OPM Hit By Class Action Lawsuit, and Those Phishing Scams You Feared Over #OPMHack Are Real (Corrected)

Posted: 7:16 pm  EDT

 

The largest federal employee union, the American Federation of Government Employees, filed a class action lawsuit today against the Office of Personnel Management, its director, Katherine Archuleta, its chief information officer, Donna Seymour and Keypoint Government Solutions, an OPM contractor.
.

.

.
A couple of weeks ago, we thought that the “recipe” from the OPM email notification sent to potentially affected employees via email might be copied by online scammers.

.

 

Today, the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), part of part of DHS’ National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) issued an alert on phishing campaigns masquerading as emails from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or the identity protection firm CSID.

#

State Dept Issues Letters to U.S.Passport Holders With Potentially Compromised Personal Information

Posted: 3:21 am  EDT

 

On May 7, we blogged about the indictment of a domestic passport agency contractor and two others alleged to have used stolen U.S. passport information in Texas (see U.S. Passport Agency Contractor, Two Others Indicted for Alleged Use of Stolen Passport Information; also Bringing Cellphones to Work Ends For Federal Employees in 22 Domestic Passport Offices).

We are presuming that the notice below to U.S. passport applicants regarding compromised personal information is related to the  case in Houston since it refers passport applicants to DOJ for further details. We do not think this is related to the current technical problems with visa/passport issuances.

Letter Regarding Compromised Personal Information | JUNE 5, 2015

The U.S. Department of State mailed letters on June 9 to a limited number of U.S. passport customers whose personal information may have been compromised. The letter provides specific details regarding the breach of personal information, how to contact us for further assistance, and guidance on how to protect yourself from identity theft.

The Department has taken immediate action to help protect you. The letter mentions an offer from the Department to sign-up for one year of free credit monitoring services. This service monitors your credit records at all 3 credit reporting agencies and notifies you when there are certain changes to your credit bureau file(s).  In addition, the identity theft insurance policy will reimburse you for certain out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages in the event you are a victim of identity theft.  We have also flagged your U.S. passport record in our databases to prevent others from using your identity to renew or replace your passport.  Your U.S. passport is still valid for international travel.

We apologize for any inconvenience and concern this incident may cause you.  We are thoroughly examining our information security systems and procedures to safeguard against unauthorized access of passport records.

Customers requesting more details on this case should contact the U.S. Department of Justice  at the number or website address provided in their notification letter.

The case USA v. McClendon et al, criminal case #: 4:15-cr-00233-1 is set for jury selection and trial on October 13, 2015 in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas (Houston).

#

Supreme Court Throws Out 2002 ‘Born in Jerusalem’ Passport Law

Posted: 12:04 pm EDT

Excerpt from the SCOTUS  6-3 decision from ZIVOTOFSKY, BY HIS PARENTS AND GUARDIANS, ZIVOTOFSKY ET UX. v. KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE (pdf):

Petitioner Zivotofsky was born to United States citizens living in Jerusalem. Pursuant to §214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, his mother asked American Embassy officials to list his place of birth as “Israel” on, inter alia, his passport. Section 214(d) states for “purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.” The Embassy officials refused to list Zivotofsky’s place of birth as “Israel” on his passport, citing the Executive Branch’s longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. Zivotofsky’s parents brought suit on his behalf in federal court, seeking to enforce §214(d). Ultimately, the D. C. Circuit held the statute unconstitutional, con- cluding that it contradicts the Executive Branch’s exclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns.

Quick background of this long-standing practice: Place of birth was first added to the U.S. passport designed in 1917. An October 4, 1963 staff study by the Passport Office on “Place of Birth” information in the United States Passport reflects “the passport used during World War I was the first in which including the place of birth of the passport holder was mandatory as part of the identification of the bearer, probably was a wartime travel control measure. The item was included in all subsequent revisions of the passport format, down to and including the present issuances.”

For United States passport purposes, the Department of State has defined the term “bearer’s origin” to be the bearer’s place of birth as it is presently recognized. That entry is included to assist in identifying the individual, not the individual’s nationality. The passport very clearly states that the bearer is a United States national or citizen.

7 FAM 1360: Birthplace in Jerusalem (pdf):

For a person born in Jerusalem, write JERUSALEM as the place of birth in the passport. Do not write Israel, Jordan or West Bank for a person born within the current municipal borders of Jerusalem. For applicants born before May 14, 1948 in a place that was within the municipal borders of Jerusalem, enter JERUSALEM as their place of birth. For persons born before May 14, 1948 in a location that was outside Jerusalem’s municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, enter either PALESTINE or the name of the location (area/city) as it was known prior to annexation. For persons born after May 14, 1948 in a location that was outside Jerusalem’s municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, it is acceptable to enter the name of the location (area/city) as it was known prior to annexation.

.

.

.

.

.

#

United States v. Al-Maliki: An FSO Saved These Victims, Then Testified Against Their Abuser

Posted: 3:06  am EDT
Updated: June 2, 8:23 am PDT

 

This is excerpted from the Opinion from the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 27, 2015 concerning a case of a U.S. citizen found guilty of abusing his own children who are also U.S. citizens.  News reports are often loud when things go wrong, but never as loud when things go right.  We don’t often hear about these cases until they go to court and we almost never hear the role played by our consular officials when assisting the victims. An RSO was also involved in this case, but was unnamed in court documents. We understand that this official will be DCM at one of our embassies in the Middle East this summer.

The vice consul in this case is FSO Mark Goldrup. His name appeared on the Congressional Record in June 2009 for his consular officer appointment. We suspect but could not confirmed that he was on his first overseas assignment at US Embassy Damascus when he assisted these victims find safe shelter in Syria back in 2010. The prosecutor said that Mr. Goldrup “took the extraordinary step of keeping an American citizen away from his two citizen sons because he felt that he posed a danger to them.” The State Department’s recruitment slogan last year was Change the World, Join the Foreign Service.  Not sure about the world, but here is proof of one FSO who helped changed three lives, forever.

Malek M. Al Maliki was sentenced to 292 months on each of counts 1 & 2, to be served concurrently last year. He was remanded to the custody of the US Marshal. Supervised Release 10 years. This term consists of 10 years on each of counts 1 & 2, all such terms to run concurrently, with several conditions including Firearms and Dangerous Weapons Prohibition; DNA Collection; Mental Health Treatment; Minor Protection and Restriction Program; Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. (United States of America v. Al Maliki; 1:13-cr-00121-SL-1).  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District affirmed the lower courts decision on May 27, 2015 (Case No. 14-3386). Excerpt below:

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. A jury of his peers found Malek al-Maliki guilty of a heinous crime: sexually abusing his own two children, ages twelve and three. Al-Maliki challenges several aspects of his conviction and sentence. His constitutional challenge to his conviction is a close call, but it ultimately fails under plain-error review. The rest of his challenges fail as well. We affirm.

Iraq native Malek al-Maliki had his first child, John Doe #1, with Hinda al-Rhannai in 1998. Two years later, the couple had a civil marriage and al-Maliki (but not his wife) became a United States citizen. Their physical union did not last long. Although they remained legally married, the couple has been separated since 2000 or 2002. Despite the separation, they had one more child, John Doe #2, in 2007. Since around 2000, al-Maliki has lived alone on the west side of Cleveland, Ohio, and al-Rhannai has lived in Morocco and then Syria with the two sons.

Al-Maliki visited his family on a few occasions over the years. The United States claims that during one trip from August to November 2010, he sexually abused his two children (then ages twelve and three), violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(c) and (e). A grand jury indicted him under that statute, which at the time punished any United States citizen “[1] who travels in foreign commerce, and [2] engages in any illicit sexual conduct,” which includes noncommercial sexual acts with a minor, or any attempts to do the same.

Al-Maliki denied all of the charges, and a trial began. The jury heard from Mark Goldrup, a vice consul at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria. He testified that he put al- Rhannai and her children in a safe shelter after al-Rhannai came to the embassy seeking assistance for injuries consistent with domestic abuse. The jury also heard from Department of Homeland Security Special Agent Gabriel Hagan. She testified that she observed the sons’ open affection toward their mother, but that al-Maliki insisted his wife abused the sons. She also  testified about a live interview she saw of John Doe #1, where the boy cried and hid his face while struggling to recount the sexual abuse (the “sin,” he called it) that he suffered.
[…]
Al-Maliki next challenges the admissibility of Goldrup’s testimony on two grounds: that his testimony included an improper hearsay statement, and that it included prejudicial statements about domestic violence. Nothing improper occurred.

Hearsay. Goldrup’s challenged testimony included this out-of-court statement: “[Al- Rhannai] stated that she had been abused by [al-]Maliki.” R. 97 at 15. But that statement was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that al-Maliki had in fact abused his wife); it was offered “for the limited purpose of explaining why [Goldrup’s] government[al] investigation” began. United States v. Martin, 897 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). Two conclusions follow: It is not hearsay, Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), and the government did not violate the Confrontation Clause, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59–60 n.9 (2004).

Middle Eastern stereotype. Goldrup’s testimony also included this statement: “You wouldn’t expect a law enforcement response” for spousal abuse in Syria because “it’s culturally understood [there] that a man has a right to beat his wife.” R. 97 at 53. That statement, taken in context, was both relevant and not unduly prejudicial. It was relevant because it rebutted al- Maliki’s attack on Goldrup’s credibility for not reporting the spousal abuse to Syrian authorities. United States v. Chance, 306 F.3d 356, 385 (6th Cir. 2002); see United States v. Segines, 17 F.3d 847, 856 (6th Cir. 1994).

Read in full here(pdf). Warning: Some graphic entries.

On February 6, 2012, the U.S. Embassy Damascus suspended operations and is not open for normal consular services.

#

State Dept Employee Posted at US Embassy London Faces ‘Sextortion’ Charges in Georgia

Posted: 1:41 pm EDT
Updated: 8:09 pm PDT

 

A State Department employee based at the U.S. Embassy in London  was arrested at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and is now facing charges of interstate threats, computer fraud, wire fraud, and cyberstalking. The employee identified by news reports and court documents as Michael C. Ford reportedly has a home in Alpharetta, Georgia but has worked at the U.S. Embassy in London since 2009. Typical State Department assignments are normally 3 years, sometimes with one-year extensions. The complaint does not say what work Ford has done at Embassy London or his category of employment.

During the Daily Press Briefing of May 21st, the deputy spokesperson for the State Department informed the press that the individual named in this case was a locally hired administrative support employee who was not a member of the Foreign Service.  She also said that as of May 18th, the individual is no longer working at the embassy.
.

.

The Affidavit (pdf) executed by Eric J. Kasik, Special Agent of the Department of State Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) says that on or about April 2015, DSS began investigating a target, later determined to be a U.S. Embassy London employee, Michael C. Ford (“FORD”), for allegedly engaging in a computer hacking, cyber stalking, and extortion.  We should note that the affidavit is intended to show that there is sufficient probable cause to support the complaint.

According to the affidavit supporting the criminal complaint, Diplomatic Security “identified the specific State Department computer that is located at a workstation cubicle located in the U.S. Embassy in London. Personnel from the U.S. Embassy in London told me that the only person who sits at that workstation cubicle and uses that computer is Michael C. Ford. FORD is a U.S. citizen who has worked as an Embassy employee in London since 2009.”

Item #25 on the complaint reiterates what folks already know — that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communications or data transiting or stored on the information system of the State Department.

DSS computer specialists have apparently obtained copies of specific documents or files that were allegedly stored on the employee’s computer in London. Court documents cited one document as example: “a spreadsheet that appears to summarize some of FORD’s more recent criminal activities. Along the far left hand column of the spreadsheet is a list of account names for approximately 250 e-mail addresses.” Special Agent Kasik says that “DSS agents have determined that several of the accountholders appear to attend the same college in Indiana, where they belong to the same sorority. One is a 17-year-old. This leads me to believe that FORD may be targeting college-aged women throughout the U.S.”

The alleged MO is described in item #16 of the Kasik affidavit:

16. The target initially sent Jane Doe Two an e-mail message to her Google e-mail account, posing as a Google representative and claiming that Jane Doe Two’s Google e-mail account was going to be deleted unless she provided her password. Jane Doe Two provided her password, as directed. The target then apparently hacked into Jane Doe Two’s Google account, presumably using the stolen password. He then obtained, presumably from Jane Doe Two’s hacked accounts, two or more private photographs of Jane Doe Two of a sexual nature. He also obtained other PII about Jane Doe Two, including her first and last name, her address, where she worked and went to school, and her parent’s first and last names and e-mail addresses. The target then sent Jane Doe Two several threatening e-mail messages to her Google e-mail account. He admitted that he had obtained sexual photographs of Jane Doe Two and sent her the photographs as proof. He then demanded that she provide her current home address and her parents’ contact information and other PII. He warned her that, if she refused, he would e-mail the photographs of her to a list of others, listing the first and last names of several of her acquaintances. The target also threatened to post her photographs online.

The affidavit is available here (pdf) via patch.com/georgia.

WSB-TV2 Atlanta reports that Ford will be in federal court in Atlanta today for a bond hearing and that his attorneys declined to comment at this point in the case.  Click her to read the report via AP.

The case is  USA v. Ford, CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15-mj-00386-ECS-1 in the U.S. District Court in the  Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).

#

Twin Brothers and Co-Conspirators on Alleged Scheme to Hack State Dept to Obtain Passport Information

Posted: 2:16 am EDT


Via
USDOJ:

Twin brothers Muneeb and Sohaib Akhter, 23, of Springfield, Virginia, were indicted by a federal grand jury today on charges of aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to access a protected computer without authorization, access of a protected computer without authorization, conspiracy to access a government computer without authorization, false statements, and obstruction of justice.

According to the indictment, beginning in or about March 2014, the Akhter brothers and coconspirators hacked into the website of a cosmetics company and stole its customers’ credit card and personal information.  They used the stolen information to purchase goods and services, including flights, hotel reservations, and attendance at professional conferences.  In addition, the brothers and coconspirators devised a scheme to hack into computer systems at the U.S.  Department of State to access network traffic and to obtain passport information.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:15-cr-124.

#

U.S. Passport Agency Contractor, Two Others Indicted for Alleged Use of Stolen Passport Information

Posted: 3:57 pm  PDT

 

A Grand Jury in the Southern District of Texas indicted three women charged with nine counts of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with the alleged use of U.S. passport information in Houston.  One of the women has been identified by media reports as a contractor working for the State Department. Both the AP and local news say that the Houston and Atlanta passport offices were targeted.

Beginning on or about the year 2010 until on or about March 2, 2015, in the Houston Division of Southern District of Texas and elsewhere,

CHLOE ALYSE MCCLENDON, DOMONIQUE RASHAD THOMAS, A/K/A DOMINIQUE RASHAD THOMAS, A/K/A “TEEN” A/K/A “NIQUE”, and ALICIA LENA MYLES,

defendants herein, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and in execution of said scheme and artifice, transmit or cause to be transmitted by means of wire in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds for the purpose of executing said scheme or artifice to defraud in Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

According to charging documents, the accused were alleged to have done the following: 1) obtain personal identifying information (PII) of others from the Department of State, Passport Administration; 2) transmit the stolen PII to and from each other, 3) use the stolen PII to create counterfeit identification documents, 4) recruit accomplices to assume the stolen identities and use the counterfeit documents to obtain commercial lines of credit and to purchase iPhones, iPads, and other electronic merchandise, 5) cause commercial entities to transmit the stolen PII to assist in the establishment of commercial lines of credit.

An AP report citing authorities identifies McClendon as the contract employee for the State Department passport office.  A quick social media search indicates that the accused is a Senior Customer Service Tech for a federal contractor.

Initial appearance hearing for Chloe Alyse McClendon and Domonique Rashad Thomas was set for today, 5/7/2015 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy.  Prosecutors told the AP that Alicia Myles remains a fugitive but Click2Houston reports that all three appeared before the judge on Thursday afternoon and were released on bond. Clip below from click2houston.com:

Click here if you are unable to view the embedded video.

The case is  USA v. McClendon et. al. criminal case #: 4:15-cr-00233-1.

This looks related to our recent post: Bringing Cellphones to Work Ends For Federal Employees in 22 Domestic Passport Offices.

In related news, the Passport Office will reportedly start banning cell phone usage for PPT in SA-17.  We’re told that the apparent hold up is due to storage facilities for cellphones outside the  workspace.  Our source says he/she  can’t see how they will let the rest of SA-17 bring cell phones in, since they look at the same PII information, like  passsport applications. Keep us posted.

#

Howard v. Kerry: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss One Retaliation Claim

Posted: 10:52 am EDT

 

Excerpt from Civil Action No. 14-727 (JDB) by Judge John D. Bates of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia:

Kerry Howard, a former Community Liaison Officer at the American consulate in Naples, did not enjoy her working environment. That is an understatement, to be fair: she refers to it as a “cesspool.” Pl.’s Opp’n [ECF No. 21] at 3. In this suit, Howard asserts that she suffered from a hostile work environment that was discriminatory to women, and from discrete instances of retaliation for her attempts to aid fellow employees. But these claims do not match precisely with those she raised during the administrative process. As a result, some must be dismissed, based on the defendant’s motion to do so.
[…]
Here, Howard filed administrative charges alleging only two discrete retaliatory acts: her poor evaluation on April 19, 2012, and being placed on a performance improvement plan that same day. See Notice of Dismissed Allegations [ECF No. 13-2] at 5. Both were dismissed administratively for failure to contact an EEO counselor within forty-five days, as required by the first step of the exhaustion process. See id. Since then, however, it has become clear to both parties that Howard did timely request an EEO counselor on May 7, 2012—regarding her performance improvement plan. See Pl.’s Supp. at 2; Def.’s Resp. at 3. This claim was therefore appropriately exhausted. The Court will accordingly deny defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the retaliation claim regarding that performance improvement plan.1
[…]
Odious the allegations may be—but Title VII “does not set forth a general civility code for the American workplace.” Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (citing precedent that courts “must filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, the Court will grant the government’s motion to dismiss the remainder of Count I.

More straightforward is the government’s assertion that Howard failed to exhaust her hostile work environment claim. In the hostile work environment context—as opposed to discrete instances of retaliation—it is settled that claims “like or reasonably related to the allegations of the administrative charge may be pursued in a Title VII civil action, notwithstanding the failure to otherwise exhaust administrative remedies.” Bell, 724 F. Supp. 2d at 8 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted); see also Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115 (“Hostile environment claims are different in kind from discrete acts.”). “A new claim is ‘like or reasonably related’ to the original claim if it ‘could have reasonably been expected to grow out of the original complaint.’” Bell, 724 F. Supp. 2d at 8–9 (quoting Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).

“Claims of ideologically distinct categories of discrimination and retaliation, however, are not ‘related’ simply because they arise out of the same incident.” Id. at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). As this Court has pointed out before, “[t]he EEOC charge form makes it easy for an employee to identify the nature of the alleged wrongdoing by simply checking the labeled boxes that are provided. When an employee is uncertain which type of discrimination has occurred, she need only describe it in the text of the charge form.” Williams v. Spencer, 883 F. Supp. 2d 165, 174 (D.D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In Howard’s formal complaint, she checked the box for reprisal—not for sex discrimination. See Formal Compl. of Discrimination [ECF No. 13-1] at 2. And the explanation she attached to the form similarly focuses on reprisal alone. See id. at 3–4. Thus, “[t]o the extent that [Howard] is attempting to claim that [the hostile work environment] was discriminatory based on [sex], as opposed to retaliatory, [the government] is correct that [Howard] did not exhaust her administrative remedies.” Williams, 883 F. Supp. 2d at 174. As a result, the Court will grant the government’s motion to dismiss as to Count II (hostile work environment based on discrimination).

Read in full at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv0727-25.

#

Menendez Indictment: Visas for Girlfriends, Consular Affairs, INL, and Whatabout “H”?

Posted: 5:29 pm PDT

 

Today, a federal grand jury indicted Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on corruption charges. According to the WSJ, Mr. Menendez, 61 years old, has said “he didn’t do anything wrong and plans to fight the charges.” The indictment is the culmination of a lengthy inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into the relationship between the New Jersey senator and Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen.” Wait, can you use constituent services as defense if the constituent lives in another state?

New Jersey editorials have now called on the senator to resign. Media reports says that he will step down as ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) because of the indictment. The good senator from New Jersey is reportedly “outraged” by the indictment. He condemned the corruption case against him saying, “I am not going anywhere… I’m angry and ready to fight.” And he is, by god!

 

 

We’ve read through the indictment. We have excerpted the parts below that include the visas for girlfriends initiative (Brazil, Dominican Republic, Ukraine), the back and forth with Consular Affairs,  the visa refusals that were overturned, and the back and forth with the INL bureau on a port contract.

The names of the State Department officials are not included, but the indictment includes the offices at the State Department that were the receiving end of the senator’s attention and advocacy:  DAS for Visas Services, Embassy Santo Domingo  and the Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL).

There’s also this nugget:

State 2 to Staffer 8 writes:

If H is in the room — best if the good senator from New Jersey doesn’t mention the prior private meeting they had.

Hey, that’s H, the State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs whose job is to “facilitates effective communication between State Department officials and the Members of Congress and their staffs.” Whatsthatabout?

 

The full indictment document is available online here (pdf)

#

Citizens United Files Lawsuit Against State Dept For Harold Geisel’s Records and OIG Report on Diplomatic Security

Posted: 11:16 am PDT
Updated: 8:37 om PDT

 

Via Bloomberg:

Citizens United filed its fourth lawsuit against the State Department on Thursday, this time seeking documents related to the agency’s Office of Inspector General during former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tenure. In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the conservative advocacy group complains that the State Department has not responded to two of its Freedom of Information Act requests in more than six months, beyond acknowledging receiving them. The statutory requirement is 20 business days.

In its court filing, Citizens United argues that “when left to their own devices State Department bureaucrats have taken over three years to respond to Citizens United’s FOIA requests” and that “Such extensive delays are in clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.”

This latest lawsuit, asked for two specific records related the Office of the Inspector General of the State Department: the first one related to former acting IG Harold Geisel, and the second one related to inspection report ISP-I-13-18 released in March 2013. This is the inspection report (pdf) on Diplomatic Security where the inspectors concluded that Diplomatic Security’s Special Investigations Division (SID) lack independence. The OIG recommended that “The Office of the Deputy Secretary should restructure the investigative responsibilities currently assigned to the Special Investigations Division. The outcome should include safeguards to prevent any Department of State or Diplomatic Security official from improperly influencing the commencement, course, or outcome of any investigation.” We don’t know if anything happened in that front but in any case, Citizens United wanted to see all the details, potentially messy, generated by that report. We should also note that this specific report previously made a cameo appearance in another lawsuit in Texas and attracted congressional interest.

Below excerpted from court records:

CITIZENS UNITED’S SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 FOIA REQUEST (GEISEL RECORDS), F-2014-16237

11. On September 16, 2014 Citizens United submitted a FOIA request, online, to Defendant. See Exhibit B (FOIA Request Letter). The request sought:

On April 25, 2011, The Washington Post reported on the vacant State Department’s Inspector General position. The Washington Post reported that: “One high-ranking official familiar with the selection process said the State Department’s current leadership had opposed filling the top slot because it prefers the office to remain under Geisel’s supervision.” On April 5, 2011 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report titled State Department Inspector General, Actions To Address Independence And Effectiveness Concerns Are Under Way, (GAO-11-382T). The records I request can be described as follows: Any and all records, correspondence, and memos, in any and all formats, that mention, discuss, or reference the performance of Harold W. Geisel as acting State Department inspector general, the nomination of an inspector general, potential candidates for inspector general, a preference or desire to retain Harold W. Geisel as acting State Department inspector general, the aforementioned GAO report, and/or the vacant inspector general position in any context that were sent to and/or sent from any of the following individuals: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Office Manager Claire Coleman, Counselor and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief Of Staff for Operations Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jacob Sullivan, Executive Assistant Alice Wells, Senior Advisor Jeannemarie E. Smith, Special Assistant Lona Valmoro, Special Assistant Nima Abbaszadeh, Special Assistant Bernadette Meehan, Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides, Deputy Secretary William J. Burns, Under Secretary Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary Wendy R. Sherman, and Acting Deputy Department Spokesman Mark C. Toner.

B. CITIZENS UNITED’S SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 FOIA REQUEST (INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT), F-2014-16250

16. On September 16, 2014 Citizens United submitted a FOIA request, online, to Defendant. See Exhibit D (FOIA Request Letter). The request sought:

Any and all correspondence, memos, or records, in any format, that mention, reference, or discuss the State Department Office of Inspector General report The Bureau Of Diplomatic Security, Office Of Investigations And Counterintelligence, Divisions Of Special Investigations, Criminal Investigations, And Computer Investigations And Forensics (ISP-I-13-18), and/or any previous drafts of the report, and that were sent to, or sent from, the following individuals: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Cheryl D. Mills, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Jennemaire E. Smith, Lona Valmoro, Joanne Laszczych, Monica Hanley, Robert V. Russo, and Nora F. Toiv.

This should be interesting unless everything get Sharpied out.  The case is  Citizens United v. United States Department of State, Civil Action No. 15-cv-441 (pdf).

Also this:

.

#