02/27/09 Loretta King Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Office of the AA General, Main Washington, D.C. 20530 WEBSITE

"The peace and prosperity of our nation hinge on the integrity of our law enforcement officers," said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "We will continue to vigorously prosecute police corruption both to protect the rights of individuals and to maintain faith in our legal system."

"AAAG Loretta King"

I am the victim of a surveillance technology commonly referred to as "Synthetic Telepathy". You can review information about the existence & usage of such technology from the links below & the "Technology" link on the menu. This was my original complaint.

You should also review the video from the A&E | History series That's Impossible "Mind Control" documenting the intended usage of this technology.

I had reason to believe that the U.S. Marshals Service might be responsible for the "illegal electronic surveillance" which remains an "allegation" at this time. So I contacted the U.S. Marshals Service internal affairs division then Congress as directed by federal statute:

Title 18> Part I> Chapter I> § 4 [LINK]
§ 4. Misprision of felony

I was told in writing by the Chief of the U.S. Marshals Service internal affairs division that there would be a "private" investigation with an "undisclosed" outcome, this constitutes "obstruction of justice".

Then when they were questioned by Congress about the "private" investigation the U.S. Marshals Service Congressional affairs division stated in writing that no such investigation "ever existed" this is a "false statement".

This is what's known as a contradiction commonly referred to as a lie. I am currently pursuing an investigation of the written contradictions of which I have established my "burden of proof" with the documented evidence. One of us is lying I want a federal grand jury to decide but the U.S. Department of Justice does not. It's been five years, either way one of us has violated federal statute:

Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 47 > § 1001 [LINK]
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally.

So here's what happens, you read about the method of illegal electronic surveillance and "your" naive arrogance forces you to conclude that it can't be true because "you" never heard of it before and it goes beyond "your" level of comprehension. Similar to thinking the Earth was flat. Yet in actuality you never heard of anything until the first time you actually hear of it. So that is highly illogical thinking. So you don't believe in television, cell phones, night vision, thermal imaging, MRI's or satellites either. Because you would have to be insane to think that all of those forms of technology could exist either based upon your line of reasoning.

This is "not" about religion but do you believe in God? If so why? That's something that someone told you as well. Open a Bible and read then come back and tell me again why you and one hundred million other people believe what you read there but not here? So are you saying that I'm crazy because I'm discussing technology which I have "proved" exists but you and King John are sane in your beliefs?

What's the difference between technology and religion? Which can you prove to exist? As far as your conclusion of my allegations if the Bible will be used to take my testimony how then can I not be believable based upon what I have to say? How do you believe one over the other and based upon what? You don't know me or King John but you dismiss me and believe him? I just flawlessly invalidated your argument in front of a jury.

The allegations of illegal electronic surveillance are a totally "separate" complaint. If the top psychologist in the Country determined that I was under some form of mental duress. My state of mind has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. Marshals Service "lying" about the internal affairs investigation. So how do you dismiss their actions based upon my state of mind? I don't control them.

Why does everyone try to say there's something wrong with me but totally disregard the documented "lies" of the two individuals who are considered to be professional law enforcement officers? I did not make them say two different things so why are "they" lying? No one seems to have a valid response to that question. I'll wait.

Although I have their conflicting documents with signatures on official agency letterhead. The U.S. Department of Justice refuses in "writing" to enforce any federal statutes of law. You can't get a gun to smoke anymore than that.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion you don't have to believe me personally but you cannot deny signed documents. So if my complaint is a "fabrication" why did the U.S. Marshals Service "lie" in such an "egregious" manner? Why does the U.S. Department of Justice refuse to investigate & then make a determination based upon federal statute of law instead of contributing to the "malfeasance"? 

U.S. Department of Justice Mission statement [LINK]

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

I originally submitted a misconduct complaint to the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection (internal affairs division).

***NOTE THE DATES***

1: Dated May 11, 2005: I receive a response from the USMS Office of Inspection acknowledging receipt of my complaint but it "did not" contain a determination of what actions if any would be taken.

2: Dated July 05, 2005: Prior to a determination being made by the USMS internal affairs division the Chief of the USMS Congressional Affairs division made "false statements" in writing to Congress where he clearly assures Congress that the issue has been resolved & no investigation is required.

3: Dated July 07, 2005: As part of a FOIA request I later received this document from the U.S. Marshals Service filed by the USMS Office of Inspection. At which time they submitted an official internal document as an Administrative not Criminal complaint. "Case file # 05-0339" which states my complaint officially as an allegation of "Failure To Follow Proper Procedure" with a Disposition of "Closed Insufficient Evidence". This was also filed as a "Discretionary Closure" it also shows that they did not forward my complaint to the USDoJ Office of the Inspector General as "required" by USDoJ policy.

To date the U.S. Marshals Service has never contacted me personally in writing stating that my case has been given a disposition of closed.

4: Dated September 19, 2005: I received a second letter from the Chief Inspector of the USMS internal affairs division which stated in "writing" that based upon my information they would conduct an official investigation of my original allegations but "Due to privacy issues you are not entitled to know the outcome of the investigation".

Thus contradicting the letter which the USMS Congressional Affairs division previously sent to Congress. This letter also conflicts with their internal case file # 05-0339 which states that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with an official investigation. This now implies that they had sufficient evidence to proceed previously as my original complaint remained the same.

This action has also validated the integrity of my complaint as they cannot state internally that my complaint was invalid in July then state to me in writing that my complaint is valid in September. Why does the internal affairs case # 05-0339 contradict what they told me in writing? Within those two documents lies yet another "false statement" which constitutes "obstruction of justice".

The USMS Office of Inspection is responsible for receiving complaints from the public filed against employees of the USMS. How does the USMS determine when the outcome of an investigation is public or private? Once they determine that the outcome of the investigation is to be adjudicated privately, how is the U.S. Attorney able to utilize a federal grand jury to determine if indictments are required?

Why is the USDoJ exercising "prosecutorial discretion" depriving me of my Constitutional right to petition the government therefore denying me any lawful compensation owed under federal statute of law? Has Congress or the U.S. Attorney General authorized this unlawful action?

5: Dated December 27, 2005: The Chief of the Congressional Affairs division states to Congress "He refuses to believe us." Contradicting the Chief of internal affairs who previously stated that "I am not entitled to know anything about the investigation". So what exactly do I refuse to believe?

According to internal affairs wouldn't Congressional Affairs now be guilty of "obstructing an ongoing federal investigation"? A federal grand jury might be compelled to ask how could I possibly refuse to believe information that I am unaware of?

Then he continues to make "false statements" in writing to Congress when he states that "Since he has not submitted any plausible information, the USMS is not investigating his allegations." Once again totally contradicting the Chief of the USMS internal affairs division who has already stated to me in writing that there would be an official investigation "based upon my information".

The U.S. Attorney General might consider that two senior section Chiefs of the U.S. Marshals Service a division of the Executive branch of U.S. government contradicting themselves in writing one directly to Congress in regards to a federal internal affairs investigation to be extremely plausible information.

6: Dated January 30, 2008: Responding to an inquiry from Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General stated in writing that "Mr. Reynolds alleged that the USMS has provided him with conflicting statements regarding his allegations".

Whereas I did not allege that there were conflicting statements. I provided substantive documented proof of "false statements" made in writing to Congress in violation of federal statute:

Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 47 > § 1001 [LINK]
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General's adjudication process consisted solely of forwarding my complaint back to the USMS Office of Inspection. Totally disregarding the fact that the USMS Congressional Affairs division already stated that they "would not" respond to any future inquiries from me. The U.S. Marshals Service proved this point as they never acknowledged to me that they even received this letter on my behalf from the Office of the Inspector General.

7: Dated March 20, 2008: After submitting all of the official documented evidence. This is the response which I received from Michael J. Garcia the former "U.S. Attorney" for the Southern District of New York.

I was unaware that he had the authority to circumvent federal law with his opinion. He chose to ignore the "obstruction" but he did duly note the "false statements". So as a private U.S. citizen am I allowed to file a criminal complaint under federal law?

8: Dated September 29, 2008: I received a letter from "Mark J. Kappelhoff" the section Chief of the U.S. Department of Justice > Criminal Section > Civil Rights Division. Where he does not state that it has been proven that I am not the victim of "illegal electronic surveillance".

Yet he does state in writing that "illegal electronic surveillance" of U.S. citizens does not violate any "prosecutable" federal civil rights statutes.

9: Dated July 30, 2009: I received this response from the U.S. Department of Justice > Criminal Division. As per my correspondence to the "U.S. Attorney General".

The "Criminal Division" has determined that the numerous "federal statutes" that have been violated in "writing" by the "U.S. Marshals Service" & now the "U.S. Department of Justice" do not fall within federal jurisdiction as they would have to prosecute themselves.

They have also "obstructed justice" by indicating that I should cease & desist contacting their office with "plausible" & "substantive" information in reference to violations of federal statute which violates federal statute:

Title 18> Part I> Chapter I> § 4 [LINK]
§ 4. Misprision of felony

Although "false statements" made by federal law enforcement to Congress violate federal statute [§ 1001]. The USDoJ unlawfully stated to me in writing that such violations "do not" fall within the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice.

I like to describe my case using what I like to moniker the Al Capone Theory "It's not about what he did. It's about what he got caught doing." 

Contrary to the unlawful "arbitrary & capricious" statement in the letter above. The U.S. Department of Justice has a division responsible for investigating allegations of "false statements" & "obstruction of justice" as indicated below. Yet this division refuses to investigate or respond to any of my  direct requests for assistance.

FRAUD AND PUBLIC CORRUPTION

Steve Durham [LINK]
Chief
U.S. Attorney's Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 514-7566
dc.outreach@usdoj.gov

The Fraud and Public Corruption Section (FPC) is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of a variety of white collar crimes. These include economic crimes, such as tax violations, thefts, and embezzlements, as well as business, banking, securities, telemarketing, credit card, computer, identity theft, mail, wire, health care, and consumer frauds.

In addition, this section prosecutes misconduct by "officials" of both "federal" and local governments for violations of the public trust, including improper use of office and improper personal enrichment. It also has responsibility to prosecute private individuals for aiding and abetting government officials in their unlawful conduct, and handles allegations of "false statements" to government agencies, "obstruction of justice", and perjury.

How can documented "false statements" made to Congress by a federal law enforcement agency within the executive branch of government in reference to a federal internal affairs investigation not fall within federal jurisdiction, what other jurisdiction is there? Perhaps Congressional jurisdiction? Is this no longer a federal statute of law?

Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 47 > § 1001 [LINK]
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

Do they realize that a U.S. federal judge has yet to make that same determination within a federal court of law therefore rendering their statements "arbitrary & capricious". Looks like a cage match. Welcome to the "Alberto Gonzales Institute of Criminal Justice" where their motto is "well if you say so, because I had no idea".

This lack of oversight has inadvertently shielded the U.S. Marshals Service from further inquiry & created a conflict of interest. As the U.S. Department of Justice has taken actions consistent with the appearance of facilitating an ongoing "conspiracy to obstruct justice".

Therefore the U.S. Marshals Service cannot legally or ethically be given any responsibility to investigate themselves. These egregious acts of malfeasance still continue without investigation.

How could any competent U.S. Department of Justice attorney review all of this, then send me the "arbitrary and capricious" statements such as the one's I have received? All of which can be downloaded from the menu under USDoJ Documents > Responses I.

Recap:

How could I have been "assured" of anything by the U.S. Marshals Service if the Chief of internal affairs stated in writing that I was not "entitled" to know "anything" about the private investigation?

The U.S. Marshals Service Congressional affairs division stated in "writing" that no such investigation was required "prior" to the internal affairs division making a decision. Then contradicted the internal affairs division by denying the existence of the investigation "after" internal affairs made a decision to investigate.

They obviously made "false statements in writing" to Congress when the Chief of the USMS Congressional Affairs division attempted to "cover up & deny" the very existence of the secret internal affairs investigation or when the Chief of the USMS internal affairs division stated that they would conduct an investigation that was never conducted according to Congressional Affairs.

How could two senior Chief federal law enforcement officers contradict themselves in writing, one directly to Congress several times about the integrity of an internal affairs investigation & the U.S. Department of Justice doesn't even ask the accused one official question on the record or have me appear as a witness before a federal grand jury?

How is it possible that all three of us stated something totally different yet neither of us are lying? I'm the complainant so you gather the statistical data & analyze the probability factors.

Although I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that multiple violations of [§ 1001] have occurred. The responses which I have received from the U.S. Department of Justice have no correlation with federal statute of law. Why do they refuse to investigate my complaint? This question remains unanswered.

I have the documented proof within my USDoJ Documents > USDoJ Misconduct documentation available for download on the left menu.

July 30, 2009

Although "false statements" made by federal law enforcement to Congress violate federal statute [§ 1001]. The USDoJ unlawfully stated to me in writing that such violations "do not" fall within the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice.

I like to describe my case using what I like to moniker the Al Capone Theory "It's not about what he did. It's about what he got caught doing."