Serious Falsehood:  "Complainant alleges that several unspecified persons ..." OIG exempts information that's too personal, yet says I allege about unspecified persons? 

 

Why don't they just come out and say, "we want to misrepresent the complainant as a paranoid schizophrenic because then no one will listen to her and we wonít have to act on the complaint as we should.  So what if she remains endangered while we grant ongoing immunity to the subjects of the complaint who have not done law enforcement the courtesy of ceasing and desisting.After all, we believe that the subjects of the complaint should not suffer any consequence no matter what they do and no matter what it costs other people.  After all, itís not happening to us personally, no skin off our teeth.And we expect to be able to tell blatant lies about what the complainant did and said without anyone noticing the extreme contradiction because we firmly believe that our use of intelligence remains unsurpassed in the species."

NO, I did not make allegations against unspecified persons, but rather specific, real persons, that were identifiable, and who worked at Justice.I also specified where they worked.And not only in the complaint and allegations to OIG, but also in the innumerable exhibits, including e-mail correspondence with the U.S. Attorney's office, which agency, by the way, OIG failed to mention altogether. 

 

Justice employees don't easily give out their names although I certainly had names and direct dials and even e-mail addresses even though I am being stonewalled, and thatís because not all the employees appreciated the way I was being treated.  But where I could not get the name of a person, I provided sufficient information for that individual to have been located because they give you some way to identify them even if they wonít divulge their actual names.  For instance, Operator 8, or Investigator 5.And if you call back and ask for that ridiculous name, youíll get the same person again.

 

Ö Unless that person needs to disappear.