« Morning Smoke: More Delays, More Costs for Joint Strike Fighter? | Main | Morning Smoke: How the Election Will Affect Congressional Oversight »

Nov 02, 2010


Robert MacLean

The full U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board in Washington DC (Susan Grundmann, Anne Wagner and Mary Rose) have affirmed the TSA's decisions resulting in Manuel Alcaraz termination:




Shame isn't enough to get this attorney examiner AJ to admit RELEVANT evidence into record. She's the same one that has the distinction of being overturned by the FEDERAL CIRCUIT, of all courts. According to the Fed Circuit, the attorney examiner (AJ) Lunell Anderson, was deemed not credible by virtue of tossing everything relevant to the Appellant's case in Malloy v. USPS http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/08-3117/08-3117-2011-03-27.html.

She's also the AJ in my favorite MSPB case of all time, the doodoo case.

(P.S. tears still run down my face when I tell the story of the credible (by Lunell Anderson standards) agency witness that purportedly took doodoo from the bathroom floor, put it in a ziploc bag, took it to her coworker, smelled it together with her and jointly declared it belonged to the appellant.)

Robert MacLean

Despite the Orange County District Attorney declining to prosecute Mr. Alcaraz citing "insufficient evidence," the TSA assigned to the case three Criminal Investigators from their Office of Inspection (TSA/OI). In the final TSA/OI Report of Investigation linked here, you will find that the three TSA/OI agents failed to report that the investigating Brea Police detective omitted "photographic lineup" evidence given by the only 3rd party to witness the incident. In the TSA/OI's interview report, the 3rd party witness stated that he walked into the Brea Police Department and participated in a "photographic lineup" yet the detective documented in her report only two photographic lineup results from the alleged female victim and her adult son. The detective wrote that the female could not recognize Mr. Alcaraz, only her adult son could. Both the TSA/OI and police reports detail that the female was "yelling," "refusing" to back up her vehicle, "laid on [her] horn," and accusing Mr. Alcaraz of "stealing" her parking spot in the garage. Mr. Alcaraz stated that he displayed his badge and identified himself as a law enforcement officer fearing that the female would cause an accident in the cramped mall garage full of Saturday afternoon shoppers just three days before Christmas.

Despite the sole 3rd party witness's handwritten statement that he saw Mr. Alcaraz "pushed on the female's forarm [sic]" once, we find it suspicious that the TSA/OI agents wrote in their own synopsis that "the contact was more of a slap then a push."

Because of this single incident, you should find it very troubling that a Federal Air Marshal with a clean record had his security clearance revoked and was fired after key evidence was clearly omitted and/or manipulated by two separate law enforcement agencies. Mr. Alcaraz is trying to prevent the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board judge from dismissing his case because the TSA refused to provide him with a third report of investigation that was conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Because of the 1988 Navy v. Egan U.S. Supreme Court 4-3 decision, agencies can circumvent the MSPB by revoking security clearances.

The comments to this entry are closed.