This blog entry contains two recent reports from Wayne Madsen Reports, and an article from BlackListedNews, that detail “what our boys are up to”.
The last is about how the CIA dealt with a CIA employee who used the FOIA mechanism to force secret files to the surface.
The first is about how the FBI treated an agent who investigated 9/11 and found the “dancing Israelis”; note that I found it expedient to list only the links to numerous graphics with text from relevant reports.
The report in the middle, along with further research by Silvija Germek, is about the use of the shadowy Orange Air LLC to “to ferry around the southwest thousands of illegal immigrant children largely from Honduras, Guatemala, and to a lesser extent, El Salvador” to waiting prison buses for transport to American holding sites.
July 7-8, 2014 — SPECIAL REPORT. FBI retaliates against agent who investigated the 9/11 “Dancing Israelis”
Former FBI Special Agent Michael Dick is not the person one would suspect would be suing his old employer for damages resulting from a series of what Dick believes were a volley of retaliatory measures. Dick is not only a 17-year veteran of the FBI but an Army reserve officer who saw duty in some of the most dangerous areas in America’s battle against terrorists.
Michael Dick was a colleague of the late FBI chief of the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force John O’Neill. O’Neill was hired as a security officer for the World Trade Center days before the buildings were struck on 9/11. O’Neill died in the collapse of the North Tower.
In his aggressive pursuit of Al Qaeda, O’Neill, according to people who worked closely with him, began to have serious concerns over complicity by those inside the Clinton and Bush administrations. There was the mysterious theft in the summer of 2000 of his briefcase at a Tampa hotel during a retirement seminar where the only other participants were 150 other FBI agents. In the briefcase were a few classified emails and a classified document called the Annual Field Office Report, a summary of the New York FBI’s office counter-terrorist and counter-intelligence operations, including one very sensitive investigation being conducted by another New York counter-intelligence FBI special agent, Special Agent Dick. Although a lighter, cigar cutter, and expensive pen were stolen, the papers were all accounted for when the briefcase turned up 90 minutes later at another nearby hotel. Ninety minutes, of course, was sufficient time to photocopy the documents and discover what O’Neill knew about both Al Qaeda and their Israeli shadows.
Special Agent Dick, who worked closely with O’Neill, had discovered a troubling ring of Israeli movers operating in the New York and New Jersey areas. Furthermore, some of these Israelis not only had connections with Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies but were also shadowing Arab and Muslims that had been under investigation as potential terrorist cells. But the Israelis were acting independently and there was no effort made to inform the FBI or local police of any intelligence they were obtaining on their targets.
East Rutherford police report on arrest of five Israelis seen celebrating as first plane struck World Trade Center on 9/11. The Israelis tried to blame 9/11 on the Palestinians. Not one Palestinian was involved in the 9/11 attack.
Further frustrating Dick’s counter-espionage activities against the Israelis was the fact that they were using communications methods that made it almost impossible to conduct communications surveillance: they used Verizon pre-paid cell phones, two-way Nextel walkie-talkies, and Internet cafes.
At the same time, the DEA had discovered a nationwide ring of Israeli “art students,” many of whom had past connections to Israeli intelligence and military demolition units, were operating in and around New York and New Jersey. What the DEA did not realize was that the art students were also shadowing the very same Arab cells that would later carry out the 9/11 attacks.
Dick was a first responder at the scene of the World Trade Center conflagration on September 11. His law suit against Attorney General Eric Holder, former FBI director Robert Mueller, and “other unknown defendants” states: “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.”
Following the attacks, Dick headed the investigation to ascertain 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. Those threats included investigating the following incidents involving known members of Israeli intelligence:
▪On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, New Jersey police arrested five Israeli employees of Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, New Jersey, which is nestled between Jersey City and Hoboken, near Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, adjacent to Secaucus. The Israelis were earlier seen celebrating, high-fiving, jumping up and down, and videotaping the first and second plane attacks on the World Trade Center. Eyewitnesses at Liberty State Park, where the Israelis were seen celebrating, said the Israelis set up their camera on a tripod before American Airlines 11 struck the North Tower. The five Israelis, one of which later told Israeli television that they were in New Jersey to “document the event,” referring to the 9/11 attack, were questioned at the New Jersey State Police sub-station at Giants Stadium by agents from the FBI’s Newark field office.
▪The five Israelis were later linked to an Israeli-owned office moving company called Urban Moving Systems headquartered in Weehawken, New Jersey at 3 West 18th Street. Another Urban Moving office was located on West 50thStreet in Manhattan. Urban Moving’s owner, Dominik Otto Suter, identified by the CIA and FBI as a Mossad officer, fled to Israel shortly before he was to be re-questioned by the FBI. The five Israelis, after being jailed for five months, were quietly deported to Israel without criminal charges being filed.
▪Information Spectrum, Inc. (ISI) of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, a subsidiary of the Fairfax, Virginia-based defense contractor, Anteon, took over the operation of the Jersey City police computer system that handled all incoming emergency phone calls on September 11 . . . According to Jersey City Police officials, after the emergency call system was changed from a Wang to a Windows environment, 8000 emergency 911 system calls registered on September 11 were scrubbed from the archives. In fact, archives dating back to 1989, including those dealing with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, were similarly affected.
▪In October 2000, an Israeli veteran of the Israel Defense Force overheard a conversation between three men in the Gomel Chesed Cemetery in Newark, New Jersey. The three men speaking in Hebrew were discussing the “planes hitting the twins,” a reference to the 9/11 attacks some 11 months later. The FBI Newark office was informed of the conversation. There was no follow-up by the FBI. Dick served in the Newark Field Office after joining the bureau in 1996. He was then transferred to the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington.
[Note: This above report from WCBS news chopper was believed by the FBI relevant to be relevant to the investigation of the “Dancing Israelis”].
Special Agent Dick’s investigation of Israel’s role in 9/11 focused on this Weehawken, New Jersey warehouse leased by Urban Moving Systems, which was discovered to have been a Mossad front. Bomb making equipment and traces of anthrax were discovered in the warehouse by the FBI a few days after 9/11. Senior Justice Department officials and the Israeli-influenced corporate media suppressed the news about the Israelis and 9/11. The owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominik Suter, identified as a Mossad agent, fled to Canada after being interviewed by the FBI. FBI files indicate an Urban Moving Systems van was spotted in Nashua, New Hampshire in the early afternoon, said to be heading to Boston with the driver somehow missing Boston and ending up in Nashua. Special Agent Dick was assigned the responsibility to tracking down the rapidly disappearing and constantly lying and obfuscating “dancing Israelis.”
Dick’s law suit describes his other work for the FBI:
“Dick also spearheaded efforts to investigate the abduction of Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl. Mr. Pearl was brutally beheaded by Khalid Sheik Mohammed. SA Dick helped track leads on the murder of Mr. Pearl and worked on several other highly classified terrorist attack cases. 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. SA Dick stayed in Pakistan on dangerous counterterrorism cases at great personal risk. He assisted in the return of a kidnapped Pakistani girl whose father was close to President Pervez Musharraf.”
Special Agent Dick’s transfer to Pakistan to investigate Daniel Pearl’s kidnapping wasn’t a total waste. Dick was called off the Pearl investigation to rescue a young girl, Ambreen [center], the daughter of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s best friend, a physician, from Taliban kidnappers. Dick [seated to the girl’s right] and agent “Bruce K” [seated left] attached a transponder to the ransom bag containing the cash for the kidnappers. Due to a leak from Pakistani law enforcement to the Taliban, the kidnappers discovered the FBI and police were on the way to the kidnapping location and they fled leaving the little girl unharmed.
WMR previously reported on Dick’s transfer as chief investigator of the Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attack to investigating Pearl’s abduction in Pakistan:
“He [Dick] pursued the Israeli angle but soon found himself transferred to Karachi, Pakistan to help rescue Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl who had been kidnapped by Al Qaeda functionaries. There was one hitch. The FBI was already aware that Pearl had been brutally murdered by his captors.”
In other words, Dick had been transferred to Pakistan not to rescue Pearl, whose gruesome death by beheading was already known to Dick’s superiors, but to put him in harm’s way in order to potentially eliminate an agent whose knowledge of Israeli involvement in 9/11 would prove too embarrassing to the Jewish state.
The suit continues: “In 2004, Special Agent Dick was promoted to Supervisory Special Agent. 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.”
In the interest of full disclosure, this editor also briefly worked as a researcher for the Motley Rice Law Firm in 2002, collecting financial and other information on Al Qaeda from Israeli intelligence sources in Tel Aviv, including a former chief of Mossad, as well as from Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. It was clear at the time that any intelligence on Israeli involvement in 9/11 was not welcome to the law firm, which had also procured the services of a number of Jewish-American researchers known to have links to Israeli intelligence.
Dick’s law suit describes his role as only collecting the intelligence being procured by Rice Motley:
“SSA Dick was to collect information from the Motley Firm, but was not to disclose any information from the Bureau. SSA Dick scrupulously followed this policy. The flow of information was one way from the families’ attorneys to the Bureau.”
Dick soon discovered, as did this editor, that the Motley Rice firm dealt with a number of unsavory individuals. Dick’s law suit states:
“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. 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 . . .
An investigator hired by the Motley Rice Firm, Michael Patrick Jost, because disgruntled when he was denied a portion of that award. 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.”
Dick learned that he had been fingered in an investigation as a result of Jost’s contact with the FBI. However, it should also be stated that Dick remained on the radar screen of groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a result of the knowledge he possessed of Israel’s culpability in the 9/11 attack.
Dick’s law suit explains the background to the FBI’s allegations against him:
” In October 2005, Mr. Dick was mobilized by the U.S. Army as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. He served in combat operations until 2008. 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. Jost’s allegations. 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. Jost’s allegations. The IG determined that no criminal wrongdoing or violation of the Department of Justice policy occurred and declined the matter. In the spring of 2007, Mr. Dick was informed he was cleared by the OIG investigators of criminal misconduct.”
Believing the IG had cleared him, Dick was surprised to learn that the matter was still being pursued by the FBI. The law suit states:
“The matter was then apparently referred to the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which delayed action until November, 2007. On November 26, 2007, the FBI proposed SSA Dick’s 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 General’s inquiry. At the time it proposed the dismissal, SA Dick was on active duty. The FBI contacted the Army regarding the proposed termination, as the proposal also led to Mr. Dick’s security clearance being suspended . . .
The Army then discharged Mr. Dick from active duty in April, 2008 based on the suspension of his security clearance, he remained a reservist.
OPR continued to conduct a prolonged two year investigation from 2007-2009. 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. [The loan was to a former FBI agent to pay for transport out of a dangerous area]. 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.
As to the alleged unauthorized disclosures, Mr. Dick pointed out that he had been authorized to send the communications he did on pre-approved electronic systems by his
supervisor, who had full prior knowledge of his conduct. He also pointed out that he had direct, actual supervisory approval for the manner in which the information was sent.
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. OPR mitigated the proposed termination to a 40 day suspension. 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 OPR’s decision is reasonable, the DRB will not disturb the findings.
On November 3, 2008, the FBI, through its DRB, made a final determination. The Board determined that OPR’s 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. 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.
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. 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. Prior to the resolution of the issues, the parties settled the case. Mr. Dick believed the issues with the Bureau were finally at rest.”
It is important to note that Dick’s “Catch 22” back-and-forth with the FBI mirrors the same sort of administrative warfare conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies that have targeted employees for retaliatory measures based on the information they acquired in the course of carrying out their tasks, especially information concerning 9/11 and the false intelligence that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Dick’s travails with the FBI were only just beginning. From his lawsuit:
“In January, 2011, SA Dick was interrogated by FBI investigators primarily on the same allegations raised by Patrick Jost that led to the prior disciplinary action. 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.
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. Mr. Dick remained on active duty service until August, 2011 when he was abruptly released. 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. A ‘flag’ represents notification of a limit on the official’s access to classified information. Since Mr. Dick’s Army position required classified access, the imposition of a flag ended Mr. Dick’s career and voided his pending promotion to Colonel. The U.S. Army discharged Mr. Dick from active duty and assigned him to the Inactive Ready Reserves. Mr. Dick returned to the FBI in August, 2011. He was initially told he would notbe rehired. When Mr. Dick threatened to bring a claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), he was reinstated.”
For Dick, there was no end to his problems with the FBI:
“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. 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. The Bureau, over the next two years, demanded information that went to the core of Mr. Dick’s relationship with attorneys at Holland and Knight and Joseph Smith, a private attorney, who had assisted Mr. Dick. 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 Agency’s award of attorney’s fees to his counsel Joseph Smith.”
Dick protested that the FBI gained knowledge of privileged client-attorney communications:
“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. 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 attorney’s 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. 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. The FBI has demanded and received, under protest, Mr. Dick’s 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.
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. The duration of the investigation is extraordinary and troubling from several perspectives. If Mr. Dick had engaged in actionable misconduct, the Bureau’s 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.”
The FBI continued to harass Dick and the time frame of the personnel actions against Dick matches the Obama administration’s incessant harassment of a number of national security whistleblowers, including the National Security Agency’s former employees Thomas Drake, William Binney, Russ Tice, and Kirk Wiebe; the Central Intelligence Agency’s Jeffrey Sterling; the State Department’s Peter Van Buren; and a others, in addition to pressure by the Justice Department on The New York Times’s Jim Risen to reveal his national security sources.
From the Dick lawsuit:
“In August, 2011, in retaliation for his resistance to the Bureau’s 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. That transfer required Mr. Dick to make a 150 mile round trip commute each day from his home [in Annapolis, Maryland] to Quantico . . .
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.’ That trust was created by William Roth, III, a private, licensed attorney who set himself served as Executor of the Trust. 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. 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.
To alleviate the Bureau’s 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.
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. 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. 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. Special Agent Lisa Locasico refused to accept Mr. Dick’s statement. Instead, she tried to hand Mr. Dick a pre-scripted statement she had drafted. 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. Between November, 2012 and February 1, 2013, Mr. Dick litigated his USERRA claims before the MSPB [Merit System Promotion Board]. The MSPB issued its initial decision denying the appeal on jurisdictional grounds on February 1, 2012.
The MSPB Administrative Law Judge determined Congress had exempted FBI agents from raising USERRA claims externally outside the Bureau. The Administrative Law Judge, however, quoted language from Mr. Dick’s 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 Bureau’s actions or address its investigatory efforts. Despite the intense pressure exhibited by the Bureau, SA Dick received a performance rating of ‘Excellent’ for 2012. Thus the Bureau could not allege any performance deficiencies.”
The harassment by the FBI of Dick took a bizarre turn last year:
“On May 7, 2013, SA Dick appeared at the firing range at approximately 8:30 a.m. at Quantico, Virginia for quarterly firearms qualifications. Firearms qualifications are an
essential function of a Special Agent as they relate to their ability to carry a firearm, which is part of their qualifications as an 1811 Series Law Enforcement Agent. 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. 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.
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. SA Dick responded ‘I am sorry ma’am that is not going to work.’ When no 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. Dick’s injury and level of pain made his own ability to drive compromised. Nevertheless, he drove himself to the Ready Care Facility, a private provider in 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. 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 workman’s compensation provider, SA Dick gave the telephone number to the FBI Headquarters Switchboard and asked her to contact the Health Services Unit. 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.
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. A physician’s assistant then appeared and examined the wound. He noted it required stitches. The assistant stated the FBI had yet to grant approval for treatment.
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. 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. 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. 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 Dick’s last name and provided a sexual reference. Mr. Dick demanded to speak with a supervisor but was simply transferred to voicemail again. 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. Dick’s 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. 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.
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. 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 workmen’s compensation. This delayed Mr. Dick’s receiving prescription medication for several more hours. 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. 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.”
Special Agent Dick, in a matter of minutes, went from “injured on duty” to an FBI “wanted man.”
On May 8, 2013, the FBI released a nationwide Be on the Lookout (BOLO) 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 Dick’s 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 problem for the FBI is that none of the facts in the BOLO were true. Mr. Dick’s clearance was not suspended until May 9, 2013 when Robert Elliot and another agent came to Mr. Dick’s home, under the guise of delivering workmen’s 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.”
The BOLO issued on Dick apparently gained the interest of Fox news, the same network that was so quick to report on John O’Neill’s stolen briefcase in Tampa. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Murdoch, who is of Australian Jewish descent, is a well-known supporter of Israeli and Zionist causes.
“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. Dick’s actions and whereabouts at all times, On May 7, 2013, May 8, 2013 and thereafter. 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.’
Frankly Mr. Bresson’s claims are patently untrue. There was never a reason to issue a BOLO, Mr. Dick’s 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.”
The FBI’s “BOLO” was broadcast by Fox News, the same network that broadcast John O’Neill’s “stolen briefcase” story in 2000. Later, on May 17, 2013, Fox reported:
“An FBI bulletin telling Washington-are law enforcement — including the Secret Service — to be on the lookout for a disgruntled and armed agent was just a ‘personnel matter,’ an official said hours after FoxNews.com located the agent at his home. Late Thursday, the FBI widened a week-old ‘be on the lookout’ bulletin for Michael Dick, an agent with experience in counterintelligence who was under investigation for the allegedly threats. The FBI Police’s Intelligence and Liaison Office said Dick, who previously worked in the counterintelligence division, ‘threatened to come to [FBI headquarters] on May 8] despite his access being terminated,’ a bureau bulletin stated. ‘At this time there is no record that his Bureau weapon has been taken from him. At present he still has access to FBI space at Quantico.'”
Continuing from the lawsuit:
“On May 8, 2013, the Bureau suspended Mr. Dick’s clearance, thus effectively removing him from employment pending final adjudication. In, June 2013, Special Agent Dick, became aware, through his wife’s divorce attorney’s representation in Court, that his wife, was claiming she had received information from Bureau agents regarding Mr. Dick’s employment and his supposed lack of fitness and imminent termination, and was attempting to use that information in the divorce proceedings.”
Just as the NSA has used its medical and psychologist staff to deny it’s whistleblowers security access based on trumped up charges of mental unfitness, the FBI opted to go down the same route with Dick:
“. . . on June 18, 2013, the FBI sent Plaintiff a ‘Notice of Mandatory Fitness for Duty Examination’ of both a psychological and psychiatric nature. The Bureau has provided no details as to what specific behavior Plaintiff engaged in to warrant an investigation into his mental health. 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. 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. Dick’s family members as part of any examination. This appears to be designed to give the Bureau a justification for contacting Mr. Dick’s wife or cover the fact the Bureau has already done so. 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.”
In summary, Dick’s suit against the FBI and Attorney General for violation of the Privacy Act contends the following:
“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. The BOLO’s 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. Dick’s date of birth, social security number and home address. The disclosure was intentional and willful and constituted an admitted failure by the FBI to follow its own rules and regulations or the law. The disclosure was massive and put Mr. Dick at immediate risk of physical harm or death. The nature of the report had Mr. Dick as armed, dangerous and a threat to public safety. Further, the BOLO relayed that Mr. Dick was a counterintelligence agent and as such it divulged information that persons opposed to such efforts could use and ostensibly locate Mr. Dick at his residence. As a result of the BOLO, Fox News released a headline that emphasized that the Bureau was ‘hunting’ for one of their own. Mr. Dick could easily have been subject to arrest or even being shot by law enforcement were he ‘located.’ An ominous looking picture accompanied the BOLO designed to enhance Mr. Dick’s purported menacing status.
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. The BOLO was done intentionally and willfully with an aim toward harming SA Dick both professionally and personally. Plaintiff took no action to contribute to or authorize this nationwide dissemination. 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. 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.
The Bureau’s actions also violate the Privacy Act in that it utterly failed to safeguard Plaintiff’s confidential protected personnel and employment information from being disseminated in a way that could cause ‘harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness’ to Plaintiff. 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. The Plaintiff suffered action, cognizable harm and an adverse effect as a result of the violation.”
Michael Patrick Jost, the individual who first made a complaint against Dick, has maintained a murky relationship with the U.S. government. In 2003, Jost, a former researcher for the Department of Treasury, founded Rosetta Research and Consulting LLC, which advertised its services as follows: “[to] develop highly sensitive information regarding the funding of terrorist activities worldwide and to make commercial use of this information.” It is not surprising that the Rice Motley law firm would have struck a deal with Jost. The law firm had contracted the dubious services of Rita Katz of the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute, which she co-founded with a former Mossad official. Katz had also consulted with the Treasury Department.
According to court documents, “Rosetta sought and obtained millions of dollars of investments . . . “and developed relationships with high levels of officials in the FBI.” Rosetta assisted the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors initiate contact with Bashir Noorzai, an Afghan warlord involved in herion smuggling who the U.S. government later charged with heroin distribution in a federal indictment in New York City.” The FBI denied it had a contract with Rosetta and stated that Jost showed up at the Bureau trying to rent it a database of individuals in the Middle East.
Rosetta has allegedly bribed a number of Afghan, Pakistani, and United Arab Emirates officials, including Noorzai, for information about terrorist suspects. Noorzai, whose base of operations was southern Afghanistan, was also a well-known CIA source. It has been alleged that it was Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, who authorized payments of bribes to Noorzai in return for information on Al Qaeda figures.
Rosetta employees met with Noorzai in Dubai in 2005 and promised him safe passage to the United States in return for his handing over information on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. FBI agents who were to have sat in on the meeting in Dubai canceled their plans because they knew what was to happen to Noorzai upon his arrival in New York. When Noorzai arrived in the United States, he was arrested in New York by Drug Enforcement Administration agents. The transcripts of Noorzai’s conversations in Dubai with two Rosetta employees ended up in the hands of The New York Sun, a strongly pro-Israel and Zionist newspaper owned by Conrad Black before Black went to prison for insider stock manipulation. The Sun, which counted among its senior staff former editors of the Jewish periodical Forward, folded its print edition in 2008. While collecting intelligence for the Rice Motley law firm in Israel in 2002, this editor also ran into interference from pro-Israeli American Jewish journalists, most notably those with the neo-conservative National Review, as well as with an individual who would later join Rosetta.
Rosetta, which is now defunct, had all the markings of a Mossad front company, one that decided to target Special Agent Dick because of the knowledge he possessed of Israel’s undeniable role in helping to carry out the 9/11 attack.
Rosetta was based in Charleston, South Carolina, also the home base of Rice Motley. Charleston was also the home of the Nine Eleven, Finding Answers (NEFA) Foundation, which appears to have been a non-profit money-laundering operation established to “buy” information from various brokers and researchers. There are also links between Rosetta and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), In 2004, McCain staffer Chris Paul, tried to lean on FBI deputy director John Pistole to back off on an FBI investigation of Rosetta. However, Rosetta later came under investigation for repeated violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Rosetta was linked to ViaGlobal Group, the firm that helped “incubate” Rosetta and one where McCain had a number of friends.
It is also noteworthy that one of the reporters who investigated Noorzai’s ties to the Pentagon and CIA was Jim Risen of The New York Times, who continues to face prison if he fails to testify about his sources before a federal granr jury investigating former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling for leaks to the media.
Not surprisingly, the U.S. government has moved to dismiss Dick’s lawsuit.
What Special Agent Dick has experienced is worthy of a blockbuster Hollywood movie. But no one should hold their breath to see such a story play out on the big screen. Hollywood is controlled lock, stock, and barrel by the Zionists, including some who unabashedly proclaim their loyalty and past services for the Mossad. Mike Dick can only seek justice now in the court of public opinion, or at least the part of that court which has not been bought off by Israel and its deep-pocketed lobby in the United States.
SPECIAL REPORT August 7, 2005 — THE ISRAELI “ART STUDENTS/MOVERS MYSTERY” SOLVED.
July 8-9, 2014 — New airline flying thousands of Central American children around U.S.
Emerging almost out of no where, a new charter airline, Orange Air LLC, has become one of the most active airlines in the American southwest. Orange Air’s plane, exactly one, with its stylized letter “O” is now almost as familiar a sight at San Antonio International Airport and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport as the more numerous Southwest Airlines aircraft.
Orange Air, with almost no corporate history, has received a contract from the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch to ferry around the southwest thousands of illegal immigrant children largely from Honduras, Guatemala, and to a lesser extent, El Salvador, who have streamed across the U.S.-Mexican border based on a U.S. law that states they may remain in the U.S. as long as they hail from a non-contiguous country.
To read Orange Air’s website, one could be a bit confused about the sudden appearance of the firm’s single charter plane at airports throughout the southwest. Its website claims that the company, based at Sanford International Airport in Florida, has “supplied diverse aviation services and aircraft to various US government agencies, the United Nations, foreign governments, Fortune 100 companies, U.S. government officials, foreign dignitaries, royal families, prominent sports figures, and notable entertainers.” And now, if one were to believe the firm’s website, Orange’s planes, which have flown around kings and princesses and diplomats and wealthy CEOs is now transporting the most poorest of the poor young refugees from Central America. WMR has learned that Orange largely existed only on paper before it received the lucrative DHS/ICE contract. It was so under-capitalized, it initially expected its pilots to work for “IOUs” before its federal government cash flow spigot was turned on.
Relative newcomer Orange Air is rumored by aviation industry insiders as having CIA connections. The firm’s executives have remained tight-lipped with the media about its operations.
One has to wonder how many princes and star quarterbacks Orange has flown since the firm’s website states the airline’s first “revenue flight” was on June 10, 2014. Orange received its Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification on June 3, 2014. It was during June that children from Central America first began crossing into the United States in massive numbers.
Orange’s website, although it claims to have flown celebrities and royalty, has a strange way of attracting customers. Orange’s website stresses: “We are a low cost airline offering flights of fancy and cruises through previously uncharted airwaves. We are not looking toward making it comfortable for you as your flight is your own, but we will provide you with everything that you may need for a complete journey. You are not expected to want to return, consequently we do not offer 2-way tickets nor do we ever fly to the same destination twice.”
Orange fleet of one airplane consists of a 32-year old MD-82 aircraft (N918AV). Although the airline is based at Sanford airport, its general counsel is located in Bethesda, Maryland. The firm was incorporated in Delaware. Some of Orange’s principals previously worked for Falcon Air Express, a Miami-based charter company with a secondary hub in Mesa, Arizona that offers service to Curacao under the name Dutch Antilles Express, and which is contracted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Refugee children who disembark from the Orange aircraft at San Antonio are transported in prison buses to the San Antonio-Lackland Joint Base. Orange Air’s plane has been known to make as many as six trips in a single day. The aircraft’s stops have included McAllen, El Paso, Brownsville, and Houston [George Bush International], Texas; Lawton-Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Alexandria-Fort Polk, Louisiana; San Diego, California; and Tucson, Phoenix, and Mesa, Arizona.
From Silvia Germek (Sil (WA):
Orange Air, LLC is a FAR 121 Air Carrier located at the Orlando Sanford Int’l Airport in Sanford, FL which strives to be a leading service provider of passenger air charter for Commercial Customers, US and International Government Agencies and US Defense Contractors providing the safest, most reliable, highest quality service and to be the most competitive 121 non-scheduled airline in the industry.
CEO of Orange Airways Fred Credno
[ http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&formname=name&qf=fred+&qmi=&qn=credno&qcs=&focusfirst=1 ]
also owns this other company:
Chip Credno also listed as owner of Zephyr Aviation which is suddenly out of business with BBB warning page online.
Note at the intellius link that he has worked for the United Nations in the past.
According to the above-linked pdf, Rick Aranha is the Director of Operations. On his LinkedIn page, he lists his past employer as Caribbean Sun Airlines.
According to Silvija (Sil WA):
“Here is a sample of what I found googling them: this link actually borrows from previous Wayne Madsen writings on Stanford and Antigua but our Orange Airways Director of Operations worked for these guys in the past – I think we can conclusively confirm that this Orange Airways Director of Ops also has connections to CIA Caribbean drug-running, too. Pirates of the Caribbean: Stanford, drugs and the CIA (updated).”
Here is …more about the drug runnin’ and money laundering Aranha’s Caribbean Sun Airlines has been doing… before he took up babysitting for Obama’s imported Central America children. before he took up babysitting for Obama’s imported Central America children.
Meet Tony Schoeneker, chief pilot of Orange Airlines. LINK
Here is Wayne in 2009 on who and what Stanford is. LINK
Robert Holder, past director of safety for Orange Airlines and Julie Acheson, director of in-flight services, both have a background with Capital Cargo, a wet lease company. Wet leases are CIA’s favorite way of doing renditions and other things they would prefer not to talk about –
HERE is Capital Cargo, the employer, at least 2 of whose key personnel are in power at Orange airlines now
HERE is what a wet lease is
Brief explanation how wet leases and CIA work together so beautifully and why HERE
Capital cargo lists Air Transport International as sister company. Per THIS wiki page, that is a Department of Defense cargo hauler….
That means that several employees of Orange Airways have a DOD/CIA background. When I researched their bios, I found that all of them had spent years in and around the Langley area in VA….
Orange Airways “who we are” age – they fly around politicians, celebrities….and tens of thousands of Latin American children without parents?
How to fast-track an airline into existence…..
By all signs, this kiddie rendition caper is being run entirely out of Central Florida, mostly Orlando area – LINK.
SilWa: “… if anyone wants to pursue this, look into all names of officers, their past bios and affiliations of their past employers. On cursory exam, I see a lot of people working there with intel ties, their past employers being DoD and CIA fronts. There is also a noticeable presence of Latinos with Jewish last names popping up in all sorts of positions around this enterprise.
No doubt, this serves some policy purpose for Obama. But whenever I have dug into such intel efforts to collect children and move them to other countries, I am accustomed to also finding evidence of the collection sites for such highly vulnerable refugees becoming gathering sites for harvesting for all purposes – angry young men among them are often recruited to the military or train as mercs, kids for kiddie sex slave rings and kidney harvesting comes to mind as a common background for pictures such as this…there is more to this effort than just fulfilling some capricious Obama immigration agenda, I believe… The stories that these kids are kept under extreme secrecy at military bases and the airlines involved reeks of mil intel backgrounds does not help such thoughts….”
CIA EMPLOYEE ‘RUINED’ FOR EFFORTS TO DECLASSIFY AGENCY DOCS
SOURCE: COMMON DREAMS
In the controversy surrounding Edward Snowden’s decision to leak numerous classified National Security Agency documents, one of the repeated critiques levied by his critics is that the former intelligence contractor should have gone through “proper channels” to voice his concerns about the agency’s far-reaching—and what he judged unlawful—surveillance practices.
However, according to new reporting by the Washington Post‘s Greg Miller, a similarly concerned CIA agent who attempted to get information he thought the public had a right to know discovered just how difficult and perilous efforts to “work within the system” can be.
Miller’s report tells the tale of Jeffrey Scudder, a veteran CIA employee, whose career faltered after he made efforts to have long-classified agency materials—”a stack of articles, hundreds of histories of long-dormant conflicts and operations”—released to the public.
As part of his effort, Scudder submitted a completely lawful Freedom of Information Act request, which set off a “harrowing sequence” of events. According to Miller, Scudder “was confronted by supervisors and accused of mishandling classified information while assembling his FOIA request. His house was raided by the FBI and his family’s computers seized.” The fifty-one-year ultimately resigned after being threatened that if he did not, he risked losing portions of his pension.
“I submitted a FOIA and it basically destroyed my entire career,” Scudder told the Post in an interview. “What was this whole exercise for?”
What happened to Scudder, Miller points out,
highlights the risks to workers who take on their powerful spy-agency employers. Senior U.S. intelligence officials have repeatedly argued that Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, should have done more to raise his concerns internally rather than exposing America’s espionage secrets to the world. Others who tried to do that have said they were punished.
Scudder’s actions appear to have posed no perceptible risk to national security, but he found himself in the cross hairs of the CIA and FBI.
As journalist Glenn Greenwald noted in response to the article:
Here’s what happens to people in the intelligence community when they use “proper procedures” to disclose information
10:40 AM – 5 Jul 2014