White House Office of Public Liaison

I sent the following request for help to President Obama via the above referenced website:

I'm requesting President Obama's help in resolving a problem that has gone on for much too long, and all levels of government have been unresponsive and unwilling to help. The problem is abuse of authority and cover-up regarding warrant less electronic surveillance. Three electronic surveillance experts have all verified the presence of surveillance devices, yet no responsible public authority, including FBI Director Mueller, will do anything. For a further explanation, please see the the topic "Who's Watching Big Brother?" at the Reader Rant section of Capitol Hill Blue's website. I need the President's help. Thank you.
Joe Keegan

What was he up to?

When I left the store this morning, I saw the guy running from my parked vehicle across to the next lane and get in the SUV on the passenger side. After a minute or so, he got out, ran around to the driver's side, got in, and drove off. He appeared anxious. It was almost funny in a sick sort of way.

New Sheriff in Town

The Holmes County Times Advertiser reported on the front page in its February 11, 2009 edition that "Dope distribution takes a hit in Holmes County." The HC Sheriff's Department and Florida Highway Patrol hauled away 200 pounds of marijuana from a two-story log home and are seeking its owner.The owner built compartments in his home in which to hold the 25-pound pot bales. The Holmes County Times Advertiser reported that Chief Deputy John Braxton, Jr., said, "He was a major distributor." Braxton also commented, "He's been doing this for about 10 years" and "He flew under the radar."

The raid resulted from an investigation that began after a traffic stop in mid January just after Tim Brown was sworn in as the new Sheriff, replacing former Sheriff Dennis Lee. The former Sheriff will take a position with the Bay County Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Brown said that state and federal authorities have been notified.

DC Office call

I called Senator Leahy's DC office early yesterday morning. I spoke with Dan (they also don't give last names). I asked Dan if I could speak to Senator Leahy. Dan said that Sen. Leahy was unavailable and asked if I wanted to leave a message. I said yes and told Dan that I sent the Senator a package regarding FBI Patriot Act abuse and illegal electronic surveillance, a VHS tape, and some emails, and asked if the Senator viewed the VHS tape. Hopefully Senator Leahy will give me the courtesy of a reply call or email.

Sen. Leahy

Just awhile ago, I emailed the above post to Senator Leahy. Gosh, I hope I don't get into any trouble.

Joe Keegan
Bonifay, Florida

Senate Judiciary Committee

Got off the phone a short while ago with Steve (they don't give last names)at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Steve said that they received and forwarded my letter and evidence to Counsel by "issue area (subject)." I asked what "issue area" or what Subcommittee. He said that he didn't know. I asked for Counsel's phone number. He said that he can't release it. I asked for the name of the Chief Counsel. He said that he can't give it. So I asked to speak to Chairman Leahy. He said that the Senator's busy. So I asked him to schedule an appointment. He said that he can't do that and that I'd have to call his office. I asked Steve what he thought of cover-ups. Steve said that he's against them.

I sent the following email to Senator Leahy requesting a brief telephonic appointment:
Dear Sen. Leahy,

I just got off the phone with Steve at the Senate Judiciary Committee. He confirmed that they received my packet regarding the FBI and illegal electronic surveillance that I sent to you last month and they forwarded it to counsel by issue area. Unfortunately, he couldn't give me a phone number for counsel, the issue area, or the name of the chief counsel. I requested that he connect me to you so that I may find out the status of my charges and evidence. He said that you're busy and he can't do that. So I asked him if he could schedule an appointment with you and he said no and that I'd have to call your office to do so. Since I'm not in your area code, I'm requesting 5 minute phone conversation with you to discuss this matter. I've listed
my address and phone number below. Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,
Joe Keegan

Senate Judiciary Subcommittees

Monday, Dec. 22, 2008, I emailed Sen. Leahy and faxed the senate Judiciary Committee and Subcommittees the following message:

December 22, 2008

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: 202-224-9516

Re: FBI Oversight- Please associate with my Dec. 11, 2008 letter (USPS # EH 222975937 US)

Dear Chairman Leahy,

I appeared as summoned at the Holmes County courthouse (FL 14th Judicial Circuit) Friday morning, Dec. 12, 2008, 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 raised my hand. I intended to present the judge with evidence of my charges in his chambers. 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. This is the same courthouse in which another judge earlier declared a mistrial in my neighbors’ drug case that I referenced in my December 11, 2007 letter to FBI Director Mueller. The judge dismissed the case because the State Attorney and FDLE withheld evidence and testimony. I suspect that the withheld evidence would prove my charges.

The above is representative of all state officials’ responses to my charges and why I am requesting the Senate Judiciary Committee’s help. No Florida politician will intervene on my behalf. My situation is not unique. The Patriot Act just legalized what various agencies have been doing for years, and there are no effective checks and balances to the inevitable abuses. The recent DOJ policy changes regarding information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement only makes it easier to cover-up such abuses on all levels. If you have any questions, please contact me and I will answer any questions that you may have and provide you with whatever additional information that you may require. Thank you.

Sincerely

Joe Keegan

Jury Duty

Appeared as summoned at the courthouse 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 might as well to avoid a possible scene, because no prosecutor would allow me to sit on any jury anyway. 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.

US Senate Judicicary Committee

The USPS verified delivery of my EXPRESS MAIL envelope tracking #: EH 222975937 US at 11:08 AM on December 12, 2008 in WASHINGTON, DC 20510 to SENATE 20510 R6 . The item was signed for by E TURNER. A copy of the text of my letter follows:

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

"They" are out to get you

Maddow: New rules kick Patriot Act foes 'right in the teeth'

Although many of the regulations have to do with energy and the environment, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow noted on Tuesday that there's also "one that'll kick opponents of the Patriot Act right in the teeth."

The proposed regulation "would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect intelligence on individuals and organizations even if the information is unrelated to any criminal matter," Maddow explained. She added, "Even if they weren't already watching you -- they soon could be."

President Bush will sign this DOJ policy change proposal and it will be in effect before Nov. 22. The missing word is "sharing." All law enforcement, federal, state, and local, will 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 pointing them at someone. However, in the not too distant past, agency policy drew a line between one another in order to avoid the appearance of a police state, 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 the condensed and sanitized posts in this blog. Pres. Bush is "legalizing" a KGB style intelligence network, which is a useful tool if you're a police state and want to spy on your citizens. "They" are out to get you.

DOJ Civil Rights Division

I received a letter, dated Oct. 31, 2008 and postmarked Nov. 5, 2008, yesterday 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.

After FBI Director Mueller's US Senate Testimony

I received two letters yesterday from the DOJ/FBI. The first letter, dated Sept. 22, 2008, was from an Angela L. Byers, Unit Chief, Initial Processing Unit. Her letter apparently is in response to one of two complaints that I filed on March 17, 2008 with the DOJ OIG against FBI employees. As mentioned in above posts, I had to file FOI/PA requests to find out what happened to my complaints. The FOI/PA response was that there was no records of either complaint.

Whoever signed for Ms. Byers wrote that "We acknowledged receipt of your communications dated March 17, 2008, that you directed to the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice (DOJ/OIG), on September 25, 2007. First, I faxed and emailed both complaints on March 17, 2008, which is the day that they received it, and I believe that Ms. Byers mistakenly wrote the year as "2007" instead of 2008. If so, she also got the date wrong as her letter to me is dated September 22, 2008 and I supposedly referred it to her unit on September 25- three days after she wrote the letter. If her date is correct, however, my complaint was forwarded to her unit six months before I filed it. Apparently my complaint is caught up in some FBI time/space warp, which would also explain the whereabouts of my other separate complaint charging and incontrovertibly proving that FBI employees lied.

At any rate, she wrote that my complaint was against the FBI's Jacksonville Division,including former Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Folmar. She eventually concluded that I didn't provide any specific evidence to support my allegations and the royal "we" in her unit determined that this matter doesn't warrant further administrative action and the matter is closed. Realize that this is the division that insures the honesty and integrity of FBI employees.

The second letter, dated September 23, 2008, is from David M. Hardy, who handles the FBI's FOIA's, in reference to Request No: 1111513-001. Section Chief Hardy wrote that his letter was to advised me that my pending FBI request is being reviewed by an analyst. I had received a letter, dated July 7, 2008, from US DOJ Office of Information and Privacy Associate Director Janice Galli McLeod regarding- Appeal No.08-1881;Request No. 1111513. Assoc. Dir. McLeod remanded my FOI/PA request (1111513)back to the FBI. At the time I wondered why, because the FBI already denied having any records and described earlier appeals as moot, even though they denied one of my request under a FOIA exemption.

I can only conclude that the FBI is lying and covering up not only for their own employees failure to investigate my charges, but also for Florida law enforcement official misconduct and abuse, which amounts to psychological torture. The old saying that "one hand washes the other and they both wash the face" is appropriate here. I have suspicions that the FDLE would return the favor if they stumbled upon some illegal FBI surveillance.

There are no checks and balances to these abuses no matter what FBI Director Mueller may have told the Senate last week. Finally, the condensed and sanitized version of my charges that you're reading here is nothing compared to what the general public will see and possibly you yourself experience in the near future.

Joe

US DOJ Special Litigation Section

Last week I received an interesting letter, dated August 25, 2008, from Glynis Raval, DOJ Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, following FBI Dir. Mueller's testimony before the US Senate. She thanked me for my unidentified correspondence and cited the applicable USC sections for their authority. I had sent a letter with evidence to FBI Director Mueller requesting an investigation. If I remember correctly, I believe that it was the FBI Civil Rights CID chief that eventually replied and told me (my words) to buzz off. So I sent a letter to Ms. Raval thanking her for her letter and asking what correspondence that she was referencing. Since Ms. Raval didn't reply to my recent letter, I faxed a FOIA/PA to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division requesting copies all correspondence both to and from Special Litigation.

OJP Public Comments

The DOJ Office of Justice Programs published proposals for state and local police in the July 31 Federal Register that would allow the cops to launch their own criminal investigations based on the suspicion that a target in engaged in criminal activity, including terrorism, and solicited public comments. You're looking at the creation of an American Stasi. I commented electronically and received the Comment tracking number 806ece34. However, before anyone can track my timely submitted comment, the DOJ has to post it to www.regulations.gov. So far, they haven't. The text of my still unpublished Comment follows:

Dear Mr. Deaver:

Re: OJP Docket No. 1473

As an American citizen whose 4th Amendment right has been violated with impunity by state and local law enforcement (see http://www.governmentspying.blogspot.com), I strongly recommend that the DOJ does not enact the proposed changes to 28 C.F.R. Part 23 for the following reasons: 28 C.F.R. Part 23 already provides for information sharing between state and federal agencies. Furthermore, the DOJ does not have the resources or manpower to adequately train the police in the administration of these proposed changes or investigate the inevitable abuses that will result. The proposed changes, in effect, will give state and local authorities carte blanche to “investigate” any law-abiding citizen, including whistle blowers, protesters, and government policy critics, and expand the scope of any criminal investigation to include the lawyers and witnesses of anyone exposing official misconduct or exercising their First Amendment right. State and local police have an inherent conflict of interest in investigating themselves and these proposed changes eliminate any remaining checks and balances; thereby, providing the “legal” framework to cover-up official misconduct and abuse of authority.

As an American citizen whose life has been affected by such abusive law enforcement investigations based not on any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but rather self-serving innuendoes and conducted under the color of law, I am specifically concerned with the following proposed changes to Section 23.20(e) and (f) which expands the dissemination of information that may assist in preventing crime or violence or “any conduct dangerous to human life or property.” In effect, these proposed changes would destroy any privacy and civil liberties based on some vague definition of “dangerous.” By deleting the word “imminent,” Section 23.20(f)(2) allows the dissemination of criminal intelligence “to a government official or any other individual, when necessary to avoid danger to life or property” which could easily serve as a pretext to discredit an individual or their charges and intimidate or threaten witnesses under the color of law.

These proposed changes are too open to deliberate misinterpretation and abuse by those with the will to do so. 28 C.F.R. Part 23 already provides 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.

Respectfully submitted,
Joe Keegan

DOJ Special Agent in Charge

I received a letter, dated 8-11-08, Tuesday from Glenn G. Powell, Special Agent in Charge, DOJ OIG Special Operations, Investigation Division. The text of his letter follows:

Dear Mr. Keegan:

The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated March 17, 2008. The matters that you raised are more appropriate for review by another office or Agency. Therefore, your complaint has been forwarded to:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Inspection Division
935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20535

Any further correspondence regarding this matter should be directed to that office.

I hope this answers any questions you have relative to this matter.

Sincerely,
Glenn G. Powell
Special Agent in Charge

I had filed two complaints against DOJ (FBI) employees with the DOJ OIG. When the DOJ OIG didn't respond, I filed a FOI/PA request to obtain copies of my complaints. The DOJ OIP replied with a no-records response, i.e. they lied and said that there are no records. The DOJ also returned previous FOI Appeals to the FBI for processing of my original FOI/PA requests- the FBI lied and said that there were no records. The FBI had denied receiving my EXPRESS MAIL charging the FDLE and others with criminal misconduct. I still haven't received a reply to those Appeals returned to them by the DOJ from the FBI. This is the standard tactic that any law enforcement agency uses to cover-up misconduct by another agency; professional courtesy, if you will. They cover-up for each other. In the case of the Florida Governor's OIG, they returned my complaints to the FDLE, which refused to investigate itself. So much for checks and balances.

Special Agent in Charge Powell's letter is an example of things to come when the DOJ's new proposal to ease police spy rules reported in the Washington Post takes effect. Actually, if you've read any of my posts in this thread, you'll see that they have been in effect for quite some time. The DOJ's proposal would make it easier for cops to collect "intelligence" on Americans and share it with federal agencies. You should be concerned. Just as the White House's, DOJ's, and state and local spokesmen will assure you that these "new" spy measures won't be abused and that there are checks and balances, I can assure you that they will be abused and there are no checks and balances. Adios, 4th Amendment!

Remanded

I received a letter, dated July 7, 2008, yesterday, Friday July 11, 2008, from- and I believe that this is the right title/agency- US DOJ Office of Information and Privacy Associate Director Janice Galli McLeod regarding- Appeal No.08-1881; Request No. 1111513; KM MJS. Long and short of it is that she's remanding my request for FBI records related to me back to the FBI. My only question is, why. The FBI already denied having any and describe earlier appeals as moot. I didn't appeal the appeals or bring them to court. I'll scan and eventually post her letter along with the others.

Rainmakers

It's been raining all weekend and probably will continue through Sunday. The rain's appreciated, but I hope that they know what they're doing.

Natasha

I returned home late this afternoon to a message on the answering machine. A Natasha, a FOIA specialist with the Office of...., left a message for Joseph Keegan. Unfortunate- ly, the message was abruptly cut off omitting the name of Natasha's agency and return phone number. The answering machine was working properly, so it's possible that she called during this afternoon's thunderstorm and lightening may have hit either the electrical or phone line interrupting her call. At any rate, she didn't call back.

Spraying Vitamin C?

Walking the dogs along the drive just past the culvert headed east when I noticed that a large helicopter flying W-NW at just over 1,000 ft accompanied by 4 smaller planes was spraying something. Whatever it was it was clearly visible, whitish, and sprayed in the form of a puffy cloud rather than a stream. Earlier this morning while in Marianna, I observed one or two jets spraying chemtrails at about 30k ft, so we'll probably have rain with the next day or two. The helicopter pilot may have seen me, because when I waved to them the helicopter, followed by its entourage, veered sharply north to fly over the house. I suspect that whatever was discharged wasn't the typical chemtrail mix.

What would Mulder and Scully do?

I filed my first 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 to FBI Director Mueller and included a copy of a VHS tape. When FBI HQ didn’t respond, I filed 4 separate FBI FOIPA Requests. I filed the first 2 general requests at the same time seeking all records related to me: #1 with the Jacksonville FBI Field Office and #2 with DC FBI HQ. RIDS Section Chief Hardy timely replied to FBI HQ’s #2: "No records responsive to your FOIPA request were located by a search of the automated and manual indices. If you desire a search of the Field Office files, you must contact the appropriate Field Office." As noted, I already filed #1 with Jacksonville. When Jacksonville didn’t respond after an inordinate period, I phoned them and spoke to the FOIA manager. First time he said that that Jacksonville FBI would reply to my FOIA when they received FBI HQ’s authorization to release my records. Second time he changed his story and said that he doesn’t understand what’s going on, knows nothing, and that DC HQ would handle it. When FBI HQ didn’t respond after two months to #1, I filed an FOI Appeal. Shortly afterward Chief Hardy replied to #1 with the standard "no records" reply quoted above minus the referral to the local Field Office. So I then filed a more specific FOIPA request (#3) addressed to the Jacksonville Special Agent in Charge and later another specific request (#4) with FBI HQ regarding my charges and evidence that I sent to FBI Director Mueller. When neither office replied within the statutory period to #’s 3&4, I filed 2 separate additional FOI Appeals.

The DOJ Supervisory Administrative Specialist replied to my appeal regarding #3 was that the FBI denied receiving #3 and that they referred #3 to the FBI. The FBI lied: Jacksonville FBI personnel signed for #3 and a Duty Agent said that he found my request in the system. She also wrote that I could appeal any future adverse determination made by the FBI. When the FBI didn’t respond timely to #3, I again appealed the FBI’s failure to make an initial determination within the statutory period. I filed a similar appeal regarding FBI DC HQ’s failure to respond to #4. So I filed 4 FOIPA Requests and 4 FOI Appeals- all appeals treated agency’s failure to make an initial determination within statutory period as a denial.

I received another no records reply, dated March 25, 2008, from RIDS Chief Hardy. He referenced the FOIPA # that the FBI assigned my request, but not the date of my request, so I didn’t know if he was referring to my Jacksonville or DC requests. When the FBI FOIPA Public Information (PIO) failed to respond to my inquiries regarding what request- #’s 2, 3, or 4- Hardy’s March 25, 2008 no records letter addressed, I called the FBI Public Liason Officer (PLO) for an answer. The PLO never returned my call. Instead, an FBI employee who said that she’s not even a supervisor or the person that handles it but will answer my questions and remail Hardy’s March 25, 2008 letter. Eventually she indicated that Hardy’s no records letter referred to request #4.

Coincidentally, I received a letter, dated April 17, 2008, from Anne D. Work, Deputy Chief Administrative Appeals Staff, the same day that I received Hardy’s remailed March 25, 2007 letter. The text of Deputy Chief Work’s letter follows:
This responds to your letters dated February 11 and March 8, 2008, in which you attempted to appeal from the failure of the Headquarters Office and Jacksonville Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to respond to your requests for access to records pertaining to your correspondence with Director Robert S. Mueller III and "Jacksonville FBI documents."

The FBI responded to your requests by letters dated September 21, 2007, and November 7, 2007 (copies enclosed). Because the FBI responded to your requests, your appeals from the FBI's failure to respond are moot. Accordingly, I am closing your appeal files in this Office.

The Deputy Chief was perhaps too conscientious and premature in closing my case. Although the FBI lied in their no record responses to my ’07 FOIPA Requests, my Sept 21 and Nov 7 requests, which she based her decision, they don’t address my Jan. 5. 2008 FOIPA, requesting records pertaining to my Dec. 11, 2007 charges and evidence to FBI Director Mueller. I checked with DC FBI Logistics mail-room in civilian terms. The FBI logs and tracks mail via identifier numbers and carriers, which is only common sense and I suspect that they assign a DLN to the others. The mail-room easily tracked my EXPRESS MAIL letter to Dir. Mueller and the room/unit where it was eventually delivered. I filed two complaints with the DOJ OIG charging the FBI with lying to cover-up and abuse of the Patriot Act, which may have prompted a reply to my charges and evidence that I sent to Dir. Mueller. I received a letter, dated April 29, 2008, from a Carlton L. Peeples, Chief, Civil Rights Unit, CID and postmarked May 5, 2008. The letter included the material that I had sent Mueller as well as a VHS tape, which I haven’t viewed yet. The text of Chief Peeples' letter follows:

Dear Mr. Keegan:

This letter is in response to the correspondence that you addressed to the FBI.

The allegations that you have brought to our attention do not warrant any action by the FBI. You may wish to pursue these issues with the assistance of an attorney.

My charges most certainly warrant some agency’s action as a form of check and balances and oversight, which the FBI refuses to provide for a variety of reasons, primarily because they make the state clowns look like altar boys. If an unaccountable, arrogant, and abusive criminal government agency can do this to me, then they can do it to you. More importantly they can do it to anyone, including your Congressman.