LINK DE JOUR http://www.infowars.com/army-conducts-n ... n-chicago/
see link for full story http://www.mainjustice.com/2013/07/24/d ... nvictions/
DOJ Waives Procedural Bars in FBI Review of Hair Analysis Convictions
July 24, 2013 9:20 am
The Department of Justice has made the unusual decision to waive procedural bars to re-open more than 2,000 criminal investigations so that the FBI can perform microscopic hair analysis of crime scene evidence.
“Many stakeholders in the system are beginning to accept the reality that we need to make it possible for inmates to raise their claims so that they can be decided on the merits,” said Peter Neufield, co-founder and co-director of the Innocence Project, an organization focused on exonerating individuals who have been wrongfully convicted.
In 1996, the FBI began to rely on DNA evidence in addition to microscopic hair comparison analysis. The hair analysis had previously been used alone to determine a positive association between known hair samples and crime scene evidence.
“There are standards for science [that have] to do with the ability to recreate the results you get,” said Sean D. O’Brien, a law professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
“Microscopic hair analysis often involved faulty conclusions,” he said.
see link for full story http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alissa-es ... 45114.html
An Uncomfortable Silence: James Comey, the FBI and Racial Profiling
On Thursday, July 18th, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to approve the nomination of James Comey as FBI director. The nomination will now be voted on by the entire Senate. Unlike other confirmations in recent memory Comey's has advanced smoothly, and he is almost certain to be confirmed in the coming week.
Comey's confirmation will come amid a vigorous national debate around racism and racial profiling in law enforcement. Unfortunately, though Comey has made public comments that suggest a tacit endorsement of racial profiling, neither the media nor the Senate has asked him to address these issues. Those who believe in civil liberties and racial justice should find this troubling.
With dual credentials as a seasoned prosecutor and supposed civil liberties hero, Comey has inspired confidence on both sides of the aisle. Still, many Judiciary Committee senators used his confirmation hearing two weeks ago to probe questionable aspects of his background and push for reforms within a secretive federal agency. As a result, Comey has now said on record that he considers waterboarding an illegal form of torture, that his private-sector background will not discourage him from fighting white-collar crime, that he will work for greater transparency around Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court decisions, and that he is committed to protecting government whistleblowers. These discussions will set the tone of Comey's tenure as FBI director following his (likely) confirmation, and his answers will be crucial tools for future civil liberties advocacy.
And so it was disconcerting to hear the complete silence in the confirmation hearing around issues of racial profiling by the FBI, and by agencies Comey has led in the past. It was especially uncomfortable at several moments in the hearing when Comey and the senators started talking about racial profiling -- without acknowledging or perhaps even realizing it. Let's read between the lines of a few of those conversations:
Senator Cruz: "I have been concerned about the current administration's balance of the rights of law-abiding citizens on the one hand, and the willingness to pursue serious terrorist threats on the other... Do we have your commitment that you would not let political correctness impede efforts to connect the dots and prevent terrorism?"
Mr. Comey: "Certainly."
From the context of his comments, it's clear that Cruz was really asking: will Comey maintain, and even scale up, the profiling of Muslims? The FBI is hardly known for paralyzing political correctness; on the contrary, reports about FBI profiling of Muslims abound. Using informants and ethnic mapping, the FBI has performed broad, warrantless surveillance of communities and institutions, including mosques and student organizations. It has also engaged in what many view as entrapment of vulnerable Muslim individuals, providing them with ideas and weapons for terrorist acts with the aim of arresting them for those acts. These tactics threaten Muslim Americans' first amendment rights, and have caused a broad mistrust of law enforcement in Muslim communities.
Comey's straightforward "certainly" is especially troubling in an era when the Department of Justice's 2003 Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, which directs the behavior of FBI agents, contains large loopholes that fail to protect Muslims and other groups commonly perceived as potential "terrorists." The FBI needs a leader who acknowledges the pervasiveness of religious and ethnic profiling, and who reins in this destructive practice instead of condoning it.
Senator Klobuchar: "I know one of the things that hasn't come out is the work that you did in Richmond when you started Project Exile, a successful program that involved federal, state, and local partnership... Can you talk about that work and how that will inform your work as head of the FBI?"
Comey: "Richmond, Virginia, had a horrific violent crime problem, isolated especially in the minority community. And the idea behind Project Exile was, what if we used the federal penalties that came with gun possession offenses -- possession by a felon, possession by a drug user, drug dealer, stiff penalties -- what if we use those to try and change criminal behavior and make the gun a liability in the eye of a criminal? ... As we talked about earlier in response to other questions, the FBI has a vital role to play in criminal enforcement." http://thetrialofwhiteybulger.com/a-sho ... ase-10337/
The Trial of Whitey Bulger
Whitey Bulger, the FBI and the Justice System
see link for full story http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/24/59628.htm
Wednesday, July 24,
Bickering and Infighting at the FBI
An FBI agent sued the Department of Justice, claiming superiors sabotaged his career with false accusations - including publishing false profiles of him and his wife on adult websites - as revenge for a complaint he made against a fellow agent.
Sean E. Edwards sued Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department in Federal Court.
Edwards claims the DPJ demoted him and discriminated against him because he is a man, to appease a female agent, whom he calls Agent X.
Edwards says in the lawsuit that the problems began around October 2010, when his wife anonymously made a complaint against Agent X, claiming X was violating FBI rules by driving with her children in an FBI vehicle.
Edwards claims Agent X immediately blamed him for the complaint.
"Thereafter, she would regularly complain to her superior, the same 'SSA' (Supervisory Special Agent) as plaintiff's and also up the local chain of command including the Special Agent In Charge of the Kansas City Office ('SAC') about plaintiff," the complaint states. "She accused the plaintiff of inappropriate conduct directed at her. She attributed false, damaging and misleading conduct to him, made unfounded, false and unverifiable claims against plaintiff. She also claimed to be the victim of these allegations and acts which she attributed to the plaintiff; all to his further damage and detriment.
"Agent 'X' succeeded in persuading her superiors that she was the actual victim of
plaintiff's alleged conduct when she falsely and frequently claimed that plaintiff was personally responsible for her OPR [Office of Professional Responsibility], that he had and was following her; that he had and was stalking her; that he refused to leave her alone and had displayed violent propensities while in her presence. She even claimed that acts that plaintiff took to advance his career were hostile conduct and part of plaintiff's plan to harm her. She advised management of her fears which influenced plaintiff's superior's negative and adverse conduct towards him, while providing preferential treatment to Agent 'X'."
(The phrase "that plaintiff was personally responsible for her OPR" apparently means: for the complaint to the OPR.)
Edwards claims that Agent X was relentless with her unfounded complaints.
"These false and unsubstantiated claims continued almost on a weekly basis; and each time a false allegation was made, SSA accused plaintiff of having committed the act," the complaint states. "In each instance the allegations were factually unsupported and only based on 'feelings.' Yet, each time they were made, SSA seem to accept as truthful Agent 'X' claim asserted and always confronted and challenged the veracity of the plaintiff who always denied the false allegations of wrongdoing. During each episode, plaintiff would first deny the claim, then indicate that these were acts of harassment and insist that SSA or upper management investigation [sic] the basis of the claims against him. Each of these denials and request for investigation by plaintiff were separate protected acts and based on information and belief, were never acted on by the defendant. These accusations and the failure to investigate the same, as plaintiff had requested, discriminate against the plaintiff based on his gender when compared with hers and denied plaintiff the equal treatment that he had a right to expect."
Edwards says he applied for a promotion in January 2011, then was told the position was being reposted because he was the only applicant. He claims he was told not to resubmit his application.
"The SSA made it clear that he preferred someone other than plaintiff for the positions [sic] and stated that '... the timing would not be good' if plaintiff would be selected," the complaint states. "Plaintiff agreed not to resubmit his application during the reposting so as not to further antagonize SSA or Agent 'X' and as an aide to having the issue behind him. The reposting of the position and the discouraging of plaintiff from submitting an application was done to specifically appease and serve the interests of Agent 'X' and to discriminate against the plaintiff based on his gender when compared with hers and denied plaintiff the equal treatment that he had a right to expect." (Ellipsis in complaint.)
Edwards claims the situation escalated in June 2010 after Agent X's former husband discussed with FBI co-workers his concerns about Agent X's new boyfriend, as the ex's children would be in the boyfriend's company.
Edwards says his own wife was also friends with Agent X's former husband.
Unknown to Edwards, he says, his wife sent the former husband a text saying he had a right to be concerned about the boyfriend.
Edwards says Agent X immediately demanded that he be transferred off the squad.
"Based on information and belief, Agent 'X' retaliated against plaintiff and his wife by posting or causing the posting on adult website 3 false profiles of plaintiff and his wife," the complaint states. "When plaintiff learned of these derisive profiles he reported them to the security officer of the FBI local office as well as his SSA and ASAC. Plaintiff also reported that he suspected that Agent 'X' was responsible for these postings on an adult website. SSA promptly notified Agent 'X' of plaintiff's allegations and while she denied any knowledge of the same the false profile postings were taken down shortly thereafter. Whatever inquiry or investigation defendant performed was not disclosed to the plaintiff but to the best of plaintiff's knowledge nothing came of the efforts of the defendant."
On June 30, 2011, Edwards claims, he was transferred and grounded as a pilot and leader of the aviation department in Kansas City. He claims the FBI used his wife's text as the final basis for the demotion.
Edwards claims the harassment continued after his transfer. He says his department was subjected to a surprise inspection, which it passed, in order to appease Agent X.
"After being transferred to the downtown headquarters of the defendant, executive management and other personnel deliberately subjected plaintiff to retaliation and reprisal when they committed wrongful acts designed to undermined [sic] plaintiff's career in addition to permitting false and demeaning rumors to be spread throughout the workplace. Management even authored and published several false and erroneous electronic communications ('EC') that attributed emotional issues to the plaintiff which claimed he was hostile and combative and implied that plaintiff may not be fit for duty as an FBI agent. They actively sought to oust plaintiff from his position with the FBI by submitting these false EC's to other branches of the FBI. First, they sent a copy of a libelous EC to Employee Health Care Program Unit ('HCPU') where plaintiff's fitness for duty would be evaluated and a permanent file would exist on plaintiff. Executive management's schemed for HCPU to make a determination that plaintiff was not fit to be a Special Agent of the FBI and thereby justify the termination of plaintiff. In addition, these EC's were also submitted to the Analysis and Investigation Unit ('AIU'), the unit which investigates, among other things, traitors and spies. The referral to AIU had the ability of being a career ender but had the immediate effect of preventing plaintiff from having unsupervised access to the secure work area ('SCIF') where plaintiff had been reassigned to work at his new duty assignment. This caused plaintiff to be held in a lower esteem by his new coworkers. Of a more lasting consequence, the referral to AIU would in the future serve as a barrier to subsequent advancement in the FBI, and also taint employment opportunities in the law enforcement field when plaintiff was to leave the FBI."
Edwards claims he was ordered to undergo a routine counterintelligence polygraph exam at 2 p.m. on July 7, 2011. Three hours before the polygraph test, he says, he found out his mother was having emergency heart surgery in St. Louis. Despite asking for the test to be postponed or rescheduled so he could get to his mother, Edwards says he was forced to wait until 3:30 to take the test.
When he returned to work on July 13, 2011, his SAC discussed the polygraph that Edwards had taken and passed, but it showed he was under a great deal of stress. Edwards said he told the SAC about his mother's circumstances and that the delay of the test increased his stress. He claims the SAC told him that because of the stress, the FBI's Health Services unit was asked to determine if Edwards was fit to carry a weapon.
"On July 18, 2011, while reviewing his local personnel file, plaintiff found an electronic communication ('EC'), a document referred to as serial #44, prepared by ASAC 3 and approved by the SAC, dated July 11, 2011 but containing information from both July 12 and July 13, 2011. (This verified that the SAC and ASAC 3 were plotting the Fit for Duty evaluation prior to the meeting of July 13, 2011)," the complaint states.
"This document was a request to have plaintiff evaluated and determine if he were Fit for Duty. It was also filled with false and untrue assertions designed to damage plaintiff. Many of these allegations were attributed to the EAP counselor who had no legal authority to even disclose any of the information attributed to her. When the EAP counselor was asked about the allegations, she vociferously denied staying what was attributed to her and also claimed that they were 'made up' by ASAC 3. Upon finding this false and misleading EC in his local personnel file, plaintiff made a request under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a complete copy of his personnel file."
EAP is not defined in the lawsuit.
Edwards claims the Justice Department deliberately misled him about why he wasn't allowed access to the secure work area. He claims he was told that his access problem was due to a paperwork issue, though it actually stemmed from the open investigation caused by the false document known as serial #44.
He claims that a second Fit for Duty evaluation request containing the same false allegations as serial #44 was submitted on Sept. 27, 2011.
"Even though plaintiff successfully passed the polygraph examination, by denying him access to the SCIF defendant intentionally brought plaintiff's plight to the attention of all of his new coworkers in his new unit, many of whom, based on information and belief, were told of the Agent 'X' rumors as to why plaintiff was no longer a pilot with the offsite unit, why he had been transferred and why he did not have a security clearance to enter the SCIF," the complaint states. "Plaintiff was also not assigned any work responsibilities and had to create work for himself so that his periodic evaluation would at least meet expected levels of performance. In October, 2011, HCPU determined plaintiff did not require a Fit for Duty evaluation, and in November, 2011 plaintiff was finally cleared by AIU to have access to the SCIF without supervision, a full 4 months after having been pretextually transferred to his new duty assignment."
FBI names Vincent Lisi as special agent for the Boston office
July 24, 2013 - http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/ ... ton-Chief/
BOSTON — The FBI's Boston office has a new leader.
Vincent Lisi (LEE'-see) will succeed Richard DesLauriers as special agent in charge of the Boston office. DesLauriers announced last month he was retiring after more than 26 years with the FBI. The appointment was announced Wednesday by FBI director Robert Mueller.
Lisi has been with the FBI since 1989, serving most recently as deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division in Washington, D.C.
In 2001, Lisi helped lead the investigation of the 2001 Anthrax letter attacks.
He also served as a legal attache in Yemen
Subject: The City of Dallas' Anti-Conspiracy Conspiracy - Page 1 - News - Dallas - Dallas Observer
see link for full story http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/201 ... chief.html
New Central Ohio FBI Chief Says Cyber Threats Will Eventually Surpass Terrorism Dangers
Wednesday July 24, 2013 Terrorism currently is the No. 1 threat here in central Ohio, but cyber crimes are a close second.
That's the opinion of the new head of the FBI in central Ohio, Kevin Cornelius who has been named the Special Agent in Charge.
Cornelius used to run the Southern Ohio Joint Terrorism Task Force ten years ago. He said cyber threats will no doubt surpass terrorism dangers someday.
"We're losing data. We're losing money. We're losing innovative ideas, and that's something that we see across America. The intrusions outstrip what we have seen in the past, and it's time for us to take a look at it as a community, as a network, to prevent intrusions," Cornelius said.
Cornelius spoke to the group InfraGard - security specialists in the public and private sector who share cyber threat information with the FBI. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2013-07-2 ... onspiracy/