Thad Allen Liar

See the admiral quietly squirm in New Orleans from a question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dQXQcK7rdM

My Law School Applications Personal Statement

Fairness is our bond and our contract. Perhaps never in the prior history of humankind has a society decreed that each individual, regardless of title or station, is dignified through an expectation and demand of an even regard. We live in a society wherein each person born into it has declared, agreed, and inscribed rights to fairness. That very same fairness is the concept upon which our entire system is based, upon which we each rely. With the continued practice of that concept, we remain a beacon in the world. The notions of justice, due process, fair accounting of each and every vote equally, and the very right to petition and redress grievances to our own government without fear of reprisal, all rest upon that same concept of fairness.

Yet, no matter how far we may believe we have progressed as a people, the most basic of human dignities are as much at threat today as ever they have been--- by the desires of oppressive and self-serving few, who effort to impose their illicit wills upon others. Reverence to the most basic of human dignities is not merely our freedom, it is our responsibility. We have a duty to uphold the hard-fought gains of generations of our forebears, who suffered so that we might enjoy, have opportunity, and know dignity. For when any one of our rights is violated, it is a call for help in an emergency to us all. It is our job as Americans and decent human beings to answer such cries. The alternative or any deviation from these principles is unacceptable. It is for that dignity I have fought, and continue to fight.

When I was in the military, I fought and succeeded in saving a fellow crewmember from being wrongly accused of a military crime, stemming from a situation in which he was nearly killed. He was going to be charged for his trouble, in effort to cover up the true cause. As such, that is not in my service record per se. After being hurt myself while in service, I later had to fight with the VA for more than a year for my disability rating. They ‘lost’ my entire medical record and my application for benefits, each at least twice. That rating stands currently at 40%. I also had to file appeals with the FAA when they were not going to license me as an aviator, for having had a stomach ulcer. I have worked in law enforcement and had a job that included checking legal documents for falsification, alteration, and regulatory compliance and applicability, all for the US Coast Guard. But those stories are all far too long for a few pages. Yet none of that is ‘my legal story’. Other than those stories, most of my extensive work, management and communication skill, cohesiveness, intellect, drive, devotion, integrity, persistence, and dedication can be extrapolated from a resume’, transcript, or service record.

To express my true interest in the legal profession, I present a letter that is a part of my legal story, and perhaps the most important legal battle of my life. This is the only one so far that I must deem to be more important than my very own life, because it could mean the saving or loss of many, many lives. The next three pages are an actual letter I recently submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, concerning an actual legal situation in which I am a party currently, and have been for more than six years now. This letter should express my perseverance and the level of understating of legal concepts and procedures I have attained at least to this point. For me, the entire process has been humbling.

Due to the fact that this is still ongoing, I must ask that if there are any judges for the US Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana or the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on any admissions boards of law schools reading this letter, and that if my case or any related cases are before them or expected to be before their court(s), they use their professional discretion as to whether they read further. This is no attempt to make any sort of ex parte communication. Though I do not believe it would be ex parte, as I state no new claims bearing on my civil litigation, for arguments’ sake I convey my request to protect from any inadvertent contact. My only other request is you look beyond numbers.

Published in National Mariners Assn Newsletter

http://www.nationalmariners.org/newsletters/adobe/newsletterspdf/Number_74_Dec_2010.pdf

My last letter to the local US Attorney's Office, "Up the chain" I go

Captain Murray Randall Rogers, Shreveport, LA

Stephanie A. Finley, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana

Copy: H. Marshall Jarrett, Director- Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Washington D.C.

January 23, 2010

Madam Prosecutor:

I submit this letter to inform your office of new information concerning allegations I have filed with your office previously, concerning criminal acts committed by top Coast Guard Administrative Law officials. This additional information displays the critical necessity that those federal crimes must be prosecuted. The additional acts identified herein expose that the crimes and cover-up committed by United States Coast Guard (USCG) officials do continue, and are now evidenced to be further expanded than previously alleged. In this letter I will present, identify, and evidence additional federal criminal violations that also supplement, support, and confirm the criminal allegations I have previously filed with your office. Moreover, evidence on paper now clearly shows that the cover-up of crimes as previously alleged extends to department-level officials within The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

This letter also serves as my response to correspondence I received from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in your office dated July 28, 2010, sent in response to criminal allegations against USCG officials I previously filed. Finally, I will also be submitting a copy of this letter to the office of H. Marshall Jarrett, Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys- in my continued effort to compel your office to prosecute the perpetuating and continuing obstructions to justice and cover-up committed by persons within the DHS and USCG. Said crimes have allowed Coast Guard officials to continue to exercise unconstitutional powers, allowing for further crimes and abuses of power and authority to be committed against citizens of the United States. These crimes were and are still being committed by officials entrusted with the duty of law enforcement for the government of The United States of America. Notably, this case and related cases have already gained both national and international attention.

In the allegations I previously submitted, I identified and evidenced a long list of crimes committed against the United States, crimes committed against a (now former) U.S. Administrative Law Judge while acting in the performance of her judicial duties, crimes committed against myself, and committed against other citizens by top ranking officials within the USCG. Evidence that the previously alleged cover-up is further expanded is now finally published in two reports and on paper with Department (DHS) letterhead. The continued cover-up does further aid and abet the perpetrators of crimes already evidenced and alleged. This evidence is irrefutable beyond mere preponderance and is already conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Evidence

New evidence is contained in two reports recently published by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS-OIG). Those reports were published as OIG-10-107 and OIG-10-108. In those reports the DHS-OIG admits to allegations included in both civil and criminal allegations I have previously filed. Many of those identified actions were simply impossible to deny outright, since they were perpetrated and published on paper and cannot now be re-hidden. Instead of alleviating and correcting problems caused by those now admitted alleged acts, the DHS-OIG attempts to divert and redirect attention away from the crimes and violations committed by simply neglecting to label the acts as violations or as criminal acts.

Further, the OIG attempts to offer some individualized reasoning for each identified act as though it were some mitigating factor on the effect each action had on the conspiracy as a whole. The record shows this is untrue. Though addressing a few separate specific acts in some detail, the DHS-OIG simply fails to put the whole effort together--- as though each act was an individual act, and as though the perpetrators had no knowledge of, or effort towards a single and devised end. The simple fact is that all of these efforts were each and all directed and committed towards the sole goal and purpose of retaining illegal and unconstitutional powers for the Coast Guard. Each identified act was necessary and pivotal in accomplishing this overall objective.

Attached with this letter is a common-sense brief explanation of the ‘inspection’ of violations of USCG officials by the DHS-OIG. This exposes that DHS-OIG officials are culpable through their efforts to cover-up USCG officials’ crimes by refusing to acknowledge or label those crimes as identified, and instead attempting to rename and re-characterize admitted acts though thoroughly evidenced in departmental documentation. The included brief is six pages entitled: “Indictment of the Office of The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security for the Cover-Up of Crimes by U.S. Coast Guard Command and Administrative Law Officials”. Said brief addresses the two reports proffered by the Office of the DHS-IG in late 2010 (OIG-10-107 and OIG-10-108), which were published in response to allegations of corruption in the USCG Administrative Law system.

Previous Correspondence

As mentioned, the last correspondence I received from your office was a letter dated June 28, 2010 by Assistant U.S. Attorney James T. McManus. In that Letter, Mr. McManus closes with the following statement, “This office is declining to prosecute this case noting that these allegations would be more appropriately handled in your civil litigation.” This previous position held by your office as evidenced by that statement is now clearly insufficient to prevent manifest injustice in light of the new evidence noted herein.

In light of the new evidence, I offer the following response to Mr. McManus’ statement just quoted:

·         Firstly: If I prevail in the ongoing civil litigation, then only some of the perpetrators of these offences even could be assessed to pay damages for the offenses committed.

·         Secondly: The legal relationship between the perpetrators of the criminal acts alleged and the U.S. Government will not change as a necessary result of any conclusion to the civil litigation.

·         Thirdly: Not all of the perpetrators even could have been sued in civil court.

To refuse to prosecute this case criminally is inexcusable. To allow such blatant, flagrant, and egregious violations of the U.S. Constitution to remain unpunished by the Government of the United States would be in itself a malfeasant act. The evidence is on public record forever. It will not go away. There have been full and concentrated efforts and public relations campaigns to attempt to justify these acts, but the proof and the truth remain on public record---permanently. They cannot usurp the truth. The perpetrators are now cowards to the truth. This will prove to be not conducive to good order and discipline in the Coast Guard and will destroy respect for the chain of command within the Coast Guard over time if not prosecuted and corrected.

These matters cannot be fully corrected in civil action. Corrections to these crimes cannot be rested on an ‘if’ as any possible outcome of civil suit(s). These acts were and are a breach of the public trust and public corruption. Such disregard and disrespect for the authority of the U.S. Constitution by military and court officers of the United States is intolerable. Those officers are unfit to remain in federal service. Their actions have shown blatant contempt to the courts, to the Congress, to the law, and to justice. If they are not prosecuted it will only confirm their apparent belief that they are ‘above the law’. You must send that message and inform them that they are not.

As I was aware that a report by the DHS-OIG was forthcoming, I did not respond to Mr. McManus’ letter until now. I expected DHS-OIG report to be published prior to the Appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in my civil litigation. As such, I was aware that the expected report would be published just in time for any favorable conclusions in the DHS-OIG report to be included in the appellate briefs of the government--- in the government’s defense of the perpetrators in concurrent civil litigation. They were.  I therefore waited to write this letter until those things that I knew would occur, did occur--- and until all briefs had been filed in the appeal of the civil suit.

As yet another in a long and perfectly orchestrated line of governmental “coincidences”: The lead author of the DHS-OIG reports is a man named Richard Reback. Mr. Reback once worked for one of the judges on the Fifth Circuit: Judge Thomas Reavley, according to Mr. Reback. Judge Reavely is married to Fifth Circuit Judge Carolyn King, according to sources. Judge King was on the panel of judges in our previous appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Now, I am not alleging any impropriety on the part of Judge King in or with these statements, but such an appearance of yet another such a ‘coincidence’ in these matters is yet again unsettling to a litigant, to be sure.

The Crimes

It is undeniable and inexcusable that Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) Ingolia attempted to secretly influence presiding ALJ Massey’s rulings with his own private interpretations of rules directed towards pending cases. His actions also directly affected the prosecutors’ tactics in continual refusing, failing to disclose, and hiding evidences. CALJ Ingolia did clearly obstruct justice: identified in that one act alone.

To reappoint him with that overwhelming evidence on record while the scandal was underway was not showing loyalty to the CALJ, it was showing disloyalty to the nation. To have Ms. Liddington reassigned to write the appeal decision in the case over which both she and the Commandant were both sued was self-incriminating for Coast Guard officials. The mere lack of a prohibition to keep Ms. Liddington away from cases in which she had prior secreted contacts with prosecutors, the same actions in cases for which she was and is being sued, directly makes retired Admiral Thad Allen further culpable in obstruction of justice.

I confronted retired Admiral Allen with just that one question last month during his public ‘Keynote Speech’ at the ‘International Workboat Show’ in New Orleans, LA to give him at least one opportunity to directly respond to civil and criminal allegations that have been lodged against him for a number of years now. That question and answer are now posted on the internet. I gave opportunity for him to address the matter directly and clear his name if he so chose. I took the opportunity to ask this question of the admiral directly, only because he is no longer ‘under suit’. He was only sued only in his official capacity as Commandant of the Coast Guard, and since his retirement his successor in that office is now a defendant in that capacity. He did, of course, refuse to answer.

Promoting co-defendant Jordan to ALJ while these matters are officially still in review is a mockery to justice. And to highlight yet another necessity of the obligation for prosecution, ALJ Smith enjoys absolute judicial immunity to civil suit. ALJ Smith’s failure to refer LT Spolarich’s lying under oath to your office completely neglected adherence to 46 CFR 5.69. Worse still, the ALJ’s answering for that same witness opposite of what the witness had just stated was absolutely unbelievable to watch. And that is on the transcript.

ALJ Smith’s refusal to acknowledge 46 CFR 5.101(b) and other regulations is inexcusable, most especially through his effort to interpret regulations out of existence in their practical application. Though he clearly violated regulation, and those violations did aid and abet Coast Guard conspirators in their continued effort to cover-up their crimes--- Smith, as a presiding judge, simply cannot be sued. He can however be prosecuted. So can the investigators, and their bosses.

Investigators recorded efforts attempting to intimidate me into bearing false witness against other persons, offered as a trade to “settle” a citing those same investigators constructed against me. Their later refusals to produce those same and other recordings although ordered by the court were plainly criminal and contemptuous refusals. They also repeatedly refused to abide by, and attempted to intimidate a presiding judge’s rulings on record. That corrupt Coast Guard is not my Coast Guard. It is not our Coast Guard. We demand better.

Resolve

These allegations are not conclusory, as they are based in fact and evidence. The perpetrators of these crimes refused to follow the law though entreated to do so time, and again, and again. The conspiracy was exposed and the cover-up following is unforgivable. These crimes were organized and concerted. The Department of Justice has thus-far wholly failed to protect or secure my rights, my evidence, witnesses, or my person from those committing illicit acts against me with their abuses of power and authority.

On a side of one of the government buildings in New Orleans it reads, “We are a nation of laws and not of men”. That statement should ring true. To allow these crimes to be perpetrated using taxpayer dollars and go unpunished is unconscionable. To allow the further cover-up by the Department through repeated denials, tailor-made reports, press releases and all other methods again while using citizens’ monies is unscrupulous, inconceivable, and unforgivable.

You have and unenviable task. The listed punishments listed in the U.S. Code awarded for such misdeeds could possibly mean that some of those persons may very well spend the rest of their natural lives in prison. Given the severity and nature of the crimes committed, such punishments would be appropriate, if so awarded by a jury. This is a begrudging and solemn matter. As a Coast Guard veteran from a Coast Guard family, this was no more desirable to me, and was as uncomfortable for me to suffer and then to have to redress. It is my sincere hope that in the end this will prove to have been a sobering experience for the USCG and DHS.

My job has been to redress my grievances and to perfect those appeals to my government. It is your responsibility to do something about it. I have no delusions about my peculiar and potentially precarious position. I have filed complaints against the head of an entire military service and law enforcement agency and Department of the government of the United States of America. I have assured that my complaints, my evidences, and witnesses will not go away even in the event of my untimely demise, or in the case of any other single conceivable or disastrous event. This matter will neither end with a certain finish to civil litigations. When that litigation ends, it will only free my pen to tread where it dare not now--- solely due to that pending litigation. As will all correspondences from here forward, this letter will be publicly distributed and posted on the internet. I wish you success in this somber and noble endeavor of necessity.

Faithfully,

Captain Murray Randall Rogers, USMM, USA

_______________                                                                                                                                                        End

Personal Statement NOTE: Internet link to mentioned ‘attached brief’ can be found @: www.nationalmariners.org

Click on December 2010 Newsletter and look for my name or brief title. (pp. 20-23 as noted on Resume’)

Publication of that entitled “Indictment” was included with my thanks through the efforts of a senior fellow captain, member and officer of the association, my friend: Captain Richard Block--- who also graciously provided one of my Letters of Recommendation to law school, in addition to many hours of his time and years of his friendship.

Getting this off my Chest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dQXQcK7rdM&feature=mfu_in_order&list=ULSquaring off with ADM Allen

Indictment of DHS OIG Office for Cover-Up of Coast Guard Crimes

Indictment of the Office of The Inspector General of The Department of Homeland Security for the Cover-Up of Crimes by U.S. Coast Guard Command and Administrative Law Officials

October 08, 2010

Introduction

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published two reports in mid-September 2010 (though dated August 2010) in response to allegations of misconduct of officials within the Coast Guard Administrative Law Program. In the first report (OIG-10-108), the authors attempt to offer legal justifications to multiple illegal and criminal acts committed by Coast Guard military and court officers--- those acts having been committed while acting in official capacities and bound to the oaths of the federal offices of those same officers.

The second of these two reports (OIG-10-107), contains suggestions for improvement of the Coast Guard Administrative Law Program. However, the effectiveness of those suggestions are dependent upon the correctness of conclusions in the first report. The assertions and conclusions in the first report are wrong, both factually and legally. As such, any suggested corrections in the second report are insufficient--- and thereby: not solutions at all. Both OIG reports are accessible on the internet.

Instituting visual separations and “policies” without prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators only further damages the honor and integrity of the Coast Guard. It also sends the wrong message: to not get caught cheating, rather than imposing punishment or remedy for having cheated, and for violating the law. The proposed “fixes” are aesthetic. The true problems were not addressed.

Injustice Through Legal Unfairness

It is important to state that the legal process in The United States is based upon the concept of fairness. Fairness is most basically achieved by evenness. Each, or all parties in a legal case have the right to evidence, and the right to present their case before a judge not biased towards, or influenced by any presenting party in the case. Each party is entitled to fair and even access to evidence, and each party has the legal right to compel the other side to disclose evidence in their control or possession that is relevant to the case.

In a nutshell: what is accessible to one side, must be equally accessible to the other side as well. The administrative law system Congress constructed has protections in place to ensure this fairness is afforded both parties, but the Coast Guard refused to follow those rules. The significance of those acts is that Coast Guard officials continually violated federal law while engaged in the duty of federal law enforcement. The evidence of those violations is clear even without the testimony of former Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Massey. Judge Massey’s testimony serves to confirm and corroborate irrefutable evidences already on paper.

Violations of Law

Coast Guard officials devised and instituted a system within their Administrative Law Program to refuse the constitutionally protected rights to fairness afforded by due process of the law to those accused by the Coast Guard in that administrative law system. This was accomplished through violations of law and federal statute by Coast Guard officials. The DHS OIG reports specifically neglected to address that was the problem. What actually occurred were attempted coercions, intimidations, disrespect, and attempted illegal influences of a presiding judge by the agency for which the judge worked. Moreover, that entire legal system was improperly manipulated by the very same officials charged with supervising and administrating that system.

Specific Criminal Acts Committed

In United States Code: Title 18-- CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Section 1512(c) states:  “Whoever corruptly--

     (2) ...obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

In OIG-10-108 the authors declare that the Coast Guard (CG) Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) “...declined to review ALJ’s pending cases although his job description authorizes him to do so.”, (p.13) and “Further, the Chief ALJ may review and discuss pending cases...”, p.17.

In a standard Webster’s Dictionary the word “review” is defined as: (noun) “ : judicial reexamination” and (verb) “ : to view or see again : to reexamine judicially : to look back on : to study material again”. The word “pending” is defined: (adjective) “ : not yet decided : being in continuance”.

One cannot “reexamine” that which is “not yet decided”--- that is a “preview”. While it is agreed that the CALJ has the authority to review cases, nothing in the law does or can fairly allow him to preview pending cases and inject his own secret “policy” interpretations--- in order to influence pending rulings. That action constituted a federal crime in violation of 18USC1512(c)(2) and 18USC1503(a).

When the CG CALJ sent a policy letter to CG ALJ Massey without informing the parties of his “interpretations”, that action also violated Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provisions requiring agencies to publish policies publicly: 5USC552(a)(1)(D) & (a)(2)(B), and 5USC554(b)(3). The CALJ’s intent was clear: “The intent remains the same (1) limited discovery...”. In fact, the CALJ used the words “limited” and “discovery” together six times in the first two pages of the policy letter. As this was all done in secret, it could not be formal or binding policy, but was rather a simple attempt to influence the presiding ALJ’s pending ruling on sanctions against the agency for flatly refusing to “honor” a subpoena. This policy was drafted after ALJ Massey ordered sanctions proposed against the agency for the subpoena refusal, and the respondent in the case proposed dismissal as the appropriate sanction.

For respondents, no guidance was received on exactly what procedure to employ in order to obtain evidences held by the agency, and kept secreted away from the court. Those accused and their attorneys knew the Coast Guard had evidence that would help to prove the accused’s cases, but were not made aware of the secret creation of a policy constructed to deny them access and fairness.

Though the agency held evidence that would assist the accused in three separate cases to adequately present their cases before ALJ Massey, the prosecutors never intended to allow for a full disclosure of facts in those cases. The prosecutors in the contested cases held evidence and information they did not want to present to the court of ALJ Massey, because the evidences could be detrimental to their prosecutions of those three cases. This was proved by the actions of the agency in ‘The Coast Guard vs. Rogers’- CG S&R 04-0537--- consequently the only one of those cases to even eventually make it all the way to final judgement. CALJ Ingolia’s actions were pivotal in their concealment. None of this was due do CG Investigating Officers’ inexperience. They had a motive.

Though the DHS OIG repeatedly attempts to offer justifiable reasons for the CG CALJ to inject his opinions and interpretations into cases pending before other ALJ’s, there is no legal argument to support those claims. In fact, the OIG’s assertions are completely opposite to the Order of US District Court Judge Helen Berrigan who stated in her ruling on November 8, 2007: “...it is not objectively reasonable for one ALJ to influence another.” Though she ultimately dismissed the lawsuits against CALJ Ingolia and others on technicalities, she also was publicly quoted as stating from the bench: “I know that I wouldn’t dream of doing things that Judge Ingolia seemed to feel was appropriate to do”. Though the CALJ pressured ALJ Massey to not dismiss cases on technicalities, the government seems comfortable having lawsuits against the CALJ dismissed on technicalities--- as this has been their repeated strategy for the past three straight years.

In Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law, Professor Abraham Dash’s testimony before the US House Subcommittee on Coast Guard Hearing, he states in his conclusion: “It is clear that any attempt to pressure an administrative law judge by a superior or the agency to rule favorably for the agency is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.” Whether or not the CALJ ever directly instructed ALJ Massey to rule for the agency in any specific cases, or generally in all of her cases (as she testified under oath)--- the CALJ’s attempt to pressure or influence ALJ Massey’s pending rulings remains clear and evidenced. OIG-10-108 authors did not adhere to their own correct declaration on page 3, “An ALJ must be an impartial finder of fact, free from the influence of the Coast Guard or any other person or entity when hearing and deciding Coast Guard cases.”

The secret meeting resulting in the secret policy: 

OIG-10-108, page 19, states: “No prohibited ex parte communications took place at the February 24, 2005, meeting because the relevant agency decision maker, i.e., ALJ Massey, was not in attendance.” The Appellate attorney for the agency who attended the meeting with, and wherein prosecutors discussed facts in issue of pending cases was then assigned to write the appeal decision for one of those same cases. That assignment was a violation of the APA, and upon accepting that assignment without noticing the parties of the prior meeting, the prior secret meeting contact immediately became a violation of the APA as well--- (5 USC 554(d) & 5 USC 551(14)). These violations extend to include the Appeal Decision as well, written by that same attorney.

The case assigned was the one where ALJ Massey ordered a subpoena to the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard refused rather than filing a Motion to Quash the subpoena.

How many of ALJ Massey’s cases had sanctions ordered proposed against the agency for refusing a subpoena by the date of the secret meeting between prosecutors and appellate staff?: One.

How many cases were then assigned to that same attorney on appeal after being dismissed as sanction for the Coast Guard’s refusing to follow a subpoena?: One again.

It is immaterial whether the meeting attendees ever discussed any of the three specific contested cases of issue by name. The fact in issue of the case with the subpoena refusal and subsequent dismissal was something which had never before happened in the CG Administrative Law System. The Appellate attorney specifically assigned to that appeal a mere few months after the meeting recognized it. The OIG then goes on to state on page 20: “However, there is no evidence...that contact between the adjudicative and prosecutorial arms of the Coast Guard influenced the outcome of any case.”(OIG-10-108). Again, 18 USC 1512 declares it is a federal crime, “Whoever corruptly--...influences...any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,...”

The most egregious violation and conflict of interest occurred when the same appellate attorney was reassigned to the appeal after review--- once she became a defendant in a lawsuit stemming from her prior secret involvement in that same case. She most certainly recognized the case on appeal for which she was being sued. It is funny how the Coast Guard created some informal and non-binding rules to limit contact between CG appellate attorneys and prosecutors in May 2008. For, in May 2008, the last appeal of the cases for which the appellate attorney was sued had been written (by her) and was also published. This was the last surviving case of issue from the February 24, 2005 meeting in which CG appellate staff had improper contacts and secret discussions with prosecutors.

Though the actions of CG Officials were not inescapably intertwined with the merits of the case or cases, their violations were certainly relevant to the merits contained within the evidences they illegally conspired to keep out of the official records. Their illegal actions had an effect on the final outcomes of each of the cases involved. This also had a detrimental effect on those same respondents, financially and otherwise.

Concealment of Evidence

The OIG espouses the same extravagant and disingenuous arguments that the Coast Guard used to refuse a subpoena previously. It is stated that because the respondent did not title the subpoena request as “Motion”, then the whole process following is without authority. 46 CFR 5.301 states: “(c) After charges have been served upon the respondent the Administrative Law Judge may, either on the Administrative Law Judge’s own motion or the motion of the investigating officer or respondent, issue subpoenas...” The ALJ so moved. These subpoenas are issued with the same authority as a U.S. District Court. In denying the ALJ’s authority, what the agency created is a multi-phase process of hurdles to get through to in order to acquire even so called “smoking gun evidence” that the agency may hold, which may implicate another person and/or exonerate the formally charged or cited citizen being prosecuted.

Apparently a respondent must formally “Move” to request: Then the government reply: Then the subpoena can be issued: Then the government can move to “Quash”: The judge decides: Then the subpoena goes to D.C.: Then the agency may refuse to follow the order anyway. To find out if this is the CG’s honest interpretation, put the shoe on the other foot. Do CG Investigating Officers have to file a “Motion” to subpoena evidence from a respondent? Must they then allow 10 days for the respondent to respond, and only then issue the Order--- giving the respondent a second try to “Quash” the order? That would be evenness, and thereby: fairness. To find that out, just look at the Coast Guard’s record.

Fact is: As a respondent, you do not have a chance to acquire that evidence, even if the Coast Guard’s own Judge orders it produced. That is certainly not what Congress intended in drafting those rules.

Both the agency and the OIG repeatedly state that the ALJ did not follow regulation 33 CFR 20.601(d) or (e). It takes only a brief look at those regulations to understand that an ALJ can determine within mere moments that the specifications in those regulations are, or are not met. There is no even inference in the regulation that the ALJ must spell out each item in some long-handed form or fashion. To state that the regulation was not followed because ALJ Massey did not lead the Coast Guard along by the hand and spell out just how each point was met is a juvenile argument, without some proof that one or more points were specifically not met.

Fact is: The CG does not want evenness, fairness, or honest due process in their adjudicative system. They only want it to appear so. Their hyper-specifications of how rules must be hyper-interpreted to the agency’s favor to be valid, proves that. This is also evidenced by their complete disregard of regulations when and where the regulations do not fit any instant agency argument.

Example: 33 CFR 20.103(c) states: “Absent a specific provision in this part, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure control.” Control it says. The Coast Guard interprets this as: “Coast Guard S&R hearings are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act and the provisions of 33 CFR Part 20, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, although those rules may be used to supplement gaps in the applicable Regulations.”, p.19, DECISION OF THE VICE COMMANDANT ON APPEAL No. 2679, dated April 2, 2008. The regulation says control, the CG interprets that to mean may be used. Even a child could decipher this was no mere error. There was a motive.

Conclusions

The OIG repeatedly states how ALJ’s must follow policy in both reports. Apparently this is to include “secret” policies of which the public is unaware. In OIG-10-107 the authors state that the CALJ’s authority is to issue policy, “to ensure that the penalties that ALJ’s impose are generally consistent...”, p.8. One need only look at the Department of Commerce (DOC) OIG report on NOAA- National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fisheries Enforcement Programs (OIG-19887) to reasonably conclude that was not the CALJ’s purpose in issuing policy. In that report the DOC OIG concludes that NOAA’s “penalties are disproportionate” and “enforcement processes are arbitrary and lack transparency”. NMFS uses CG ALJ’s to adjudicate their cases. Still think CG Administrative Law is fair? Ask any commercial fisherman. It was further concluded that NMFS misused forfeiture proceeds to take trips overseas and for other inappropriate uses.

So where does all of this leave U.S. mariners? The OIG admitted the CG discussed the “issues” of cases in a secret meeting between prosecutorial and adjudicatory staff. What if those roles were again reversed? What if respondents had secret meetings with deciders and the supervisors of a judge they felt cheated or belittled them? How would the government then react?

Better yet, what did the Coast Guard do when their secret meetings, discussions, policies, attempted influences, and concealment were made public? They reappointed the Chief ALJ. They appointed one of his co-conspirators to be a new CG ALJ. They wrote down some rules to limit interaction of appellate staff with prosecutors--- but only after the appellate attorney, who’s violable involvement and conflict of interest in writing one of those appeals, completed writing that very same appeal. They left the prosecutors who had refused court orders in their jobs. They ‘took care of their own’. Then the CG opened a new office, and dubbed it ‘Expertise’.

Meanwhile, the testimony came out by the two only ever female CG ALJ’s (both former-ALJ’s by the time of the testimony), that the agency had inappropriately pushed them out. The government can publish all the rules and policy they want. Train ALJ’s and investigators. But, realize, they all already know the drill. There is nothing preventing them from disobeying the rules, regulations, or even the Constitution again: without punishment for having already done so. CG officials chose to not follow the rules, because there has been no punishment. This is true from the local investigators all the way up to the Offices of the Commandant and the Chief ALJ of the Coast Guard.

Solutions

The gravity and severity of the Coast Guard Administrative Law System is that decisions are made through that system determining the causes and responsibilities for major and serious accidents often involving loss of life, and major impacts on commerce and the environment. Often the Coast Guard is the only accident investigator. If allowed to deny a full and open proceeding with determinations of all relevant evidence, the wrong cause or person may well be declared responsible for an accident. This is true whether for malicious intent, efficiency, continuity of policy, or whether due to ineptitude or laziness. This cannot be allowed. Coast Guard violating officials must be prosecuted.

The persons involved in deciding, reviewing, and finally inspecting these actions all know, and have known that the Coast Guards’ actions were and are violations and malfeasant. They are all lawyers and trained officers of the court. The Coast Guard officers and investigators also know how follow rules, they are in the military. The Coast Guard has not shown it has the temperance or maturity to identify as a military service, engaged in law enforcement, while conducting prosecutions and also adjudicating fairly. Meanwhile, their acts have destroyed lives and careers. This whole affair has been a violation of 18 USC 241 as a conspiracy against rights, regardless of intention. In efforts to cover it up, CG officials also violated 18 USC 1001. The drafters of the DHS OIG reports addressed herein have made themselves culpable as accessories in those violations (18 USC 3). Adjudicatory functions must be removed from the Coast Guard.

MOTIVES OF CRIMES COMMITTED THROUGH THE COAST GUARD ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SYSTEM
AND MODI OPERANDI (METHODS OF PROCEDURES)

THE WHY:
With Disastrous Results
The disasters caused by Exxon Valdez, the B.P. Gulf oil spill, the San Francisco Bay Bridge Allision, even the Titanic, and many others were the fault of the regulators and the companies long before the accidents resulting in the disasters took place. Reasonable safeguards for preventing or mitigating the damages in loss of life and to the environment were not followed. The U.S. Coast Guard as a regulator has long neglected to institute prohibitive and punitive rules against corporations who fail to ensure proper safety and response measures are in place. This is true even for corporations that order their employees to perform unsafe tasks.
Instead, the Coast Guard runs to point to an employee to blame and hold singly responsible, rather than address the difficult questions to solve the deficiencies resulting in disaster after disaster. They use their ALJ's for this. I will address each of these named disasters in turn, to prove that point. At the end of each disaster addressed, I will ask the difficult question industry does not want asked; related to ensuring that particular type of disaster does not repeat. These are the same questions the Coast Guard has refused to publicly address or ask time and again, benefitting only corporate profits.

Exxon Valdez: 11 million gallons of oil spilled from the Valdez in Alaska in 1989. What people forget is that the ship was carrying 53 million gallons of oil. It is the responsibility of the regulators to ensure that both a plan and the materials to contain and remove the entire amount of dangerous cargo are available to be put in service within a reasonable responsive time period following any accident or total loss resulting in a spill. This is especially true for hazardous substances. This must be planned considering the volume and scope of the entire cargo, environmental and other factors; before allowing vessels of such size to transit. Otherwise do not allow passage, and make them use smaller vessels.

It is the most basic responsibility of the cargo owner and transporter to clean up their mess. It is the responsibility of the regulators to ensure the companies are prepared to meet all demands of that responsibility. You can blame the captain or crew for the accident causing the spill, but damage resulting from the spill and the spread of the spill over time is the fault of companies and regulators. This is not to minimize the seriousness of the accident, or to relieve anyone of their responsibility of their choices which may have caused or contributed to the accident.

The ship hit a rock. That was the accident, not the disaster. Oil poured out of the ship as a result of the accident. The oil was the disaster. It would be ludicrous and irresponsible to place economic responsibility for such a cleanup on an individual employee. Sooner or later accidents do happen. You must have rules to try to minimize the frequency of accidents or incidences. However, regardless of fault for an incident, regulators and corporations reasonably must consider response to a worst case scenario event. Now if the captain was also the ship and/or cargo owner, he would have responsibility for clean up. If he could not afford it, get a smaller ship. This should be the same for individual owners or corporations.

After Valdez, legislation was passed to require new-build tankers to be double-hulled. That is one step in the right direction. An "oil spill superfund" was created to avail funds ready to pay for oil spills. But the real question of responsible guardianship remains:

After an accident, once the ship is either spared, saved, or sinks, that response and emergency is over. This usually happens rather quickly--- within hours, unless you have searches for survivors. After that, the spilled cargo is what you are left to deal with. The question that remains is whether Exxon did pay for each and all of the following:
A) Cleanup, B) Restoration of damaged ecosystem and loss of wildlife, C) Restitution of persons incurring financial or other damages as a result of the spill, D) Fines of equitable equivalent to what an individual or mariner would pay by the gallon for spilling petroleum into the same waters, and--- now here is the hard question:
Was Exxon, after paying their responsibilities above, required to E) Invest in measures needed to fully clean up a like spill of their cargo in the future in like quantities as spilled, or could have potentially been spilled from the Valdez?
If the BP Gulf oil spill is any indication, the answer is no: Neither corporations, nor regulators were ready and prepared to respond to a similar or larger potential disaster.

B.P. Gulf oil spill: Over and again I have heard it stated by officials that the size of this disaster was beyond any reasonable expectations. I will offer another scenario, right off the top of my head. Since just discussing it, I will use the Exxon Valdez as an example:

Scenario: Suppose two loaded supertankers the size of Exxon Valdez are sailing the Gulf of Mexico to offload at "The Loop", just offshore near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Just miles away from the Louisiana coast they collide. Both sink, spilling their entire cargos of collectively 100 million gallons. The spill does not happen over the course of 30 or 60 days, but within hours. Are you prepared?

The debacle that has been the BP oil spill screams a resounding no. Day after day, government and British Petroleum officials report on television and in periodicals on how progress is being made, etc. I even saw a report of how this spill will not greatly affect the overall U.S. economy. All the while, the disaster is still expanding. It is still in the process of spilling faster than what is being contained, removed, or burned. All of these officials look like buffoons. This includes Admiral Allen, who appears as though he is B.P.'s spokesperson or maybe even their number one fan. Valdez taught them nothing.

The creation of this disaster happened long before the blowout of the well. Redundant safety features and precautions were required to be in place. None of them worked. Were they not tested? Was that not part of the requirement--- to have functioning emergency equipment? The situation on that rig would be equivalent to having all empty fire extinguishers on a ship.
Now, on a ship it is required that you have multiple fire extinguishers. It would be worse to believe you have working extinguishers and not have them, than to not have any fire extinguishers at all and know it. The reason is this: If you have a problem, your response will be changed by the knowledge of the actual capabilities you have to address an emergency. If you think you may have a problem, your actions may be different in the time-critical initial period of addressing a potential emergency.

If the workers on that rig who died would have known that none of the installed safety shut-off valves would work, they might have been able to save their own lives. They might have stopped the drilling. Those men trusted their safety and their very lives to something that simply was not there. The actions which led to faulty redundant safety equipment resulted in nothing less than negligent homicide. Somebody killed those men with their negligence.

This accident was going to happen sooner or later with the equipment, configurations, and/or procedures which were either used or wholly neglected. But again, that was the accident and initial tragedy. The secondary resultant disaster occurred when the rig sank, breaking open the pipe at depth. It is possible the fire sank the rig-vessel. It is also possible that the fire fighting boats filled it up with water and sank it, trying to put out a fire you cannot extinguish with water cannons. That scenario sounds hauntingly familiar to me (Did I mention I was in the Coast Guard once?).

It is obvious that neither the regulators nor the companies were prepared to respond to a worst-case-scenario at those depths. They should have been, before being allowed to drill at those depths. One other thing that strikes me, before I ask the 'hard question': This was a foreign corporation drilling using a foreign-flagged vessel as the rig platform in the U.S. Economic Exclusivity Zone or E.E.Z. If the Jones Act had been followed, it would have been a U.S. flagged vessel of a U.S. company with a U.S. crew. I wonder if the authorities and responsibilities would have been different in the situation on the rig itself prior to the explosion and if someone would have had the ability to stop the operation before it became an emergency--- were it U.S. flagged. But, if it would have been a U.S. vessel with U.S. licensed crew: the Coast Guard might have just blamed a guy with a license, took his license, and closed the book on any further investigation.

Now here is the hard question:
Will any officers of British Petroleum, Transocean, Halliburton, or any of the government regulatory agencies overseeing them go to jail for causing the deaths of those workers or the resultant oil spill disaster--- in order to deter that situation from ever happening again?
I for one doubt it.

San Francisco Bay Bridge Allision: Ship hits the bridge. It is foggy. Pilot calls and reports the accident. The Coast Guard asks if there is oil spilled. Pilot says no. Again, it is foggy. The Coast Guard takes his word for it, and does not even send a person to go look. The Coast Guard first reports there is no oil spill (just like with BP spill when the first reports are that there is no spill, while spewing burning crude oil is shooting high into the air out of the pipe on the rig). Meanwhile, oil is spilling out of the hull of the ship during this time. Where to start? Ok, the pilot hits the bridge in fog. Says the radar malfunctioned. Coast Guard did not seal the radar to keep it from being adjusted prior to testing (I was told).
Coast Guard later finds out pilot was on medication he did not declare in his license renewal application paperwork. Coast Guard says he must have been under influence, takes license. I do not know if that is true or false. Just a few comments and then my question: 1. They did not go look. 2. They did not seal the equipment (if that report was accurate). 3. On investigating Coast Guard failures, it was found that most of the investigators were not properly qualified.
Query: If an investigator does not know what he is investigating, how does he come up with the correct conclusion as to the cause of an accident, equipment failure, incident, etc.? Answer: He doesn't, at least always. That could be a reason to need judges who are told to never rule against your agency.

Now by "qualified", even that 'standard' means 'Coast Guard qualified'. Out here in the real world, that does not mean much. Find me a Coast Guard officer who can turn a 900-foot loaded, >100,000ton tanker off of a dock in high water on the Mississippi River. Not even go far down the river, just turn out and head down. Not an officer who just says he or she can, or believes they can--- one who will actually do it (under proper supervision of course). If you do, put that person in charge of all of the rest of them. The Coast Guard believes they are the professional maritime experts, when nothing could be further from the truth. An investigator must have some relatable experience and a bit of humility to be able to process information gathered correctly. An ignorant person with a title "going with their gut" is no more precise than making critical decisions based solely on superstition.

Now the difficult question (and the industry will really hate this one):
Would it not be safer to wait until visibility is better or the fog lifts to transit the bay and bridge approaches? Answer:
Why yes it would. I understand that San Francisco is famous for fog. However, visibility minimums could be established for ship passages--- in order to minimize the risk of hitting objects. At the least the pilots could go to anchorage when the fog sets, until visibility improves. This may be costly for shippers, but should certainly be addressed.

Titanic: In 1912 the Titanic hit an iceberg. It sank very slowly. There were not sufficient numbers of lifeboats for the number of passengers aboard. Basically there were not lifeboats for the poorer passengers. It took this disaster to illuminate how indecent and inhumane it was to refuse spending the money for safety equipment sufficient to the needs of all passengers and crew.
As a result, enough lifeboats to accommodate all passengers were then required on all passenger vessels. The 'Iceberg Watch' was also established to track iceberg locations and movements. Due to disasters like this one, inspections became required on passenger vessels. Additional requirements have been added through the years, and inspections have been required on more and more types and classes of vessels both in the U.S. and other countries.
Now the difficult question:
Has the Coast Guard instituted inspection requirements on all vessel types and classes where the need has been shown due to poor safety and accident records?
The answer is no. The Coast Guard resisted inspection of towing vessels for years. This was after years of pleas from the very mariners who work on those vessels, and even after mandates from Congress for an inspection program for those vessels. (The corporations did not want them)

WHAT IS IN IT FOR THEM?:
It has been long alleged and rumored that the Coast Guard writes and carries out rules to favor large corporations and minimize their potential liabilities. This same allegation has been made by fishermen against NMFS. The fishermen alleged that NMFS and N.O.A.A. have admitted to efforts to reduce the size of the U.S. fishing fleet. The result is less small businesses and operators. The follow-up report from the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce on NMFS Law Enforcement may shed some new light on the role of Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges (ALJ's) in their fisheries law enforcement.

So far as the Coast Guard, all of the pieces fit. While the Coast Guard's administrative actions may save industry money in the short-run, the people of this country wind up paying the consequences. I am not alleging here that they receive kick-backs, but that has been alleged and rumored in the maritime industry for the entire 16 years I have been involved with it. Major corporations, with the help of the U.S. Coast Guard, have been able to design and construct a system in which the corporation has limited civil and virtually no criminal liability for corporate officers for damages caused by their vessels, equipments, and cargos.

In my personal experiences with the Coast Guard ALJ system, it leaves much to be desired. I have personally watched them cheat and lie ‘officially’, yet the call to "rally" goes out at the first hint of a complaint against the agency. These people are on a government salary. They should be both capable and more than willing to be open and to stand up to scrutiny.

The Coast Guard is military, so most of the lower-ranking people are always under orders. If your rank and file investigators are unqualified or supremely ignorant, it is easy for a supervisor to instruct that person on what they are supposed to conclude from an investigation, even if it does not make any sense. They may not even know better. If the judges are going to back those same conclusions, however ridiculous, a system has just been created to officially declare incorrect causes of accidents and disasters. That is a perfect recipe for corruption if ever any of those persons are even able to be tempted.

Supervising Coast Guard prosecutor James Wilson received a commendation for having a 99% "success rate" in prosecuting actions "against mariners". Much of the problem lies in that very wording. U.S. Coast Guard personnel are commended to be against U.S. Mariners. Perhaps ego is his driving force, but that militaristic mindset and sense of achievement sold to him by his bosses does not belong in civil code enforcement. Then, take his young investigator LT Matt Spolarich, who later did not even know what the acronym of the computer system that he uses everyday stood for, and he is the "chief" of his "investigations shop" (and military loves their acronyms). Of course then you have George Jordan, who was promoted to ALJ after it was alleged by an ALJ that he attempted to influence a presiding ALJ in case rulings as a Coast Guard attorney.

The Coast Guard is a worthwhile and necessary organization that has done a great deal of good over the years all in all. If I did not think so, I would not have joined and served. However, I do not continue to believe the U.S. Coast Guard should remain military and engaged in the law enforcement of civilians. For one reason, their average ages are far too young for the particular qualifications necessary to adequately perform the many technical facets of their jobs. For another reason, the same military attitudes and philosophies that drive them are exactly the ones that should not be inflicted on unsuspecting citizens.
This will be made even clearer as the new T.W.I.C. or Transportation Worker Identity Credential adjudications are carried out within this same system. These ‘TWIC’ cards are now being required for citizens working in the transportation industry. The cards are issued after extensive background checks on citizens, etc. Citizens’ fingerprints are then permanently kept on file. The hearings to disallow issuance or revoke the ‘privileges’ of citizens to go to work--- simply by the rejection or removal of these ‘cards’, are to be held by Coast Guard ALJ’s.

Rail workers, aviation workers, and truck drivers all will appear before Coast Guard ALJ's. I can picture it:
"Your Honor, I believe this man is a terrorist--- I had a feeling."
"He is guilty, I just know it."
__________________________________________________________________



SYNOPSIS OF COAST GUARD ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CRIMES COMMITTED ‘UNDER COLOR OF LAW’AS PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED, ALLEGED, AND REFUSED PROSECUTED
Treason in Policy
Former Vice-Commandant of the Coast Guard (VCDT) Vivien Crea on authority of Commandant Thad Allen did create and institute a policy by precedence granting Coast Guard illicit authority, in direct contravention and violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. This was established in Appeal Decision No. 2681: The U.S. Coast Guard vs. Murray Rogers, on May 12, 2008. Through that Appeal, the Coast Guard created for itself the illegal ability and authority to charge, prosecute, and impose punishment on a U.S. Citizen by alleging violation(s) of regulation, while forcibly withholding evidence that would prove that citizen’s innocence.
In so doing, the Coast Guard decreed itself the authority to deny due process of law to the accused in direct violation of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. By creating such a rule the Commandant and Vice Commandant as military officers did undermine protections guaranteed to citizens by the U.S. Constitution. Such a betrayal does seek to overthrow valid application of the highest rule of law of the United States by countermand. Creating such a power beyond constitutional limits by one’s own Order is Treason for those General Officers. If there were any confusion about whether this was the case, it was both proved and put into effective practice by the Decision of Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Bruce Smith on remand of that same case January 21, 2009. Civil litigation cannot fully address or correct said treason or other various crimes as documented and further alleged herein.

The Case and Crimes Already Committed Prior to the Appeal
Administrative courts are civil courts, so if the government loses--- they can appeal. In the Coast Guard administrative law system, those appeals go to the head of the agency (the Commandant). The Coast Guard in the case mentioned had already refused a lawful subpoena in criminal violation of 18 USC 1509, even prior to the appeal to the Commandant. That act was committed by Coast Guard Morgan City, LA Marine Safety Office prosecutors: LCDR Patrick, ENS Tilghman, and their supervisor James Wilson. Presiding CG ALJ Massey ordered that sanctions be proposed for the Coast Guard refusal to comply with the subpoena. They did not ‘fail to comply’ or even fail to meet deadlines of “discovery requests” as later errantly characterized by the U.S. District Court in civil litigation. They directly refused to follow repeated orders of the court. That is Obstruction in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1505 and 1509, and showing contempt to the court.

Coast Guard staff set up a secret meeting between the Chief ALJ staff, Commandant Appeals staff (attorney Hanna Liddington), and CG prosecutors (including Jim Wilson) to discuss the case (and others) after ALJ Massey ordered that sanctions would be imposed against the Coast Guard. The day following that meeting, February 25, 2005: the Coast Guard filed an Appeal to the Commandant to have ALJ Massey recused from the case. Days later (on March 7) Chief ALJ Ingolia distributed a secret policy limiting ‘discovery of evidence’ for the accused. That secret policy was sent to Coast Guard ALJ’s including Judge Massey, while she was actively determining what sanction to impose upon the Coast Guard for flatly refusing to follow discovery orders of the court.
The day after CALJ Ingolia’s ‘Policy Memo’, the Coast Guard withdrew their Feb. 25 Appeal to have ALJ Massey removed. By his efforts Chief ALJ (Ingolia) attempted in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1505 to illegally influence ALJ Massey’s pending ruling on the sanctions after those same prosecutors complained to the Chief ALJ‘s office.

After another attempted ex parte influence on the judge by a prosecutor, Judge Massey dismissed the Coast Guard’s charges. Chief ALJ Ingolia then summoned ALJ Massey to Baltimore from New Orleans to tell the ALJ to always rule for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard appealed the dismissal to the Commandant. The same Hanna Liddington (from the secret ex parte meeting) was then assigned to write the Appeal for the Commandant. The Appeal sat for approximately two years until ALJ Massey retired.
After some time, the Appeal had been reassigned to another member of the Commandant‘s appellate staff.
Then, after ALJ Massey’s retirement in March of 2007, two other mariners filed suit against Coast Guard employees after ALJ Massey provided statements of their (CG) corruption. Once I found all this out, I then also filed suit after getting no result from complaints to the US Attorney, the F.B.I., and the Inspector General of The Department of Homeland Security. Hanna Liddington was named in the lawsuits as a defendant. In another brazen act of violation, Admiral Allen’s then co-defendant was reassigned to write the Appeal of the Coast Guard case for which she was being sued.

Three other items worthy of note in connection with those crimes and the Appeal:
1. The Coast Guard had the transcript of the January 5, 2005 hearing before ALJ Massey ‘doctored’ to remove damning arguments made by the Coast Guard prosecutor to the judge. Entire statements and portions of conversation were completely absent from the transcript. VCDT Crea ruled in the related Dresser appeal, a mere month before the appeal decision in Rogers, that a transcript does not have to be word-for-word but only a “record of sufficient completeness…” To investigate the Coast Guard‘s cheating of transcripts, one need simply to go back to the original recordings, and re-transcribe them.

2. The U.S. House Subcommittee on Coast Guard held a hearing on July 31, 2007 due to the allegations of ALJ Massey and reports of unfairness in Coast Guard Administrative Law. In that hearing, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University Of Maryland School Of Law Abraham Dash testified regarding Due Process. The conclusion of Professor Dash’s written statement presented for the Subcommittee Hearing is as follows:
“Conclusion
It is clear that any attempt by agency personnel to make ex parte contacts with an administrative law judge, on a pending case, is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It is clear that any attempt to pressure an administrative law judge by a superior or the agency to rule favorably for the agency is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.
It is also clear that if discovery by a respondent in an APA adjudication is so limited that it inhibits the ability of the respondents to present their case that would violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This would probably violate the intent of the adjudication sections of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

3. VCDT Crea’s Appeal decision was immediately published days after the U.S. House passed a Coast Guard Bill including a provision to remove ALJ’s from the Coast Guard. That provision was added due to evidence and testimony gathered in the subcommittee hearing, including Professor Dash’s statement. The Senate ultimately did not pass a bill.

The Appeal Itself
As stated, an administrative court is a civil court, so if the government loses they can appeal. So after three complaint filings and two dismissals, the government appealed. This was all before any evidence was admitted into the court record mind you. The only issues of concern in the appeal were the questions of fairness and authority.
Before deciding if ALJ Massey was biased, acted arbitrarily, or abused her authority however, the matter of the prosecutors showing contempt to the court was the most important order of business. Not only were those prosecutors left unhindered and unpunished, but James Wilson was left in his position as supervisor: Later being allowed to again withhold vital evidence from the court in the subsequent hearing, after the appeal decision was made remanding the case for another hearing.

It was the duty of both the Commandant and Vice Commandant to initiate proceedings to have the violating prosecutors punished and removed. VCDT Crea failed in her responsibility to refer evidence of the criminal liability of Coast Guard prosecutors to the U.S. Attorney for obstruction of justice and refusing to follow court orders, as required 46 CFR 5.69. This was an obligatory regulatory duty for both the Commandant and Vice-Commandant. This remains true even though the Appeal sat for three years.
It was agency’s duty to disclose all illegal attempts to influence ALJ Massey as a court officer, and fully disclose the attempted and continued concealment of evidences by the Coast Guard. It was also the duty of VCDT Crea to disclose Hanna Liddington’s ex parte involvement in the case prior to the decision appealed, and Ms. Liddington’s subsequent assignment to the appeal after the case was then decided, and appealed. This was not done. The VCDT’s order allowed for concealment of evidence and covering up of facts, while stating an ALJ cannot dismiss with prejudice for the government withholding evidence or refusing court orders. The case was then set for re-hearing.

The appeal also reworded regulations in citing: The rewording is so obviously inconsistent; it redrafted the code into new regulation by ‘interpretational precedence’ thus fitting and supporting the agency’s desired and hence newly created authority. That is in black and white; in print. They rewrote and created a new regulation in an appeal ruling by simple rewording, rewriting the cited regulation how they wanted it to read. That is blatant, brazen, and you simply cannot legally do that.
A remand cannot be appealed above the agency. So after four years of continuing litigation, and after exposing all of the cheating and corruption of the Coast Guard administrative law system, I had to simply start the process over from the beginning.

“The Setup” and Subsequent Hearing on Remand
Tied up in a box- The Coast Guard needed a win.
Before detailing the crimes committed in the hearing, it is necessary to explain the situation constructed by the crimes committed prior to and leading up to that hearing.
The VCDT already ordered that as a respondent, basically I would have no means available to have evidences obtained by force of the court. I did the next best thing which was to request the evidence. ALJ Smith granted that request.
The evidences produced to my granted request, were screenshots of buttons from the Coast Guard law enforcement database. This would be the equivalent to pictures of the “desktop” on a personal computer showing “icons” which, when “clicked on”, would open the files I needed and had requested. Recordings known to have been made were not produced. No case notes, case summary, case narrative, recordings, list of witnesses or potential witnesses, no list of collected evidences, no list of officers present, no notes of interrogations or any other discussions were produced--- just computer screenshots. No pictures of the files accessed through clicking the buttons, just the buttons themselves. Wilson’s continued diversionary tactics. Of course by the time of this hearing I had sued James Wilson personally in federal court. I did not expect him to be fair or objective.

Without the evidence, I had no affirmative defense to mount. The Coast Guard had the knowledge, the information, and the necessary evidence once again kept illegally secreted away by James Wilson through concealment and continued refusal of disclosure. I did not dare testify, because I had already given specific statements in conversations recorded by the Coast Guard nearly four and a half years earlier. Had I testified and conflicted with any statements I made in those recordings, the Coast Guard would suddenly “find” those recordings and charge me with perjury. My previous years in the Coast Guard showed me how the dirty ones operate. I did not remember the recorded conversations with enough clarity after all that time to recollect exactly what I said. Wilson always knew where he kept the evidence.

With no real evidence to mount, the job left for my attorney was to show that and where substantive evidence existed and was hidden by the Coast Guard, and to defeat whatever evidences and testimony they present. The witness Brian Hebert’s testimony was crucial and absolutely necessary to either prove or disprove anything the Coast Guard alleged. They did not bring him. The Coast Guard was supposed to bear the burden of proof.

“ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF” (The Title on the Transcript)'?'
The hearing was held in December 2008. It is worthy to note that by that point, the U.S. House passed a Bill that could remove ALJ’s from the Coast Guard. As such, ALJ Smith’s very job actually could be on the line in part due to this case. That is not a normal situation for a sitting judge. I had no animosity towards this judge, and found him to be quite pleasant and courteous--- but still he failed to follow regulations. First, the ALJ reversed the order of closing arguments. The accuser would file last, thus shifting “burden” to the accused or respondent, to ‘pre-defend’ against not yet perfected allegations. Nevertheless, my attorney’s first job was still to show the Coast Guard hid crucial evidences. He did.

Testimony
The Coast Guard presented one witness, the Lieutenant who had boarded the vessel. He witnessed no violation. He knew there was evidence not presented by the Coast Guard. When my attorney began to flesh this out, the judge actually interdicted at one point answering for the witness in contradiction to his prior answer. From the Transcript, p.63:
Q. Does any such documentation exist?
A. I’m sure it does.
Q. If it does, what would be the nature of that documentation?
A. It would be--
THE COURT: Well, counsel, that’s pretty speculative. He said the
document doesn’t exist; now you’re asking him to say what it says. I’ll anticipate an objection and sustain it. Try again.

He did. It soon became undeniable even to the judge that the Coast Guard failed to submit the available evidence granted. The assigned Coast Guard presenter, prosecuting her very first case, stated she presented ‘all that she could find‘. However, Wilson knew where to retrieve the evidences. He was conducting the entire prosecution, though not formally “in appearance” in the courtroom. In the hearing Wilson was sitting behind the prosecutors. Though it did not appear on the transcript, he would whisper to the prosecutor when to, “Object”. She would. Yet she had no idea why or on what grounds she just objected, or to what she did object--- and that is on the transcript.
Lieutenant Spolarich’s concealment was exposed on pages 162 and 163 of the transcript when he acknowledged the boarding summary, which was not disclosed.

Statements
Three statements of evidence were accepted into evidence by the court of those offered by the Coast Guard. The first was from formerly licensed Captain Brian Hebert. Captain Hebert did not admit I committed any violation of regulation. The second was a “Motion to Dismiss” I filed to have the first two of the three Complaints dismissed (the third resulted in this hearing). The first two Complaints were dismissed on this motion. The third was a letter responding to my former Commanding Officer from when I was in the Coast Guard, Captain James Stark. Captain Stark had replied to the complaint I submitted to Admiral Duncan of the Eighth Coast Guard District on appeal of Morgan City OCMI action as provided by 46 CFR 1.03-20: to complain of Captain of the Port (OCMI) action.

1. The Statement of Brian Hebert (and surrounding events)
Captain Shane Theriot, who was part-owner of the vessel, departed the vessel leaving Brian Hebert designated as the person in charge. When I arrived for my watch, Hebert was already piloting the vessel. I spoke with Captain Theriot’s sister, the other owner. She stated to me that Captain Theriot was due to return, and to navigate my watch. Theriot did not return as expected. I told the company when I got to a safe mooring at the Morgan City Locks; I intended to moor the vessel until Captain Theriot returned. They agreed. I told this to the Coast Guard over the recorded radio frequency before they even boarded. I also told them over the radio I was only the pilot, not the captain. Captain Theriot did arrive at the mooring prior to the boarding team departure. Those radio recordings were refused produced by the Coast Guard (they did not know).

Funny thing, when you have a major marine accident (like the Mel Oliver), the transcripts of those radio conversations are provided by the Coast Guard to be printed in the newspaper within days. While the accident response is in action all the Coast Guard personnel on station, not otherwise employed at that moment, gather around the Communications Center just to ‘hear what’s going on’. I remember this from my own Coast Guard days. Yet none of these Coast Guard personnel seem to know what goes on in that central gathering place. They lied. On your first day when you report to a Coast Guard station they show you around, bragging on all their equipment and capabilities.

The company had told me that if I did not carry out my watch Mr. Hebert would be told to put me off on the bank, and keep going. When I asked the Coast Guard, ‘what would happen if I left the vessel?’ they told me I could not leave the vessel without any licensed personnel onboard. I deemed I was “Sailing Short”. There was no need to file that paper afterwards, because the boat was boarded. The Coast Guard already knew. After the boarding, Brian Hebert relayed to me that he was threatened into writing a statement. He said he did not write that I violated anything; he only wrote what the Coast Guard told him to write. The Coast Guard prosecutor stated in the Hearing that Hebert was offered a settlement to write a statement (Transcript, p.120). On the next day of the Hearing she reneged that statement, claiming she never said that (p.239).

What I do know is this: The Coast Guard stated to me they could cite anyone they want before writing any complaint. I was never the Captain of that boat, and I told them that. I was never considered by the company or crew to be captain. That did not come up until the Complaint was written. I never had or was given any authority to crew the vessel, or stop the vessel before Morgan City. Also, I believe that boarding was on the 23rd.
Coast Guard Boarding Officer- Petty Officer Gerald said that either I give information implicating my employer in other criminal matters, or he would cite me. Ensign Spolarich did not speak much. He was new, and barely knew what was happening. I also told them I had been in the Coast Guard. I told them I was the pilot of the boat only. Gerald stated they could designate me default captain, since I was the only person with a license at that time. Spolarich then wrote the citation.

Here is the tricky part: At that time I was not even licensed to be the captain of that vessel, only the pilot. The Coast Guard had recently created new “Master of Towing Vessels” and “Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels” licenses to replace the old “Operator” of towing vessels licenses. Your inspected vessel “Master” license qualified you as master of towing vessels for the same tonnage until your first renewal or upgrade after the rule went into effect. Upon that renewal you had to acquire the specific endorsement for “Master” or “Mate (Pilot)” of towing vessels to remain qualified to work in those positions. I upgraded my license in May 2003, after the rule.
My new license was endorsed with “Mate (Pilot) of Towing Vessels” without tonnage restriction, qualifying me for that position--- the same that I accepted on the Bailey Ann. I still had a master of inspected vessels license, but no master of towing endorsement. So I was no more licensed to be the master of that vessel than Brian Hebert. I was not offered such a position, and did not accept any such position. Odd the Coast Guard did not figure that out, or acknowledge it if they did.

After the boarding, I tried to talk to the Captain of the Port. I was refused. I was boarded again a week later, on my next passage through Morgan City. We were properly crewed. After I got off of the boat, I went to Morgan City and talked with a Lieutenant Patrick. This was the same CG officer who boarded the vessel the second time. He recorded the conversation. I asked him not to record it, as I wished to speak informally. He persisted, so our discussion was recorded. I told Patrick much the same thing in recorded statements. I told him I was only the pilot, and had no choice or authority in vessel manning. He stated we could “settle” if I offered information on some separate criminal matter against my employer. I told him I had no knowledge of criminal activity, I had only just started that job I got through a hiring agency. He then said I could either provide statements against my employer or they were coming after my license. No formal settlement offer was made. Nothing written, I was just supposed to take his word for it. I was also threatened with another complaint from the second boarding, although I do not remember if this was said while recording. That recording was also refused (they forgot).

I discussed answering the complaint from the first boarding with the Coast Guard. I do not remember if this was in the recorded conversation. The Coast Guard stated to me that admitting the jurisdictional allegations was not admitting that I was in fact the captain of the boat, only that the Coast Guard had the jurisdiction to board the boat, and deemed me to be the captain because I had the only license. I was trying to help the Coast Guard and be agreeable, while considering my own interests, and the situation of my employer. So I admitted the non-descript allegations in the first complaint, not a violation of regulation.

A few days after departing the vessel, I got a call at home that Brian Hebert was shot by another crewmember on the boat. I found out that Hebert was not tested for alcohol or drugs after the shooting as required, and that the Coast Guard did not even go to the boat. I knew this was not good. After that, I was getting phone calls daily from the Coast Guard to provide statements against my employer, or face losing my license. Eventually I filed a complaint with the Captain of the Port over this. Whatever they were looking for, nothing justifies the U.S. Coast Guard trying to extort information with threats, or blackmailing a person into providing falsified information to spare themselves loss.
Then the boat sank in Morgan City, LA. Again I was not on the boat. But the Coast Guard issued a second and escalated Complaint against my license for writing a complaint against them (they had been told about it). That was the company’s only working boat, so they went out of business. All of this is why, and Jim Wilson knew Brian Hebert needed to testify. Everything in this section was my “extenuating circumstances”.

2. Motion to Dismiss
As stated, I filed this motion and the first two complaints were dismissed. Using this later as a purported “admission” is certainly retaliatory, and makes the “Coast Guard Non-Retribution Policy” disingenuous. I specifically did not admit even “tacitly” to a violation of regulation. I was willing to admit an unspecified ‘error in judgment’, if necessary to attempt to settle the matter. That is how I wrote it, and that is how it still reads.
One other point about this motion: In the motion, I made the following statement:
“I persist that no vessel was threatened as result of any action on my part.”
However, where the prosecutor cited this statement in the transcript it reads:
“my specific confession was threatened as a result of any action on my part.”,
(Transcript, p.185).
Is that what the Coast Guard considers “a record of sufficient completeness…” for official court hearing transcripts?

3. Letter to Captain Stark
I did not know why my former Coast Guard Commanding Officer Captain Stark answered my letter to Admiral Duncan just days before his (Stark’s) retirement from the Coast Guard. I did not take his intrusion as a positive sign. Anyone who reads the New Orleans paper knows of this man. This is the same Stark who ran the F.E.M.A. office there after “Katrina”. Enough said. But again, I did not admit to violation of any regulation. I was again willing to admit to a non-specific mistaken choice. And again the use of my complaints against the Coast Guard: to the Coast Guard--- against me as “admissions” is nothing short of base retaliation, regardless of how it was worded.
Both my motion and all of my letters were in direct response to the investigation.

46 CFR 5.501 states in part: “The ALJ shall regulate and conduct the hearing so as to bring out all the relevant and material facts and to ensure a fair and impartial hearing.”
That was the ALJ’s duty. It was not followed. 33 CFR 20.103(c) states: “Absent a specific provision in this part, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure control." The Coast Guard did not adhere to this rule.
Both LT Spolarich and LCDR Patrick committed Perjury under oath. This was suborned by James Wilson in violation of 18 USC 1622 and 1621. LT Flood also made false statements under the direct gaze of Wilson. This case was never about me, it was always about the Coast Guard imposing their will and then getting their “win” at any cost. A false determination never promotes safety at sea. So they got their win, but at what cost? They all committed and concealed crimes over a civil matter.

Results
Besides the tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, my reputation in the maritime trade was irreparably damaged due to this case. I endured threats, harassments, retaliations, intimidation, and humiliation. I was put in harm’s way. I cannot even begin to account for lost wages, or the personal toll and the wear it took from my very being.

Effects
The Coast Guard created and allowed for themselves the ability to levy charges over and over again, and to meet repeated complaints with repeated reprisals. The Coast Guard created for itself the ability to hide “smoking-gun evidence” of another, in order to charge whom they choose. This is lawless, indecent, and indiscreet obfuscation. Judges are addressed as “Honorable”, with the understood expectation they should live up to that title. They gave away their dignity and integrity, and damaged that of the Coast Guard. Through improper influence, the cover-up of this conspiracy continued on your watch. This is and has been organized crime. Civil litigation cannot hinder, stop, or resolve these crimes, and they are now "on the books". The offenders must be held accountable.

I knew little about the process when this began, but I took the time to learn. My own integrity and indeed morality required me to resist and report these abuses. As an Officer of the United States of America, I did my duty at great cost. This is my story. If nothing else, I hope my writing is entertaining. And the truth shall set me free. Now do your jobs.
_____________________________________________________________________

To: The Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States of America,
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice,
The United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana,
The Merit Systems Protection Board (M.S.P.B.)

COVER-UP BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITH REFUSAL TO PROSECUTE CRIMINAL ACTS OF THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF TOP OFFICIALS OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD AS OF JULY 08, 2010

Recently I received a letter from the office of the F.B.I. IIS/INSD IPU in apparent response to an e-mail reply I sent March 26, 2010 to the Inspector General of The Department of Justice (DOJ-IG). This FBI letter, dated May 7, 2010, proves once and for all, by preponderance beyond mere probability, what I have feared and suspected for three years: Elements within the Department of Justice along with personnel within the Department of Homeland Security have and are making an active effort to cover-up crimes perpetually committed by Coast Guard personnel within the Offices of the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Coast Guard, and Coast Guard investigations and prosecutorial staff.
Efforts at length by the Coast Guard under former-Commandant Thad Allen and by the Justice Department have already been expended to cover-up these criminal acts, after the acts were previously exposed through civil litigation, national exposure by the Press through investigative reports, and in Congressional Subcommittee Hearing.

In this brief I will explain how the contents of this FBI letter (attached) finally proves the cover-up by the DOJ of these crimes, and then give a brief synopsis of the crimes by the Coast Guard as originally alleged, along with reference to at least some of their documented motives. I am also finally submitting a copy of this complaint to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) now that Admiral Allen, one of the alleged perpetrators, has retired. There would have been no point in submitting a complaint to MSPB while Admiral Allen was Commandant of the Coast Guard, as the MSPB only makes recommendations to the head of the agency concerned, regarding ALJ misconduct.

In the synopsis attached, I will also explain how evidence already in the record does prove that certain Coast Guard officers did commit, aid and abet, and/or become accessory after the fact to treason against The Constitution of the United States to cover up agency crimes. Said Coast Guard efforts also created means to cover up future crimes.
This includes a litany of efforts by many ranking personnel within the Coast Guard, whether knowingly or unknowingly, to cover-up the collusion of crimes by Coast Guard Commandant staff and Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) staff. Included are acts committed by former Commandant Thad Allen, and now-Coast Guard Eighth District Commander: Admiral Mary Landry.
The Coast Guard under Allen instituted policy by precedence creating authorities for the agency beyond, and in violation of the Constitution. Said unconstitutional authorities were entered into practical service by Coast Guard CG Vice Commandant Crea and carried out by CG ALJ Bruce Smith in the Coast Guard vs. Murray Rogers.

Actions to provide comfort and protection from prosecution to the Coast Guard offenders by the DOJ, even if only by ‘turning a blind eye’ or by simply doing nothing, are also--- whether knowingly or unknowingly--- aiding and abetting treason against The Constitution of the United States as accessory after the fact. That stated, I will first explain just why the FBI should have never been sent the e-mail to which that agency’s aforementioned letter responded in the first place.

The FBI should not have received this e-mail from the DOJ-IG
First, the acts of DOJ personnel about whom I had previously complained, include acts beyond the authority and jurisdiction of the FBI, including prosecutorial malfeasance. As such, any reply to the submitted allegations from the FBI was, and is necessarily insufficient anyway. Accordingly, I still deserve, expect, and still await proper response from the office of the DOJ-IG directly, whereas clearly no response from any lesser authority will be sufficient.

Second, I had already complained to the FBI about the FBI. That agency already knew I took issue with FBI actions, which I only afterwards included in the same allegations I submitted up the chain-of-command to the DOJ-IG. The single reply e-mail to which the aforementioned FBI letter responded was neither any complete listing of acts, nor a listing of names of DOJ personnel about whom previously complaints were lodged. It was a wanton act to forward a reply to a response to allegations I had previously submitted against the FBI--- back to the FBI for their repeat scrutiny.

Third, forwarding of my e-mail to the FBI in the current instance is itself an act mimicking actions about which I have previously lodged complaints. My initial complaint about the FBI was simply that the FBI office in New Orleans informed the Coast Guard that I had lodged criminal allegations against them. This was admitted by a Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) officer in 2007, who stated he received an e-mail from within the FBI Office in New Orleans exclaiming I had lodged a complaint against the Coast Guard. CGIS works directly for the Commandant of the Coast Guard (one of the Officers I had also sued in federal court by that point in time). I later lodged criminal allegations against him, once sufficient evidence of Commandant Allen’s culpability had come to light. I still do not know who sent the e-mail from the FBI to the Coast Guard in 2007, but I gather your offices could easily find out--- if you but look.

Adequately specified complaints were sent to the DOJ-IG and the Victims’ Rights Point of Contact of the US Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana concerning the basically insufficient and then inept actions of the DOJ, through refusing to act on properly alleged and sufficiently evidenced criminal complaints against Coast Guard officials as had been filed to DOJ on numerous occasions. None of this would have been necessary however, had the evidence of the entire matter been put before a grand-jury at any time within the past three years. That would have been prudent and minimally proper to ensure the US Constitution and the laws of this land be followed by those in government service actually charged with the duty to defend said same. Considering the nature and level of severity of the crimes alleged, criminal prosecution still remains the only proper course of action. An Assistant US Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Mr. Jim McManus, has copies of two separately filed complaint forms I submitted, said forms entitled:
“COMPLAINT ALLEGING FAILURE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EMPLOYEE TO PROVIDE RIGHTS TO A CRIME VICTIM UNDER THE CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ACT OF 2004”.
Both were submitted with evidence, and noted dates, names, and acts alleged.

The F.B.I. Letter:

Problem 1: The Very Existence of the Letter
First: I did not contact the Initial Processing Unit (IPU), Internal Investigations Section (IIS), Inspection Division (INSD), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As already noted, any correspondence from that office would be legally insufficient anyway. That office’s jurisdiction would be insufficient, considering the scope of the allegations, with many or most of those allegations falling squarely outside the stated authority of said office.

Second: No new allegations against the FBI were lodged. If The Bureau were so concerned to look into the matter, this same letter reasonably would have been typed up a year ago--- when I lodged the same basic complaints against the FBI, to the FBI.

Third: If the DOJ-IG wanted the FBI- IIS/INSD, IPU office to “review” my allegations due to the concern of the DOJ-IG, then said letter would have naturally been submitted in reply back to the DOJ-IG. There would have been no purpose in that FBI office reporting to me directly. The letter was moot (as in: deprived of practical significance).

Fourth: Apparently it is now the stance of the FBI that serious crimes and even felonies reported with evidence as having been committed and then covered-up by US government employees under color of law, can be neglected--- so long as no one actually acknowledges the crimes or cover-up happened. This is just sad. Does the Department of Justice now have the discretion to allow crimes to not only go unpunished, but to continue in their progress so long as the Department can retain the ability to ‘play make-believe’ and pretend it is not actually happening? Re-word it how you will--- truth is truth, wrong is still wrong, and illegal is still illegal.

Problem 2: Untrue Content of the Letter
First: I alleged U.S. Coast Guard officials did conspire, and did commit various criminal acts. I deduced by the sentence structure in the letter alone, that the author: Sandra A. Bungo, Unit chief, IPU, IIS/INSD F.B.I., has a grasp of the English language. Further, since points I made were individually addressed, I deduced the author actually read the e-mail to which she responded. That said, points that I made in my e-mail were specifically, directly, and incorrectly regurgitated back as though more of a rebuttal, than a reflection of what was supposedly being restated.

Second: I did not, “… believe the U.S. Attorney General should have assigned a special prosecutor in (my) civil lawsuit…” That is an incorrect assertion which is even ridiculous in concept. That does not even make sense. Such a misdirecting statement is a childish effort to attempt to derail or deflate my statements in a manner which I find to be both quite common and quite nearly defaming.
Though Unit Chief Bungo specifically did not address complaints (even as briefly stated in the e-mail) against, and thereby directly in the concern of the FBI--- she strangely found it necessary to profess, albeit incorrectly, about matters not within the concern or jurisdiction of the FBI. This was performed by specifically misstating my suggestion concerning the possibility to accomplish prosecution without any conflict of interest. The actual comment I originally made was due to the apparent fact that the office of US Attorney Jim Letten either made, or was given its decision three years ago not to prosecute.

What I do believe is that the former Attorneys’ General should have, and the current Attorney General should still assign a special prosecutor to criminally indict Chief ALJ Joseph Ingolia, former VCDT Vivien Crea, former CMDT Thad Allen, Hanna Liddington, George Jordan, Ken Wilson, James Wilson, LCDR Ronnie Patrick, LT Matthew Spolarich (all of the US Coast Guard), and others, as previously stated--- for crimes also previously cited, evidenced, and alleged.

Problem 3: Hyper-Reliance to the Contents of an e-mail
Criminal allegations I submitted to the DOJ to halt the crimes of one of that Department’s joint-agency law enforcement partners have not ever been acted on in any meaningful way. This has been alleged at length both to the FBI, and to other appropriate offices within DOJ. The specific criminal allegations against Coast Guard officials remain unanswered and unaddressed by the DOJ.
To this date no specific allegation of criminal violation has ever even been noted, stated, or even individually or directly acknowledged by the DOJ. The instant letter which is the subject of this current complaint again neglects to even acknowledge any specific allegation lodged, instead opining on matters not within the jurisdictional boundaries of the FBI. Nevertheless, the author concludes that “there is no specific evidence of misconduct on the part of any FBI employee” in my e-mail alone.

After all that has been sent, the FBI letter professes as though the e-mail was the only complaint or information that has ever been submitted. Curiously, my name and address were correct in the letter, so I actually did received the letter. This was made even more curious, however, by the fact that my physical mailing address was not even included in the e-mail.
All of that said, I now add the name Sandra Bungo, title and office duly noted, to the list of DOJ employees about whom I am complaining, for reasons stated.

The Government’s Current Predicament
The allegations I have made are all well documented and evidenced. I have not made one single bald or naked assertion. Each allegation is supported by evidence. There is much more to allege, but I have kept my allegations to the crimes supported by evidence I have at hand, acquired through external sources. I have always and still do intend to submit my own testimony in a sworn statement, when and as I deem appropriate.

What is on record is a sworn statement by a former Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge(ALJ), The Honorable Jeffie Massey, in which she details the obstructions of justice committed by Chief ALJ Ingolia, in collusion with (now-ALJ) George Jordan, Hanna Liddington (now-LeBlond), Ken Wilson, Jim Wilson, and others. Documentary evidences were filed supporting ALJ Massey’s assertions. None of those named persons have offered or been required to offer testimony under oath to the contrary.
In fact, the perpetrators have been sheltered from answering criminal implications of their actions in part, due to concurrent civil litigation defense by the DOJ. Notably, this would still be the case whether or not I ever filed suit. None of these facts were changed by the June 16, 2009 GAO Report or by Coast Guard testimony before the House Subcommittee on July 31, 2007. No facts will be changed by the pending DHS-IG report.

Lawsuits
In 2007, when I first found out about the secret instructions of the Chief ALJ and the pre-appeal ex-parte involvements of Ms. Liddington, I knew I could not trust the Coast Guard Appeal for fairness. I already knew Ms. Liddington had been assigned to the Appeal of my case in 2005. By the time I even found out about ALJ Massey’s testimony, two lawsuits had already been filed in federal court. As such, the US Attorney already had that evidence.

Given my predicament and circumstance at the time, I had no choice but to sue the perpetrators of the alleged acts. So actually, the government forced me to sue those government employees. I really had no choice. You see, even prior to filing suit, I did contact the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana to provide that same evidence of criminal liability on the part of US Coast Guard personnel, but they refused to receive the allegations. I was told to contact the FBI office there. I did, with no positive result. I did that even against the advice of attorneys. So, the government also forced upon itself the expenditure of all the money spent in the civil defense of some of those same Coast Guard personnel. Their actions were indefensible even by that point in time, yet what followed is even worse.

Further Concerns
Now, some closely-related improper acts have reared their ugly heads again. The Inspector General of the Department of Commerce published a report (January 21, 2010) on National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) abuse of authority in civil law enforcement practices. NMFS uses these same Coast Guard ALJ’s, again assigned by USCG Chief ALJ Ingolia. It reads very clear from that report that NMFS’s abuses of authority were committed with at the very least the complicity of Coast Guard ALJ’s. The government is going to pay even further and yet again for not solving this problem effectively.

Previous criminal complaints I have submitted were filed after evidence was gathered in a Congressional Subcommittee Hearing, after multiple lawsuits were filed, and after a national press release condemning Coast Guard Administrative Law practices. That all occurred in 2007. After all of that, I was apparently supposed to believe that the decision not to prosecute ultimately and finally rested with a paralegal or an analyst in late 2009 (the first formal responses I ever received from DOJ to criminal allegations I lodged on multiple occasions since 2007). For that, shame on the Department of Justice. I am not asking anyone to believe me, my statements are guidance--- look to the evidence.