Full Spectrum Litigator

I've decided to release a Hall of Shame page about the FBI Special Agent Clearance Unit in order to address false, defamatory claims made about me by an insane attorney in the community who is also in my Hall of Shame. I hope folks find it helpful or at least entertaining. This mini-site should be an iframe inside the main Hall of Shame page, which is intentional.

I give up. Seriously. I'm accelerating the timetable to go offline very soon, like in a day. Get those files while you still can.

What did it? I'm tired of having this open-ended uncertainty in my life, and it's time for some closure. No more lawsuits, no more FOIA requests, no more appeals, no more OIG complaints. I wish I could say this story had a happy ending. Sorry, but they won.

I'll leave my email address up so the curious can contact me if they need to, as well as a few key files. Otherwise, all the best.

No news.

After considerable reflection, I've decided to take my site offline as of January 1, 2012. It has served its purpose and helped many former applicants better understand the application process and how to appeal. December 2011 will be three years since I applied; that is more than enough time to hold a grudge. If I hear back about my appeal before then, I'll certainly post the results. Meanwhile, best wishes to my several thousand visitors in the last year since I posted the first parts of my file.

In other news, I found an area of law that I actually enjoy-- civil rights! So my law career may end up being somewhat rewarding especially if I get more 1983 cases that provide attorney fee awards. The way I see it, if I can't get into a government agency, at least I can be rich while still living a life of Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity in my own way. I don't need the FBI to tell me that I'm a good person; I know that I am. I may reapply at some point, or I may not depending on my life situation at the time.

Visitors are invited to contact me if they disagree with my decision to go offline.

No news; I'm helping a couple of other applicants with their appeals, that's about it.

God bless America!

I passed the initial ICE assessment with a score of 81/100 for grade GL-1811-09. The minimum score is 70. Looks like I'll be sitting for their full test. If ICE wants someone to investigate corrupt immigration attorneys and/or white collar criminals/money launderers, I might be their guy. I have extensive experience with large (>100,000 pages) document sets, among other things. Transnational street gangs, not so much...

I'm really excited about this opportunity with ICE. Depending on how far I get in the process, it would be a nice addition to this site as well. I only know one ICE Special Agent but she is really happy with her job. She said the FBI agents she has dealt with are a bunch of assholes who look down their noses at her. I have no way of knowing how accurate that is, but it may be overstated somewhat; she said the same thing about the Secret Service, at least during her training at FLETC.

Today I sent my former FBI Applicant Coordinator a copy of my First Amended Appeal and asked her to add it to my permanent file, pursuant to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act has a provision that says a candidate can compel an agency to include in its applicant file rebuttals of information in the file. That is exactly what I need in this case in order to ensure that any agency requesting my FBI file has all the facts. I just hope I get a decision on my FBI appeal before the ICE background investigation starts; reportedly, only one agency can access a SF-86 in E-QIP at a time, because background investigations conducted by OPM are not supposed to be duplicative. I'll probably get more information on that issue as things progress with ICE, assuming I'm even selected for an interview. Some posters on Federal Soup estimate that over 10,000 people applied for the recent vacancy announcement, and many would have prior law enforcement or military experience. I'm just glad they revamped the process, because the old hiring process involved a two year waiting list and no standardized testing. The new ICE hiring process seems to mirror the FBI selection system, which is good news for me as a non-LEO. I'll bet I make it to the BI. After that it's anyone's guess.

A huge shout-out to the United States Department of Justice at 149.101.1.119! I'm glad you folks enjoyed the polygraph section.

A shout-out to the folks at Camp Liberty, Iraq at 46.31.75.2! Thanks for visiting.

ICE is hiring, and I'm going to apply for it. DIA is also hiring, and I applied for their entry level program. Each of these applications is a "file and forget" type situation where I just have to let things take their course. Both processes are supposed to take a year or more, so I'm not holding my breath. I'm much more qualified for ICE than DIA based on my legal experience, but who knows what criteria these organizations really look at? I'll keep everyone posted on how these other applications work out.

No news. I'll try to update this every ten days just to keep it active.

I heard a rumor that all applicants in the adjudication phase will be put over until FY2012, and that the Academy is full until 2012. In other words, a big backlog of applicants. It would make perfect sense to suspend all appeals until then as well. Another applicant I'm communicating with advises that it has been two months since he sent in his appeal and he has not received a response, which supports the rumor. I may be waiting for quite a while for a response to my appeal...

A shout out to the National Center for Credibility Assessment, formerly known as the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, from 160.150.121.175! I hope you folks like my site to the degree that server logs indicate.

Well this is interesting. Director Mueller may be given a two-year extension to run the FBI. Bipartisan support is evident, which, in addition to Director Mueller's distinguished career in DOJ, should ensure the extension is granted.

No word on the appeal yet. It hasn't been returned and I haven't gotten any letters, so I have to assume it was passed along to the appropriate section of the FBI for a determination or at least a response.

Well, no news to report. The First Amended appeal is the best material I have for the immediate future. I will advise as soon as I hear back from anyone regarding the appeal.

Here it is: my finest work and one of my proudest achievements, as well as the last appeal I ever hope to write. I present my First Amended Applicant Appeal:

[9 MB PDF]

As you can see, I decided to bypass the Initial Clearance Section. I concluded they would simply ignore me this time around as well, and because the Director is leaving office on September 4, 2011, time is of the essence. Enjoy the appeal and wish me luck!

A reader raises an important point; I may be reading too much into my FBI disqualification in terms of the CIA:

I read your latest post and have to disagree with you about the CIA. That organization is totally independent and would not take much stock in a FBI investigation based on the kind of bullshit investigation that was done. The CIA does their own background investigations as far as I know, although they do look utilize FBI investigations for determining suitability (to an extent). But if they really wanted to recruit you they would go ahead despite whatever the FBI thought of you. My guess is that the CIA probably would have turned you down but not because of any suitability determination by the FBI; the CIA most likely just didn't have a need for anyone with your qualifications at this point in time. I'm sure they are over-whelmed with so many applicants that they are only looking for people who stand out from the crowd-- probably specialists in particular types of fields or whatever. If it was me I probably would have just given a call to the CIA recruiter and asked him point blank what was going on and while at it would explain the whole problem with what the FBI investigators did.

I think he's right. This time around I didn't even get an interview, so I can't say for sure that they were going to process me anyway. And according to someone else, who is in the know, with whom I have exchanged a significant amount of correspondence, the CIA is the best intelligence agency in the world and you don't just waltz in with no prior experience in any relevant field.

I like it when people put me back on track and give me some perspective, so this is appreciated. At the same time, if I were to apply to another executive branch agency like the Secret Service, as was suggested to me by an FBI agent a while back, this time I would need my appeal to be included in the file to ensure I get a fair shake. Do I really want to be a Secret Service agent? They are even more highly trained than the FBI, with 29 weeks of instruction at two different facilities. But I want to do investigative work, not protective work. In any event, they aren't hiring Special Agents right now. I'll see how my FBI appeal goes first.

Well, I'm counting the days until I can send my appeal. What an agonizing wait; only nine days to go. On another note, I noticed that in the FBI's recent production to me under FOIA/PA, my appeal of 2/7/2010 was not included. This means that any other agency, like the CIA, that requests my file for the purposes of investigating my background won't see my version of the facts. There are provisions of the Privacy Act that deal with this specific situation and allow the submitter of information to force the agency to include the submitter's information in its file. Of note, Bernie B.'s appeal was included in his file, as stated by SSA Mark Gant when Gant denied Bernie's appeal. SSA Gant did not state anything similar in his letter to me constructively denying my appeal. What a surprise; it's as if my appeal never existed at all. That will not happen this time around. On a further note, still no word from the Inspection Division on the status of my complaint. I might just start calling them until I get a response.

On a further note, I was recently non-selected from the CIA a second time. Those assholes at the FBI really screwed me.

Dear visitors, I wish I could keep up with your demand for news updates. Sadly, I can't update this every day because I don't have enough new information to report. I might start posting links to relevant news articles or excerpts of congressional testimony and reports. Suggestions would be appreciated. And to the very special visitor mentioned below, who is from a four letter agency, I thank you for your supportive comments which will also help me target the site to the right audience. This particular visitor's message indicates that applicants are still being processed despite the hiring freeze. That is great news!

My biggest ever shout out goes to...Assistant Director Candice Will!

The following server log entry indicates that AD Will searched for herself on Pipl.com from FBIHQ, and then clicked the link to my news page:

153.31.113.21 - - [18/Apr/2011:10:29:28 -0700] "GET /news.phtml HTTP/1.1" 200 15211 "http://www.pipl.com/search/?FirstName=Candice&LastName=Will&City=Chevy+Chase&State=MD&Country=US&CategoryID=2&Interface=2" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0;....)"

Only AD Will could know where she hails from. Welcome, Candice! How is Chevy Chase this time of year? [Ed. note: I'm on so many shitlists by now that I might as well go all out :]

A shout out to a very special visitor-- you know who you are! Thanks for visiting; feel free to email me about your appeal! Update: he/she keeps visiting, but so far has missed the news page. Update: finally! Update: I just realized that not everyone who visits wants to be identified even in such broad terms as an agency name and IP address; perhaps I will stop doing that for people outside the FBI. Update: my realization is confirmed with a very understandable email, haha. In the future I will avoid posting agency names and IP addresses when I get cool visitors. Because the FBI visitors are not cool, they're still going to get shout outs. A really big one is coming up next; you'll never guess who it is.

An update from John Doe #3. His second appeal is still being considered (he won the first appeal after being discontinued before the background investigation, but he was later rejected for the same reason after the BI--drug use as a minor). Doe #3's appeal raises the question of what might happen in light of the hiring freeze throughout the Department of Justice. Hopefully the hiring freeze means there's a waiting list and that applicants are still being processed, so that there's a pipeline of eligible candidates from which the Human Resources Division can make final selections for the Academy when the freeze is lifted. Hopefully the hiring freeze and budget cuts do not mean that the FBI is going to cap its workforce or stop filling slots that open up from attrition, in order to accomplish a Reduction In Force (RIF) after hiring too many people during the "surge" in 2009. We'll know the answer if John Doe #3's second appeal is granted. I would really like to see him get in.

In other news, I'm itching to pull the trigger on my own appeal. It's done, it's perfect, and I don't need to spend any more time on it. It's sitting on my desk at home, post-dated to May 4, 2011, waiting to be sent. Sorry to say I can't post it here until it's actually sent. On reflection, it really is my finest work as well as a proud achievement. No matter what they do, they can't hold me back :)

Here's an oldie but a goody: CNN exposes hypocritical double standards of discipline at the FBI. Assistant Director Candice Will figures prominently in the article. One would think from her comments that she is a pillar of the FBI's core values. I guess that's why it took her about six years to finally get around to firing this employee, for example.

Perfect timing for a government shutdown--somehow I think the Inspection Division's processing time will be affected. I wonder if the Initial Clearance Section will be deemed an essential part of the FBI. Probably not, because there's currently a hiring freeze throughout the DOJ. Or at least they'll operate with a skeleton crew, which could affect how long it takes to get a response to my appeal. And then there's the FOIPA office--probably no one there at all!

I have to say, I feel bad for government workers deemed non-essential. Unless they have savings to live off of or Congress later decides to pay them, they're pretty much SOL. It would be like getting temporarily laid off in the private sector, without the opportunity to look for temporary work. I'd really like to see how much of the FBI is furloughed, but that's probably classified....

Still nothing from Unit Chief Bungo, Assistant Director Lyons, or Associate Deputy Director Harrington. I'm really concerned about why none of them is responding to a simple request for information that could be answered in about a ten second email. Was it something I said? LOL. That raises an interesting question: how much of the FBI is aware of this website and the fact that I post substantially all written communications with the FBI on it? Server logs indicate three different FBI IP addresses accessing the site, but it's difficult to tell how many different people are at those addresses. The best data are when someone comes in from Google. Typically, they search for Grahm Coder, but Abby Halle was also done a while back. As for non-FBI users (as far as I can tell), Candice Will, Amy Jo Lyons, and Sandra Bungo are the top Google searches for people. It could be that they are googling themselves from home, but I can't tell.

I take that back; I finished my revised appeal! I'll be sending it in on May 4, 2011, which is the three year anniversary of the incident that disqualified me. With this out of the way, it looks like I can work on the Inspection Division now :)

I took a look at what I will need to do for my First Amended Applicant Appeal, and it's going to be kind of a lot of work. So I'll focus on that until I send it in. In any event, Associate Deputy Director Thomas J. Harrington is as high in the chain of command as I'm willing to go with my OIG complaint. If he doesn't respond, the buck stops there. For all I know they are investigating my complaint as I write this (yeah right). Or it could be that the normal processing time is long for low priority complaints like mine, as opposed to accidental shootings, lost credentials, falsification of reimbursement forms, and other more serious offenses. Or it could be that my instincts are right and extra special plans are required to initiate any investigation. After considering the amount of work needed to send my appeal in by May, those plans are on hold indefinitely.

Letter to Associate Deputy Director Thomas J. Harrington, who is Assistant Director Lyons's boss. I accidentally used the wrong title in this letter, but hey, it happens.

Still nothing from AD Lyons or UC Bungo. I'm really disappointed in how this great American institution is handling a legitimate, well-supported complaint. The extra special plans described below are about to be implemented. I will advise what the result is.

My trial went off without a hitch.

Still nothing from Assistant Director Lyons or Unit Chief Sandy Bungo. I did get a letter from the USDOJ OIG, which stated that they forwarded my complaint to the FBI on January 7, 2011. I gather nothing will be done, because it's been two months and I would have heard something by now. I'm not letting that go, but in light of the new developments noted below, I need to prioritize my efforts and focus on the appeal.

Ok, I have time for two quick updates. I didn't realize this until today: Director Mueller's ten year term is over on September 4, 2011. Oh shit, change in plans! The best option now is to send a new appeal in to ICS in May, then when that gets returned without a hearing, I follow my consultant's advice and appeal to the Director. If I don't get a response by September 4, I proceed with the mandamus action against SSA Gant. In light of this new development I can now disclose my original plans.

The reason I have been pressing for an Inspection Division investigation is that any investigation conducted would be discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act because it would involve substantiated allegations of dishonesty by a law enforcement officer under the Brady-Giglio line of cases. My plan was to wait for the investigation to be closed and then file a FOIA request for the Report of Investigation, which would have included a summary of the interviews of my friends. I would then use that information in support of my appeal. Getting the report would probably take two years of FOIA litigation.

This actually helps resolve the issue of my OIG complaint; now it is less urgent, and I can take my time with it and decide how much effort I really want to spend. In any event, the path is much clearer now that I know that the last realistic chance of having the Director review my appeal is this summer. And I may well be denied by the Director, which would conclusively resolve my appeal, provide closure, and bring this site to its logical conclusion.

In a way, I'm disappointed that I'm not able to live up to the litigation aspect of this campaign; with only one (dropped) lawsuit so far, I've hardly been the Full Spectrum Litigator that I set out to be. That's actually reflective of litigation in general; it isn't necessary for the vast majority of disputes, and when it happens it can conclude unexpectedly and early. I really wish I could have gone forward with my libel case, for example, but my and my friends' identities and my friendships with them are more important to me than getting into the FBI. And that says a lot.

On the plus side, this May you can expect what will probably be the most badass appeal ever received by the FBI. The Director will at least see it-- it will be too long for him to read-- and who knows, he could order the review board to hear it. That also works for me. Wish me luck!

I have time for one quick update. Courtesy of one of our readers who did not receive a passing result on the polygraph, I now have the address of the polygraph appeals board and will be writing a page on how to appeal a polygraph result utilizing the DOD LEPET manual. The address is:

FBIHQ
935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW -- GRB-210
Washington, DC 20535
Attention: Polygraph Appeals Review Board

From the reader: "When I inquired about whether there was a resource I could access to learn more about the appeal process, this is the response that I received:"

The Appeals Review Board only requires that you direct your request/communication to them directly. There is no form and/or formal request to fill out. They review an applicant's communication and decide if a retest is granted. The Board usually meets weekly, so their decision is fairly quickly.

I'm surprised information about the suitability adjudication review board is not as forthcoming. However, polygraph "fail" results substantially act as a bar to all gainful federal employment, so it makes sense that due process rights have developed over the years.

On another note, it has been suggested that I change my name to "Batman" instead of John Doe. I appreciate the compliment; if I win my future FOIPA case and mandamus action, I think I will call myself Batman. If I ever make it into the FBI, which is about a million to one at this point, I don't think it would be a presumption to call myself Superman. Because only truth, justice, and the American way can prevail in this sick, twisted situation that does not resemble the America that I know.

Well folks, there probably won't be any updates this week; I have three depositions and a trial in the next ten days. Check back soon.

Next on my hitlist is Edward M. Broussard, the attorney at OGC who "recommended" my disqualification. If SACU insisted on getting a legal opinion, instead of making a snap judgment he should have taken the time to inform himself of the facts and mitigating information, conduct appropriate legal research, and forward the inquiry from Ms. Halle to an attorney licensed to practice in California, which is where the conduct occurred. Mr. Broussard, not being licensed in California, has no clue what the Rules of Professional Conduct or statutory duties of an attorney here are. Perhaps the only California-licensed attorney who could have contributed is the Director of the FBI. Why wouldn't the Director be available to respond to such a question? In any event, Mr. Broussard is in line for a complaint to the USDOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, which has exclusive jurisdiction over a Department attorney's misuse of his authority to provide legal advice. I contend that is the case here.

I sure do have a lot of irons in the fire. Fortunately, I have experience juggling multiple large projects at the same time, a skill that would have been put to great use in the FBI.

An analysis of server logs allows me to send a very special shout-out to Abby M. Halle from 71.251.48.85! Welcome!

I'll start by saying I blame you less than the other principals-- how could you know that SA Coder made false statements in his FD-302, and that relying on it would cause you to become a defendant in a libel case and called out on the internet? I guess you couldn't have known. What you should have known is that no applicant would ever say the things SA Coder wrote, which makes his FD-302 too good to be true. That guy has some problems...like with the truth. Further, no applicant who made it past the polygraph should be disqualified for an incident that SAAU already signed off on. Or is that why you wrote the adjudicative recommendation as coming from SAAU, instead of SACU where you actually work?

P.S., good luck in your goal of becoming an FBI profiler. The Behavioral Sciences Unit at the FBI Academy may be reached at (703) 632-1698.

That's it, the gloves are coming off. Letter to Assistant Director Lyons with a copy of my OIG complaint. If this doesn't produce a response, I have some extra special plans lined up. On that note, it is a royal pain printing this complaint out in the proper format-- an inch thick, three hole punched, with card stock covers and exhibit dividers, and brass prong fasteners. I can hear the folks at the Initial Processing Unit now: "oh, well we thought we had all of the pages, but it came over from OIG in pieces, so we had to be sure we had everything before initiating an investigation. We were waiting for confirmation on that." Here's your confirmation. For the record, it's bound that way so not a single page gets misplaced, and when received it's intended to be put into a three ring binder or left as-is and read like a screenplay. I can't make it any easier. I note that the nearly phone book-sized complaint could easily be used to beat someone over the head...which is what I apparently have to do to get anything done here. I thought the Inspection Division would be different, but not much surprises me anymore.

You have got to be kidding me. This is Abby M. Halle of the FBI. At age 23 in 2009, I wonder how long she had been on the job when she wrote my adjudicative recommendation? I guess that explains the ill-advised comment in her e-mail to OGC where she writes that I'm an attorney so she wants to be sure I can't appeal the decision...

A couple of new files. Other than the current version of MIOG section 67, these are the only valuable documents in the FOIPA production I received recently. First, the adjudicative recommendation with the redaction on page 2 removed. This is key because it shows what OGC was asked and when. OGC was asked to make a "recommendation" on whether to disqualify me based only on one statement in my SF-86. They were not advised that, a year more recently than the drug incident, I lost my job because I complied with an ethical duty by disclosing my FBI application to my then-current employer. This was also reported in my SF-86. Second document is a diary sheet from the field office showing actions taken on my application. According to this document, the Bureau Personnel Management System shows that I "negotiated a drug deal." This proves that there are missing BPMS screens yet to be produced under FOIPA. Also, whoever entered that defamatory information into BPMS is going to have to answer some questions in my next lawsuit. Probably Abby Halle. It looks like I may still have a libel claim against at least one person in the FBI.

I suppose there are a couple of other interesting tidbits in the FOIPA file. There is an "admin note" on one of the draft letters from SSA Mark Gant that states that the Employment Law Unit "is still figuring out how to deal with [me]." That may explain why SSA Gant wrote that I had exhausted my administrative remedies; OGC may have opined that because I didn't pass my first physical fitness test, I have no appeal rights. However, that contradicts what the FBI actually did in my case, which was continue to process my file like any other applicant. I was set to take the PFT in mid-July 2009 but I was discontinued. I would be happy to take the PFT again if it will get my appeal heard, but I can't take it without an active application. I can't believe they may be hanging their hats on that, so only a mandamus action will tell if that is the case.

On another note, apparently I am still the only applicant ever to call out FBI employees by name on the internet or sue them for libel. I'm not sure whether I'm proud of that, but I do get occasional emails saying I'm doing a great thing and I should keep it up. I intend to; whatever else happens, I have no intention of stopping this campaign until I get my appeal heard-- all I ask is a fair hearing like any other applicant.

I got a new job in January that pays a lot more than my previous one. So I can afford to take a trip to D.C. for vacation this summer...whoops, I mean, to take a few depositions...

Letter to Section Chief Hardy in an attempt to meet and confer about the FOIPA production of 2/23/2011. This is after my review of a FOIA case filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in which Section Chief Hardy did a declaration describing his search efforts in that case. According to SC Hardy's declaration, the FOIPA office sends out Electronic Communications (EC's) to "the most logical" places where information is stored. Here, the most logical places are self-evident from the requests. As in, "produce all information from the Bureau Personnel Management System concerning Requester." None of this was produced or even stated to be withheld-- what a crock. Do I really need to say in the request: "send an EC to the headquarters office that is responsible for maintaining BPMS, and direct them to search for my file number xyz. Produce the results, which should be several screens of data." Apparently I do have to assume (1) they will not search in the most obvious possible places and (2) they will do everything in their power to avoid producing information. I really couldn't have known this fifteen months ago when I filed the request.

Here is the current version of MIOG section 67, Bureau Applicant Matters. This was produced in response to my 12/1/2009 FOIPA request. The version of section 67 that I had up here was the deprecated 1998 version. This current version contains a lot more detail about the application process and various interesting tidbits. I haven't really looked at this in detail but it looks like it will be good for my purposes. For example, the Bureau Personnel Management System and Phase II testing materials are described in some detail. Both types of information were withheld in response to my FOIPA request, so this will give me a basis to challenge the scope of the search in my anticipated FOIPA lawsuit. Of potentially greater interest, the manual describes procedures and policies for applicant selection in greater detail than the 1998 version, including describing units and divisions at headquarters of which I was previously unaware. I'll post a more detailed analysis once I've had a chance to look it over. My first impression is that I wish I'd had this a year ago. On the other hand, because my appeal was never heard I can amend it with all of this great information.

Well I'm definitely going to have to file a FOIPA lawsuit or another request. The production in response to my 12/1/2009 FOIPA request just arrived, and it's anemic-- about 119 pages. Most of the pages are section 67 of the MIOG, in an updated form that looks like it came from an electronic file. The only new information I got from my file is that the redacted section of my adjudicative recommendation is no longer redacted.

They did not even review, or apparently search for, the vast majority of the documents I actually requested. It didn't occur to me until recently that I would have to tell them where in the FBI to look for responsive documents. But that's no excuse for them not producing documents that are easily located, like BPMS screens. If I do another request, it's going to be just as specific but a lot more patronizing. Having to tell them where to look in their own organization is just ridiculous. At least they keep applicant files for ten years (testing materials for two years, per MIOG), so there's time.

One interesting note is that my 2/7/2010 appeal appears to have been treated as routine correspondence rather than as an applicant appeal for the review board. However, none of the three copies of my appeal that I sent in were included in this production. Whatever happened, this sets the stage for an action for administrative mandamus to compel a review hearing. I'm going to hold off on that for now; one thing I definitely need to do is revise the appeal with everything I've learned in the last year since I sent it. Also, once I hit the three year mark since the alleged drug incident-- this May-- that should help my chances. Once I send in the revised appeal and it gets thrown away again, that will be the time to file an action for mandamus.

I have a really hard time understanding how they can ignore my appeal when they freely give review hearings to other applicants. I guess it's like the OIG complaint; the better the appeal, the less likely they are to hear it. Pretty sad.

Letter to Unit Chief Bungo of the Initial Processing Unit regarding my OIG complaint. It's about time for this to be handled. It would be unfortunate if I had to get my Congressman and/or Senator involved just to get an investigation.

Letter to Section Chief Hardy of the Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) regarding my 12/1/2009 FOIPA request. This is an example of a "meet and confer" letter that is used to show a court that a party is being reasonable. This particular letter is the third in a series in which I simply ask when the records will be available-- who can argue with that? Generally meet and confer letters accomplish nothing, but they have to be written in order to show a judge that some effort was made prior to filing a lawsuit. That's one reason I don't like being a lawyer; people (including judges) don't come right out and say what the problem is-- instead they dance around the issue like the "emperor's new clothes" and exhibit avoidant behavior. Well, all I can say is that I tend to take things head-on...which is obvious by now! I've been told on more than one occasion that confronting rather than avoiding these issues is deeply refreshing to the reader. Thank you!

I finally put up all of the pages linked at left, and I'm in the process of adding content as I find the time. Eventually I hope to have each section or assertion supported by relevant excerpts from the FBI manual, which will take a while to do.

Next item on the agenda is no secret: lawsuit number two. Lawsuit number two will be a FOIPA case to compel production of information in response to my 12/1/2009 FOIPA request, which I filed almost fifteen months ago. I've written several letters to Section Chief David Hardy of the Information Dissemination Section requesting an estimate of when the records will be available. No date or estimate was forthcoming. It should have taken about a year. I'll put up some more documents about this soon, including an analysis of a FOIPA case filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2006.

Well, mystery solved. I just got off the phone with OIG and they advised that they forwarded my complaint to the Internal Investigations Section of the FBI. IIS contains the Initial Processing Unit; it looks like my old antagonists have this one squarely in their laps and have probably done nothing with it so far. I emailed Unit Chief Bungo again and she advised that she is out the rest of this week but can check on status next week. I then called IIS and they said UC Bungo is actually there today. Go figure!

OK, this is b.s. Two months after sending in my OIG complaint I've heard nothing. I wrote to their hotline and investigations division...nothing. A month ago I took the extreme step of writing to Inspector General Glenn Fine about this case. No response (he left office at the end of January). I even emailed Unit Chief Sandra Bungo of the Initial Processing Unit in the FBI Inspection Division to ask whether her unit has seen a copy of the complaint (OIG has to send a copy to IPU whenever a complaint concerns the FBI). No response. This tells me a few things, like the fact that apparently no one wants to deal with the issues raised in my complaint. It also tells me that no one believes me enough or the conduct is not serious enough for them to do something-- which is actually important to know. For example, District Judge Maxine Chesney of the Northern District of California made up her mind against me after reading my libel complaint. Her prejudice of the case was obvious from an angry ruling she issued denying me anonymity. Her opinions in other cases I have read are much more impartial. Be that as it may, to have a number of people in positions of power read the complaint and conclude that it's safe to ignore does make me take a second look at things. Am I not persuasive enough? Did I include too much detail? Is there something I'm missing? Are these offenses really not that serious? Frankly I don't think I am too far off the mark. I think my complaint is more hard-hitting than 99% of what these people see, and that's the paradox...the better the complaint, the less they want to do about it. One-page complaints with no supporting evidence are easy to dispose of; this one isn't.

Unfortunately, I can't say what my next moves are because the FBI reads this website...sorry folks. I'll post what they are after I've done them.

How to appeal section updated! I added minor changes, a conclusion, and Bernie B.'s appeal letter, which should be read in context with his Adjudicative Recommendation.

At long last, John Doe #2 has his story to tell. In sum, Special Agent Christopher Penn acted just as dishonestly as Special Agent Grahm Coder on at least one occasion. They worked in the same room at the same time, and they disqualified two attorney applicants who processed from the same field office at the same time, using the same basic fact pattern: attorney commits a crime. Attorney violates his attorney's oath. Attorney is unworthy of serving in the FBI. These two cases happening at the same time by chance would be one in a billion. News flash for SA Assholes: unlike The Truth, dishonesty reverberates in unexpected ways, like this public website wherein two Special Agents are called out for their hypocrisy and violations of the law. And there is nothing they can do about it. Sue me? California has an Anti-SLAPP statute, and the 9th Circuit applies the Anti-SLAPP statute in federal cases. If I lose the Anti-SLAPP motion, I hose them at their depositions and I guarantee the case will settle before trial. Too bad for them. And for Grahm, all I have to say is this: you're a former Mormon missionary. You apparently forgot the famous line that you were taught as a child and which you probably taught to others: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." I learned the same admonition, but I didn't forget it, so I guess that resolves the issue of which of us adheres more closely to, e.g., the FBI core values. If not, next time you visit my site you can email me your response.

Well I decided to put up some more letters instead of a new section; some of these are embarrassing, but I pride myself on being raw and uncut on the internet. A word of advice-- there's no point in writing letters to the FBI unless the letter is an appeal or FOIPA request. Otherwise the matter just gets added to your applicant file and/or you get lame responses. Here, I should have ceased and desisted long before I sent in my appeal in February 2010. Also, I really should not have written letters in the third person, it just sounds ridiculous. This is one reason I put up this site; to prevent others from making the same mistakes I did. Whoops.

11/21/2009 letter to Unit Chief of SACU -- on further review, I guess they did forward this to the Inspection Division. Too bad no one at Inspection ever contacted me to ask about the matter. In any event, this was never intended to be a complaint, only a further request for information on how to appeal.
11/24/2009 letter to Division Chief of the Security Division -- I thought this would reach someone in authority. It went to SSA Gant who apparently fills in for the Division Chief.
11/30/2009 letter to Assistant Director Raucci -- the ADIC of the Human Resources Division. It was a regrettable communication in a number of respects. And yet.
12/10/2009 letter from SSA Gant -- he advises me that I have "exhausted [my] administrative 'options.'"
12/16/2009 letter from Unit Chief Angela Byers -- my letters of 11/21/2009 and 11/30/2009 were forwarded to the Inspection Division. But without supporting evidence, what could they do? Of course they are going to say there is no "evidence" of misconduct when my letters did not provide supporting "evidence" and were not intended to be a complaint.
12/19/2009 reply to letter from SSA Gant of 12/10/2009
12/19/2009 apology to AD Raucci -- I addressed my concerns to the wrong person, so I said I was sorry. I tend to apologize when I feel it is appropriate.
12/28/2009 reply to the Inspection Division letter of 12/16/2009 -- no response, obviously. Who are they kidding?

This weekend I think I'll put up another section. The polygraph page is definitely a hit. I have to admit, that's probably the best material I'm going to have for a while.

Dear FBI, thank you for visiting so much of my site today and so many different times from the same IP address. Seriously, why do you keep coming back here? If you're the Inspection Division (thanks for checking out my OPR and OIG complaints), you know where to reach me. If you're any other division, all I have to say is "bring it on." I already offered multiple times to take a supplemental polygraph regarding the misconduct that occurred in my case, and my offer stands. I guess no one will be taking me up on it. Oh well.

Polygraph section added!

Well I think I've sufficiently called out FBI personnel on this site. Time for more material. I had a busy weekend finishing up my Continuing Legal Education of twenty hours, so I didn't get a chance to update the appeal section or other areas. I have a busy week ahead of me; don't expect updates until next weekend. Sorry.

A very special shout out to Special Agent Grahm Coder from 174.51.64.53. It's about damn time he visited. Tell me Grahm, how is Fort Collins, Colorado treating you? Ahahahahaha!!!

Good news-- I've secured an agreement from John Doe #3 to post details about his applicant appeal, which was successful. However, he was still disqualified after the background investigation. He is appealing again and will advise of the result. If he makes it, I still get to post a detailed summary in the Case studies section of my page on how to appeal. If he doesn't make it, I get both appeal letters, which will still be helpful. I'm also waiting on John Doe #2's approval of a summary I wrote of his case. These multiple case studies should be pretty useful once complete.

A special shout out to the Central Intelligence Agency at 198.81.129.194. Thanks for visiting. I'd also like to welcome the U.S. Army's Signal Center at Fort Gordon (155.8.89.2), which has been visiting for some time now. I guess information really is a weapon.

How to appeal section added! Not complete yet.

A new year, a new agenda here, etc.

It's been several weeks and I haven't heard anything from OIG regarding the complaint that I sent them in December 2010. Maybe it shouldn't surprise me; after all, I wrote to them some months ago and said "My personal view is that the conduct in this case is too serious and has too many negative implications for the FBI to actually investigate it. They just can't, because it would allow criminals to obtain new trials even if they really are guilty, not to mention requiring the re-investigation of all the security clearances with whom these Special Agents were ever associated. That could be hundreds of people." I'm not sure I'll be hearing from OIG any time soon. All I can say is that I hope honesty is a priority; after all, OIG investigated cheating on an open book test administered by the FBI. Why shouldn't they investigate two Special Agents who falsified investigative records in two different applicant investigations? I'm referring to the investigations of Doe #2 and myself. Doe #2 and I are both attorneys and have similar qualifications, and we even processed from the same field office at the same time!

Moving along then, my next goal for this site is the section on how to appeal. There have been a few requests for that, and it shows up in the server logs when someone comes here from a google search for "how to appeal an fbi suitability determination." I look forward to providing tips on what not to do. Apparently, sending in a really well-supported appeal that could actually win when presented to the review board is not the best strategy. Who knew?

Other than my OIG complaint not producing a response, there have been no newsworthy developments. I started at a new law firm with the new year, so I'll be busier during the week and will do most of my work here on weekends.

You can access last year's news at the link above.