FELONS AT LARGE
The Big Lie
The following encounter occurred on September 20, 1999, and it was conceived, planned, and executed by representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , St. Paul District to brand me as a criminal; thereby, destroying my career and my life. The transcription that follows is one episode in a series of violent, premeditated behaviors exhibited by the representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers and is taken directly from the original recording. It clearly demonstrates without question that in fact I did not express any threat implicit and/or explicit as claimed by Ralph J. Augustin and his allies, Felons At Large. The only threat, if it can be called a threat, I posed to these predatory criminals is the risk of exposure of their criminal activities. Many attempts were made to prevent such exposure and I was told in very precise terms and on more than one occasion by Mr. Ben A. Wopat and other Army Corps of Engineers representatives to shut my mouth or I would suffer dire consequences. During one of his inquisitional meetings, which I recorded Mr. Wopat said, “I don’t want you in the public eye” and “you have involved more people than need to be involved.” Despite the fact I believed my life was in danger I could not, would not turn a blind eye to the behaviors I reasonably believed were breaches of ethics and violations of Federal regulations. In many instances the violations were quite clear and I continued to file reports, which the representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers obviously viewed as threats to their particular method of “conducting business.”
Ralph Augustin: Uh. There are a couple of things I’d like to go over. Uh, after, after considerable time and thinking about it, I put together a proposal to remove you from your position. Uh, this is the memorandum; it outlines the reasons for you removal. And I’d like you to sign it acknowledging that you received it. The reason that Linda is here is because in the past you’ve refused to sign and we wana have a witness that you’ve received it. So go ahead and sign and date it here. I’ll give you a copy of this if you like.
Tom: Yeah.
Ralph Augustin: Here’s the memo, uh, for your information and this is the back-up information for it. Um, normally you need to request it, but I’m gonna provide you with a copy of the backup. Um, we decided to put you on administrative leave during the appeal procedures. And we are asking you to leave the work place now. And, um, the only time you can come back into the workplace is with my written or Ken Buck’s permission. Uh, we’ll give you an opportunity to clean out your desk if you want. Or we can make arrangements to do that in the future. Is there anything you want to say?
Tom: Will it make a difference?
Ralph Augustin: Um, I’m just wanna make sure.
Tom: Will it make a difference, yes or no?
Ralph Augustin: You asked a question?
Tom: Will it make a difference? Will it change this?
Ralph Augustin: No.
Tom That’s what I thought.
Ralph Augustin: So, I’ll give you some time to clean out your desk and take your things with you or would you rather do that at a later date?
Tom: I’ll have to come back.
Ralph Augustin: Well, whatever, well we’ll have somebody here.
Tom: I presume I’ll get a SF-50 or 52 whatever they are?
Ralph Augustin: When it’s final. We’ll have to do a 50. Do we have to do a 50 to put him on administrative leave?
Linda Kruger: Um, no.
Ralph Augustin: No, uh, you have the opportunity to appeal this. And, uh, there is a time frame for that. That’s explained in the memorandum. And we encourage you to read that and uh, follow the instructions to insure it is appropriately appealed. Um, I believe we’ve talked a little bit about how, um, how you should get home and if you, if one of us needs to, one of your friends wants to come and give you a ride home we can do that. So, we have about, we have a little time left. You’ll havta give us your entry card.
Tom: O.K. there it is, you saw it, right?
Linda Kruger: I did.
Ralph Augustin: Here, I’ll give you a copy of this.
Tom: I hope you realize what this really means.
Linda Kruger: It (undetermined).
Tom: I hope you know what it means. No, it’s going to happen, you know it and I know it. So don’t BS me because I know better. I’ve been fighting this issue for three years; don’t give me BS because I know better.
Linda Kruger: You can reply to the Corps.
Tom: There is no use replying to the Corps. I have better ideas. Replying to the Corps is a waste of time.
Linda Kruger: That’s right.
Tom: No, I am not wasting my time with the Corps any more. The Corps doesn’t care, the Corps never has cared, and that’s the way it is.
Ralph Augustin: No, I not sure that’s.
Tom: You’ve never tried to help me, this all you ever do. You call it disciplinary action, but it’s not disciplinary action.
Ralph Augustin: Do you want to clean out your desk?
Tom: I told you I’ll come back; I’ll call you.
Ralph Augustin: O.K.
Tom: Thanks for nothing Ralph, I said. See you around, I mean that literally.
Ralph Augustin: What does that mean?
Tom: It means I will see you around.
Ralph Augustin: Is that a threat, Tom?
Tom: No it’s not a threat, it’s a fact. You can take it any way you want I don’t care. It doesn’t matter at this point. If you want it to be a threat, it can be a threat. If you want it to be a promise, it can be a promise. It can be a fact, it can be whatever; I don’t care.
That was the end of my career with the Army Corps of Engineers and now that I was a foregone conclusion part two of this despicable felony was about to unfold without my knowledge, of course. I suspect prior arrangements were made with the St. Paul Police Department to take the felon’s false statements while keeping me completely in the dark, which brings the word mushroom to mind. When I discovered what happened I telephoned, corresponded with, and made a personal appearance at St. Paul Police Department Headquarters. I requested a copy of the police report, but was denied access to it (police reports are public records). I attempted to make a statement and have my evidence (the recording) entered into the official record; however, the St. Paul Police refused on the grounds that the false charge was “still under investigation.” Hello, is anyone home? Apparently it was determined the so-called investigation only needed to be one-sided, which implicated the St. Paul Police Department in a premeditated crime. I made requests of every government agency I could think of including the FBI; however, none would investigate and all refused to review the hard evidence I was more than willing to share.
I challenge you, the reader, to find a death threat in the exchange between myself and the two felons who claimed I in fact engaged in terrorism. According to current law filing a false police report is a crime as is writing and accepting a false police report. The reasoning for filing this false report rests on the fact that I reported what I reasonably believed to be breaches of ethical conduct and violations of regulations, which by Federal law I was required to report. Even under extreme pressure I refused to throw my ethics and integrity into the garbage and I would not, could not turn a blind eye to the questionable behaviors boldly taking place in front of me despite my fear I might suffer bodily harm and/or death. I did the right things for the rights reasons, for that I was falsely branded a criminal, which is truly the unkindest cut of all. This is the evil I was subjected to every working day!
Given the number of so-called witnesses (at least two) and the seriousness of the charge (terroristic threats) it is only logical to conclude I should have been detained; then arrested, then tried, and finally incarcerated in a Federal penitentiary, if in fact the charge was true. Here is more food for thought, if the felons claimed I left the building before I could be stopped, then it seems logical to conclude the police were compelled to issue a warrant for my arrest. Failing that the police should have arrested me when I appeared at St. Paul Police Headquarters. However, none of those events occurred simply because the alleged death threat is a creation of perverse criminal minds. When I conducted background checks on myself all came back clean; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the false criminal charges are maintained in a “special” file and released to prospective employers without my knowledge.
The list of participants in this and other criminal acts perpetrated against me includes, but is not limited to: Sergeant Flaradey (St. Paul Police Department), Ivette Garrett (legal counsel, St. Paul District), Judge Stephen E. Manrose (Federal administrative law judge), David Haumersen, Ben A. Wopat (gang leader), Kenneth Buck, Ralph Augustin, Linda Kruger, Denise Blackwell-Kraft, and Yvonne Berner. Although Ms. Garrett received a copy of the tape recorded on September 20, 1999, she failed or more likely refused to report those findings as required by her oath of office and by Federal regulations. Judge Manrose was also provided with a copy of that recording; however, he flatly refused to entertain it as evidence. In other words his dishonor suppressed evidence vital to the case I presented to him. The Big Lie created by these and other Corps representatives continues to resurface and negatively impacts my life. At this point I find I must place the facts of this horrible injustice in the “Public Eye” where they will receive the scrutiny and criticism they deserve.
That; however, is not the end of the story, while surfing the Net I discovered my residential address is reported to be 725 5th Street East, St. Paul, MN 55106. The trouble is I never resided at that address nor was I in anyway associated with that address. The truth of reality is I never had a residence in the City of St. Paul at any time. To determine whether this address was added in official documents without my knowledge I researched this issue going back twenty-five years. My investigation revealed 725 5th Street E., St. Paul, MN 55106 was not on any public list demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that this address was assigned to me for other than honorable intentions. Is this also a part of the “special file” or a completely different “special file”?
I recently spoke with Ms. Barbara Harper who is on U.S Representative Michele Bachman’s staff and according to her this last Army Corps of Engineers’ felony is, “a nothing.” Not only is that an insult it also implies I am “a nothing” as well. In addition, Ms. Harper stated my comments that follow are in fact threats. “No it’s not a threat, it’s a fact. You can take it any way you want I don’t care. It doesn’t matter at this point. If you want it to be a threat, it can be a threat. If you want it to be a promise, it can be a promise. It can be a fact, it can be whatever; I don’t care.” When I informed Ms. Harper a threat must be explicit (describes action(s) to be taken) she claimed not to have knowledge about such things. Well, let’s back that truck up. First Ms. Harper states I made a threat she couldn’t clearly identify; then Ms. Harper states she doesn’t possess knowledge of what constitutes a threat/felony. Finally, Ms. Harper said there is nothing that can be done to remove the false criminal charges from the police records. I was not impressed by Ms. Harper’s attempt to sideline me and her feeble attempt to put forth a convincing argument failed quite miserably.
In a recent letter St. Paul Police Chief John M. Harrington wrote, “We have checked with investigative units within the police department regarding your concerns and reviewed information related to the two case numbers you provided. Neither of these cases names you in any type of criminal charge.” It is more than obvious that Chief Harrington is aware the two complaints are indeed false and that arresting me based upon the false reports would create civil and criminal liability and would also create quite a scandal. Chief Harrington also wrote, “We do not have any jurisdiction at the Federal level.” If that is in fact the case, then the St. Paul Police Department should have referred the two false reports to Federal authorities such as the FBI, but that did not occur. It seems extremely odd and out of place that the St. Paul Police Department would handle cases in which it does not “have any jurisdiction.”
Also see
Meet The Felons – Stealing From The Blind
CREATE ACCOUNTABILITY TELL OTHERS