Facts: First contact with my websites was
made at 16:44:21 GMT May 4, 2005 on my blog. There were 10 or 15 posts
visible. After four minutes, at 16:48:20 GMT, WD31448 went to my photo
gallery. They looked at the picture
of Barb and I. They went away for over five hours. At 22:17:30
GMT they came back and at 22:18:04 GMT only looked at the picture above
of me wearing a gun in a holster in front of my computer. They then
broke contact for two days. When they came back on May 6 18:02:59 GMT
they looked at the main page of my blog for 50 seconds, clicked the link to my
personal web page at 18:03:49, clicked on a couple links spending a total of
52 seconds and then at 18:04:41 looked at the picture above again.
Questions: Why did they come back to specifically look at that picture the
first time? Did someone tell them about the picture? Was that
picture considered important in some way? Why did they again look at the
picture, almost immediately, when they came back the next day?
Facts: When the investigator returned, the day after first contact, they
looked at two blog postings then viewed my web page on how airplane
passenger screening is a failure. This web page was based entirely on
publicly available Government Accounting Office reports and other entirely
open sources. I have not had access to any restricted information about
airplane security. There is something very odd about this particular
viewing. It was not referred from any other web page. WD31488 did
not get to it by clicking on links on my web page or via a search engine
unless WD31488 typed it in. WD31488 might have clicked on a link in
email or they might have typed it in by hand as someone read it to them.
A similar thing happened in
regards to my post about talking to the Counter Intelligence person upstairs
who was going to solve the problem of people searching my web site wanting to
Questions: Was this a tipster who didn't care for my views on guns?
Did the investigator have anti-gun owner beliefs also? Did this tipster
give the investigator a tip about the picture too? Did the tipster think
the post about talking to Counter Intelligence could be a problem for me?
Boomershoot or Blog
Facts: I was told they were
investigating my boomershoot site and
from there they found my blog. This
is false. First contact was
via my blog and the boomershoot site was much later. Boomershoot.org
wasn't touched until the second investigator, PUCK, was brought in. It
took PUCK over 15 minutes before they touched Boomershoot.org at all and then
it was only three minutes to read the article in the
Reader that just barely mentioned Boomershoot. PUCK
then went to the main page
for Boomershoot.org and spent only 30 seconds there. From there it was
back to my personal website to spend 51 seconds reading about
Instruction, 89 seconds reading about
Self-Defense and Firearms,
115 seconds reading about
303 seconds reading The Jews In The Attic Test.
WD31488 first made contact on May 4, 2005 at 16:44:21 GMT but it wasn't until
May 5, 19:38:49 GMT they made contact with my boomershoot site after
spending nearly two hours looking at other stuff.
Questions: Why did they lie to me about which was first? Was it
because they were really more interested in my firearms and politics than in
my interest in explosives? If it wasn't because of a greater interest in
firearms and politics then why did they spend so much more time on firearms
and my politics than on explosives?
Fact: During the first meeting I was shown a
pile of printouts from my websites and/or blog but was not allowed to make
copies or look
anything but the top page.
Questions: Why was I not allowed to look at the material they had problems
with? Was it because a lot of the material was regarding my political
views and they knew it was unacceptable grounds to terminate me? If
the material was "sensitive" material then why wouldn't they want to make sure
it was "cleaned up"? If it wasn't important enough to be cleaned up then
how could it be important enough to be used against me?
- Performance reviews removals
requested a copy of my personnel file. Before sending it they
removed all performance reviews, goals, and mention of a bonus.
Questions: Why? Was it simply malice because I had outstanding
reviews and they didn't want those used in my search for a new job? Or
was it because the goals for the next review period were to write research
papers on the very topics I was apparently accused of would show those
Answer: Performance reviews and goals are kept in a
different file. They call it a "Field
File". However, even asking for the Field File received a denial.
This was later "reconsidered"
after I "hit them with a blunt instrument".
- Co-workers interviews
Fact: No co-workers or project/program managers were interviewed during the
investigation prior to the termination.
Questions: Why not? And how could they possibly know if there was any
"unauthorized disclosure of or use of information that is proprietary or
confidential to Battelle and it's clients" unless they talked to the people
that knew the nature of the information disclosed on my blog? Was it
because they needed a legal pretense and they didn't want that pretense
- Personal items
Fact: It was three weeks before my personal belongs were packed up and
shipped to me. Several of the boxes were falling apart on arrival.
A letter from Peggy Hevland said they were waiting on a locksmith because they
didn't have a key. The keys were given to my supervisor Bryan McMillan
before I left.
Questions: Why the long delay? Even if McMillan had lost the keys who
believes they had to wait three weeks for a locksmith to arrive? Was it