We have obtained a redacted copy of a 2-page affidavit provided by U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Ellen Ripperger regarding the polygraph examination that was at issue in a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint and that remains relevant to an ongoing Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) investigation.

Regarding the polygraph examination at issue, the recording of which, as provided by the U.S. Secret Service, was almost entirely incomprehensible, Ripperger under penalty of perjury affirmed, among other things:

Quote:


In order for paras. 7, 8, and 9 to be true, both the Lafayette software's "Warn on low audio" failsafe and the audio bar indicator mentioned in the Lafayette Instrument Company's affidavit must have failed. This beggars belief.

AntiPolygraph.org understands that the DHS OIG, in a meeting with attorney Thomas Gagliardo, admitted it sent the audio files of this exam out for forensic examination. If that forensic analysis did not suggest tampering, then why was this investigation not closed immediately? Indeed, it seemingly remains open in perpetuity.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained a redacted copy of an 11-page affidavit provided by an electrical engineer with expertise in acoustic data processing regarding the audio data from U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Ellen Ripperger's polygraph examination of an applicant.

The applicant alleges abusive conduct by Ripperger that became the subject of both a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint and a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General investigation that remains open.

The audio recording of the polygraph session is mostly incomprehensible, and the U.S. Secret Service claims that this is due to an equipment failure that occurred in the midst of the polygraph session, unbeknownst to the operator.

However, the audio expert notes, among other things (at para. 24): "If the microphone failed during this examination while capturing the "Audio_02" and "Audio_03" files, it would be an atypical microphone failure. Usually solid state devices either work (record properly), or do not work (record nothing.) Recording random noise at high decibel levels is an unusual microphone failure."

This affidavit, combined with the affidavit from the Lafayette Instrument Company (which manufactured the polygraph instrument used) attached to the preceding post, makes it very difficult to credit the Secret Service's claim that the audio was lost due to equipment failure. It seems much more likely that the Secret Service deliberately tampered with the audio in a flight from accountability.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained a redacted copy of the 3-page affidavit of a senior employee of the Lafayette Instrument Company attesting, among other things, that "The Lafayette Polygraph Software contains two mechanisms to allow the examiner to monitor the audio recordings and avoid failures."

The U.S. Secret Service claims (implausibly, in our view) that due to an equipment malfunction, the audio recording of the polygraph examination at issue in this message thread was almost wholly inaudible.

This affidavit supports the conclusion that if there was indeed an equipment malfunction, the polygraph examiner, in this case U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Ellen Ripperger, should have been aware of it as it occurred.

The circumstances surrounding this polygraph examination remain the subject of an as-yet-uncompleted Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General investigation.

AntiPolygraph.org has received a redacted copy of a complaint filed with the Virginia State Bar against U.S. Secret Service lawyer Steven Giballa. The complaint alleges "numerous violations of the Virginia Bar Association professional guidelines in his submissions to the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] on behalf of the United States Secret Service..."

Ultimately, the Virginia State Bar declined to investigate or to take any action.

The complaint and ensuing correspondence are attached.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained the attached two lightly redacted documents connected with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) action documented earlier in this message thread:

1. The complainant's 34-page "Response to United States Secret Service (USSS) Opposition for Reconsideration of Appeal #[redacted] Affirming a Decision for Summary Judgment to the United States Secret Service Without a Hearing" ("Response") dated 22 February 2021.

We are informed that the complainant, acting pro se, emailed this Response to the Secret Service's legal counsel, Steven Giballa, on 22 February 2021 and FedExed it to the EEOC on 23 February 2021.

2. The EEOC's 4-page "Decision on Request for Consideration" ("Decision") dated 23 February 2021, denying the complainant's request.

The complainant hypothesizes that the Secret Service's counsel, upon receiving the complainant's email on the 22nd of February, may have had an ex parte communication with the EEOC that resulted in the EEOC issuing its Decision the very next day, the 23rd of February, before the complainant's response had reached the EEOC.

Indeed, when the complainant's Response did reach the EEOC some time later, apparently after having been held up in a mail screening process (the FedEx packet bears a magenta Department of Homeland Security tape on one side), the EEOC refused to take delivery of it and sent it back unopened.

Photos of the Response as received by the complainant are attached.

USSSWARNING wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 3:39am:


Take it from me, the Office of Inspector Generals are unable or unwilling to do anything about polygraph abuse.

It is way past time for Congress to extend the rights granted by the Employee Polygraph Protection Act to all Americans. Giving the government an exemption to this law has opened the door for widespread fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption.

The United States Secret Service again refuses to release the polygraph recording in a Different Polygraph Court Case.

An article in clearance jobs from Attorney Sean M. Bigley where a Secret Service polygraph examinee was also repeatedly accused of being a drug addict and a liar, and the examiner threatened to “waterboard” the examinee if she doesn’t come clean with "whatever else she’s hiding."

The Secret Service is again refusing to release the recording of the polygraph that would corroborate the polygraph examinee’s accusations.

Attorney Sean M. Bigley encourages those with similar experiences to immediately contact the Office of Inspector General.  In this instance however, the Office of Inspector General has done nothing and has failed to respond to the inquiries of United States Senator Chris Van Hollen and FOIA requests, which has the hallmarks of being complicit in a coverup.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2018/01/21/background-investigator-threatens-wate...

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained the attached three lightly redacted documents connected with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission action documented earlier in this message thread.

1. An appeal decision dated 22 September 2020 and signed by Office of Federal Operations director Carlton M. Hadden upholding Administrative Judge Antoinette Eates' 20 August 2018 Order Entering Judgment (in favor of the U.S. Secret Service, granting summary judgment).

2. Complainant's Request to Reconsider Appeal #[redacted] Affirming a Decision for Summary Judgment to the United States Secret Service Without a Hearing dated 20 October 2020. This 28-page document enumerates seven reasons why granting of summary judgment was improper. Among other things, it is noted that a DHS OIG investigation into Special Agent Ellen Ripperger's actions is still active, and that granting of summary judgment to the Secret Service during the pendency of the investigation is inappropriate.

3. The U.S. Secret Service's Agency's Brief in Opposition to Complainant's Request for Reconsideration dated 9 November 2020.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained the attached two letters from United States Senator Chris Van Hollen to the individual polygraphed by U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Ellen Ripperger.

The first letter, dated 19 August 2019, informs the individual, "I have just been advised by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General that its investigation in response to my inquiry is ongoing and that the agency is close to completing its investigative work."

The second letter, dated 3 September 2020, informs the individual, "At my request, my staff recently met with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General (DHS-OIG) regarding the status of your complaint. They expressed my concern about the amount of time that has passed without a response and were advised that DHS-OIG is striving to conduct a thorough investigation. In doing so, it advised, DHS-OIG is unable to provide a definitive timeline for when it will complete its investigation. It further advised that it will not provide any updates until the investigation is complete and a Report of Investigation is issued."

So the investigation of alleged misconduct by Special Agent Ripperger went from close to completion in August 2019 to ongoing and indefinite in September 2020. Something certainly seems fishy.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained the attached two documents that were provided to the DHS OIG for their investigation.

The first is a copy of Special Agent Ripperger's 2016 sworn deposition, with passages highlighted that the appellant opines were "either a false statement or just not simply credible or believable in any context."

The second document explains what the appellant alleges is wrong with each statement highlighted in the deposition.

AntiPolygraph.org has received the following statement and attached correspondence regarding the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General's investigation of the U.S. Secret Service polygraph branch's alleged destruction of an audio recording of a pre-employment polygraph interrogation that would allegedly have documented misconduct on the part of Secret Service polygraph operator Ellen Ripperger.

---

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office of the Inspector General (OIG) has spent a year and half investigating the possible intentional destruction of polygraph audio files by the United States Secret Service (USSS) of an Electrical Engineer’s polygraph selected for a GS-15 position in the Office of the Chief Information Officer at the United States Secret Service.

Why are the results of this investigation being kept secret from the American people and not being published in DHS OIG Semiannual Reports to Congress?

Why are the results of this investigation being kept secret from Congress?

Why are the results of this investigation being withheld from Senator Chris Van Hollen, without whose assistance this matter would have been hidden and disposed of from the American people?

Why will the Inspector General not even reveal if the case is now closed or still ongoing to anyone?

Why did Special Agent Edward Alston choose to retire when OIG started investigating this matter, which means legally he no longer has to cooperate with the investigation?  Recall Special Agent Edward Alston was one of two quality control reviewers who signed the quality control worksheet stating the polygraph audio files were intact and audible at random periods for the entire exam.

Why is Special Agent Ellen Ripperger (who conducted the exam whose audio was allegedly destroyed) no longer listed on LinkedIn as a Polygraph Examiner for the United States Secret Service?

The Office of the Inspector General does not keep cases without merit open for more than 30 days.  It sent the audio files out for forensic examination.  If there was no merit to the case, or no destruction of evidence, the case would have been closed upon receiving a forensic report indicating no malfeasance on the part of the United States Secret Service.

This is not how a Democracy or Republic is supposed to function. This is how third world countries are run, not healthy governments.

To George and Mr. (redacted): 

Thank you for your updates and copies of documents in this fascinating case. I've worked as an investigator for civil and criminal attorneys for several years. I've handled cases where evidence was intentionally destroyed, but never by a federal law enforcement agent like what happened here. I can't express how revolting this is to me. I would say I hope her career burns for this, but I realize that is unlikely. My word and integrity is all I have, and I would never be able to work again if I got caught doing what she did.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained minimally redacted copies of two additional documents associated with the case of an applicant for a GS-15 information technology position with the U.S. Secret Service who received treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder and whose application was rejected following an allegedly failed pre-employment polygraph "test." For background information, see the previous posts in this message thread.

The new documents, submitted before the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations, include:

1. The U.S. Secret Service's 19 October 2018 "Opposition to Complainant's Appeal" of Administrative Judge Antoinette Eates' 20 August 2018 Order Entering Judgment (in favor of the U.S. Secret Service, granting summary judgment). This 13-page brief, signed by Steven Giballa and U.S. Secret Service Chief Counsel Donna Cahill, provides legal arguments as to why Judge Eates' order dismissing the case should be upheld.

2. The complainant's 22 April 2019 "Response to USSS Opposition of Appeal from a Decision of Summary Judgment to United States Secret Service Without a Hearing." This 21-page pleading by complainant's attorney, Thomas J. Gagliardo, addresses in detail the arguments made in the USSS opposition brief, and provides legal arguments that Judge Eates' granting of summary judgment was premature and "should be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings."

We invite anyone with knowledge of this case, or of other relevant information regarding the U.S. Secret Service polygraph program, to contact us (anonymously if you prefer). You can anonymously send us a note (as a plain text document) or upload relevant documents via our OnionShare dropbox.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained minimally redacted copies of six documents associated with the case of an applicant for a GS-15 information technology position with the U.S. Secret Service who received treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder and whose application was rejected following an allegedly failed pre-employment polygraph "test." Most of the audio recording of the polygraph session provided to the complainant and the administrative judge is incomprehensible.

On 20 August 2018, administrative judge Antoinette Eates granted a U.S. Secret Service request for summary judgment against the complainant, despite the fact that the circumstances surrounding the defective audio recording are the subject of a pending U.S. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's investigation.

The six documents, attached to this post, comprise:

1. Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Spoliation of Evidence dated 4 October 2016;

2. Agency’s Opposition to Complainant’s Motion to Show Cause dated 13 October 2016;

3. Supplement to Motion for Sanctions sent via e-mail dated dated 6 October 2016;

4. Order Denying Complainant’s Motion to Show Cause and Extending Deadlines dated 21 October 2016 by Administrative Judge Antoinette Eates;

5. Order Entering Judgment dated 20 August 2018 by Administrative Judge Antoinette Eates;

6. Appeal of a Decision for Summary Judgement to the United States Secret Service Without a Hearing dated 19 September 2018.

The last document is of particular interest.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained minimally redacted copies of the 18 October 2016 depositions of U.S. Secret Service polygraph operators Ellen Ripperger and Edward D. Alston. They are attached to this post.

Notes on Ripperger deposition:

p. 36: Ripperger lied under oath when, upon being asked "how does [the numbers test] factor into the rest of the polygraph process?" she answered: "We want to see what the individual's physiology looks like when he tells a lie, so we ask him to lie at number four."

Ripperger told the same lie that polygraph operators routinely tell examinees about the rationale for the numbers test (or stimulation, or "stim" test). It's actually intended to "sell" the polygraph to the examinee and convince him that the polygraph can detect the slightest hint of deception.

p. 59: "Well, per Secret Service policy, okay, a countermeasures call is only made when an individual has made an admission to countermeasures." (Later in the deposition, it is disclosed that this policy has changed since September 2014.)

p. 68: "There's inability to maintain a baseline in the breathing, which, what we're seeing here is consistent with countermeasures."

pp. 70-71: "At 1B on page 57, you have convergent and divergent pneumographs. This is consistent with countermeasures."

p. 78: no changes to polygraph protocol due to examinee's disclosure of medications and OCD.

p. 111: "...I don't believe denials when I have a failing polygraph result."

p. 116: No periodic polygraphs for USSS employees.

p. 144: "I said I was certain of my results. What I wasn't -- or what  -- countermeasures -- we can't specifically say countermeasures on a report unless we get an admission of countermeasures, or at that time we couldn't.
Q You can now?
A The policy has changed, yes."

Notes on Alston deposition:

p. 18: Alston was almost certainly lying when he denied knowing what the policy at Security Management Division (SMD) or Security Clearance Division (SCD) is regarding whether a failed polygraph precludes one from Secret Service employment.

p. 20: Alston was almost certainly lying about not understanding what "better qualified applicant" (BQA) means. It means that some other, "better qualified applicant" was given the job.

p. 47: Alston didn't actually know what LEPET stands for (Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test). He thought it was Law Enforcement Placement Test.

pp. 54-55: Alston essentially admits that the question about medications is not needed for purposes of conducting the polygraph exam.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained a redacted copy of the 13 December 2014 "Formal Complaint of Discrimination" that preceded the DHS OIG complaint attached to the original post in this message thread. It is attached to this post.

Note that the complainant is not a typical entry-level U.S. Secret Service applicant, but rather an experienced electrical engineer who was applying for a senior (GS-15) management position and came recommended by the Secret Service's own Chief Information Officer (CIO).

It seems clear that the Secret Service used the polygraph as a pretext for blackballing the applicant because he was receiving treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

We have also obtained a redacted copy of a 4 October 2016 affidavit by retired Maryland State Police Supervisor Sergeant Danny Seiler, who reviewed U.S. Secret Service polygraph operator Ellen Ripperger's polygraph examination of the applicant. It, too, is attached.

The U.S. Secret Service's Polygraph Branch appears to be corrupt to the core. The malfeasance and indeed, criminality, documented in the attached complaint and affidavit extend not only to Special Agent Ripperger, but to her supervisors as well, and provide context for the cynical slogan "LET THE MINDGAMES BEGIN" that is emblazoned on the Polygraph Branch's challenge coin.

The post is up for 7 months but suddenly the user is banned for "anti-LE" postings. Makes one think who pressured them to do so. Especially given only the facts were stated. When the truth isn't to your liking, or supports your narrative, simply suppress it.

Censorship and Cover-up

This post was censored on the Officer.com forums on ~ July 20, 2018, despite the fact it did not violate forum rules. If you feel it should not have been censored, leave them a message here (https://www.officer.com/contact-us).

The original post made on January 16, 2018 is not archived on Google, but is attached to this post as file “USSS Applicants Consider Refusing a Polygraph Exam from Special Agent Ellen Ripperger - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com Page 1 Original”. It indicates at that time the post was reported to the moderators and asked to be removed, but the moderators found it met the rules for posting, which it did. Many of the comments posted to the thread speak volumes with regard to the individuals making them in terms of their value on the importance of ethics, their intelligence, and a near institutional mindset to accept the misconduct of law enforcement officers without question. It represents the increasing distrust of Law Enforcement, and serves only to drive the incorrect stereotype that the majority of police officers are dishonest, arrogant, dumb, and break the laws with impunity that they are paid to enforce.

Shortly after the Original Version was posted, the moderators did later remove 8 of the 15 posts (many of them derogatory posts about the author), but left the original information intact. This version is archived on the web here (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eq2WwKpLegoJ:https://forum...) and attached as: “USSS Applicants Consider Refusing a Polygraph Exam from Special Agent Ellen Ripperger - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com Page 1 After Censor.pdf”.

The post remained up for 7 months until the author shared more information to refute skeptics that no malfeasance had occurred. It demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that either perjury was committed by USSS personnel or evidence ordered produced by a judge was destroyed. The post was then removed in its entirety. One must ask why, and why now? Why was the post up for seven months and found not to violate the terms and conditions until after the new evidence was posted? If a new post was problematic, why was it not simply deleted from the thread as others had been? The most logical answer is that someone very powerful told them to remove it, or there would be consequences. The archived post can be viewed here (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yliDWvJ8SE8J:https://forum...) and is attached as “USSS Applicants Consider Refusing a Polygraph Exam from Special Agent Ellen Ripperger - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com Page 2”.

The real question becomes could this really have happened? Did the United States Secret Service really have personnel either perjure themselves or destroy evidence (an audio recording of a polygraph exam) to hide what actually goes on during a polygraph exam, and what is typical behavior toward people who undergo a polygraph exam?

Well, past performance is the single best predictor of future behavior. If the Secret Service has done this in the past, and has a culture which condones illegal and unethical behavior, than it become exponentially more probable that this did happen. An instance where DHS OIG issued a report of the Secret Service retaliating against an agent by wrongly denying his security clearance can be downloaded here (https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/WRRI-I15-USSS-SID-01777-...
) and is attached as “WRRI-I15-USSS-SID-01777-092217_0.pdf”.

Illegal and unethical behavior is articulated as the norm at the United States Secret Service in this article on Federal News Radio located here (https://federalnewsradio.com/tom-temin-commentary/2015/10/dhs-ig-unloads-widespr...) which references this report here (https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mga/OIG_mga-092515.pdf) and attached as “OIG_mga-092515.pdf”.

The judge who originally ordered the USSS to produce the Audio Tape of the polygraph now seemingly has had a change of heart. When the tape produced by the USSS was corrupted, she found it plausible that this could be an accident despite the fact that for this to happen it would have had to be a black swan event (See Post #16 on located on the cached version of Page 2 on the officer.com forums located here). Even more concerning, she wants to rule on the case before OIG concludes its investigation on if evidence was in fact destroyed by the government that was ordered to be produced under discovery for the plaintiff. The rush to dispose of the case only occurred after public posts were made about the case; prior to that she had no issue sitting on the case for years.) It is hard to believe that this could occur in the United States of America, but it is; and it will keep occurring, because no punishment is ever inflicted on those who are corrupt. America is now little better than a third world dictatorship when it comes to corruption.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has an active investigation pertaining to this matter. They are encouraging any individual who knows of misconduct or criminal activity related to this matter to report it to DHS OIG so that it can be investigated. Anyone with information may call the DHS OIG Hotline at 1-800-323-8603 or file a report online at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/hotline

Anyone with pertinent information in this matter may make contact through this attorney (Do Not forward any material, simply make contact. Do Not forward any classified, sensitive, or confidential materials!):

Thomas J. Gagliardo
General Counsel AFGE Local 1923
Room 1720  Robert Ball Building
Mail Stop 1-G-15
6401 Security Blvd.
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
410 965 5566
tomgagliardo@gmail.com

Be prepared to retain your own counsel and submit a signed affidavit for the court to review.

USSSWARNING, how can I get in touch with you?

This is not the first time this has happened with SA Ripperger and I can prove it.

Thank you for sharing this information, which the public has an indisputable right to know. Might you be able to provide a copy of any video or audio recording and/or transcript of Special Agent Ripperger's and Special Agent Edward Alston's depositions?

There are a number of consequences to failing a polygraph exam which will not be disclosed to an applicant. Any United States Secret Service (USSS) applicant should review the following true case and consider refusing to take a USSS polygraph examination, especially with Special Agent Ellen Ripperger. Should an applicant decide to go forward with a USSS polygraph exam after digesting this information, they should be aware that USSS can always assign another examiner to administer a polygraph exam at the applicant’s request.

Any experience the reader may have with Special Agent Ellen Ripperger may be substantially different than that described here, however two USSS Special Agents confirmed that the experience described here was far from unique.

The applicant in question expressed gratitude to the two USSS Special Agents who contacted him after his exam, and are making continuing efforts to correct an injustice. It was not lost on this applicant the significance of two Special Agents choosing to support an applicant to their organization that they did not know personally, but who felt was treated improperly, over that of one of their fellow Special Agents whom they both felt did not behave ethically.

When anyone takes a polygraph exam with any federal agency including the USSS, a recording is made of the entire exam. In fact, all modern Commercially Available off the Shelf (COTS) polygraph software utilized by federal agencies has both video and audio capability built into the software. The applicant will be told that the recording is made to protect both them and the Special Agent administering the exam. However, in this instance, the applicant was not provided a copy of the audio recording when they alleged that something illegal, improper, or unethical happened during their exam. The recordings have been routinely produced however to exonerate a Special Agent accused of any wrong doing during an exam. Even a FOIA request may not yield the release of the recording of an exam, and if it does anything useful will probably be redacted, and its release will take years after which any time limits for legal remedies will have long expired.

In this instance, a judge ordered the release of the audio of the polygraph exam in question which the USSS vigorously fought to suppress under “law enforcement investigatory privilege.” After the USSS objection to providing the recording was overruled, the USSS provided the audio files that supposedly contained the sought after recording.  However, the audio files provided by the USSS were virtually blank and contained nothing of any use or significance. Only a few minutes of the approximately five-hour-and-thirty-five-minute polygraph examination were audible.

The polygraph examinee was contacted by two individuals who identified themselves as USSS Special Agents. The agents made clear they knew intimate details of the applicant’s exam. One Special Agent told the applicant the audio file of his exam had been destroyed when he filed a complaint. Another Special Agent told the applicant he had ethical issues with how his exam was conducted.

Despite an affidavit from Danny Seiler, a former Supervisor Sergeant and Polygraph Examiner for the Maryland State Police which stated “Since 1991 in the approximate 2,500 polygraph examinations that I have given, the microphones have never failed to record the exam; nor have the exams not been recorded for any other reason”, the Judge ruled against the applicant when a default judgment was requested based on the illegible polygraph audio files and chose to accept the USSS explanation that a faulty microphone caused all the pertinent areas of the audio recording of the polygraph exam to not be recorded.

A complaint was sent to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) John Roth (attached) requesting they investigate the Possible Destruction or Tampering of Evidence Utilizing of Government Information Technology Systems by the United States Secret Service. Multiple inquiries by Senator Chris Van Hollen finally revealed that DHS OIG chose not to investigate this matter, but instead referred the matter back to the United States Secret Service Office of Professional Responsibility. Despite significant evidence submitted to DHS OIG that either the crime of perjury by a USSS Special Agent, or the destruction of evidence by USSS had more likely than not been committed by the USSS, DHS OIG chose not to investigate the matter. 

Since DHS OIG has refused to investigate this matter, follow up requests for investigation of this matter have been sent to the Department of Justice, the Office of Government Ethics, and a second request to the new acting DHS OIG Inspector General John Kelly articulating concerns about how the former Inspector General John Roth of DHS OIG choose to handle this matter.

Updates with information pertaining to this case will continue to be posted to this thread so that others may have the ability to make an informed decisions about submitting to a process which carries the risk of long term negative career implications even when the applicant is innocent of any wrong doing. There is a witch hunt within the USSS regarding this matter, which may hinder the ability to post new information in a timely manner.