Quote:


Amused,

As I stated in a different thread, please stop with the senseless dribble. Either present a valid point in at least a semi-coherent fashion, or save everyone the agony of trying to read through one of your posts. By the way, I noticed you didn't reply to the post where I addressed your comments, did I use too many big words? In case you don't remember which one...it was in "POST-CONVICTION POLYGRAPH PROGRAMS" In the "Passed the maintenance exam" thread, dated May 21st.   

Just curious.

PK

Some updates....

I got the bumper stickers in the mail awhile ago, but haven't put them on my car yet.

Someone from the government called me up to discuss the complaint I filed.  I think he was a member of quality control in the clearance division.  Basically, his strategy was to try and excuse what took place without actually acknowledging what took place.  I sent a letter to my company two days later to be forwarded to the government as shown below.

---
I don’t know the official title of the person I spoke to on the phone, so I will refer to him as the "misconduct investigator".  It appeared that his goal in the conversation was to excuse the government’s conduct without acknowledging any specifics of what happened.  He also mentioned that he wasn’t interested in getting into "he said, she said" arguments.  The conversation was unproductive and he told me to get in contact with him through you if I had anything further to add. Below are my comments.

In order to discuss whether or not my adjudicator’s conduct was appropriate, it is necessary to first establish what that conduct involved.  Below is a list of a few things that happened during the interview.  The government should acknowledge these.  If the government believes anything I have written is inaccurate, it can provide its own version of what happened.

1)  My adjudicator told me that we both knew I was lying and that my body was telling him that I was lying.

2)  My adjudicator's use of slang included the terms "shaved tail" and "thingy".

3)  My adjudicator asked for the bra size (cup and number) of one of the children in my Youth Group.  He persisted when I told him I didn't know until I gave him guesses for cup and number.  My adjudicator asked for additional details about the child including but not limited to weight, eye color, and hair color.

4)  My adjudicator portrayed Junior High girls as people who dress for sex with older men.

5)  My adjudicator tried to convince me that one of the Junior High students was interested in me until I relented and stated that it was at least possible that she was interested in me.  He then questioned me about what I would do if one of the Junior High students somehow let me know they were interested in me.  He further went on to question me what I would do if one of them gave me a pat on the "cheek".  After my response that I would probably ignore it, he asked me what I would do if they did it a second time.  

6)  My adjudicator indicated that it did not matter what the parents of the Junior High kids would think about our conversation since they weren't going to find out.

7) My adjudicator purported to be confused about why I was uncomfortable during the interview.

This is far from a complete list of what happened during the interview and does not contain many specifics about what was said for each list item. List item number 5 in particular has many details left out concerning my protests and his responses to my protests. 

After talking to the misconduct investigator on the phone, I am highly skeptical of his intentions.  I have three simple questions listed below that may help to shed light on his intentions.  I am not interested in speaking with him any further until he provides straight-forward responses.

1) Did you ask my adjudicator if the allegations I made concerning his questions about the bra size of a Junior High girl were true?

2) Did my adjudicator confirm or deny my allegations concerning his questions about the bra size of a Junior High girl?

3) Does your agency believe that it is appropriate to ask questions about the bra sizes of Junior High girls?


Hopefully the responses I get from the government will help to reveal their true intentions for this misconduct investigation.
-----

I also spoke to some of my coworkers after the phone call because it got me pretty worked up again.  It was interesting to hear their responses, but I don’t feel like mentioning them at the moment....

I also talked to my manager and he had me write up an account for some security people within my company.  I won’t include that write-up here even though it contains a number of details I haven’t posted on this site because it also reveals information that might reveal the Junior High kid most affected.

The government still has not admitted to anything, but I’m told I have a new investigator and should have a decision on my clearance within a month.
-----

I must say I find the remarks by batman, Fed-up Fed, Amused, etc. very amusing.  But then I remember that is was people like them who tormented me not too long ago.  It's mind-boggling to think about who the government puts so much trust in.

Some quick updates:

Received my clearance this week.
Still no response to my letter.

Quote:


I don't have a scanner, but they look just like the .pdf file.  I'm sure they're doing a lot of good sitting in my drawer too   I'm reluctant to provide free access advertising  on my car since the information may fall into the wrong hands...  I may just slap one of them on next to my desk.   

I don't want to be hypocritical and drop the fight after I get both feet in the door, so any ideas on what I should do next?  I think I know what the next appropriate thing to do is but I'd like to hear from the less fortunate victims.

Onesimus,

What is the "next appropriate thing to do" that you had in mind? (I was thinking that the next step might be to contact your congressman and senators.)

Saidme wrote on Jul 5^th, 2003 at 11:36pm:


And that 'saidme' is a paid professional liar.

Onesimus,

The only search capability this message board has is that which you may have already found by clicking on the search button near the top of the page. It allows one to search for posts older than and/or more recent than a specified number of days ago.