Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mike Dick Lawsuit Against Eric Holder
Mike Dick Lawsuit Against Eric Holder
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No: _________________
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.
United States Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
OTHER UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS
Defendants
SERVE (VIA CERTIFIED MAIL):
Ronald C. Machen, Jr.
US Attorney for the
District of Columbia
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Andrew Weissmann
Office of General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
COMPLAINT
Michael G. Dick, by and through counsel, Kevin E. Byrnes, files this Complaint and in
support thereof, states as follows:
I.
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff: Michael G. Dick, is, at all times relevant to this Complaint, a GS-1811
2.
Defendant: Eric H. Holder, Jr., is the Attorney General of the United States and
is the proper named Defendant in this action. On information and belief, Mr. Holder is a
nominal Defendant only. The actual decision makers in this case are officials in the FBI, which
is an entity that is part of the Department of Justice.
3.
Investigation.
Defendant: Robert S. Mueller, III, is the current director of the Federal Bureau of
That Agency and its supervisors are the real party in interest in this case. As the
Bureau is a component of the Department of Justice, the Department is the proper named party.
II.
defendant involving federal officers acting in their official capacities, 28 U.S.C. 1391(e), and
the matter is brought pursuant to federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. 1331, namely the Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. 552a.
5.
Venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as the
wrongful acts complained of emanated from the Headquarters of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and supervisors in the Headquarters Division, which is located in the District of
Columbia. See 29 USC 1391(b)(1); 28 USC 1391(e)(1)(a) and (b). Further, the Privacy Act
itself rests venue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
III.
SUMMARY
6.
This is an action for violations of the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552 (a) against the
armed, dangerous, had threatened FBI officials, had had his security clearance revoked, and was,
in essence, in hiding.
7.
The Release of the BOLO stemmed from an incident on the FBI firing range in
Quantico, Virginia, where Special Agent Dick severely injured his right hand when the weapons
action caught and gashed his hand between the thumb and forefinger.
8.
treatment on the scene of the injury and for several hours thereafter.
9.
During this time, Plaintiff was in intense pain. When treatment was denied at the
FBI facility at Quantico, Plaintiff was forced to drive several miles while injured, to a private
clinic, where treatment was initially denied because of the Bureaus failures to provide assurance
that Plaintiff was an employee and that he had been injured while on duty.
10.
However, the issue of lack of treatment does not exist in isolation. For several
years now, the Bureau, has engaged in a protracted effort to drive Plaintiff from its ranks. Tools
of harassment include a seemingly endless administrative investigation of Special Agent Dick,
which involve: allegations of improper conduct in employment which are inherently vague and
repeatedly subject to round robin amendment when the initial allegations are dispelled; repeated
suspensions (and then reinstatements of his security clearances), reassignment of Plaintiff to a
location far from his home for work, invasion of private agreements and communication between
him and his attorneys, denial of outside employment, and physical assault and intimidation in
the workplace. Most recently, the Plaintiff has been informed in the course of a protracted
divorce proceeding that soon to be ex-wife has claimed to have received information from
Bureau officials as to Plaintiffs fitness and mental health for which she has sought to use to
deny Plaintiff custody of and visitation with his daughter.
11.
The effort has been sustained and malicious. Although the Agency has, to date,
been careful not to trigger a conduct that could produce outside judicial scrutiny, although the
Agency once proposed dismissal, based on purported serious violations; it carefully retreated
from imposing a penalty of more than 13 days so as to avoid review by the Merit Systems
Protection Board.
12.
The Bureau has used a single demand for medical assistance made while SA Dick
was intense pain, this as a pretext to issue the BOLO which accused Dick of engaging in threats
and of being a danger. The BOLO was followed up with a suspension of Dicks security
clearance. When Dick protested this action to the Bureau and forced the Bureau to respond to a
Fox New press report, the Bureau retaliated further by subjecting Dick to a mandatory
psychiatric fitness for duty examination and suspending his clearance level.
IV.
FACTS
A.
Special Agent Dicks Valued Contributions to the FBI and the U.S. Army
13.
Special Agent Michael Dick joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation on August
4, 1996. After a brief period as field agent in the Newark, New Jersey division, SA Dick was
assigned to the Bureaus Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters.
14.
15.
SA Dick was a first responder to the attacks on the World Trade Center on
September 11, 2001. He saw dead bodies, charred remains and the horrendous physical damages
and human loss caused by the collapse of the twin towers. SA Dick also watched helplessly as
people from the Towers plummeted to their death.
16.
and prevent the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. He managed the Threat Assessment
Operations Group (TAOG) which gathered information and evaluated imminent threats to the
New York Metropolitan Area.
17.
Journalist Daniel Pearl. Mr. Pearl was brutally beheaded by Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
18.
SA Dick helped track leads on the murder of Mr. Pearl and worked on several
When the Diplomatic enclave in Islamabad, Pakistan was attacked and a church
bombed, SA Dick responded to the church and saw the carnage that ensued when a suicide
bomber detonated a number of grenades during a church service, which killed twenty-five
people.
20.
risk. He assisted in the return of a kidnapped Pakistani girl whose father was close to President
Pervez Musharraf.
21.
Among his duties was coordinating information received on potential terrorist threats. As part of
his duties, SSA Dick was assigned to secure information from the Motley Rice Law Firm, which
represented the families of 9-11 victims, who were pursuing a civil law suit against high ranking
Saudi Arabian officials and bankers.
22.
SSA Dick was to collect information from the Motley Firm, but was not to
SSA Dick scrupulously followed this policy. The flow of information was one-
24.
Private investigators held by the Motley Firm pursued investigative leads outside
the United States, without being subject to the limitations imposed on government, federal law
enforcement, the military or corporations on informants for federal agencies.
25.
The investigations led to the capture of a high level terrorist and a reward was
given by the Department of Justice in the millions of dollars to the persons who assisted in that
capture.
B.
26.
An investigator hired by the Motley Rice Firm, Michael Patrick Jost, because
Mr. Jost blamed SSA Dick for being excluded from the award. Mr. Jost began a
campaign to malign SSA Dick with allegations that he had passed sensitive information to the
families of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and was receiving compensation
from their attorneys. Mr. Jost began a fanciful tale of how SSA Dick had amassed riches as a
result of using his FBI position for private gain.
28.
In October 2005, Mr. Dick was mobilized by the U.S. Army as part of Operation
In April, 2006, while on active duty in the United States Army, Mr. Dick was
informed that he was the subject of a criminal investigation based on Mr. Josts allegations.
30.
The FBI commenced an investigation. For two years, in 2005 and 2006, the
Inspector General of the Department of Justice conducted a lengthy inquiry into Mr. Josts
allegations. The IG determined that no criminal wrongdoing or violation of the Department of
Justice policy occurred and declined the matter.
31.
In the spring of 2007, Mr. Dick was informed he was cleared by the OIG
32.
The matter was then apparently referred to the FBI Office of Professional
On November 26, 2007, the FBI proposed SSA Dicks dismissal contenting that
he used improper investigation techniques, was derelict in his duties, disclosed classified or
sensitive information and lacked candor under oath in responding to the Inspector Generals
inquiry. At the time it proposed the dismissal, SA Dick was on active duty.
34.
The FBI contacted the Army regarding the proposed termination, as the proposal
The Army then discharged Mr. Dick from active duty in April, 2008 based on the
37.
Mr. Dick opposed the proposed removal. In his opposition Mr. Dick meticulously
attacked both the unauthorized disclosure allegation and the purported wrongfulness of sending
the loan.
38.
For example, in his defense, Mr. Dick pointed out that he had simply made a loan
to a former Special Agent who was serving as a private contractor in the Middle East. That
individual, with whom Mr. Dick has worked closely, called Mr. Dick to advise him his cover had
been compromised and he could be killed. The individual pleaded for an immediate $10,000
loan to secure transport, Mr. Dick gave him the loan to protect him from capture, torture and
death.
39.
As to the alleged unauthorized disclosures, Mr. Dick pointed out that he had been
On April 29, 2008, FBI OPR determined that while Mr. Dick had not lacked
candor and was not derelict in his duties, he nevertheless disclosed sensitive information and
used improper techniques. OPR contended Mr. Dick wrongfully used a private service to send
sensitive information and improperly provided $10,000 to the civilian contractor.
41.
42.
Mr. Dick appealed the matter internally to the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB).
The DRB is an internal appeal unit which applies a reasonable basis standard to its review. So
long as OPRs decision is reasonable, the DRB will not disturb the findings.
43.
On November 3, 2008, the FBI, through its DRB, made a final determination. The
Board determined that OPRs finding on the most serious charge of disclosure of sensitive
information was incorrect and that Mr. Dick provided proof of supervisory review and approval
of his actions.
44.
As to the alleged improper loan, the Bureau found that while Mr. Dick had loaned
money to a private investigator working overseas for the 9/11 families, in alleged contravention
of a then existing Bureau policy regarding such loans, his motivation was to protect the life of
the investigator who needed to leave the Middle Eastern country where he was working
immediately or face capture, torture and death. Again, this investigator was a former FBI Agent.
45.
The DRB also determined that that Mr. Dick made a de minimis administrative
error in communications with Patrick Jost, when they discussed a protected source of
information. The finding was made although Mr. Jost was already aware of the source, because
the source had, themselves, made the disclosure of their status to Mr. Jost.
46.
The Bureau imposed a thirteen day suspension for the purported misconduct. Mr.
Dick then appealed the suspension to the MSPB. A jurisdictional claim was raised since the
suspension was less than fourteen days and the MSPB generally lacks the authority to hear
appeals from suspensions of less than 14 days.
47.
Prior to the resolution of the issues, the parties settled the case. Mr. Dick believed
48.
As it turned out, this was not the case, and, in fact, his troubles were just
beginning.
49.
same allegations raised by Patrick Jost that led to the prior disciplinary action.
50.
The interview occurred although Mr. Dick protested the interrogation. At the
interrogation he claimed he was being denied due process and his right to have a representative
present. The FBI had its own counsel participate in the interview.
51.
In May, 2011, Special Agent Dick returned to active duty service with the U.S.
Military. Mr. Dick was, at the time a Lieutenant Colonel assigned to Counter Terrorist
Operations in the Special Operations Command.
E.
52.
Mr. Dick remained on active duty service until August, 2011 when he was
abruptly released.
53.
The FBI had contacted the U.S. Army and advised the Army that Mr. Dick was
under investigation and that the military should flag him and his clearance.
54.
information.
55.
Since Mr. Dicks Army position required classified access, the imposition of a
flag ended Mr. Dicks career and voided his pending promotion to Colonel.
56.
The U.S. Army discharged Mr. Dick from active duty and assigned him to the
Mr. Dick returned to the FBI in August, 2011. He was initially told he would not
be rehired.
58.
When Mr. Dick threatened to bring a claim under the Uniformed Services
59.
On the same day he returned, SA Dick was informed he was subject to a new FBI
OPR investigation, which largely consisted of same stale charges arising from the prior OPR
action initiated in 2006.
60.
The Bureau also contended that SA Dick had violated FBI policy by maintaining
a blind trust to pay for his prior legal defense. Such a move was obviously designed to punish
Dick for opposing the Bureau and to intimidate any future legal representative or effort by Mr.
Dick to raise funds for a legal defense.
61.
The Bureau, over the next two years, demanded information that went to the core
of Mr. Dicks relationship with attorneys at Holland and Knight and Joseph Smith, a private
attorney, who had assisted Mr. Dick.
10
62.
The Bureau contended, without any citation to legal authority of any kind that Mr.
Dick had committed fraud when his attorneys had agreed privately and separately to give him a
portion of the Agencys award of attorneys fees to his counsel Joseph Smith.
63.
Mr. Dick protested that an agreement between him and his prior counsel over a
reduction in fees and a return of a portion of those fees back to Mr. Dick was both privileged and
not indicia of fraud. He stated there was no fraud because the Agency had agreed to pay the fees
and that any agreement between Dick and his counsel about how to use those fees was
privileged.
64.
There was and is no fraud. The Agency agreed to pay a certain amount as part
of a settlement. How Mr. Smith chose to use those funds is a matter between him and Mr. Dick.
Mr. Dick argued that his attorneys decision to reduce his own award and give a portion of it
back to Mr. Dick was a private agreement that did not secure government payment through
fraud. Further, Dick appropriately declared any payment he received on his income tax
statements.
65.
The FBI has never stated what it determined with respect to these allegations
despite the passage of 20 months, nor has it; despite repeated requests cited any law that would
render such a payment fraudulent or at all illegal.
66.
The FBI has demanded and received, under protest, Mr. Dicks tax returns, his
communications with his counsel and additional financial information because the Bureau had
threatened to discipline Mr. Dick if he did not comply.
67.
Mr. Dick has never received any discipline from this second investigation
nor has he been cleared of the charges. The FBI has simply maintained that he is under
investigation since January 2011 to the present day.
11
68.
perspectives. If Mr. Dick had engaged in actionable misconduct, the Bureaus delay in taking
action is inexcusable since the Bureau had a duty to punish that misconduct appropriately. Mr.
Dick believes the investigation is designed to actually never end and is merely a retaliatory tool.
G.
69.
In August, 2011, in retaliation for his resistance to the Bureaus harassment, Mr.
Dick was transferred from FBI Headquarters to a desk position in Quantico, Virginia with few
duties. Thus, the Bureau, out of spite, incapacitated an agent with ample military and FBI
experience in counter terrorism in the Middle East.
70.
That transfer required Mr. Dick to make a 150 mile round trip commute each day
71.
Mr. Dick again attempted to assert a USERRA retaliation claim before the MSPB
On September 17, 2012, Mr. Dick submitted an MSPB appeal which alleged that
the FBI was retaliating against him for his assertion of USERRA rights in order to return to the
Bureau.
73.
On September 18, 2012, in direct response to the MSPB Appeal, the FBI included
a new charge of obstruction and failure to cooperate in an administrative matter. The basis of
this allegation was that Mr. Dick could not provide names and contribution amount of
contributions to his legal defense fund which had been set up as a blind trust.
74.
That trust was created by William Roth, III, a private, licensed attorney who set
12
75.
By its terms and by law, the Blind Trust is exactly that. Mr. Dick did not and
does not know who contributed what to his fund. If he were to invade the provisions of the trust
to disclose contributors he would suffer possible tax and legal consequences.
76.
To avoid this, Special Agent Dick referred the investigators to the Trust Executor
and noted that by Agency regulation, the Blind Trust was not a required financial disclosure.
The Agents never met with the Executor, although the Executor made a special trip from
overseas to the area for that purpose.
77.
To alleviate the Bureaus concerns, Special Agent Dick also prepared and
presented financial documents, including tax return for seven years and all of his attorney fee
invoices. This was produced under objection. To date the Bureau has not stated any deficiencies
in these documents nor has it acted on any matters addressed by them.
78.
In addition to the above, the Agency denied Mr. Dick the possibility of external
employment. Special Agents may conduct outside employment with Bureau approval, which is
routinely granted. Yet, on August 22, 2012, Special Agent Dick was denied outside
employment. No reason was given for this denial.
79.
On October 22, 2012, Mr. Dick was called in to provide a signed sworn statement
to the allegations raised in July, 2012. Why the Bureau waited three months for this was never
explained.
80.
Dick reported to the FBI Inspection Division at FBI Headquarters. Mr. Dick had
his signed sworn statement in hand, which addressed each and every issue raised by the Bureau.
81.
Special Agent Lisa Locasico refused to accept Mr. Dicks statement. Instead, she
13
82.
When SA Dick refused to sign the statement that had been prepared for him,
Agent Locasico became irate. She signaled to other Agents who then closed in on him in a
ready position, with their hands by their firearms. Dick was then forcibly removed from the
building with Loscasio and other agents verbally deriding him in the process.
83.
Between November, 2012 and February 1, 2013, Mr. Dick litigated his USERRA
claims before the MSPB. The MSPB issued its initial decision denying the appeal on
jurisdictional grounds on February 1, 2012.
84.
The MSPB Administrative Law Judge determined Congress had exempted FBI
The Administrative Law Judge, however, quoted language from Mr. Dicks
attorney, that the investigation of Mr. Dick had taken an Orwellian and Kafkaesque nature.
The Judge concluded, however, he had no authority to review the Bureaus actions or address its
investigatory efforts.
86.
performance rating of Excellent for 2012. Thus the Bureau could not allege any performance
deficiencies.
I.
87.
On May 7, 2013, SA Dick appeared at the firing range at approximately 8:30 a.m.
14
88.
While firing a Glock 22 semi-automatic pistol, SA Dick injured his right hand
between this thumb and forefinger by the action of his weapon. A gash requiring stitches was
made causing immediate and severe pain.
89.
SA Dick was immediately cleared by the instructor from the firing range and was
directed to a location at the range where gauze was applied by a firearms instructor.
90.
SA Dick then went to the Health Unit at Quantico for emergency treatment of his
work related wound. Upon arrival, SA Dick was asked if he was an FBI employee. He was
instructed by a clerk to fill out a questionnaire. SA Dick informed the clerk he could not do so
because his writing hand was injured. Curiously, the clerk neither asked for medical personnel
nor assisted Mr. Dick in having the form completed through alternative means. Instead, he was
told the doctor could not see him until Mr. Dick physically completed the form.
91.
doctor or medical personnel appeared, Mr. Dick, who was in great pain, had no medication or
treatment and needed immediate care, left the health unit. Fortunately for Mr. Dick, the firearms
instructor asked him if he needed a ride to another location. Mr. Dicks injury and level of pain
made his own ability to drive compromised.
92.
Stafford, Virginia. Once there, Special Agent Dick was advised his condition was too severe to
be treated and directed to a nearby urgent care location.
93.
Once at the third location, SA Dick spoke to a receptionist who asked for his
insurance. When the receptionist inquired as to whether this was a work related injury, which
would be covered by an employer workmans compensation provider, SA Dick gave the
15
telephone number to the FBI Headquarters Switchboard and asked her to contact the Health
Services Unit.
94.
For nearly 40 minutes, the receptionist sought approval from the Health Unit to
provide treatment. Unable to obtain a response, the receptionist directed Mr. Dick to a nurse
practitioner who cleaned his wound to deter infection.
95.
During the cleaning, Mr. Dick passed out from the pain and the cleaning that
exacerbated the pain. This happened at least three times and a second medical provider was
called.
96.
required stitches. The assistant stated the FBI had yet to grant approval for treatment.
97.
Another half hour passed. The receptionist appeared, expressing frustration at her
inability to obtain insurance and treatment approval for Mr. Dick, despite multiple contacts with
Bureau personnel.
98.
A doctor then appeared and stated he could not treat SA Dick until his employer
authorized the treatment. The doctor stated his staff had done all they could and that SA Dick
would have to get approval from the proper officials at the Bureau.
99.
SA Dick remained untreated and un-medicated for his wound. He used his left
hand to call the Health Services Unit. Mr. Dick was repeatedly transferred between Health Unit
employees who appeared mystified by the request and offered no guidance on how to resolve it.
On several occasions, SA Dick ended up in voicemail.
100.
SA Dick then called back and was shocked to hear a Health Unit employee
laughing at him and his efforts to get answers. The employee appeared amused at SA Dicks last
16
name and provided a sexual reference. Mr. Dick demanded to speak with a supervisor but was
simply transferred to voicemail again.
101.
Finally, Mr. Dick called and asked to speak to Mr. Bennett, the Assistant Director
of Human Resources (who was later selected as the decision maker on the issue of whether to
revoke Mr. Dicks clearance). Instead Mr. Dick was sent to the Health Services Unit voicemail
again. Mr. Dick then hung up and went back to the treatment room. Sometime later the Bureau,
through the FBI Academy, finally submitted a facsimile approval for his treatment.
102.
Mr. Dick then received treatment, which included several painkiller shots and
stitches. Mr. Dick was then given a prescription for antibiotics and was also prescribed a
painkiller.
103.
SA Dick was then forced to drive home 72 miles without the use of his right hand
and while recovering from the suture treatment. The Bureau made no attempt to inquire as to his
condition, to assist him with transportation or to document a clearly work related injury covered
by federal insurance. The Bureau simply allowed Mr. Dick to seek self treatment and his own
transportation, while injured, while in pain and while driving was extremely difficult if not
hazardous.
104.
Mr. Dick went to a local pharmacy for his prescription medications. Despite it
being in the middle of the workday (approximately 12:30-1:00 p.m.), the pharmacist could find
no FBI employee to give authorization to fill the prescription, as the pharmacist claimed was
required under federal workmens compensation. This delayed Mr. Dicks receiving prescription
medication for several more hours.
105.
Mr. Dick called the Health Services Unit again and was again transferred several
times. In intense pain and frustrated by the lack of appropriate response from the Bureau, Mr.
17
Dick became agitated and stated he would personally come to the Bureau to straighten out the
approval process. Mr. Dick expressed displeasure at AD Bennett personally because the Health
Unit employee claimed that Mr. Bennett had limited their ability to communicate approval
authority and had revoked issuance of cell phones to facilitate and address requests.1
J.
106.
complete with a grim faced picture of Michael Dick. The FBI noted Mr. Dick as a Subject of
Interest, contended he possessed two weapons, including an AR-15. The BOLO claimed SA
Dick could not enter FBI spaces, had expressed discord and made indirect threats to several
different members of varying divisions of both HQ and Quantico. The BOLO also claimed that
SA Dick was on administrative leave during a pending investigation. The BOLO then went on
to say that SA Dicks clearance was suspended due to personal conduct. The BOLO contended
that his access to FBI Headquarters had been revoked and that SA Dick had made threats
against his chain of command. The BOLO is attached and contains SA Dicks social security
number and his address.
107.
The problem for the FBI is that none of the facts in the BOLO were true. Mr.
Dicks clearance was not suspended until May 9, 2013 when Robert Elliot and another agent
came to Mr. Dicks home, under the guise of delivering workmens compensation forms, to
serve him the instant suspension notice. Second, Mr. Dick made threats against no one, direct or
indirect. He was not on administrative leave at the time of the notice and the investigation he
was subject to, was, and is unclear.
1
Again we are curious as to how objective the decision maker can be, when the source of Mr. Dicks frustration was
the Byzantine approval process, which Health Unit employees claimed was Mr. Bennetts creation. To have Mr.
Bennett reach a decision where the issue involves allegations of impaired process that was his responsibility strikes
us as fundamentally flawed, given an apparent conflict where the decision maker is defending perhaps his own
management conduct by deciding Mr. Dicks fate.
18
108.
Most importantly the BOLO leaves the distinct impression that Mr. Dick was
armed, dangerous and then on the run. This was and is absurd. The FBI has known of Mr. Dicks
actions and whereabouts at all times, On May 7, 2013, May 8, 2013 and thereafter.
109.
The BOLO was issued nationwide to every conceivable local, state and federal
law enforcement agency and garnered national press attention. The FBI only sheepishly
corrected the BOLO in response to a Fox News story and only after Fox quoted the undersigned
counsel dispelling the nonsensical, defamatory and dangerous implications of the BOLO and its
aspersions on Special Agent Dick. Yet, the Bureau has yet to issue a nationwide recall of the
BOLO or to correct its claims in any formal way. Instead the FBI has commented as follows:
FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told Fox News:
"This was a personnel matter. There is no concern anymore. The BOLO
expired a week ago. The individual was located shortly after BOLO was
issued a week ago. Initially there were temporary concerns about him
since his whereabouts were unknown. As I said this was resolved a week
ago. There have been no issues since then."
110.
Frankly Mr. Bressons claims are patently untrue. There was never a reason to
issue a BOLO, Mr. Dicks whereabouts were always known to the Bureau and there were never
any issues to begin with, other than those created by the FBI for its own ends.
K.
111.
On May 8, 2013, the Bureau suspended Mr. Dicks clearance, thus effectively
In, June 2013, Special Agent Dick, became aware, through his wifes divorce
attorneys representation in Court, that his wife, was claiming she had received information from
Bureau agents regarding Mr. Dicks employment and his supposed lack of fitness and imminent
termination, and was attempting to use that information in the divorce proceedings.
19
113.
Then, on June 18, 2013, the FBI sent Plaintiff a Notice of Mandatory Fitness for
The Bureau has provided no details as to what specific behavior Plaintiff engaged
The Bureau has stated as grounds for its examination that Plaintiff made a series
of disturbing statements and threats against FBI employees. Despite multiple requests, it
refuses to say what those statements or threats are.
116.
In reality, no such threats were made and the Bureau is merely trying to cover
its tracks for the improper BOLO. Even more ominously, the Bureau has claimed the right to
contact Mr. Dicks family members as part of any examination. This appears to be designed to
give the Bureau a justification for contacting Mr. Dicks wife or cover the fact the Bureau has
already done so.
117.
Mr. Dick is seeking to oppose the fitness for duty through the Equal Employment
Opportunity process, but must administratively exhaust his claims before proceeding to federal
court and amending this suit.
V.
Paragraphs 1-117 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set
The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure by a federal agency of any record
contained in a system of records to any person or another agency unless the disclosure falls
within a listed exception.
20
120.
The BOLOs nationwide dissemination included not only false, malicious and
misleading statements about Special Agent Dick, which were drawn from a personal record but it
also, contained Mr. Dicks date of birth, social security number and home address.
121.
The disclosure was intentional and willful and constituted an admitted failure by
the FBI to follow its own rules and regulations or the law.
122.
The disclosure was massive and put Mr. Dick at immediate risk of physical harm
or death.
123.
The nature of the report had Mr. Dick as armed, dangerous and a threat to public
124.
Further, the BOLO relayed that Mr. Dick was a counterintelligence agent and as
safety.
such it divulged information that persons opposed to such efforts could use and ostensibly locate
Mr. Dick at his residence.
125.
As a result of the BOLO, Fox News released a headline that emphasized that the
Mr. Dick could easily have been subject to arrest or even being shot by law
As the facts above clearly illustrate, the Bureau has long sought to isolate,
marginalize and punish Mr. Dick and to cast him as an unstable, deranged agent.
129.
The BOLO was done intentionally and willfully with an aim toward harming SA
21
130.
dissemination.
131.
Mr. Dick has been directly and proximately harmed by the disclosure. His
subsequent suspension and fitness for duty examinations are direct by-products of the BOLO.
132.
Mr. Dick has lost all outside employment opportunities as a result of the BOLO.
He has been shunned by neighbors and peers and the BOLO has been used as evidence in his
divorce and child custody proceedings.
VI.
Paragraphs 1-132 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set
The Bureaus actions also violate the Privacy Act in that it utterly failed to
safeguard Plaintiffs confidential protected personnel and employment information from being
disseminated in a way that could cause harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to
Plaintiff. See 5 USC 552(a)(e)(10).
135.
The Bureau, in fact, consciously disseminated the information to cause harm and
then when confronted by its action, sheepishly contended it was a mistake on a personnel matter.
136.
The Plaintiff suffered action, cognizable harm and an adverse effect as a result of
the violation.
VII.
The violations of the act in this instance are nationwide, permanent in nature and
It is anticipated that the BOLO was sent to thousands of federal, state and local
22
C.
Plaintiffs damages are real, severe and lifelong and as such he demands
The myriad of violations also imposes statutory damages for each and every
The release requires injunctive and mandamus type relief. The FBI must issue a
statement that withdraws the information contained in the BOLO and advises law enforcement
and the public at large that Special Agent Dick is not a threat.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks for an award of damages, attorneys fees and costs for
injunctive relief and for such other relief as the Court determines necessary and appropriate.
Dated: July 12, 2013
Respectfully Submitted,
__/s/________________________
Kevin E. Byrnes (DC Bar No. 480195)
Grad, Logan, Klewans, Bowen & Byrnes, P.C.
3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 350
Falls Church, Virginia 22042
Phone: 703/535-5393
Fax: 703/836-6289
kbyrnes@glklawyers.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
23