Full Spectrum Litigator

A little vacation here, folks. I won't be updating for probably a few days. If I get something dramatic from OIG, I'll definitely note that though; so far no contact.

On another note, I recently checked in with a fellow rejected applicant, John Doe #3. Doe #3 was disqualified for experimentation with drugs that was outside of acceptable parameters (i.e., marijuana more than 15 times, etc.). The problem was, Doe #3 did this while he was a minor. The scope of investigation is age 18 and up. This means Doe #3 was not read the preamble on the PSI form, just like I was not, and Doe #3 dutifully disclosed drug use for his entire life, as a minor and as an adult. He stopped experimenting with drugs at age 17, and therefore it was improper for the Bureau to consider his experimentation as a minor in rejecting him. Like me, Doe #3 was discontinued after the polygraph but before his BI. He appealed, and he actually won! He was reinstated and given a full background investigation. Sadly, he was then disqualified after the BI for the same reason, drug use. He is currently considering whether to appeal again. That is really sad.

Complaint to the Office of the Inspector General. I'm told this is badass yet professional. Thanks Bernie!

I just finished redacting my OIG complaint. My god, it's a monster at 137 pages. Most of that is exhibits, but I had to include them. I need to take another look at it to be sure I caught everything before I put it up here.

Frankly, on a second reading my complaint is not my best work. It's somewhat stilted and doesn't flow as well as my libel complaint and Applicant Appeal. I also forgot to mention my libel case in the OIG complaint...big mistake. Well, all I can say is that I've just about exhausted my willpower to write these complaints and appeals. The one thing I have not done that I could do is revise my applicant appeal and send it to the Director, which was the advice of the veteran consultant whom I hired some time ago. I still haven't decided about that; basically, I'm not going to do that unless there is a strong chance of me winning, I've exhausted all other possible avenues of appeal, and (this is key) I am sure that if I win, my continued processing will be completed favorably. That would be a really big challenge given my recently disclosed (in my libel case) treatment for a psychiatric issue caused by the severe emotional distress I experienced due to the defamation of my character by the defendants. The FBI is not going to care what the cause of my voluntary hospitalization was when considering whether I am a security risk for mental health reasons. So I'm looking at a few years from now for that. By then Director Mueller, who reads his own mail, may have retired and could be replaced with someone less willing to consider applicant correspondence. By then I'll be a partner in a law firm making significant money. The question would be, do I want to walk away from a law partnership and take a seventy percent or more pay cut to work for the FBI after all that has happened? On the plus side, that is a long time from now, I don't have to decide for about five years, and I could really make one more solid effort to get in before I turn 37 in 2017.

One other issue is what to do with this site. I've debated at length whether to add a discussion forum so that there's continuous activity and a healthy debate about applicant related issues. The thing is, those goals are already achieved well on 911jobforums.com and Federal Soup. Also, a discussion forum would likely expose me to worldwide jurisdiction in any court, so anyone who thinks he is libeled on here could conceivably bring an action in any state. I cannot allow that to happen at this time, although that may change in the future.

I don't know what the future holds other than this site definitely being a repository of useful information for applicants, particularly rejected applicants (once the Appeal section is completed). To make a long story short, all of the evidence I have collected shows that SACU is engaged in systemic abuses of power in applicant selection, and there is almost nothing a rejected applicant can do about it due to the bureaucratic inertia and resistance of the FBI. The FBI circles around the decision to reject someone and does not like reversing decisions made by its personnel. Where there is a legitimate mistake or error, it seems like there is a better chance of winning the appeal. Where there is misconduct, it's hopeless unless the applicant has the wherewithal and patience to file an action for administrative mandamus to compel the ICS Section Chief to present the appeal to the review board. As with appealing to the Director, I don't think I can realistically bring such an action unless I'm confident I will get a favorable background investigation if I win. Fortunately, I have six years from the date of SSA Gant's letter in February 2010 to file an action for mandamus. Or I could just reapply and see what happens, because different people will be working there. Meanwhile, suggestions or feedback on where to take this site in the future would be greatly appreciated.

Things seem to go faster than I think. I launched my OIG complaint today after finishing it over the weekend. It may raise some eyebrows over at the FBI Inspection Division and Office of Professional Responsibility, but that's the way it is. It's going to take a while to put up here, since it's so long and I have to redact a lot of it. A subject raised in the OIG complaint is the failure of Supervisory Special Agent Mark A. Gant to present my Applicant Appeal to the adjudication review board. His refusal to do so appears to invite an action for mandamus to compel him to present the appeal to the review board. That would be lawsuit number two! Not sure when I'll file that one, if ever. It would be nice to have an official determination of my appeal instead of the non-denial denial I got from SSA Gant.

A brief update. I'm developing my plan for what to do next with this site. Because my chances as an applicant were over a long time ago and my lawsuit is over, I'm trying to think of the best use of my time in terms of how to assist others in the process. One question I have is whether my visitors are current applicants, former applicants, prospective applicants, or other. I regularly correspond with a number of former applicants who visit, so I've got that covered. Would everyone else mind emailing me to let me know your status/thoughts? That would really help me target the site appropriately.

Currently I'm focused on finishing my OIG complaint, which I'll put up when it's done. After that I plan to finish all the sections at left so this site is finally the resource for applicants that I wanted it to be. Then I can tell Bernie and Doe #2's stories in more detail. After that I can put together a downloadable applicant handbook of some type. If anyone has other ideas, just email me.

Glenn A. Fine to retire as Inspector General. The hits keep coming, seriously. Glenn Fine has issued a ton of reports on FBI abuses, and he's out as of January 28, 2011. I'd better get cracking on a complaint. Just kidding, I'm already halfway done and emailed him about it :). I hope I can squeeze in before the new IG is appointed so that Fine makes the decision about what to do with my complaint.

Personnel Security Interview section added.

Application section updated with a summary of the application process.

Well this is interesting. I got a letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to whom I had sent a FOIPA request and appeal. They searched the Scattered Castles database for my name and came up with no matches. My theory was that a summary of the Adjudicative Recommendation went into Scattered Castles and the CIA found it, then disqualified me. It appears I was wrong. What this suggests is that my CIA hiring official simply called up the FBI and asked about the end of my application, or made some other type of request directly to the FBI. Which defeats the purpose of the National Agency Check data in the Scattered Castles system. It is also possible I was simply not selected for a position with the CIA and was not disqualified for any particular reason. No way to know due to the secrecy with which these agencies operate. I had no idea their hiring processes were so opaque when I applied.

An interesting news story: FBI employee charged with lying about debt. A Personnel Security Specialist was charged with making false statements under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001 for misstating her financial obligations on a disclosure form. This kind of case is more easily prosecuted than mine, because documentary evidence is the easiest way to prove that someone lied. In my case, the documentary evidence would have been the PSI form and polygraph report, and the live witnesses would have been me, my friend "James," and of course SA Coder. It would have been extraordinarily difficult to prove my case. But not impossible. Oh well.

Well that was quick. The Court in my defamation case declined to allow me to proceed as "John Doe." (copy of order). I have the option of continuing my case under my real name or letting it go. And I've decided to just let it go. There are still options under the Privacy Act and other statutes, but the merits of my claims against SA Coder and PSS Halle will not be determined this time around. That is regrettable, but I value my professional reputation and my name more than the damages I incurred in this case; proceeding under my real name would mean disclosing all kinds of information about my mental health, for one. For an attorney to be even accused of illegally negotiating a drug purchase is a gigantic red flag to the State Bar, and I don't need or want that kind of attention. So for those reasons, I'm dropping my libel case.

I still have much work to do on this website and will continue my efforts accordingly.

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. Here you go:
John Doe and Neill Tseng emails 11/12/2010 - 11/18/2010

Litigation section added. It's a placeholder for now.

First couple of emails in a series between me and AGC Porcelli and AUSA Tseng. This is how government attorneys write, apparently. Do they not think I'm going to call them out on here? They're wrong. Have they even visited this website yet? Apparently not.
Stefania Porcelli to John Doe 11 12 2010 - first email in the case
John Doe to Stefania Porcelli 11 12 2010 - my reply

LOL again, true alarm. The defendants are now represented by the Department of Justice. It will take a miracle to win this case. At this point my prediction is I lose on personal jurisdiction and/or venue, potentially ending the case before I even get to the merits. The other possibility is that my application to litigate this case anonymously is denied. Sorry folks, but I'm not litigating this under my real name, so if that happens I'm done. At least I tried! And I still have a few tricks left in my bag...

LOL, false alarm. FBI Assistant General Counsel Stefania Porcelli gave the false impression through an artfully worded email message that the defendants in my case were represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Neill Tseng. AUSA Tseng subsequently confirmed, after I sent him a setup email, that he does not represent the defendants. He then tried to bargain with me for an extension of time for the defendants to answer my complaint. In other words, I get nothing in return because my part of the deal is enforceable, but the defendants' part isn't, because AUSA Tseng has no authority to make deals that bind clients he doesn't represent. That is a potential ethical violation right there.

The reality is that the defendants are unrepresented while the FBI and DOJ decide whether to provide them a defense, which decision should happen possibly in "December," according to AUSA Tseng. Score one for me. I certainly hope my tax dollars do not go toward providing that defense. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for defending government employees who are accused of intentional torts in a non-frivolous lawsuit? The decisionmaking process should be similar to an insurance company evaluating coverage; intentional conduct is not insurable, by definition. Intentional torts are also generally outside the Tort Claims Act. There is no legitimate reason to find coverage, so to speak. Who knows what they will do.

Well, my worst nightmares are realized. The FBI and the Department of Justice are going to take an opening shot at getting my case dismissed before I can do any discovery or cause any damage. I heard from the Assistant General Counsel at the FBI and from the Assistant U.S. Attorney at DOJ who have been "assigned" the case. It's not clear whether they are going to provide a defense to the defendants or represent the United States in intervention. Either way, at this stage the full support of the government is on the other side of this case. It would take a miracle to win.

Here's the deal. They're going to file Rule 12 motions and beat me on the issues of personal jurisdiction and venue. I'll appeal based on case law in my favor. It's a tossup whether I win or lose the appeal. If I lose, which I probably will, the case will be transferred to Washington, D.C. At that point I have a tough decision to make: do I want to litigate this matter, on my own, clear across the country? I can't talk about the answer to that question, because the defendants and their attorneys will no doubt read this. So to add insult to injury, now I have to hold back on my thought process and also be more polite on here. I should follow my own advice: he who takes the benefit must bear the burden. My response? "I pay it gladly."

Files added showing searches of CJIS, OPM, and Scattered Castles as part of the preliminary stages of my background investigation. Link.

Files added regarding my FOIPA request to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for National Agency Check data in the Scattered Castles database, and my FOIPA request to the Office of Personnel Management. Link.

PFT and SF-86 sections added.

Well, I haven't had much going on that's relevant here; I'll try to add some of the sections at left over this weekend, or at least start them. That's the thing about a site like this--there's so much to write, I just don't know where to begin sometimes. The defendants have 60 days to answer my complaint, so the earliest my lawsuit is going to start keeping me occupied is probably early January. I hope I finish the rest of the site before then. It's been great to see people accessing the Phase II section, even though I put up just a bare bones description. I actually can't wait to write the sample written test because I like creative writing! Probably not many more additions to THE FILE in the near future, as people don't need to see every filing in my lawsuit, just the important ones. As for my applicant file, I really haven't had a chance to sit down and sift through the dozen or more letters I sent out, but those are probably next. Lesson learned: there's no point writing letters to the FBI after you get rejected unless it's an appeal. In which case, a letter format will do nothing for you. Anyway, I'm rambling. I just looked at a couple of the letters...they're bad. I think I'll focus on completing the sections at left before putting more letters up...

I recently wrote SA Coder and SA Penn offering them the opportunity to write rebuttals that I will post on this site. I never heard back, so here's the message:

Gentlemen,

I was not going to write you, but because the entire FBI has been accessing my website wherein you are criticized for your abuses of power while in office, I've decided it is only fair to send you the link:

http://www.fullspectrumlitigator.com

SA Penn, you will find yourself in the "News" section because I haven't created a separate section for you yet.

You are both invited to review the site and write any rebuttals that you deem appropriate. As I say on the site, I will post your rebuttals.

If you have any questions, feel free to let me know.

Best,

John Doe

It's only fair. Despite our disagreements, I am required to live up to the value of Integrity that I criticize these men for breaching, and I believe I have done so.

In other news, I hear there's a new thread on Federal Soup about this case as well. I haven't read it, because I no longer post there after various flame wars occurred last year. Anyone is free to email me directly with his concerns. It might be nice to have a "reader comments" section on here.

Whoops, the FBI is still visiting. Yes, I make mistakes-- but I take responsibility for them and don't conceal them, unlike certain people named in my lawsuit. Which reminds me, I have a little something special to say to SA Coder, PSS Halle, SPSS Kosh, and AUC Brice: YOU GOT SERVED! ;)

And just like that--as if on cue--the FBI stops officially visiting my site! Was it something I said? HAHA!

Now I can focus on putting content in the rest of this site and actually getting it done. I'd say I'm about 10% done at this point. What I'd really like to do is a briefing booklet for applicants hitting all the key points for the whole process. That might take a while, particularly when I have, um, a lawsuit against these people going on. I'll do my best, like I always do.

Dear SACU, it is high time someone took you all on. It looks like that someone is me. Having not heard from you folks twice after sending two reasonable letters suggesting we discuss this matter, I filed my libel case last Thursday. I have 120 days to serve you, don't bother trying to avoid it. Regarding the case generally and the fact that I'm taking you on, "I did not ask for the position, but now that I have it, I intend to give it the best I have." To my readers, all I can say is that this is what you've been waiting for. With apologies for presuming, a potential "hero" case where truth prevails, the story is told, and the ultimate deterrent to SACU agents falsifying information is made: their names are forever blemished with the misconduct they have committed, and their bosses are held liable for large judgments that are rendered under the law of the applicant's state, not D.C. May the best evidence win, and may the jury respect the diamond pillar of Truth more than the power of the golden badge.

Date/Download	Document or Event	Comments	Related Documents
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 it would be futile to try to dodge 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

This one is going to be interesting folks. I'll keep you all posted. My number one question is, will the FBI provide the defendants a defense? The manual provides for the payment of judgments against employees out of a common fund, but I don't remember seeing a provision that employees who commit misconduct get their attorneys paid for. These are intentional torts outside the scope of the tort claims act, so the government should not be defending this case. Which will make it even more interesting. I'll know in between 21 and 60 days, and I'll also know whether the unofficial FBI agents' association has a defense fund. I wonder if even they would defend this case. If I were them I wouldn't waste the money :). You know what the hardest part about filing this was? Signing "John Doe" instead of my real name. I had to practice signing "John Doe" on a separate sheet of paper before I could actually make myself write it on the signature line. I hope I don't screw up and sign my real name somewhere!

Another little bird told me that SA Penn was on TDY at Headquarters when he DQ'ed that applicant, and that SA Penn acted like a newbie. I have to say, that really makes sense. SA Coder's blog suggests that he graduated the Academy in April or May 2009, and so he could have been on TDY at Headquarters as a new SA when he hosed me.

Bernie B. came up with a solution as to why they would have two new SA's on TDY at SACU at the same time. It's called "the reject pile." That's a great call Bernie!

So they were on TDY. Gosh, who knows where these agents are now? Hmm...take a wild guess who would know that...HAHAHAHA!!! On that note, I hereby suggest to the entire FBI that Special Agent blogs be subject to review by the pre-publication office in order to prevent their use for intelligence value. Since you're reading my news page daily, I might as well make suggestions to improve the security of the United States of America.

My second suggestion: fire Special Agent Coder for making false statements to the FBI. He can now never testify in a criminal case, because anyone who googles him will find this site, wherein his credibility is systematically obliterated and his abuses of power are exposed. Frankly, I would rather not be a professional witness for the defense in cases where people really are guilty, but I can't say no to a court order compelling me to appear. What do you want to do? Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.

Well, I finally figured out what the FBI is up to with looking at my site so frequently (daily, multiple files, for hours at a time). It has nothing to do with taking my OPR complaint seriously. Based on access patterns, the files requested, the timing of the accesses, and the frequency of the requests, I am left with only one conclusion. The primary reason for the review is that an analyst has been assigned to look for any inconsistencies in matter I have submitted to the FBI and MSPB regarding my application, in order to get me in trouble or gain leverage over me so I have to cut a deal with them that might include (perish the thought!) taking down my website. All I have to say about that is wow, that's messed up. And they won't find any inconsistencies beyond minor mistakes. So they might as well give up now. The secondary reason for their review is that people in the FBI are just curious about what their fellow employees are doing; that shows up in logs too. We'll see how this plays out. It won't end with me taking this site down, I can guarantee them of that. Looks like the people who I initially contacted are the ones who are curious, and for whatever reason there are others who found out and are not merely curious. Oh well.

Oh shit! You'll never guess what a little bird told me:

Chris Penn was the dude. He was hateful and manipulative, and I hope that there is a special kind of torture reserved for him in this life.

SA Penn, you are one sorry son of a bitch. You and SA Coder worked in the same room, you both used false information to disqualify applicants, and your asses are both kicked on this website. I wonder how many Special Agents work at SACU? Two seems like enough, especially if they have your personality traits.

Chris and Grahm, you are going down. We caught you. The power of the internet to connect rejected applicants, and the power of collaboration by people who believe in each other, are far greater than the powers that both of you wield (and abuse).

My sources on here are protected by the journalism privilege, which is impenetrable in my state. Tough cookies assholes.

The legal document I'm writing is going to be really great. You will not be disappointed!

Latest filing: a Motion to compel in MSPB case. Just some random reading, nothing particularly important.

Sorry for the delay in updates, folks. I'm working on a very large legal document that I will post on here as soon as it's ready. It will probably take most of my free time for the next couple of weeks. I'll try to post a few more letters or something in the meantime.

In other news, I recently corresponded with the fellow rejected attorney mentioned on my home page and he agreed that I can post a vignette about his case and the details regarding his rejection. That might take a week or two to do.

I don't know what is going on with my OPR complaint. I thought I would have heard something by now, but I haven't. The FBI is like a black hole, as demonstrated in my MSPB case (lots of stuff in, nothing out), so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I'll follow up with some people just in case...

Whew, that was quite a post. It must be frustrating for these people to have no legal forum in which to respond but this one. I already said I would post their rebuttals on here, so it's probably an issue of authorization or policy; I would have a hard time believing they didn't care. I've had only a few law firm visits so far, and those law firms, if they read the pertinent sections of Federal Information Disclosure, would hopefully confirm to their potential clients that identities of law enforcement officers are public information, as are their official acts. But that identities of applicants for Federal employment, personnel information of any kind, and the reasons for their rejection are not. This despite partial disclosure by the applicant of some of the information. And of course, this website and all of the material on it are protected First Amendment speech about a matter of public interest--as demonstrated by the OIG's recent investigation about FBI agents cheating on internal tests, which is clearly a matter of public interest. Falsifying information in an investigation is way beyond cheating on an internal test.

With that said, the next person whose ass will be kicked on here is SPECIAL AGENT CHRISTOPHER PENN, who disqualified Bernie B. from employment (see Bernie's file in the file section above). Bernie's forthcoming declaration should "clarify" (correct) a number of "issues" (alleged falsities) with the suitability determination. What a surprise to Special Agent Penn and Special Agent Coder that some rejected applicants actually fight back--and in this case, win.

As for SA Penn...here's a preliminary ass-kicking. Guess what? Bernie received forty-eight medals, ribbons, and other decorations, including four meritorious service medals and multiple forward deployments over his 25-year career in the Navy, including Operation Desert Storm. The last citation, which I will post here today, specifically referenced his then-recent job performance and praised his entire career. A question raised by SA Penn's suitability determination: does the Navy decorate servicemen who sexually harass co-workers? Did the Navy ever investigate the alleged harassment? What was their conclusion? What did the military personnel file review show in this area, and why is it not referenced in the determination? Hmmmm...sounds like more shady stuff!

Special Agent Christopher Penn

Captain M.P. Argo, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve at Denver, CO

A former Commanding Officer of the Navy ROTC at UCB stated the applicant often challenged authority and did not like taking orders. The former Commanding Officer confirmed the applicant was terminated from NROTC and transferred to Aurora, Colorado. Furthermore, the Commanding Officer cited the letter by UCB Legal Counsel indicating the applicant was harassing a coworker.

MERITORIOUS SERVICE AS COMMAND SERVICES DIVISION OFFICER AT NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE CENTER, DENVER, COLORADO FROM JANUARY 2003 TO AUGUST 2003. CHIEF [Redacted] PROVIDED LEADERSHIP AND GUIDANCE TO THE COMMAND SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE CAREER COUNSELOR'S OFFICE WITH A THOROUGH KNOWLEDGE OF THE MYRIAD OF INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO PROVIDED ALL RESERVISTS WITH "WORLDCLASS SERVICE". HE SPEARHEADED THE COORDINATION OF THE AWARDS PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS OF AWARDS BY 30 PERCENT. HIS EXEMPLARY ACHIEVEMENTS CULMINATED A DISTINGUISHED CAREER OF OVER 25 YEARS OF LOYAL AND FAITHFUL SERVICE TO HIS COUNTRY. BY HIS NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS, PERSEVERANCE, AND DEVOTION TO DUTY, CHIEF [Redacted] REFLECTED CREDIT UPON HIMSELF AND UPHELD THE HIGHEST TRADITIONS OF THE UNITED STATES NAVAL SERVICE.

This citation speaks for itself. I wonder what Bernie's other forty-seven decorations look like? God Bless America.

Before I post my next move, I'll preface it with this. The President recently said one of the brassiest, ballsiest things I've ever heard uttered on national television. It made me proud to be an American. Here's the video.

Just under one year ago, I wrote FBI paralegal PATRICIA A. MILLER some very important email messages. Email messages that were sent with no ulterior motive, no hidden agenda, and certainly no hope that they would change anything. I wasn't sending those messages because this was some type of college seminar or something; I sent them because she told me to communicate only with her and the messages involved serious misconduct by a Special Agent in the FBI and had some very disturbing implications. I wrote her telling her what a potential crisis this could be and what a disaster it would be for the FBI. Those email messages and--my favorite--the reasonable letter I sent her after she failed to respond, will be the next posts on my site. I've already kicked Time Traveler's ass and I've already kicked Grahm Coder's ass (obviously-- try googling him). Ms. Miller is the person whose ass I have decided to kick next, for reasons that will become clear. Thank you Mr. President for inspiring me to kick people's asses. With respect, sir, your employees who are called out on these pages deserve the royal beatdown they are in the process of receiving. And I'm only about five percent done with the site and barely ten percent through my ammunition!

That went about as quickly as I thought. Ms. Miller's ass is hereby kicked:
Email attempting to meet and confer 11/2/2009
Email expressing concerns about misconduct directly 11/3/2009
Email expressing further concerns directly 11/3/2009
Letter to Ms. Miller after fourteen unanswered emails 11/5/2009
Last email to Ms. Miller that I recall 11/20/2009

I think I've made my point. This is what happens when people don't practice the standards they presume to hold me to. Her failure to forward these messages and others to the Inspection Division for investigation was itself a violation of FBI policy. And of course, I never heard from her boss. What a disaster for whoever that is.

The next example: a really large filing that I did in my Merit Systems Protection Board case. In looking it over again a year later, I have to say it's pretty awesome.

Game over? Just kidding! Game on, I have a large backlog of material awaiting redaction that I'll be putting up here shortly. Expect interesting things.

Well, it looks like I kicked Time Traveler's ass. Anyone else up for a beat down?

The letter linked below is a monument to the power of Truth. More specifically, "The Truth." My offer to return Christopher Whitcomb's personally dedicated copy of Cold Zero: Inside the FBI Hostage Rescue Team to its rightful owner, Peter Berg, stands. I made the offer almost two years ago to Mr. Whitcomb through his now-defunct website, as I do not know whether this Peter Berg is the famous film director or some other person.

For anyone who may be curious, feel free to listen to the first five minutes of my Phase II interview, or have Mr. Whitcomb authenticate his handwriting.

It saddens me to this day that I will never meet more of the amazing people who fill the ranks of the FBI. With the assistance of this analysis of the FBI application process, I hope other people will. Because that's who I am; someone who cares about others to this degree. Thank you and God Bless America. Game over.

What interesting visitors to my website. Hello "Time Traveler," this one is for you. I didn't even send that letter, but I pulled it out in your honor. Goodbye.

Dear FBI, I'm glad we are finally getting somewhere with the serious misconduct that occurred in my case. Apparently contacting the right people can have an effect even if it's semi-official. Also, to the other applicants, thank you for your recent amazingly supportive emails. Who knew so many people cared? Assistant Director Will, with all due respect, I am not sorry for dissing you on the internet.

Double, triple, and quadruple wow.

For anyone at the FBI who is curious, you may find this email exchange between myself and Assistant Director Will interesting. I debated for about 10 months whether to put my applicant file on the internet. After weighing the competing interests involved, I decided that the FBI's own core value of Integrity and my own core value of Truth are more important than whatever consequences there might be. As indicated in my stream of consciousness log entries below, the email exchange linked above may well be considered the last push I needed. That's just too bad.

Regarding my use of an altered-color unofficial FBI seal at upper left, I respectfully incorporate by reference the excellent letter written by the Wikimedia Foundation regarding its own use of the full color version.

Wow. A bigger shout-out to the entire FBI for browsing my site at length yesterday (and today) and viewing many files, as shown in my server logs. Obviously, they know who I am; that isn't an issue for me because it's illegal for them to publish my name or other personnel-related information, despite my own partial disclosure of the same information. See the relevant chapter of Federal Information Disclosure.

It looks like my complaints are finally being taken seriously!

I again apologize for the lack of updates. I'd like to send a special shout-out to recent visitors to this website from the FBI Criminal Justice Information System at IP address 153.31.113.26. Hey folks! My fingerprint check came back clean, feel free to run it again.

Sorry for the lack of updates. I've been busy! I'll get working more on this site this weekend or something.

Another applicant who was active on the Federal Soup thread on this case has provided me some key documents from his background investigation. He has even allowed me to use his real name and post unredacted versions of the documents. Thank you Bernie! The best part is, Bernie demonstrates Integrity by admitting and taking responsibility for much of what is in his Adjudicative Recommendation. His issue is simply inaccurate information that was considered. It's interesting to see what an Adjudicative Recommendation from a full background investigation looks like. Not only do they not put in everything, they don't put in any positive information.

I continue to put up parts of my file. I recently received a visit from the Cyveillance search robot, which is interesting. They're a cyber intelligence company that collects information for undisclosed clients. If I were the FBI, I would hire them to spider the web for any information that might identify individual Special Agents. For example, undercover agents' real names and photographs would be really bad to have floating around the internet. Fortunately for me, the dumb shit in my case had a public internet blog under his real name where he and someone else talked about various interesting things. He was not successful in covering his tracks on that once he became an agent. Although not legally required to do so, I've chosen to refrain from posting all of the interesting information I found because that is across the line. I learned a while back that If I'm going to go pointing fingers at people, I need to hold myself to a significantly higher standard than they do, and not just in the area in which I am criticizing them. That is the price I pay. I invite anyone who wishes to do so to call me out in any area in which I do not live up to the standards I claim to practice. The catch is, that person has to be willing to accept the same callout. So any FBI employees named on this site are welcome to email me rebuttals at any time, which I will post because it's only fair. Somehow I doubt that is ever going to happen.

I received the practice guide Federal Information Disclosure today. First of all it is amazing, and second of all it is disturbing. There is a wealth of case law on every single provision of the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act. As well as some very interesting finds. Did you know that a Federal agency that collects private information is legally obligated to keep "accurate" information? Or that if, on petition, the District Court and the Special Counsel of the Merit Systems Protection Board agree that a government employee improperly withheld information, a "special sanction" at the discretion of the MSPB can be imposed on the employee? My favorite is this-- there is a split of authority among the U.S. Courts of Appeal regarding whether an attorney-requester who is representing himself can recover an award of attorney fees against the government. A conflict among the Courts of Appeal is the number one reason an issue of law goes to the highest court in the land. Is it too much to hope for?

Barely less than one year ago, I posted on an internet message board something to the effect of "they're done." I stand by what I wrote. I know for a fact that I am the only FBI applicant ever to post his complete applicant file on the internet. I am also probably one of the few post-polygraph applicants to have been rejected prior to the full background investigation. I am definitely one of the few applicants who has reviewed all of Section 67 of the Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines. I am less than 30 years old, which means I have years to resolve this case. I am a lawyer with some (not a lot) of time to work on this. The case is not moot. There is subject matter jurisdiction, and venue (under FOIPA at least) is where I live, not where any of them live. The case presents important issues of public interest, particularly in light of recent news articles about agents and even an Assistant Director cheating on internal tests. This case presents questions of law that will result in a conflict between the Circuit that I am in and other Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. I have a regular job that pays me adequately. I can file this case anonymously, and the government cannot publish my real name because it would violate their own Privacy Act. I could have any such pleading in my case sealed or redacted. This case presents issues of Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity and involves holding FBI employees to the standards to which they purport to hold others.

Although I may not be the only applicant who can file such a case, and I certainly don't claim to be the best at what I do, I can say with reasonable certainty that there has never been such a case as this one will be. Except perhaps cases in the practice guide that I have not yet reviewed. I'm just doing what I think is right.

I realized something else, also. 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001 makes it a felony to make a false statement to the U.S. Government, "whoever" might be making the statement. It is also a felony to falsify, conceal, or cover up a material fact by any trick, scheme, or device. I am not saying on here that that applies in this case. I am, however, looking quite carefully at that issue. As in, holy shit. I guess that might explain a few things in terms of the FBI's non-response to my evidence showing that the FD-302 prepared by Special Agent Coder was a false statement to the FBI. Perhaps because the standard for materiality is whether the false statement has a "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995) (emphasis added). Um, let's see here. Do you think a statement that an attorney applicant intentionally and actively negotiated an illegal drug buy of unspecified size less than a year before he applied to the FBI is capable of influencing the FBI's decision whether to continue to process the applicant? I wonder. Actually no, I don't wonder. You're done pal. You're just done. It's only a matter of time.

2008-08-10

I started posting portions of my applicant file yesterday; they are available in "THE FILE" section linked above. I guess I should say now that I don't know what will happen, and that I gave the FBI every opportunity to resolve the misconduct that occurred in my case internally. Best wishes.

2010-08-08

Some rather dramatic developments. Out of the blue I emailed a couple of people at the Assistant Director level-- and they responded! They actually responded amazingly quickly. In other words, going to a higher level actually cuts through all the intermediate bureaucracy and gets you information, although it's important not to abuse the privilege. In my case, I learned the unfortunate fact that my complaint to the Office of Professional Responsibility was ignored. I filed it in January 2010. The Assistant Director writes that she does not have "jurisdiction" over complaint intake or initiating an investigation. It would have been nice to hear 8 months ago that, despite what it says in the manual about OPR investigations, I was supposed to send my complaint to the Inspection Division and not the Office of Professional Responsibility. I emailed the Assistant Director of the Inspection Division and coordinated getting it filed. What a surprise that it was never forwarded to the Inspection Division, although the Assistant Director of OPR writes that it "would have been" forwarded in the "normal course" of things in order to ensure "proper handling." Um, whoops. This very phenomenon is described in the famous Bell Report [pdf] about OPR, which discussed potential abuse of the "zero file" at OPR where things can be intentionally lost or hidden from the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, which has right of first refusal on all incoming complaints. What a perfect example!

Also, I purchased a practice guide called Federal Information Disclosure, which is the leading treatise on the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act. FOIPA litigation is inevitable in my case because I requested a number of unusual items, including all the time records of all personnel who worked on my case (time records never lie, which I found out in law practice), my Phase II interview audio recording, and so on. Fortunately, the standard for production is whether the material could be discoverable if civil litigation were filed against the agency. This is going to be my first case in federal court, and I'm going to do it right.

A note-- all of these federal statutes and administrative regulations are intertwined. I cannot possibly imagine a layperson successfully litigating a FOIPA case without a substantial financial outlay for an experienced FOIPA attorney. We can agree that most FBI applicants are not independently wealthy. The only way I can do this is because I can do all of the legal work myself for free. If I do win, I look forward to adding FOIPA practice to my quiver of legal services and offering to represent former FBI applicants as cheaply as possible. That would be pretty cool as most everything in federal court can be done over the internet.

2010-07-30

I continue to do research. I recently signed up for PACER, the online federal court records system, and found a wealth of FOIPA cases that provide applicable standards for my forthcoming FOIPA lawsuit. I'm going to need to file my case anonymously, that's all I have to say! I'm also developing other information about FBI appeals that I don't need to go into on here. I'm surprised it took me this long to think of using PACER for this, but hey. Expect great stuff here in the future.

I had a great day. The longtime FBI polygraph examiner who I hired to consult with me gave me his opinion today. He's reviewed all the documents. He's considered all the facts, and I answered all of his questions. His opinion is that I got hosed, they clearly did not follow their own rules, and they improperly rejected my appeal without actually deciding it. He says my appeal is excellent. He says SACU is basically self-contained, and they have no intention of changing their decision or justifying it unless someone higher in the chain of command or a Congressional representative takes an interest in the case. He said this particular unit prejudged the case once they saw the drug issue in my application, and then it was a matter of doing the paperwork to justify that decision. He says the strongest evidence I have is that I passed their own polygraph examination and the drug issue was approved by SAAU, which is specifically responsible for reviewing and approving drug-related issues. He says the declaration in my appeal from a percipient witness is sufficient; a supplemental polygraph would not help my situation and could actually make things worse by getting their dander up. To my surprise, he recommended writing the Director of the FBI directly with a copy of my appeal enclosed. Or attempting to have a Congressional representative or someone who knows the Director do the same. He emphasized the need to "make as much noise as possible" in order to get someone higher in the chain of command to actually look at the appeal, which he says is great. I specifically asked him about whether that would raise a concern about obsessive behavior. He said at this point, there probably is no such concern, because I haven't done anything since their last letter saying they wouldn't communicate with me, and my prior letters were more or less variations on me asking when I could expect to hear from them. And if I did continue to write letters to SACU, they would just ignore me. He says I should give it one more solid attempt to get my appeal heard, and see what happens. He compared my case to that of a similarly overly honest applicant who was rejected after disclosing that he drank tea in Amsterdam that may or may not have been laced with marijuana. The applicant recently succeeded in getting re-processed by having everyone he knew with any FBI affiliation write the Director personally and say how bad a decision it was to reject the guy. The consultant gave me the contact info of the former chief legal counsel of one of the more prominent FBI field offices, and suggested contacting him for additional tips. He asked me to let him know how it works out. I don't know whether to write the Director directly or go through my Senator's casework assistants. The Director reportedly does read his own mail. However, he doesn't have time to read my whole appeal. If I go through my Senator, it's going to take forever and the assholes in SACU whom I dealt with are probably going to be the ones to write back to her. Looks like my options are bad, and worse. But it's nice to know that I can make another attempt without going in the nut file. Incidentally, this information cost me $450, but I'm making it free to you. It was worth it.

I sent all my docs to the consultant and he's looking them over. On further review of my applicant file, it's apparent that it's complete. After all, it was produced pursuant to a court order from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In sum, the review board either prematurely heard or never heard my case. I gather that the evidence I provided of dishonesty by a Special Agent in the FBI was simply too sensitive for them (the Security Division) to allow a decision to be made on the merits. I have seen other applicants' appeal results and they actually got decisions that said their appeals were denied. Mine was never decided and they apparently have no intention of doing so. My applicant coordinator and her assistant are equally mystified by what they called this "unique case." Regrettably, this website and writing up the chain of command are my only remedies. We shall see how it all turns out. Basically I'm moving on with my life but I'm doing what I can to take the sting out of the FBI file if I apply for another government position or ever reapply. This also means I cannot keep writing them, because they don't want to see obsessive type behavior. From my perspective, I just want justice, and now isn't my time. I have a hard time believing that their view will be the same if I reapply in another three years. Time does heal many wounds. In other news, the three law firms I consulted about my possible libel case turned me down. I can't afford to sue a Special Agent for libel if his defense is paid for by the government. Not to mention, what jury would possibly believe that a Special Agent in the FBI would falsify information--for no reason--in order to disqualify an applicant? No jury, that's who. Judges and other FBI personnel would though, that's the irony.

Sorry for the lack of updates. I started a new lawyer job recently that I'm happy with, and it's been taking up all my time. Regarding my application, I've hired a consultant--a former FBI polygraph examiner who has done over 2,000 polygraphs--to help me decide whether there would be any benefit to taking a supplemental private polygraph that would address the issues in my appeal. This is important because even if I never get into the FBI, which I assume I won't, I don't want to be barred from being a U.S. Attorney or something. Also, I'm considering suing the SA who disqualified me for libel. I don't know what I will do yet, but I have plenty of time. Sorry to say there's no concrete plan to make regular updates here. I simply have to add a little bit at a time because I'm crazy busy at work.

My appeal was constructively denied. It appears the appeals Board either already heard the case some months ago, or whoever received my appeal is not going to forward it to them. That's it for my FBI application; it's over. I will continue to document this site as I find the time.

I'm finally almost done with my appeal. It runs 25 pages, plus exhibits. Once I finish the appeal, I'm going to send it to the Adjudication Review Board as well as the Acting Unit Chief of SACU. After that, I have no idea what may happen. The Board probably doesn't meet regularly, for one.

I learned recently that the FBI has an Adjudication Review Board like some other agencies, whose job it is to ensure that the applicant adjudication process is fairly administered.

The Acting Unit Chief of SACU has refused to respond to eight separate letters I wrote over a three month period asking for information about the appeal process. I finally gave up and wrote the Adjudication Review Board directly, and I await their response. I may even be able to personally appear before the Board when I eventually appeal.

I don't yet have the FBI Manual of Administrative Operations and Procedures, which I anticipate sets standards for suitability determinations, applicant appeals, and other aspects of the process. I have the complete Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines, the key section of which is Section 67--Bureau Applicant Matters.

All of my Freedom of Information Act requests since my first one for the applicant file have been ignored or constructively denied through a non-response. I anticipate filing a lawsuit in the near future.

I've written the Office of Professional Responsibility about how to file a complaint with their office about the alleged misconduct in my case. I contend that a Special Agent made false statements and falsified an investigative record in order to disqualify me. So far, no one from the FBI has contacted me for further information.

My appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board was dismissed, which is the legally correct ruling. I had misinterpreted a key regulation in my favor, when Congress and the MSPB have interpreted it in the government's favor. On the one hand, filing the MSPB action did yield the FD-302 and suitability determination made in my case, and it helped me crystallize my thinking without penalty. On the other hand, I spent almost three months litigating the matter in the wrong forum and giving the FBI a free look at my case instead of pursuing the administrative appeal. On balance, it was worth it because the FBI suppressed the suitability determination and FD-302 from me under FOIPA.