U
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
T
H
E
C
O
M
P
L
A
I
N
T
I filed a criminal federal complaint that could overturn abortion fundamentally, that is to say, eradicate it. It is the Roe v. Wade of pro-lifers, that will overturn fundamentally the thinking and acting of the entire society in many aspects on a grassroots level so that reversing it constitutionally thereafter should be nothing more than a rubber stamp deal. It is David�s stone in a slingshot that takes the enemy, unexpectedly and easily. This complaint is being suppressed at the U.S. Department of Justice.
What do I mean by suppressed, besides a lack of enforcement of the law? And lack of enforcement is not equivalent to a lack of action. Some of the action consists of transferring the matter to Disability Rights Section rather than Criminal Section at the Civil Rights Division and not permitting Disability Rights� official transfer of the file to Criminal Section with eagle-eyed vigilance so that the complaint does not incur an accessible record that has the subjects� name in it at the Criminal Section. Or causing the complaint to disappear from the record altogether. Or discrediting me, and one FBI Special Agent did this so that it was noticeable so blatant is the pretense or insurance of immunity. Or the U.S. Attorney�s office retaliating also by discrediting me among other things, so that it even happened in a courtroom. Over the years and from agency to agency, it receives similar handling. And the handling becomes more vitriolic with the passing years.
And this year, I filed complaint against the handling with the Office of Inspector General for the Justice Department. I had filed a complaint at OIG back in 2002 also, and the OIG was going to open an investigation notwithstanding that it was not the routine type of fraud they handle, but then, suddenly, as a matter of discretion, I only received an acknowledgment, but it misrepresented the OIG�s function and said it was not in their jurisdiction because it was. This year�s first complaint to the OIG disappeared from the record suddenly -- and this after a couple of follow-ups while I was told it was in review with an investigative specialist. And there was no way to recapture all that lost effort with that investigative specialist � it was as though the persons who handled it had disappeared from OIG�s employ and memory. It had to be hand-delivered and entered into their database anew. Almost immediately, I received a response indicating it was not in their jurisdiction, when it already was in their jurisdiction back in 2002. An investigator at OIG explained the criteria about jurisdiction and even an extension of the statute of limitations (if one applies), which criteria seemed to be met pretty squarely by the complaint because the criteria for the extension is that some high-ranking person is the one negotiating the handling. Probably not even a department head negotiated this handling across the agencies and the across the years but rather someone who could tell department heads what to do is more likely, but can�t be ascertained without an official investigation, of course. And, so I wound up filing another complaint according to what he explained was applicable. I went into more detail about the same thing and shoveled over myriads of exhibits as well, but the OIG had sufficient information in 2002 already to cause them to decide to investigate and follow up with me for additional information. After all, the complainant or victim is not an investigator and cannot know what is relevant entirely but would only be able to relate what is logically alarming. The OIG is supposed to take it from there, but I still gave them a good amount of what they would have to do if not everything on a silver platter by resubmitting the complaint with all that additional information. This investigator gave me his e-mail address to insure it got to the right person, when such people do not even give out their names if there�s no legitimate investigation ensuing, let alone that there is already an avenue available to complainants to send such information. And that new complaint and allegations that had e-mail exhibits as well as other very good qualification in hard copy, was not even acknowledged as such except for the overt hostile resentment displayed by OIG personnel over having to receive it. Ultimately, I was given an OIG file copy of the previous rejection letter in response to this new submission, so that there was no record accessible to me that another complaint was even made.
I filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act request for records) expecting to be able to get at least what I sent to the OIG as a confirmation that the complaint was received, although I expected I would be denied their work product and criminal records. They denied the request based on FOIA 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(6) and (7)(C), which means it invades the privacy of those employees against whom I complained, and also third parties, so that the information cannot be released, not what I sent them, not even a version with exempt information segregated, but rather nothing at all. I was told they wouldn�t be investigating and usually only when there�s an investigation is such information not releasable under FOIA. What they did release is what appears to be a printout of a database entry, with an employee name segregated, and my complaint is described as being civil rather than criminal, and against unspecified persons (which directly contradicts the reason for denial under FOIA), and they otherwise substantially misrepresent the content and nature of the file and complaint to the OIG, and also the complaint about the OIG that I had to make in addition to Glenn Fine, the Inspector General. One would never know from this record that the complaint to the Justice Department was regarding criminal issues, including criminal civil rights
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE
Click here to Sign Petition to Eradicate Abortion
Click here for homepage