Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Big brother is watching

Do you, Joe, really? The U.S. Govt. has given you certain rights on paper and by law but your ordeal has shown these rights to be slightly ephemeral and hard to actually lay claim to if government doesn't see it your way. At least they haven't decided to just make you "disappear"

Greger,

I'm a lab rat. "They" ended any pretension that I had rights long ago, and with the House passing the "bail-out" they ended it for the rest of the peasants. Thanks to Doug, scoutgal, and the CHB RR message board, "they" haven't made me disappear, yet. They've tried. The cops try to set-up an incident to make you go away. The feds are considerably more sophisticated.

Joe

I received a letter, dated Oct. 31, 2008 and postmarked Nov. 5, 2008, on Monday, Nov. 10th, from a Tawana C. Greene signing for Nelson D. Hermilla, Chief FOI/PA Branch (DOJ)Civil Rights Division, regarding my 9-25-08 Privacy Act request seeking all documents pertaining to me. They wrote that they released all Civil Rights Division documents pertaining to me and enclosed sixty-two(62)pages. What they enclosed was my two earlier complaints with the DOJ's Civil Rights Division- I filed complaints with both the Civil and Criminal Divisions- and their replies. These are separate from the complaint and evidence that I addressed to FBI Director Mueller and the ones that I filed within the last year with the OIG against FBI employees (one complaint under provisions of the Patriot Act). The DOJ OIG denied receiving these complaints. Realize that the ones doing the denying are responsible for the ethics and integrity of the FBI.

The "they" referred to here is not an indefinite "they," but rather the DOJ/FBI. "They" have excellent internal controls and can track every letter received and every reply as well as case files, ROI's, and related documents. "They" previously denied that the FBI had any records pertaining to me, denied receiving Express Mail that FBI personnel signed to receive, dismissed FOIA appeals, including ones that I had not even filed yet, as "moot" (talk about a preemptive strike!) because "they" had no records on me; however, still managed to deny some requests pursuant to Exemption 5, 5 USC, Sec. 552(b)(5), supply replies to letters dated over one year before the date of the letter that "they" were replying to, and tell me that I can sue them per 5 USC, Sec. 552(a)(4)(B))if I'm unhappy with their actions.

I've documented the FBI's lies and cover-ups sufficiently to prove that their system of checks and balances don't work because "they" don't want them to work, despite what FBI Director Mueller testified to before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So what's my point? If you think that "they" are giving me the run around, abusing their authority, and covering-up, just wait until the Dept. of Homeland Security opens its very big umbrella to cover these agencies as well as other federal and state agencies under their protective exemptions when you try to get some information. And, "they" will be investigating you.

Joe

Maddow: New rules kick Patriot Act foes 'right in the teeth'
President Bush will sign this DOJ policy change proposal and it will be in effect before Nov. 22. The missing word is "sharing." They'll be sharing their collected intelligence with each other. Any agency with a Criminal Investigation Division has been spying on its critics since there were agencies or at anyone an Administration or someone in authority pointed them. However, in the not too distant past, agency policy drew a line between them and the cops, although informal "friendly" relationships and exchanges were overlooked. Not any longer. This policy change will not only effect critics and protesters, but any average citizen for any reason. If you want a model as to what you can expect, just read the above posts. It's KGB style intelligence network, which is a useful tool, especially in a police state. "They" are out to get you.

Joe

Notice how the Fed isn't disclosing were the bailout millions, billions, and soon to be trillions are going? However, under this policy change, Big Brother and his myriad law enforcement siblings will know not only where your money is going but to whom, when, and why. Was the Patriot Act really intended to keep us safe from "terrorists" or just to ensure control in an economic crisis?

BTW, what do the two audio-video surveillance devices with satellite up-link on the utility power transformers or the tracking device hardwired into the mini-van have to do with finding Osama bin Laden or fighting "terrorism?" That's a rhetorical question. The answer is: nothing. It's just abuse of power. Why do "they" do it? Because they can! I'm nothing more than an inconvenient embarrassment. "They" have been doing this kind of stuff for some time. The Patriot Act(s) made it "legal." And, like the Patriot Act(s) it's about controlling the "peasants." "They" are out to get you.

USPS EXPRESS MAIL TRACKING # EH 222975937 US

December 11, 2008

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

“When just one of us loses just one of our rights, then the freedoms of all of us are diminished."- FBI Director Robert S. Mueller.

Re: FBI oversight

Dear Chairman Leahy,

Despite FBI Director Mueller’s assurances, there are no effective controls to prevent the inevitable abuses resulting from the recent changes to DOJ regulations that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect intelligence on individuals and or-ganizations even if the information is unrelated to any criminal activity. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have an inherent conflict of interest in investigating themselves and each other. These changes are too open to deliberate misinterpretation and abuse by those with the will to do so. 28 C.F.R. Part 23 already provided all the direction necessary for law enforcement to do their job within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights while keeping all of us safe from the real terrorists and criminals.

My situation is a case in point and serves as a model as to what to expect from these new regulations. After exhausting all administrative remedies with the State of Florida to resolve my charges of illegal electronic surveillance and harassment against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Holmes County Sheriff’s Department, and the West Florida Electric Co-Op, I filed a complaint with the FBI Jacksonville Field Office. When Jacksonville refused to reply to inquiries regarding the status of my complaint, I mailed a more detailed one, dated December 11, 2007, to FBI Director Mueller and included a copy of a VHS tape (enclosed). Electronic surveillance experts said that the audio phenomenon that I managed to record, such as the amplification and unnatural resonance of the dog’s barking and sound of the aircraft, is indicative of electronic surveillance. Earlier three other electronic surveillance experts all verified illegally mounted electronic surveillance devices on the utility poles servicing the house and grounds, but refused to supply their reports. One expert even identified the manu-facturer of the devices as Audio Intelligence Devices, a supplier to law enforcement and government agencies. When the FBI refused to reply to my complaints, I filed a number of FOIA/PA requests in order to get an acknowledgment of my charges by the FBI. However, the FBI denied having any records related to me or my charges, even though I mailed my complaints EXPRESS MAIL and FBI personnel signed for them. The Jacksonville Field Office even denied receiving my FOIA/PA Request.

I appealed the FBI’s "no record" responses. Deputy Chief Work of the Administrative Appeals Staff dismissed my appeals as "moot" and closed my appeal files, because both FBI HQ and the Jacksonville Field Offices denied having any records. She even dismissed an appeal that I hadn’t filed yet. Consequently, I filed two separate complaints, one under the Patriot Act, with the DOJ OIG charging FBI employees with misconduct. When the IG didn’t acknowledge my complaints, I filed a FOIA/PA request with the DOJ OIG seeking records related to my filed charges against named FBI employees. I received a "no records" response to my FOIA. The IG denied receiving my complaints.

Around this time period, I called FBI HQ mailroom, which easily tracked my EXPRESS MAIL letter to FBI Director Mueller and the room/unit where it was eventually delivered. I suspect that my phone call to the FBI mailroom and/or two complaints filed with the DOJ OIG charging the FBI with lying to cover-up and abuse of the Patriot Act may have prompted Civil Rights CID Chief Peeples’ reply. He returned my complaint and evidence addressed to FBI Dir. Mueller and wrote: "The allegations that you have brought to our attention do not warrant any action by the FBI."

My charges most certainly warrant the FBI’s action as a form of check and balances and oversight to state and local law enforcement abuses, especially in light of these new regulations. I’ve enclosed a copy of my letter, dated December 11, 2007, and evidence, including a VHS videotape, to FBI Director Mueller. I am requesting that the Senate Judiciary Committee investigate my charges and that you or your staff present my complaint directly to FBI Director Mueller for his reply. I began this letter with the following quote from Director Mueller: “When just one of us loses just one of our rights, then the freedoms of all of us are diminished.” I would like to know if he means what he said or are they just words.

Sincerely,
Joe Keegan

Appeared as summoned at the Holmes County courthouse (FL 14th Judicial Circuit)Friday morning, Dec. 12, for jury duty. I was prospective juror #37. After Clerk of the Court Cody Taylor explained the procedures, he asked if anyone wanted to talk to the judge about being excused from duty. I figured that I better because I didn’t want to get hit with contempt of court charges for exposing official police misconduct and abuse to the judge while on the stand in his court. Taylor called a one half hour recess and called me over to him. He told me that the judge doesn't want to talk to me and said that I'm excused.

I am sure that there is no question about the matter.

They are just words.

-

That's a riot, Joe. A silver lining to your big, dark, cloud.