Mike Dick Lawsuit Against Eric Holder

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL G. DICK )

1405 Colonial Manor Ct ) Annapolis, MD 21409 )

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) Civil Action No: _________________

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. )

United States Attorney General )

United States Department of Justice )

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW )

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 )

)

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR )

Federal Bureau of Investigation )

935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW )

Washington, D.C. 20535-0001 )

)

OTHER UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS )

Defendants

SERVE (VIA CERTIFIED MAIL): Ronald C. Machen, Jr. Andrew Weissmann Eric H. Holder, Jr. US Attorney for the Office of General Counsel US Attorney General District of Columbia Federal Bureau of Investigation 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 555 4th Street, NW 935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Washington, D.C. 20530 Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

COMPLAINT

Michael G. Dick, by and through counsel, Kevin E. Byrnes, files this Complaint and in

support thereof, states as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff: Michael G. Dick, is, at all times relevant to this Complaint, a GS-1811

Series Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

Case 1:13-cv-01060-RC Document 1 Filed 07/12/13 of 23

2

2. Defendant: Eric H. Holder, Jr., is the Attorney General of the United States and

is the proper named Defendant in this action. On information and belief, Mr. Holder is a

nominal Defendant only. The actual decision makers in this case are officials in the FBI, which

is an entity that is part of the Department of Justice.

3. Defendant: Robert S. Mueller, III, is the current director of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation. That Agency and its supervisors are the real party in interest in this case. As the

Bureau is a component of the Department of Justice, the Department is the proper named party.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Federal jurisdiction exists because Plaintiff’s claims are against a federal

defendant involving federal officers acting in their official capacities, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), and

the matter is brought pursuant to federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, namely the Privacy Act, 5

U.S.C. § 552a.

5. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as the

wrongful acts complained of emanated from the Headquarters of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, and supervisors in the Headquarters Division, which is located in the District of

Columbia. See 29 USC §1391(b)(1); 28 USC 1391(e)(1)(a) and (b). Further, the Privacy Act

itself rests venue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

III. SUMMARY

6. This is an action for violations of the Privacy Act, 5 USC §552 (a) against the

Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation stemming from a nationwide Be On The

Lookout Bulletin (“BOLO”) by the FBI which contained false and defamatory (both actual and

implied) statements that wrongfully contended that Mr. Dick, a Special Agent of the FBI, was


3

armed, dangerous, had threatened FBI officials, had had his security clearance revoked, and was,

in essence, in hiding.

7. The Release of the BOLO stemmed from an incident on the FBI firing range in

Quantico, Virginia, where Special Agent Dick severely injured his right hand when the weapon’s

action caught and gashed his hand between the thumb and forefinger.

8. The Bureau’s negligent treatment of that injury, led Plaintiff to be denied

treatment on the scene of the injury and for several hours thereafter.

9. During this time, Plaintiff was in intense pain. When treatment was denied at the

FBI facility at Quantico, Plaintiff was forced to drive several miles while injured, to a private

clinic, where treatment was initially denied because of the Bureau’s failures to provide assurance

that Plaintiff was an employee and that he had been injured while on duty.

10. However, the issue of lack of treatment does not exist in isolation. For several

years now, the Bureau, has engaged in a protracted effort to drive Plaintiff from its ranks. Tools

of harassment include a seemingly endless “administrative investigation” of Special Agent Dick,

which involve: allegations of improper conduct in employment which are inherently vague and

repeatedly subject to round robin amendment when the initial allegations are dispelled; repeated

suspensions (and then reinstatements of his security clearances), reassignment of Plaintiff to a

location far from his home for work, invasion of private agreements and communication between

him and his attorneys, denial of outside employment, and physical assault and intimidation in

the workplace. Most recently, the Plaintiff has been informed in the course of a protracted

divorce proceeding that soon to be ex-wife has claimed to have received information from

Bureau officials as to Plaintiff’s fitness and mental health for which she has sought to use to

deny Plaintiff custody of and visitation with his daughter.


4

11. The effort has been sustained and malicious. Although the Agency has, to date,

been careful not to trigger a conduct that could produce outside judicial scrutiny, although the

Agency once proposed dismissal, based on purported serious violations; it carefully retreated

from imposing a penalty of more than 13 days so as to avoid review by the Merit Systems

Protection Board.

12. The Bureau has used a single demand for medical assistance made while SA Dick

was intense pain, this as a pretext to issue the BOLO which accused Dick of engaging in threats

and of being a danger. The BOLO was followed up with a suspension of Dick’s security

clearance. When Dick protested this action to the Bureau and forced the Bureau to respond to a

Fox New press report, the Bureau retaliated further by subjecting Dick to a mandatory

psychiatric fitness for duty examination and suspending his clearance level.

IV. FACTS

A. Special Agent Dick’s Valued Contributions to the FBI and the U.S. Army

13. Special Agent Michael Dick joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation on August

4, 1996. After a brief period as field agent in the Newark, New Jersey division, SA Dick was

assigned to the Bureau’s Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters.

14. SA Dick has remained assigned to Counter Intelligence for 17 years.

15. SA Dick was a first responder to the attacks on the World Trade Center on

September 11, 2001. He saw dead bodies, charred remains and the horrendous physical damages

and human loss caused by the collapse of the twin towers. SA Dick also watched helplessly as

people from the Towers plummeted to their death.

16. Immediately following the attacks, SA Dick headed the investigation to ascertain

and prevent the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. He managed the Threat Assessment


5

Operations Group (TAOG) which gathered information and evaluated imminent threats to the

New York Metropolitan Area.

17. SA Dick also spearheaded efforts to investigate the abduction of Wall Street

Journalist Daniel Pearl. Mr. Pearl was brutally beheaded by Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

18. SA Dick helped track leads on the murder of Mr. Pearl and worked on several

other highly classified terrorist attack cases.

19. When the Diplomatic enclave in Islamabad, Pakistan was attacked and a church

bombed, SA Dick responded to the church and saw the carnage that ensued when a suicide

bomber detonated a number of grenades during a church service, which killed twenty-five

people.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. SSA Dick was to collect information from the Motley Firm, but was not to

disclose any information from the Bureau.

23. SSA Dick scrupulously followed this policy. The flow of information was one-

way from the families’ attorneys to the Bureau.


6

24. Private investigators held by the Motley Firm pursued investigative leads outside

the United States, without being subject to the limitations imposed on government, federal law

enforcement, the military or corporations on informants for federal agencies.

25. The investigations led to the capture of a high level terrorist and a reward was

given by the Department of Justice in the millions of dollars to the persons who assisted in that

capture.

B. A DISGRUNTLED CONTRACTOR MAKES SPECIOUS ALLEGATIONS

AGAINST AGENT DICK

26. An investigator hired by the Motley Rice Firm, Michael Patrick Jost, because

disgruntled when he was denied a portion of that award.

27. Mr. Jost blamed SSA Dick for being excluded from the award. Mr. Jost began a

campaign to malign SSA Dick with allegations that he had passed sensitive information to the

families of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and was receiving compensation

from their attorneys. Mr. Jost began a fanciful tale of how SSA Dick had amassed riches as a

result of using his FBI position for private gain.

28. In October 2005, Mr. Dick was mobilized by the U.S. Army as part of Operation

Enduring Freedom. He served in combat operations until 2008.

29. 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.

30. The FBI commenced an investigation. For two years, in 2005 and 2006, the

Inspector General of the Department of Justice conducted a lengthy inquiry into Mr. Jost’s

allegations. The IG determined that no criminal wrongdoing or violation of the Department of

Justice policy occurred and declined the matter.


7

31. In the spring of 2007, Mr. Dick was informed he was cleared by the OIG

investigators of criminal misconduct.

C. THE FBI FILES A PERSONNEL ACTION WHICH CAREFULLY

AVOIDS OUTSIDE SCRUTINY

32. The matter was then apparently referred to the FBI Office of Professional

Responsibility (OPR), which delayed action until November, 2007.

33. 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.

34. The FBI contacted the Army regarding the proposed termination, as the proposal

also led to Mr. Dick’s security clearance being suspended.

35. The Army then discharged Mr. Dick from active duty in April, 2008 based on the

suspension of his security clearance, he remained a reservist.

36. OPR continued to conduct a prolonged two year investigation from 2007-2009.

37. Mr. Dick opposed the proposed removal. In his opposition Mr. Dick meticulously

attacked both the unauthorized disclosure allegation and the purported wrongfulness of sending

the loan.

38. For example, in his defense, Mr. Dick pointed out that he had simply made a loan

to a former Special Agent who was serving as a private contractor in the Middle East. That

individual, with whom Mr. Dick has worked closely, called Mr. Dick to advise him his cover had

been compromised and he could be killed. The individual pleaded for an immediate $10,000

loan to secure transport, Mr. Dick gave him the loan to protect him from capture, torture and

death.


8

39. 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.

40. On April 29, 2008, FBI OPR determined that while Mr. Dick had not lacked

candor and was not derelict in his duties, he nevertheless disclosed “sensitive information” and

used “improper techniques”. OPR contended Mr. Dick wrongfully used a private service to send

sensitive information and improperly provided $10,000 to the civilian contractor.

41. OPR mitigated the proposed termination to a 40 day suspension.

42. Mr. Dick appealed the matter internally to the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB).

The DRB is an internal appeal unit which applies a reasonable basis standard to its review. So

long as OPR’s decision is reasonable, the DRB will not disturb the findings.

43. On November 3, 2008, the FBI, through its DRB, made a final determination. The

Board determined that 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.

44. As to the alleged improper loan, the Bureau found that while Mr. Dick had loaned

money to a private investigator working overseas for the 9/11 families, in alleged contravention

of a then existing Bureau policy regarding such loans, his motivation was to protect the life of

the investigator who needed to leave the Middle Eastern country where he was working

immediately or face capture, torture and death. Again, this investigator was a former FBI Agent.

45. The DRB also determined that that Mr. Dick made a de minimis administrative

error in communications with Patrick Jost, when they discussed a protected source of


9

information. The finding was made although Mr. Jost was already aware of the source, because

the source had, themselves, made the disclosure of their status to Mr. Jost.

46. The Bureau imposed a thirteen day suspension for the purported misconduct. Mr.

Dick then appealed the suspension to the MSPB. A jurisdictional claim was raised since the

suspension was less than fourteen days and the MSPB generally lacks the authority to hear

appeals from suspensions of less than 14 days.

47. Prior to the resolution of the issues, the parties settled the case. Mr. Dick believed

the issues with the Bureau were finally at rest.

D. THE AGENCY RENEWS ITS EFFORTS TO “INVESTIGATE” SPECIAL

AGENT DICK AFTER INITIAL ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE HIM FAIL

48. As it turned out, this was not the case, and, in fact, his troubles were just

beginning.

49. 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.

50. The interview occurred although Mr. Dick protested the interrogation. At the

interrogation he claimed he was being denied due process and his right to have a representative

present. The FBI had its own counsel participate in the interview.

51. In May, 2011, Special Agent Dick returned to active duty service with the U.S.

Military. Mr. Dick was, at the time a Lieutenant Colonel assigned to Counter Terrorist

Operations in the Special Operations Command.

E. THE BUREAU ENDS MR. DICK’S MILITARY CAREER

52. Mr. Dick remained on active duty service until August, 2011 when he was

abruptly released.


10

53. The FBI had contacted the U.S. Army and advised the Army that Mr. Dick was

under investigation and that the military should “flag” him and his clearance.

54. A “flag” represents notification of a limit on the official’s access to classified

information.

55. 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.

56. The U.S. Army discharged Mr. Dick from active duty and assigned him to the

Inactive Ready Reserves.

57. Mr. Dick returned to the FBI in August, 2011. He was initially told he would not

be rehired.

58. When Mr. Dick threatened to bring a claim under the Uniformed Services

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), he was reinstated.

F. AFTER ENDING HIS CAREER IN THE ARMY, THE BUREAU TRIES

TO HARASS MR. DICK INTO LEAVING

59. On the same day he returned, SA Dick was informed he was subject to a new FBI

OPR investigation, which largely consisted of same stale charges arising from the prior OPR

action initiated in 2006.

60. The Bureau also contended that SA Dick had violated FBI policy by maintaining

a blind trust to pay for his prior legal defense. Such a move was obviously designed to punish

Dick for opposing the Bureau and to intimidate any future legal representative or effort by Mr.

Dick to raise funds for a legal defense.

61. The Bureau, over the next two years, demanded information that went to the core

of Mr. Dick’s relationship with attorneys at Holland and Knight and Joseph Smith, a private

attorney, who had assisted Mr. Dick.


11

62. The Bureau contended, without any citation to legal authority of any kind that Mr.

Dick had committed fraud when his attorneys had agreed privately and separately to give him a

portion of the Agency’s award of attorney’s fees to his counsel Joseph Smith.

63. Mr. Dick protested that an agreement between him and his prior counsel over a

reduction in fees and a return of a portion of those fees back to Mr. Dick was both privileged and

not indicia of fraud. He stated there was no fraud because the Agency had agreed to pay the fees

and that any agreement between Dick and his counsel about how to use those fees was

privileged.

64. There was and is no “fraud”. The Agency agreed to pay a certain amount as part

of a settlement. How Mr. Smith chose to use those funds is a matter between him and Mr. Dick.

Mr. Dick argued that his 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.

65. The FBI has never stated what it determined with respect to these allegations

despite the passage of 20 months, nor has it; despite repeated requests cited any law that would

render such a payment fraudulent or at all illegal.

66. The FBI has demanded and received, under protest, Mr. 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.

67. Mr. Dick has never received any discipline from this second investigation

nor has he been cleared of the charges. The FBI has simply maintained that he is under

investigation since January 2011 to the present day.


12

68. 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.

G. THE BUREAU “TRANSFERS” MR. DICK AND REDUCES HIS DUTIES

69. 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.

70. That transfer required Mr. Dick to make a 150 mile round trip commute each day

from his home to Quantico.

H. MR. DICK PROTESTS BUREAU HARASSMENT BUT HAS NO LEGAL

REMEDIES OUTSIDE THE BUREAU ITSELF

71. Mr. Dick again attempted to assert a USERRA retaliation claim before the MSPB

for the investigation and for the transfer.

72. On September 17, 2012, Mr. Dick submitted an MSPB appeal which alleged that

the FBI was retaliating against him for his assertion of USERRA rights in order to return to the

Bureau.

73. On September 18, 2012, in direct response to the MSPB Appeal, the FBI included

a new charge of “obstruction and failure to cooperate in an administrative matter.” The basis of

this allegation was that Mr. Dick could not provide names and contribution amount of

contributions to his legal defense fund which had been set up as a “blind trust”.

74. That trust was created by William Roth, III, a private, licensed attorney who set

himself served as Executor of the Trust.


13

75. By its terms and by law, the Blind Trust is exactly that. Mr. Dick did not and

does not know who contributed what to his fund. If he were to invade the provisions of the trust

to disclose contributors he would suffer possible tax and legal consequences.

76. To avoid this, Special Agent Dick referred the investigators to the Trust Executor

and noted that by Agency regulation, the Blind Trust was not a required financial disclosure.

The Agents never met with the Executor, although the Executor made a special trip from

overseas to the area for that purpose.

77. To alleviate the 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.

78. In addition to the above, the Agency denied Mr. Dick the possibility of external

employment. Special Agents may conduct outside employment with Bureau approval, which is

routinely granted. Yet, on August 22, 2012, Special Agent Dick was denied outside

employment. No reason was given for this denial.

79. On October 22, 2012, Mr. Dick was called in to provide a signed sworn statement

to the allegations raised in July, 2012. Why the Bureau waited three months for this was never

explained.

80. Dick reported to the FBI Inspection Division at FBI Headquarters. Mr. Dick had

his signed sworn statement in hand, which addressed each and every issue raised by the Bureau.

81. Special Agent Lisa Locasico refused to accept Mr. Dick’s statement. Instead, she

tried to hand Mr. Dick a pre-scripted statement she had drafted.


14

82. When SA Dick refused to sign the statement that had been prepared for him,

Agent Locasico became irate. She signaled to other Agents who then closed in on him in a

“ready” position, with their hands by their firearms. Dick was then forcibly removed from the

building with Loscasio and other agents verbally deriding him in the process.

83. Between November, 2012 and February 1, 2013, Mr. Dick litigated his USERRA

claims before the MSPB. The MSPB issued its initial decision denying the appeal on

jurisdictional grounds on February 1, 2012.

84. The MSPB Administrative Law Judge determined Congress had exempted FBI

agents from raising USERRA claims externally outside the Bureau.

85. 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.

86. 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.

I. THE “INCIDENTS OF MAY 7, 2013” 87. 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.


15

88. While firing a Glock 22 semi-automatic pistol, SA Dick injured his right hand

between this thumb and forefinger by the action of his weapon. A gash requiring stitches was

made causing immediate and severe pain.

89. SA Dick was immediately cleared by the instructor from the firing range and was

directed to a location at the range where gauze was applied by a firearms instructor.

90. SA Dick then went to the Health Unit at Quantico for emergency treatment of his

work related wound. Upon arrival, SA Dick was asked if he was an FBI employee. He was

instructed by a clerk to fill out a questionnaire. SA Dick informed the clerk he could not do so

because his writing hand was injured. Curiously, the clerk neither asked for medical personnel

nor assisted Mr. Dick in having the form completed through alternative means. Instead, he was

told the doctor could not see him until Mr. Dick physically completed the form.

91. 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.

92. 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.

93. Once at the third location, SA Dick spoke to a receptionist who asked for his

insurance. When the receptionist inquired as to whether this was a work related injury, which

would be covered by an employer workman’s compensation provider, SA Dick gave the


16

telephone number to the FBI Headquarters Switchboard and asked her to contact the Health

Services Unit.

94. For nearly 40 minutes, the receptionist sought approval from the Health Unit to

provide treatment. Unable to obtain a response, the receptionist directed Mr. Dick to a nurse

practitioner who cleaned his wound to deter infection.

95. During the cleaning, Mr. Dick passed out from the pain and the cleaning that

exacerbated the pain. This happened at least three times and a second medical provider was

called.

96. 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.

97. Another half hour passed. The receptionist appeared, expressing frustration at her

inability to obtain insurance and treatment approval for Mr. Dick, despite multiple contacts with

Bureau personnel.

98. A doctor then appeared and stated he could not treat SA Dick until his employer

authorized the treatment. The doctor stated his staff had done all they could and that SA Dick

would have to get approval from the proper officials at the Bureau.

99. SA Dick remained untreated and un-medicated for his wound. He used his left

hand to call the Health Services Unit. Mr. Dick was repeatedly transferred between Health Unit

employees who appeared mystified by the request and offered no guidance on how to resolve it.

On several occasions, SA Dick ended up in voicemail.

100. SA Dick then called back and was shocked to hear a Health Unit employee

laughing at him and his efforts to get answers. The employee appeared amused at SA Dick’s last


17

name and provided a sexual reference. Mr. Dick demanded to speak with a supervisor but was

simply transferred to voicemail again.

101. Finally, Mr. Dick called and asked to speak to Mr. Bennett, the Assistant Director

of Human Resources (who was later selected as the decision maker on the issue of whether to

revoke Mr. 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.

102. Mr. Dick then received treatment, which included several painkiller shots and

stitches. Mr. Dick was then given a prescription for antibiotics and was also prescribed a

painkiller.

103. SA Dick was then forced to drive home 72 miles without the use of his right hand

and while recovering from the suture treatment. The Bureau made no attempt to inquire as to his

condition, to assist him with transportation or to document a clearly work related injury covered

by federal insurance. The Bureau simply allowed Mr. Dick to seek self treatment and his own

transportation, while injured, while in pain and while driving was extremely difficult if not

hazardous.

104. Mr. Dick went to a local pharmacy for his prescription medications. Despite it

being in the middle of the workday (approximately 12:30-1:00 p.m.), the pharmacist could find

no FBI employee to give authorization to fill the prescription, as the pharmacist claimed was

required under federal workmen’s compensation. This delayed Mr. Dick’s receiving prescription

medication for several more hours.

105. Mr. Dick called the Health Services Unit again and was again transferred several

times. In intense pain and frustrated by the lack of appropriate response from the Bureau, Mr.


18

Dick became agitated and stated he would personally come to the Bureau to straighten out the

approval process. Mr. Dick expressed displeasure at AD Bennett personally because the Health

Unit employee claimed that Mr. Bennett had limited their ability to communicate approval

authority and had revoked issuance of cell phones to facilitate and address requests.1

J. THE MAY 8, 2013 BOLO (Exhibit 1)

106. 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 BOLO is attached and contains SA Dick’s social security

number and his address.

107. 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.

1 Again we are curious as to how objective the decision maker can be, when the source of Mr. Dick’s frustration was the Byzantine approval process, which Health Unit employees claimed was Mr. Bennett’s creation. To have Mr. Bennett reach a decision where the issue involves allegations of impaired process that was his responsibility strikes us as fundamentally flawed, given an apparent conflict where the decision maker is defending perhaps his own management conduct by deciding Mr. Dick’s fate.


19

108. Most importantly the BOLO leaves the distinct impression that Mr. Dick was

armed, dangerous and then on the run. This was and is absurd. The FBI has known of Mr. Dick’s

actions and whereabouts at all times, On May 7, 2013, May 8, 2013 and thereafter.

109. The BOLO was issued nationwide to every conceivable local, state and federal

law enforcement agency and garnered national press attention. The FBI only sheepishly

corrected the BOLO in response to a Fox News story and only after Fox quoted the undersigned

counsel dispelling the nonsensical, defamatory and dangerous implications of the BOLO and its

aspersions on Special Agent Dick. Yet, the Bureau has yet to issue a nationwide recall of the

BOLO or to correct its claims in any formal way. Instead the FBI has commented as follows:

FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told Fox News:

"This was a personnel matter. There is no concern anymore. The BOLO expired a week ago. The individual was located shortly after BOLO was issued a week ago. Initially there were temporary concerns about him since his whereabouts were unknown. As I said this was resolved a week ago. There have been no issues since then." 110. Frankly Mr. 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.

K. THE USE OF THE BOLO TO HARM SA DICK

111. On May 8, 2013, the Bureau suspended Mr. Dick’s clearance, thus effectively

removing him from employment pending final adjudication.

112. 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.


20

113. Then, on June 18, 2013, the FBI sent Plaintiff a “Notice of Mandatory Fitness for

Duty Examination” of both a psychological and psychiatric nature.

114. The Bureau has provided no details as to what specific behavior Plaintiff engaged

in to warrant an investigation into his mental health.

115. The Bureau has stated as grounds for its examination that Plaintiff made a “series

of disturbing statements and threats against FBI employees”. Despite multiple requests, it

refuses to say what those statements or threats are.

116. In reality, no such “threats” were made and the Bureau is merely trying to cover

its tracks for the improper BOLO. Even more ominously, the Bureau has claimed the right to

contact Mr. 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.

117. Mr. Dick is seeking to oppose the fitness for duty through the Equal Employment

Opportunity process, but must administratively exhaust his claims before proceeding to federal

court and amending this suit.

V. COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT: WRONGFUL AND

KNOWING DISSEMINATION OF FALSE INFORMATION

118. Paragraphs 1-117 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set

forth in this Count.

119. 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.


21

120. 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.

121. The disclosure was intentional and willful and constituted an admitted failure by

the FBI to follow its own rules and regulations or the law.

122. The disclosure was massive and put Mr. Dick at immediate risk of physical harm

or death.

123. The nature of the report had Mr. Dick as armed, dangerous and a threat to public

safety.

124. 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.

125. As a result of the BOLO, Fox News released a headline that emphasized that the

Bureau was “hunting” for one of their own.

126. Mr. Dick could easily have been subject to arrest or even being shot by law

enforcement were he “located”.

127. An ominous looking picture accompanied the BOLO designed to enhance Mr.

Dick’s purported menacing status.

128. As the facts above clearly illustrate, the Bureau has long sought to isolate,

marginalize and punish Mr. Dick and to cast him as an unstable, deranged agent.

129. The BOLO was done intentionally and willfully with an aim toward harming SA

Dick both professionally and personally.


22

130. Plaintiff took no action to contribute to or authorize this nationwide

dissemination.

131. Mr. Dick has been directly and proximately harmed by the disclosure. His

subsequent suspension and fitness for duty examinations are direct by-products of the BOLO.

132. Mr. Dick has lost all outside employment opportunities as a result of the BOLO.

He has been shunned by neighbors and peers and the BOLO has been used as evidence in his

divorce and child custody proceedings.

VI. COUNT TWO: PRIVACY ACT VIOLATION: FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD

RECORDS

133. Paragraphs 1-132 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set

forth in this Count.

134. 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. See 5 USC §552(a)(e)(10).

135. The Bureau, in fact, consciously disseminated the information to cause harm and

then when confronted by its action, sheepishly contended it was a mistake on a personnel matter.

136. The Plaintiff suffered action, cognizable harm and an adverse effect as a result of

the violation.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

A. The violations of the act in this instance are nationwide, permanent in nature and

have effectively sabotaged Special Agent Dick’s career.

B. It is anticipated that the BOLO was sent to thousands of federal, state and local

law enforcement offices and obviously gained national press interest.


23

C. Plaintiff’s damages are real, severe and lifelong and as such he demands

$10,000,000, plus attorney’s fees, expenses and costs.

D. The myriad of violations also imposes statutory damages for each and every

instance of wrongful release.

E. The release requires injunctive and mandamus type relief. The FBI must issue a

statement that withdraws the information contained in the BOLO and advises law enforcement

and the public at large that Special Agent Dick is not a threat.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks for an award of damages, attorney’s fees and costs for

injunctive relief and for such other relief as the Court determines necessary and appropriate.

Dated: July 12, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,

__/s/________________________ Kevin E. Byrnes (DC Bar No. 480195) Grad, Logan, Klewans, Bowen & Byrnes, P.C. 3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 350 Falls Church, Virginia 22042 Phone: 703/535-5393 Fax: 703/836-6289 [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff


Mike Dick Lawsuit Against Eric Holder

Documents

Transcript of Mike Dick Lawsuit Against Eric Holder