Sunday, August 3, 2008
The False Incarceration of Martin F. Salazar
LINK

My Name is Martin F. Salazar and I am going to prison as a result of entering into a written and signed settlement agreement between the U.S Department of Energy (the Agency) and me. I was sentenced to one year and one day of prison for entering into an early retirement, after 20 years, promulgated by the Agency, with the intent to prosecute me for the terms and contents thereof of the settlement agreement, and where prosecution commenced prior to the agreement and unbeknownst to me that they were doing so.

In fact the DOE management (Chief Counsel for the Agency) used the auspicious power of the Inspector General’s (IG) office in accomplishing their task to gain information, also in violation of their own laws, rules and privacy Act laws as well as numerous other violations, and as they describe “that the ends justify the means”. Here the Agency used the “IG’s alleged authority to promote a false need and influence others to cooperate under such threats. My case investigation began under the suspicion that I had taken bribes?, these were found to be fabricated, but it allowed the IG to begin a witch hunt under false pretenses, which eventually did disclose derogatory information regarding my Date of Birth. This is what the Agency used as their basis for the settlement agreement. However prior to this the Agency already investigated this very issue with no derogatory results and/or their approval.

The Agency fabricated/generated the agreement and used unscrupulous means in obtaining the derogatory information needed to coerce me into the settlement agreement, they then continued with their criminal prosecution, which came though perjured testimony of the government witnesses as a result of that very Settlement Agreement (SA). These action came as a direct result of my whistle blowing activities. The Agency included, that I dismiss my complaints in the SA as part of the conditions or terms.

As part of the settlement agreement I was allowed to be kept on the payroll for 16 months in order to satisfy a twenty year requirement, what I believed were the only requirements for early retirement as set by the Agency. Unbeknownst to me, the Agency was seeking prosecution before the settlement agreement was written, and where they did not disclose the criminal issues prior, and then waited until I sought my first retirement claim to indict me. In essence, the government waited 18 months to prosecute me, when they could have corrected any issues administratively during that time prior (18 months) to my retirement commencement.

It was the very person (Chief Counsel for the Agency )who wrote and witnessed the settlement agreement, and who also two months prior, sought to prosecute me for the same settlement agreement terms, and where she purposefully and knowingly withheld that information from the deciding official in order to entrap me by entering into the settlement agreement, and where I believed that it was all legal and correct. Following, this issue, I provided DOE management with a report from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where this very person (Chief Counsel for the Agency) was Officially found to be using the EEO and Criminal system to her own advantage and purpose. The EEOC went as far as to notice the DOE: "to investigate her illegal and abusive use of power". The Agency to this date has FAILED to act on the EEOC finding, and here we are facing the exact same tactics and issues of abusiveness by that very person.

The reason this issue was allowed to foster, is due to the fact, that the government supervisory management knows all to well, that they can do just about anything as there is no accountability for their mistakes or abuse of power and authority. There is NO accountability for employees willful abuse of the system or their abuse of position of authority.

The Agency then used the alleged authority of the IG to further seek prosecution. Again this was conducted by the very person (Chief Counsel for the Agency) who wrote and witnessed the settlement agreement and who was also a special assistant to the US Attorney’s office, and where this person was found to have abused that very authority in the findings by the EEOC as previously mentioned in her position with the US Attorney’s office..

During the process to prosecute me, I found that the IG acted inappropriately with the assistance of the very Chief Counsel for the Agency. I reported these abuse of authority to the IG whistle blower hotline. The local IG then followed by abusing their authority. Following their learning that I complained under the whistleblower hotline regarding their abuse of authority, the very person from the IG’s office contacted the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) and asked that they too seek prosecution and suspend my driver License. The DDS acted as the IG suggested and stated at trial that they did so “because it came from the IG’s office” despite the fact the IG misinformed the DDS on facts, but more so the IG has no reason or authority to act outside their scope of responsibility other than to retaliate against my whistle blowing activities. The IG also went as far as contacting my personal bank to falsely inform them that I am a risk? Again, my bank believing that since it came from the IG, they immediately cancelled my bank accounts. Interestingly, it was when I went to open another account with a different bank did I learn that I could not do so without a valid driver license, and where the IG was aware that my license had been suspended, and coincidentally reflects on their prior actions with the DDS and the bank.

The IG also debarred me from the DOE under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). They clearly stated that their intent in doing so was to prohibit me from filing any further EEO or other complaints, as they would consider that I was no longer a DOE employee. The problem here is that the FAR’s do not apply to employees, but only to contractors. I was always a DOE employee and NEVER a contractor. However, again the MSPB believed that since the IG supported this distorted truth of law, that it must be correct and allowed the IG to debar me.

My whistle blowing complaints also touched the US Attorney’s office, and for that, the US Attorney’s office has sent my criminal attorney notice that they were going to seek civil charges against the same issue for which the judge ordered restitution. They are doing this because there is no accountability and they can charge me knowing that I have no means to defend my self other than to represent myself pro se. There is absolutely no gain for the government on this matter, but they will proceed only because they know that they are not accountable for any repercussions. Further, The US Attorney office attempted to motion the court for an “upward departure based on the facts that I executed my rights to file complaints, which was found to be against the law for them to do so. My attorney’s and the Court pointed out the violation of law and where the Asst. US Attorney committed, on the record, to “self report” for violation of law, I have no proof that he did so? But what is worse, is that his violation of law is far worse than that which I was accused, his was intentional and with knowledge that he was doing so.

These matters could have been handled administratively on the onset, and at little to no cost to the public taxpayer, but now it is costing the government (Taxpayers) untold millions of dollars and will probably continue to cost the government (Taxpayers) untold cost. Why? Because the system allows management and others to abuse the system without concern of any accountability or atonement for any wrong doing. As the violators see it, it’s the government’s money and they will not feel any effect from their abuse or erroneous actions.
Posted by Martin Salazar at 6:01 PM 1 comments
Labels: My Story
Bio
I was raised in a very poor environment, and where I lived with my siblings (four others) and grew up in my maternal grandmother’s rental home in Nogales, Arizona. We had no windows just sheets over the openings, and the floors were compacted dirt. My Father (God rest his soul) worked numerous jobs to make ends meet and bartered services for food.

We moved to Los Angeles, CA. when I was a young child, and that is where I went to school. From there, I started working at the age of 12 to help my family make ends meet. I was actually making more money than my father because the job was very risky, but I was young and didn’t know any better than the fact I had to help my family put food on the table. I had to barter as well which meant that I was “out on the streets” hustling jobs. As I put myself through school, I studied Engineering and resulted in a career as a Mechanical and Nuclear Engineer.

I worked in the Nuclear industry and I have over 30 years of Engineering experience (commercial, public, U.S. Navy), in designed, construction and operations of such. I was the Chief Engineer for 18 of these years with the Department of Energy (DOE), which included operation of several Nuclear Reactors and Chemical Separation facilities, I obtained the knowledge of nuclear weapons production from “cradle to grave” and I am the only person known to have hands-on experience and knowledge to do so.

I also trained the L.A.P.D and the US Marine Corp. “Boot Camp” and BUDS (Nave Seal team) Instructors on hand-to-hand combat training.

I have Published several technical books/reports on new technologies and their development to treat Nuclear processes waste. I developed these concepts by thinking outside the box. Each and every technology that I developed is currently in use throughout the industry;. (See Google search, Martin Salazar @ DOE-SRS).

I speak several languages, to include but not limited to: Spanish, Japanese and Russian I have over ten years of writing legal briefs, law research, administration and trial preparations, and Patent research.

It was obvious why the government choose me to lead a U.S Navy Seal team to find weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq. Although the mission for me was scrapped and/or I was never released from that mission, but all communications went dead, and the Department of Defense acted like they never heard of me, although I still have a copy of my signed Orders. The reasons were unbeknownst to me on the silent treatment, however as the mission was so dangerous that I completely altered my life knowing that there was an extremely high chance that I would not survive. Yes, I was willing to knowingly risk my life for this country.

And this is probably the beginning of things to go wrong. As an outspoken critic of the reasons for the attack on Iraq and the issue with discrimination and ill prepared staff with the DOE, I was targeted on many fronts. And the “Witch Hunt “began. My problem is obvious from my history that my family was not a family of records, so no records were kept in that environment. Hence I still do not know my actual date of birth? Armed with these discrepancies the Agency never sent me to Iraq, and sought instead to terminate me from employment. However, because of the many EEO complaints and appeals to the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) which had significant merit ( See MSPB ruling, AT-0752-99-0626-I-1, March 30, 2001) the agency (DOE) decided to abate these action through an EEO Settlement Agreement.

What was not known at that time, is the Agency was entering into this agreement in bad faith. The very Chief Counsel, who is also a Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney’s office, wrote and witnessed the settlement agreement, but failed to inform the deciding official, who represented the governments interest, that she had already began my prosecution, for the very exact contents of the settlement agreement. Again, I did not learn of the indictment until nearly a year later as the government waited until my first annuity was paid to indict me. Although they had prior knowledge of the discrepancies they waited nearly a year on an administrative error to seek and turn this into a criminal matter. The remaining facts are on the issues of my fight.
Posted by Martin Salazar at 5:55 PM 0 comments
Labels: My Story

Dear Senator James Webb (D-VA),
I am writing to bring your attention to a friend of mine, Martin Salazar, who is currently falsely incarcerated, while having solid proof of his innocence. After you have finished reading the details of his horrible ordeal, I believe you too will agree that he should be freed from prison immediately. I am copying a group of Martin's supporters in on this email as well.

"Fixing our system will require us to reexamine who goes to prison, for how long and how we address the long-term consequences of their incarceration. Our failure to address these problems cuts against the notion that we are a society founded on fundamental fairness."

Martin Salazar and I testified as part of a No Fear Tribunal before Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and the Reverend Walter Fauntroy on May 14th, 2008 on Capitol Hill.

Salazar Excerpts

Full story and details of Martin Salazar's false incarceration

I am copying a letter (in blue below) from Martin in prison with details of his ordeal. Please excuse typos, as he is unable to correct them due to time limits within the prison email system:

Dear Senator James Webb (D-VA):
In accordance with your position of petty crimes, mine is the eptiome of such, as I was given a year and one day sentence because I signed my retirement papers with an alledgedly wrong date of birth, as the government suggested and instructed that I do and under a "settlement agreement" and not only with knowledge, but as it was unilaterially submitted by the governement without my signature (in other words the governement submitted the wrong date of birth and I took the blame, even though my signature may have been forged). This matter at worst, should have been handled aministratively, but it was criminalized to satifiy a retalitory act. That same person was found to be retalitory in a very similar act, and not by me, but by an independent Governement body investigation of the Equal Employment Opportunty Commission Report. The results were that two key government witnesses committed perjury, and that too was made known ONLY after the trial where the key whitness confessed that she lied at trial, and the turth was 180 degrees from her testimony and only supported my position of innocence, and that too was given to the Courts but ignored as only impeachable, even though it was very plain Perjury as it contradicted her trial testimony completely, and where the Jury gave GREAT creedence to her testimony alone. My case is again, the epotome of your argument with facts to support your position and it is for that reason that I beleive my freedom will only further your cause.

Please read my website (martin salazar blogspot.com) for more details, But I am one of those persons, who not only alledgedly comitted a petty crime, but I AM IN FACT INNOCENTand I am sitting in an overcrowded prison.The evidence was provided AFTER the trial by the government itself. I have tried relentlessly to get the Courts to recognize the facts of the "TRUTH" but they have commented; "why do we need to do anything, since we got a conviction" and THERE IS the problem, the Courts and the Prosecutors do NOT care about the truth, ALL they seek is punishmnet and to account or establish a conviction rate in order to be self serving, so they find people who they can prosecute regardless of their innocences.

To this end, I could be in invaluble asset to your steering committee or even a member of the investigative group that you suggest, as I have been through the worst of the system. I was also involved in the "NO FEAR COALITION hearing before the Congress and Senate" and one of the biggest issues that create such a monster in the "system", is that there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY for the inappropriate actions of OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTORS and the Judges who support their own promotions. Again, I have a tremednous amout of experience of the system from the "Inside" and I have seen what these prosecutors have done to innocent persons, or persons who cannot defend themselves against the "bottomless money pit of the Department of (in)-Justice (DOJ)" on such petty charges, which result in those persons facing significant time, because a prosecutor wanted to prove his point at the cost of the taxpayers.

I am more than willing to give you any assistance, as I have personnally witnessed the issues that you speak against, but MORE IMPORTANT at this time , I am requesting your assistance to bring to light the fact that the Governement has spend millions of dollars to incarcerate me on false charges, and Is failing to correct the matter, even in the face of hard factual evidence of my innocence. All this can lead to is more cost to the Governement. However, an immediate release can mitigate those cost to the taxpayers. You do Not have to take my word alone, have your staff contact my attorney (Mario Pacella 803-252-4800) for a complete brief or simply have them go on-line and read the facts themselves or review the briefs before the Court of Appeals. Here too the Court of Appeals affrimed my Pro Se appeal with the lower court decision. What the Appeal Court failed to rrecognize, was the FACT that the Lower Court did NOT rule but aquiesed the decision for the Apeeal Court, hence the Appeal court Affirmed nothing, they simply "rubber stamped" a false ruling because they did NOT even read the brief!! there again is the underlying problem with the basis of the system. The system is basically corrupt and self serving, it is a mechanizim of who can afford justice, and not if it is earned or an inalienable right as our constitution provided. It does not seek just but seeks to find ways to impart injustice at the cost of our freedom. It also seek to do nothing to promote fairness and avoid justice entriely. And why not as it is a runawya train with no brakes, unless honest people like yourself and the citizens of the great country actually stand-up and fight. I am willing to fight for the very same rights that our forefather fought and risk theif lives, we take that so for granted and assume that "our governement knows best so we are hands-off" We its time to put this country back into the hands of its citizens.

I have nine (9) National groups supporting "My fight for Justice" so I am NOT alone and many of your constiuents are also fighting for me and are willing to support your cause. I was offered probation in lieu of prison, but i refused because it came at the price of "giving up ALL of my rights" and My conscience and faith in God would Not let me bow down to injustice or to a false God of lies and non-truths. So I knowingly accepted an unjustice punishment, because I knew that I was innocent and I believed in the "system" and also that the truth would set me free, which also challenged my faith on those very terms. But I now see that I am fighting againt the very same principalities, and governements as mentioned in the Bible, we have transgressed to a lawless people, so history repeats itself to time of the Pharises. And because "I speak the truth, I am their enemy"

Again, the problem are more than just the "prison system", but the entire Crimnal system to include the Judges, Prosectors and the BOP, it is a factory of inslavement and we have the nerve to look at other countries when we are doing worse with false pride. I urge you to act on my behalf and allow me to assist you with real knowledge and FACTS. I accepted the above inslavement because i knew and had faith that oneday my story will be made know and help others from this autrocities of "OUR SYSTEM".

Sincerely
Martin F. Salazar "political prisoner #14067-171"
Martin Salazar email: 14067171@inmatemessage.com

Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Judge rules and denies to hear the truth

The judge has denied my Motion for New Trial (linked below), although I submitted hard evidence that proved my innocence and where documentation showed that the government submitted my retirement papers thee weeks prior to my signature, contrary to what I was convicted against. The Court and the US Attorney were aware of the evidence but choose again not to rule on it, but to simply deny my motion without giving a reason for doing so. The Court has no concern of the fact that I am innocent!

Motion for New Trial 8-28-08

Memo in Support of Motion

Reply brief to the US Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

Amicus brief in support of appeal, submitted by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) (PDF)

Thursday, August 21, 2008
Testimony of Martin Salazar before Congressional tribunal
LINK

Please be warned that the attached video may get you upset, as it exposes the truth about our government's corruption and what happens to those who challenge them to do their duty. This is where "the truth is stranger than fiction" and we make innocent people "enemies of the state" for telling the truth...

October 3, 2002

DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Appeal
Name of Petitioner: Martin Salazar
Date of Filing: September 5, 2002
Case Number: VFA-0773

On September 5, 2002, Martin Salazar (the Appellant) filed an Appeal from a final determination that the Savannah River Operations Office (Savannah River) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued on August 21, 2002. That determination concerned a request for information the Appellant submitted pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1008. Documents were located, redacted, and released to the Appellant in response to his request. In his Appeal, the Appellant asserts that Savannah River misinterpreted the standards under which it can withhold information. If granted, this Appeal would require Savannah River to release the documents in full.

Background

On April 8, 2002, the Appellant requested complete copies of all his “EEO files and any other disciplinary records in possession of (Savannah River).” Privacy Act Request dated April 8, 2002. On May 7, 2002, Savannah River released a number of redacted documents to the Appellant. He appealed to this Office on June 12, 2002. After discussions with Savannah River, it withdrew its May 7, 2002 determination letter, intending to issue a corrected letter. We dismissed the Appeal. Dismissal Letter dated September 4, 2002, from Thomas O. Mann, Deputy Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), to Martin Salazar. On August 21, 2002, Savannah River issued the corrected determination letter, releasing redacted copies of the documents the Appellant requested. On September 5, 2002, the Appellant appealed a second time, claiming that Savannah River “misinterpreted the standards for which they seek exemption or has not established relevancy to the standards which they have cited.” Appeal Letter dated August 27, 2002, from Martin Salazar to Thomas O. Mann, Deputy Director, OHA.

Analysis

The withheld information is personally identifiable information that specifically concerns the Appellant and is contained in a system of records from which records are retrieved. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5). The Privacy Act and the FOIA mandate its release to the Appellant unless the agency can show that it can be withheld under (a) an applicable exemption to the Privacy Act disclosure provisions, and (b) an applicable exemption to the FOIA disclosure provisions. Therefore, we will consider the present appeal under both acts.
The Privacy Act

Savannah River withheld the information which identifies investigative sources under Privacy Act Exemption (d)(5), which provides that “[n]othing in this section shall allow an individual access to information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action and proceeding.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(5) (Exemption (d)(5)). We agree with the Appellant that Savannah River did not “establish relevancy to the standards which they cited.” However, in our discussion with Savannah River, we determined that the documents released to the Appellant by the August 21, 2002 Determination Letter are part of a Privacy Act system of records, called DOE-41. DOE-41 contains legal records. In this particular case, these legal records were compiled during the past ten years in response to complaints filed by the Appellant. Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Janet Fishman, Attorney- Examiner, OHA, and Pauline Conner, Savannah River. In addition, the Appellant currently has a law suit pending in federal district court against Savannah River. Electronic Mail Message dated September 9, 2002, from Lucy Knowles to Janet Fishman.

Rather than remand the matter to Savannah River again, we will review the application of Exemption (d)(5). In Smeirtka v. Department of Treasury, 447 F. Supp. 221, 227-28 (D.D.C. 1978), the court found that Exemption (d)(5) covers documents prepared by and at the direction of lay agency staff personnel during a period prior to the plaintiff’s firing. Further, the court in Government Accountability Project v. Office of Special Counsel, 1988 WL 21394, at *5 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 1988), found that the exemption applies to any records compiled in anticipation of civil proceedings whether prepared by attorneys or not. We believe that Exemption (d)(5) applies to the documentary information at issue in this case. The relevant records were compiled by Savannah River personnel in response to complaints filed by the Appellant. Since the withheld information is part of DOE-41, a Privacy Act system of records, and was compiled in response to complaints filed by the Appellant, it may properly be withheld under Exemption(d)(5).

The FOIA

The FOIA generally requires that records held by federal agencies be released to the public upon request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). However, the FOIA lists nine exemptions that set forth the types of information that an agency may withhold. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)-(9); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b)(1)-(9). These nine exemptions must be narrowly construed. Church of Scientology of California v. Department of the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Bristol-Meyers Co. v. FTC, 424 F.2d 935 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 824 (1970)). An agency seeking to withhold information under an exemption to the FOIA has the burden of proving that the information falls under the claimed exemption. See Lewis v. IRS, 823 F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir. 1987). It is well settled that the agency’s burden of justification is substantial. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 861 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Exemptions 5 and 6 are at issue in this case.

Exemption 5 exempts from mandatory disclosure documents that are “inter-agency memoranda or letters, which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); 10 C.F.R. § 1004.10(b)(5). The Supreme Court has held that this provision exempts documents normally privileged in the civil discovery context. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975). Redacted portions of one document released to the Appellant contained the handwritten notes of an attorney, which were redacted prior to its release to the Appellant. Attorney work-product is a privilege commonly cited in the civil discovery context. We agree that the handwritten portions of this document were properly withheld.

Exemption 6 exempts from disclosure “[p]ersonnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6); 10 C.F.R. 1004.10(b)(6). This includes legal files. In order to apply this exemption, an agency must weigh the privacy interests involved against the public interest in disclosure. See Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989). In this case, Savannah River properly found that withholding the names of witnesses and complainants would eliminate the possibility of harassment, and release of that information would not shed any light on the operations and activities of the government. August 21, 2002 Determination Letter at 3. Therefore, we find that Savannah River properly applied Exemption 6 in withholding the names of complainants and witnesses in these documents.
Conclusion

The information withheld is the handwritten notes of an attorney and the names of the complainants and the witnesses. Since we find the information was properly withheld by Savannah River under FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6 and Privacy Act Exemption (d)(5), the present Appeal should be denied.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed on September 5, 2002, by Martin Salazar, Case No. VFA-0773, is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1). Judicial review may be sought in the district where the requester resides or has a principal place of business or in which the agency records are situated or in the District of Columbia.

George B. Breznay
Director
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: October 3, 2002