• Filtered Comment [show]

  How helpful was this comment for you? Use the slider bar to rate it 1-10, with 10 being very helpful and 1 being least helpful.

  by ygmichaels |

  Jan 19, 2008(7 months ago) |

  Reply |

  Overall Rating: 5.0 |

  Login to Rate

  I am a victim of Idenity Theft (Bio-Metric) approved by the FDIC. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), confirmed to the U. S. Senate and U.S. Congress that: “Ms. Gibson-Michaels specifically complained about one of her conversations with a co-worker being tape-recorded by that co-worker and relied upon by management.” See Dorris v. Absher, 179 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 1999)(coworkers in a small office had a reasonable expectation of privacy). The FDIC willfuly violated the wiretap statute. Ms. Gibson-Michaels demands that FDIC reported officials are held accountable.
  The wiretap statute prohibits the use of certain electronic, mechanical and other devices to intercept oral communications, §2511(1)(b), See §2511(1)(e). Accordingly, 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(d) prohibits the “USE” of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication by any person, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through by interception in violation of the [Wiretap] Act. See Leach v. Bryam, 68 F.Supp.2d 1072 (D.Minn, 1999). See Rodgers v. Wood, 910 F.2d 444 (7th Cir. 1990).
  The D.C. Circuit has outright recognized the “right of a federal job applicant to seek injunctive relief from an agency’s violation of his constitutional rights in general.” See Hubbard v. U.S. E.P.A. Admin., 809 F.2d 1, 11 (D.C.Cir. 1986). See O’Donnell v. Barry, 148 F.3d 1126, 1143-44 (D.C. Cir. 1998), citing Kartseva v. Department of State, 37 F.3d 1524, 1527-29 (D.C.Cir.1994).
  FDIC reported officials remain untarnished by their admitted actions of wiretap vioaltions and the approval of an unlicensed security guard to intercept Ms. Gibson-Michaels oral communications without a Court Order because she [quoted a Bible verse inside a closed door office during a conversation at the request of two former employees involved in a Federal theft whom willfully sought Gibson-Michaels for advice as confirmed by U.S. District Court Order dated May 3, 2007.]
  Honorable Judge Ricardo Urbina, U.S. District Judge reversed and upheld Free Exercise of Religious Speech on behalf of Gutantanamo Detainees (Non-American Citizens) on February 6, 2006. See Shafiq Rasul v. Donald Rumsfeld, case no. 04-cv-01864. However, the same Judge denied Gibson-Michaels her rights as a United States American Citizen to seek restitution against unlicensed contract Security Guard Defendants. See U.S. District Court of Appeals no. 07-7118 and 06-cv-1938 Washington, D.C., 'FREEDOM FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME'
  Contact Gibson-Michaels at ygmichaels@yahoo.com
  

Add A Comment

Please Login or Signup, unless you wish to post anonymously
Comment :
Spam check :	type the text from the image
	OpenCongress comment boards are an open forum for discussion, so please do not post any information here that you do not wish to be public.