says "OGC was consulted" is from the redacted section of the Adjudicative Recommendation above. This the only way I found out what OGC said about me, which Ms. Halle was perhaps not supposed to put in her suitability determination under provisions of the administrative manual regarding inclusion of opinions of employees in factual investigative reports. | Adjudicative Recommendation FD-302 Analyst's email of June 2009 |
| 2009-10-14 [3,682 KB PDF] | MSPB - Appellant's Evidence in Support of Jurisdiction and Timeliness | The Administrative Judge had issued an Order to Show Cause because the MSPB doesn't have jurisdiction over the excepted service. I did the best I could with what I had at the time. Some great points are made that still ring true today. | Other MSPB filings |
| 2009-10-14 [82 KB PDF] | Merit Systems Protection Board's Order to Show Cause re Jurisdiction | The Administrative Judge ordered me and the FBI to exchange various documents in my MSPB appeal, which I had going concurrently with my letters to the FBI asking about their internal appeal process. I got extremely, extremely lucky because the judge ordered the FBI to produce my entire applicant file, expressly including any investigation or other material relating to the end of my application. This is the only way I found out what happened in my case without having to file a FOIPA lawsuit. The FBI responded with the file that is shown here. The fact that the Adjudicative Recommendation and FD-302 were suppressed from me under FOIPA--they are the key parts of the file--will figure prominently in my upcoming FOIPA lawsuit. | |
| 2009-10-14 [16 KB PDF] | Merit Systems Protection Board Order denying the FBI's motion to stay discovery | The FBI had moved to stay discovery early on, which if successful would have further suppressed the FD-302 and Adjudicative Recommendation from me--after I sent a FOIPA request and multiple letters specifically requesting them. Was this an ethical motion to file? Patricia Miller is a Paralegal in the FBI's Employment Law Unit (ELU) and not an attorney, so she's not bound by the ethical duties of an attorney...I put her on notice of so many different issues so many different times that I would have a hard time believing it if she didn't pass at least some of it along. Yet I never heard from the Inspection Division or the Office of Professional Responsibility, much less her boss. Ms. Miller is hereby called out for her failure to report misconduct of which she had actual notice, which is itself a violation of FBI policy. | |
| 2009-10-12 [42 KB PDF] | Email to Special Agent Grahm L. Coder | After I file my MSPB appeal, I'm scheduling depositions, and I send him this nice letter attempting to meet and confer regarding his own deposition. This produced a reaction if not a response. | Prior emails |
| 2009-11-02 [46 KB PDF] | Email to Patricia A. Miller, Paralegal | I was dealing with Ms. Miller in my MSPB case. I emailed her a completely reasonable message about the case once I got the complete applicant file. Nothing back. This prompted a series of message from me as I continued to analyze the file without her input and made numerous discoveries of impropriety. | Emails of 11/3/2009 and 11/20/2009 Letter of 11/5/2009 |
| 2009-11-03 [66 KB PDF] | Unsent Letter to Unit Chief of SACU | My case in a nutshell. Too wordy and long, but I still should have sent it. Time Traveler, feel free to send a rebuttal if you have brass ones. I will post it. | |
| 2009-11-03 [85 KB PDF] | Email to Patricia A. Miller, Paralegal | Another email, this time a lot more serious. | Other emails |
| 2009-11-03 [69 KB PDF] | Email to Patricia A. Miller, Paralegal | A second email of 11/3/2009, way more serious than the previous one. | Other emails |
| 2009-11-04 [311 KB PDF] | MSPB Motion to Compel | The FBI refused to respond to any discovery, so I filed this motion. It was denied but at least I put it on the record. | |
| 2009-11-05 [48 KB PDF] | Letter to Patricia A. Miller, Paralegal | A letter after fourteen email messages were unanswered. She told me to only communicate with her; what could I do? I wrote this nice letter, that's what. | |
| 2009-11-06 | Package to undisclosed recipients | I really should not have sent this. I really, really should not have sent this. I really, really, really should not have sent this. As in, wow--what was I thinking? Even if there is an element of accuracy in what I wrote, which I strongly believe there is, it was way overdone and a large portion was uncalled for and inappropriate, no matter what evidence or theories I had. I can't say what it was, who it went to, or anything else without seriously detracting from my credibility, even anonymously and over the internet. I really hope the path of least resistance between their incoming mailbox and the trash can or "zero" file was more appealing than actually (oh my god, I hope this didn't happen) scanning it and uploading it into the FBI's records system as a whole. This was the most ill-advised communication I ever sent to the FBI. In mitigation, I was the most upset I've ever been in my life, I was confused, and I wasn't in the best state of mind. | If this went in my applicant file, I'm screwed. Seriously. I guess I'm screwed anyway though, so hey. |
| 2009-11-19 | Letter to recipients of 11/6/2009 submission | I follow up my extremely ill-advised and ill-conceived package of 11/6/2009 with a letter saying I'm sorry for the length and verbosity of that particular submission. I felt ridiculous about it and that would have been apparent from how brief this followup was. Fine, so I have some obsessive tendencies (c.f. this website). Writing about this stuff is therapeutic! In any event, put yourself in my position-- rejected from the FBI, which I thought was my calling, and later the CIA, my second choice, based not on my actual conduct but instead because of false information reported by someone who appears to have some type of personal issue or other problem that caused this. Then I was unemployed because I had to resign from a legal job that paid double the starting salary I would have had as a Special Agent, after witnessing unethical conduct that was on approximately the same level as what occurred in my FBI case. With tons of free time, I was free to ruminate at length about what happened. And no one believed or at least responded to my allegations. This was all in my 11/6/2009 submission. If these particular recipients are who I think they are, perhaps some amount of compassion might have been shown and the package went in the trash can. Or maybe their policies require them to retain or circulate all such correspondence, just in case. No way to know unless the material is produced in response to my pending FOIPA request for "any other information associated with requester." I sure hope it is not included and that the left hand does not know what the right is doing. Based on my other interactions with the FBI that does appear to be the case. | |
| 2009-11-20 [73 KB PDF] | Email to Patricia A. Miller, Paralegal | The last substantive email I sent her; communicating with her was futile. | |
| 2009-11-21 [12 KB PDF] | Letter to Unit Chief of SACU | A further request for information on how to appeal. No response. | |
| 2009-11-24 [8 KB PDF] | Letter to Division Chief of the Security Division | A further request for information on how to appeal. | |
| 2009-11-30 [33 KB PDF] | Letter to Assistant Director John Raucci | An attempt to get information from a source other than SACU. I was not successful. | |
| 2009-12-01 [39 KB PDF] | FOIPA request | This is the "omnibus" request that I served after about five previous requests were ignored. They grudgingly acknowledged receipt of this request after I sent a letter to Section Chief David Hardy seven months later putting him on notice of the statute of limitations in my libel case, and requesting to "meet and confer" so that FOIPA litigation is not necessary. This FOIPA request is consolidated from various attempts at discovery that I made in my MSPB case and reflects the fact that I already have most of my file. This request provides a template that other applicants should start from. Assistance is available on request. | Other FOIPA requests Letters to/from Section Chief David Hardy at FOIPA office |
| 2009-12-10 [1,517 KB PDF] | Letter from SSA Mark Gant | He advises that I have exhausted my administrative options. No response to my substantive requests for information on how to appeal. | |
| 2009-12-16 [1,911 KB PDF] | Letter from IPU Unit Chief Angela Byers | My letters were forwarded to the Initial Processing Unit of the Inspection Division. Not surprisingly, with no evidence in support, there was no investigation. Duh. Too bad they didn't respond to my subsequent complaints. | |
| 2009-12-18 [80 KB PDF] | Merit Systems Protection Board Order dismissing MSPB appeal | This was the legally correct ruling. The Merit Systems Protection Board does not have jurisdiction over negative suitability determinations on FBI Special Agent applicants. Basically I had misinterpreted a key provision of the regs in my favor when there's a case that holds otherwise. I discovered that pretty early on in the case. After that, I was clinging to the fact that the FBI did not timely respond to my Request for Admission to them seeking an admission of MSPB jurisdiction. That didn't fly, as indicated here. It's a good thing, too, because MSPB cases are privileged except for rulings of the full Board, which it publishes on its website. If I had won or appealed, my real name would have been published. The FBI definitely would have appealed if I had won on the issue of jurisdiction, and it would have been a significant case. I then would have lost at the Board level, and my name would forever be associated with the proposition that the MSPB does not have jurisdiction over FBI applicants! Wow. At the time, I didn't want to be a lawyer anymore so I didn't care. Boy am I glad I didn't file a petition for review with the full Board, and I'm glad they didn't open the case on their own initiative, which they can do. What I should have done was drop my appeal after I got my applicant file and focused my energy on FOIPA, like I'm doing now. It turns out the Privacy Act is the right way to do the things I had been trying to do, which I never would have known without buying the practice guide Federal Information Disclosure. Thank you Professor O'Reilly for your quality product and also for your recent advice. | |
| 2009-12-19 [14 KB PDF] | Letter to Assistant Director Candice M. Will | I write to the Assistant Director in charge of the Office of Professional Responsibility and I simply ask her how to file a complaint with OPR. The Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines and the famous Bell Report both indicated that OPR was the correct recipient. Apparently, the version of the MIOG that I have is out of date by about five years because the Inspection Division turns out to be the right recipient for intake purposes, according to Assistant Director Will. | Complaint to OPR of 1/3/2010 Supplement to Complaint to OPR 1/23/2010 |
| 2009-12-19 [71 KB PDF] | Letter to SSA Mark Gant re his letter of 12/10/2009 | I wrote back to SSA Gant asking why my administrative remedies were exhausted. No response. | |
| 2009-12-19 [11 KB PDF] | Letter to Assistant Director John Raucci | I apologize for my letter of 11/30/2009 | |
| 2009-12-28 [12 KB PDF] | Letter to Unit Chief Angela Byers | I respond to her letter of 12/16/2009 and offer to provide "evidence" of misconduct. No response. | |
2010-01-03 [3,466 KB PDF] | Complaint to FBI Office of Professional Responsibility | I write to Assistant Director Candice M. Will with a 30-page complaint including a lengthy supporting declaration and exhibits. I provide an executive summary at the beginning laying out three counts of serious misconduct, and I offer to take a supplemental polygraph (it turns out that the manual provides for polygraph examinations of complainants!). There is no possible way this complaint could be considered frivolous or otherwise capable of being ignored. I have serious concerns about the fact that, seven months later when I emailed Assistant Director Will to ask about the status of this complaint, she responded that she did not have jurisdiction over complaint intake, but that in the "normal course" my complaint "would have" been forwarded to the Inspection Division. I am not saying that I know what happened with this complaint; what I do know is that no one has ever acknowledged receipt of this complaint, my supplement to it on January 23, 2010, or any subsequent actions. This suggests to me that no action was taken. This complaint is a prelude to my Applicant Appeal of February 7, 2010, and lacks a certain polish. However, the summary at the beginning is somewhat better. But here, I'm focusing on misconduct rather than why I should be selected, so it makes sense. | Supplement to OPR complaint dated 1/23/2010 |
| 2010-01-23 [1,204 KB PDF] | Letter to Assistant Director Candice M. Will enclosing supplemental declaration | My friend really came through for me and provided a declaration under penalty of perjury in support of my OPR complaint. This declaration, my declaration, my friends' offers to go on record about this incident, and the prior reports and notes of three other Special Agents all combine to totally bury Special Agent Coder and prove that he made false statements to the FBI. I am really surprised that nothing appears to have been done in response to my complaint when such a body of evidence was presented. The very fact that I can accuse a Special Agent of falsifying information on the internet with no response at all is suggestive of the truth of my claims. | Complaint to OPR of 1/3/2010 |
| Applicant Appeal filed | |||
| 2010-02-07 [3,842 KB PDF] | Applicant Appeal | My best effort at the time, from partial information. You be the judge-- did I persuade? The 20-year veteran of the FBI whom I consulted about this appeal read it and said it's excellent, doesn't need any changes, I'm right about what happened, what happened is "bullshit," and I should send it straight to the top. I'm going to hold off on that. In any event, this appeal was never heard on the merits, so I'm free to amend it anytime. But let's be honest, my chances were over a long time ago. So this site and future litigation are mainly for the purposes of clearing my name and providing a resource for other applicants. | ICS Section Chief Mark A. Gant's constructive denial of this appeal on 2/26/2010 |
| 2010-02-26 [263 KB PDF] | Letter from SSA Mark A. Gant constructively denying appeal | SSA Gant writes that the FBI considers "this matter" to be closed (as opposed to "your file is closed"), and that I have exhausted my "administrative options" "regarding" my appeal of my non-selection for the position. It appears to invite a lawsuit under the Privacy Act and/or to enforce their own internal appeal process on the merits, if different. I only realized the Privacy Act implications after reviewing the excellent practice guide Federal Information Disclosure. | Applicant Appeal of 2/7/2010 |
| 2010-08-05 [77 KB PDF] | Emails to/from Assistant Director Candice M. Will | This exchange concerns the status of the complaint I had filed seven months earlier. I would call this particular exchange of messages the last straw. | |
| Libel case filed | |||
| 2010-10-21 [2,611 KB PDF] | Summons in a Civil Action | Ah yes, the document that brings a defendant before the power of the Court. The law of my state provides for easy worldwide service of process, so don't bother dodging it. And I have a confession to make...in case it wasn't obvious, I'm in California. Northern California. This case is venued in San Francisco, California. Which happens to be my processing office. So yes, in these few lines I've unmasked a large portion of myself. But not nearly all. I get to be "John Doe" throughout this case and no one gets to know my real identity except the judge and the defendants-- who already know it! That's pretty cool. | Other lawsuit docs |
| 2010-10-21 [6,882 KB PDF] | Complaint | This is the big one, folks. Sixty pages of hard-hitting facts; the first of many fine efforts to be made in this case. I only pull out the Doom3 icon for special occasions :) | Other lawsuit docs |
| 2010-10-21 [852 KB PDF] | Ex Parte Application to File Complaint as a "Doe" Plaintiff | This is my justification for filing the case anonymously, which is normally not done. I hope to my lucky stars this is granted. There's no reason it shouldn't be. Truly. | Other lawsuit docs. |
| 2010-10-21 [1,968 KB] | Proposed Order on Ex Parte Application | I try to make it easy for the judge. | Other lawsuit docs |
| 2010-10-23 [505 KB PDF] | Proof of Service on the United States of America | This is required when serving an employee of the United States when the acts complained of arise out of the employment, even if they are outside the Tort Claims Act as here. | Other lawsuit docs |
| 2010-10-26 | Proofs of Service on the named defendants | The named defendants were served at FBI Headquarters on 10/26/2010. Assistant General Counsel Ernest Batenga accepted service on their behalf. I subsequently emailed Mr. Batenga to ask whether the FBI will be representing the defendants in this case. It may well not be. | |
| 2010-10-27 [21 KB PDF] | Order directing Plaintiff to file consent/declination to Magistrate Judge | Every person has the right to have his case heard before a District Judge. A Magistrate Judge is the equivalent of a Court Commissioner: a judge who is a practicing attorney or law professor who works part time. The advantage of the Magistrate Judge is less formal proceedings and faster timetables. I reviewed Magistrate Judge James's dispute resolution procedures for discovery and concluded that I want a District Judge handling my case. Nothing personal. | Other lawsuit docs |
| 2010-10-27 [20 KB PDF] | Order designating case for e-filing | This surprised me. I say right in the ex parte application that I can't use my regular ECF account because it would identify me by name. Thus the request to register a new pseudonymous ECF account. Apparently this was "lost in the shuffle," as they say in polite circles. | Other lawsuit docs |
| 2010-10-27 [499 KB PDF] | Plaintiff's Declination to proceed before Magistrate Judge | Thanks but no thanks. The Magistrate Judge Brochure is written in the same style as the SuperLawyers periodical: they talk extensively about the selection process and they follow it up with all the benefits a Magistrate Judge provides. The discovery rules and standing orders of Judge James give a somewhat unfavorable impression of how my case would be handled, so I've declined Her Honor's jurisdiction and requested reassignment to a District Judge. I don't care if the case takes longer as a result. | Other lawsuit docs |
| 2010-10-27[501 KB PDF] | Plaintiff's Response to order designating case for e-filing | I remind the Court that my ex parte application requests a pseudonymous ECF account. | Other lawsuit docs |
| FOIPA requests to ODNI and OPM made | |||
| 2010-10-29 [420 KB PDF] | FOIPA Request to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence | I figured since discovery in my lawsuit doesn't start until January 2011 at the earliest, I might as well try to get a FOIPA request in. Scattered Castles is a repository for all kinds of interagency data. For example, polygraph results on applicants, and security clearance grants or denials. In my case, National Agency Check data appears to be what is in play. The FBI Scattered Castles form is pretty brief and there were no results in my case. It should be interesting to see what comes back. I can avoid FOIPA litigation thanks to my lawsuit, but I'd rather just get the information than have to subpoena ODNI. | |
| 2010-11-03 [309 KB PDF] | ODNI denial of FOIPA request | Surprisingly, they constructively deny my requests regarding Scattered Castles and National Agency Check data (items two and three), and outright deny my requests for "any other data" in their possession. ODNI clearly maintains the Scattered Castles database, so I'm going to have to appeal this one. Note how they "refer" me to the CIA FOIPA office and FBI FOIPA office for "the remainder" of my request (items two and three). First, the CIA selection process is exempt from disclosure under FOIPA as an intelligence method. Second, the FBI doesn't maintain Scattered Castles and therefore is under no duty to search it, not to mention the fact that it has a year-long backlog for "complex" requests, as shown by my December 1, 2009 request that is quickly approaching the one year mark. This response from ODNI is a joke under FOIPA. Let's see how they like a subpoena and motion to compel in my libel case. | |
| 2010-11-07 [699 KB PDF] | Appeal of ODNI denial of FOIPA request | I appeal their denial. Seriously, FOIPA is a joke. I can't believe agencies get away with what they get away with. Professor O'Reilly, author of Federal Information Disclosure, notes in his treatise that funding for FOIPA programs is not exactly a political hot ticket, which makes sense. I think it would be cheapest if they had two tracks: one for the general public, which doesn't know what it is doing, and one for people who at least have the capacity to kick someone's ass in court. That would be more economical for everyone. If I don't get the information I need under FOIPA, I may have to pursue it through methods more costly to ODNI. We shall see. | |
| 2010-11-07 [428 KB PDF] | FOIPA request to OPM | Based on the documents in my file I have to conclude that the Office of Personnel Management has an interagency database like Scattered Castles, called either JFAS or CVS. No idea what is involved with those so I included "any" databases in the request. I hope the response is timely. | |
| 2010-11-12 [81 KB PDF] | Email from FBI Assistant General Counsel Stefania Porcelli | First email message in the libel case. This is a classic example of an attempt to create a false record to make a party to litigation look bad. In this case, she tries to make it look like I'm having inappropriate contacts with FBI personnel. I sent a letter to Acting Unit Chief Brice offering a tolling agreement and I sent a few emails to Assistant Directors Candice Will and Amy Jo Lyons, none of which were inappropriate. I drafted a letter to the Director about this case in March 2010, but I never sent it. In any event, the expert I hired to consult with me about my appeal told me to send the appeal to the Director, so it's not like that would be improper either. Thus, AGC Porcelli is called out for trying to make a false record. | |
| 2010-11-12 [49 KB PDF] | Email to AGC Porcelli | Reply to first email message in the libel case, correcting the false implications therein. | |
| 2010-11-12 to 2010-11-18 [129 KB PDF] | Emails to/from Assistant United States Attorney Neill Tseng | Here is a great example of an email exchange between attorneys who have different objectives-- me and AUSA Neill Tseng. It's in chronological order so you can see the various positions taken and setups made, as well as hidden agendas. Such exchanges are remarkable for the amount of information one can divine after they are completed. For example, it turned out that AUSA Tseng is out of town for much of November and the latter half of December. This is one reason why he wanted a 14-day extension of time to respond to the Complaint. He could have just said this originally, but one of the cardinal rules of litigation is to not let the adversary know when you will be out of town. That begs the question of why this matter was assigned to him when there are numerous other attorneys in the Northern District of California office who could have handled the case and were not going on their annual leave at a critical time for preparing the response to the complaint. In any event, a Rule 12 motion extends a party's time to answer the complaint, and a Rule 12 motion is a certainty in this case. On the defense, the general rule is delay everything as long as possible; on the plaintiff side, the objective is to get things moving and maintain the momentum. | |
| 2010-11-30 [145 KB PDF] | Order Denying Application to Proceed Anonymously and Dismissing Complaint | The judge declines to allow me to proceed anonymously, ending my case. No point in appealing it. I am not about to have my mental health history come out in open court or let the Court decide to consider disciplining me for my "role" in the drug transaction that is at issue in the case. It's a big loss, but let's be honest: taking on the Department of Justice with all of its resources without representation for myself is...crazy. I wish I could do it, but I have other priorities in my life. | |
| 2010-12-13 [27,017 KB PDF] | Complaint to the Office of the Inspector General | This is the last complaint I ever hope to write; these things get really tedious after a while. Anyway, this was sent to OIG because Assistant Director Candice M. Will of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility has demonstrated that she and/or her staff cannot competently handle such matters. See Count Six of the complaint for details. It's too bad I couldn't just send this to the FBI Inspection Division, but if OIG follows its normal procedures it will probably end up there anyway despite AD Will being named as a defendant. Oh well. | |
| 2011-01-15 [428 KB PDF] | Letter to Inspector General Glenn A. Fine | I write to IG Fine requesting information, as the OIG Hotline and Investigations Division have not responded to any of my inquiries about the status of my complaint. No response. | |
| 2011-02-10 [35 KB PDF] | Email to Unit Chief Sandra Bungo of the Initial Processing Unit, Inspection Division | I write to Unit Chief Sandy Bungo requesting information on status. No response. | |
| 2011-02-20 [487 KB PDF] | Letter to Section Chief David Hardy of RIDS | I write to Section Chief Hardy of the Records/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) asking about the status of my FOIPA request of 12/1/2009. | |
| 2011-02-27 [10 KB PDF] | Letter to Unit Chief Sandra Bungo of IPU | I write to IPU Unit Chief Sandra Bungo to inquire about the status of the complaint I originally sent to OIG, which was forwarded to IPU. At this point I am tired of being jerked around. Senator Feinstein has a lot of clout and is on both the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee. It would be unfortunate if I had to send a copy of my complaint to her office. | |
| 2011-03-04 [477 KB PDF] | Letter to Section Chief David Hardy of RIDS | I write to Section Chief David Hardy in an attempt to meet and confer about his grossly inadequate document production in response to my FOIPA request of 12/1/2009. | FOIPA request of 12/1/2009 |
| 2011-03-08 [438 KB PDF] | Letter to Assistant Director Amy Jo Lyons | I write to Assistant Director Lyons to ask her to ask Unit Chief Sandra Bungo to tell me where things stand regarding my OIG complaint. As I said above, at this point I am tired of being jerked around. | |
| 2011-03-28 [512 KB PDF] | Letter to Associate Deputy Director Thomas J. Harrington | I write to Assistant Director Lyons's boss after she fails to respond to a reasonable inquiry. | |
| 2011-05-01 [9 MB PDF] | First Amended Applicant Appeal | My finest work. I sent this to the Director, bypassing ICS, on the advice of the longtime polygraph examiner with whom I consulted about this appeal. No one knows what the Director will do with this, but it can't be as bad as nothing. | |