Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MACK L. CHARLES. do V. Toensing. 1776 Street. N.W., #737. Washington. 12.; 20006. Plaintiff PM 38. Case: 1 21 Assigned To Leon, Richard J. Assign. Date: 1123312015 Description: Employ Discrim. VS. JOHN O. BRENNAN. DIRECTOR. CIA. Central Intelligence Agency. COMPLAINT Washington. DC. 20505. SLX KNOWN. UNNAMED out JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OFFICERS, and THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. Defendants. COMPLAINT Former Central Intelligence Agency Non-Official Cover Operations Officer Mack L. Charles:1 (NOC Charles}, Plaintiff; pro se. avers as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Beginning prior to Defendant Brennan's service as Director. United Slates Central Use of the acronym identifies Plaintiff?s former status as a Non-Official Cover Operations Officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The distinction between CIA NOC officers and CIA Of?cial Cover officers is acknowledged on page 3 of the declaration of Stephen R. Kappes. Deputy Director, CIA. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Wiison v. McConneN. Civil No. 07 CV 4595. dated July 18. 2007. and available at: 2 Mack L. Charles is named as Complainant in CIA EEO Case No. 10-25. EEOC Appeal No. 0120120142. and EEOC Request for Reconsideration No. 0520140422. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 25 Intelligence Agency, several CIA managers including the current Chief of ClA's Global Deployment Center (GDC), hereinafter referred to by the alias "Imelda" computed to retaliate against NOC Charles for his resort to ClA?s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) system in May and one 2009. 3 As detailed below, Imelda has pursued this retaliation against NOC Charles up to and including the day of the ?ling of this Complaint. The retaliation visited on NBC Charles is in violation of 42 U.S-C. 2000c, et seq. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of I964), as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. This retaliatory conspiracy has included intense, minute scrutiny, in June and July 2009, of NOC Charles' entire record of service immediately following his resort to the EEO system. Imelda?s conspiratorial retaliation has included the presentation of false accusations against NOC Charles to a CIA Personnel Evaluation Board (FEB) in October 2009, in violation of the Federal False Statements Act, 18 U.S.C. 100I. When those false accusations proved insufficient to secure NOC Charles? ?ring1 and the PEB took no action in October 2009, Imelda resorted in May 2010 to using newly?created false evidence solicited by GDC management. Thus, [rnelda?s retaliation has also included knowingly using, in May 2010, a falso of?cial CIA memorandum dated January 5, 2010 a memorandum that purported to 3 The record in this case includies a redacted, declassi?ed Report of Investigation (ROI) prepared by Office of Equal Employment Opporttmity. ROI citations herein are to that redacted, declassi?ed ROI. In the ROI, Imelda is identi?ed as A?iant E-3. NOC Charles intends to identify at trial each of the other CIA of?cers involved in Imelda?s conspiracy of retaliation. 2 Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 25 document alleged performance problems from many years earlier that 'had never been mentioned by anyone, that were utterly contradicted by the extant record, and for which there was no corroborating evidence in order to secure termination of N00 Charles' employment, in ?lr'lh?' violation of the False Statements Aet.?i 8. lrnelda?s retaliatory criminal conSpiraey resulted in the ?ring of NOC Charles, after more than 13 years of honorable and loyal CIA service, in December 2010. 9. The retaliatory conSpiracy against NOC Charles has also included Imelda and other managers making false statements in sworn EEO declarations signed in January 2011, and thus the repeated commission of the federal felony of perjury. I0. As NOC Charles learned after the fact from other NOC of?cers, lmelda took the monstrous step - after having secured NOC Charles' ?ring using "evidence" fabricated subsequent to the initiation of a PEB proCeeding of retaliating against him by Ordering NOC Charles? fiancee, also a CIA NOC of?cer, to have no further contact with him after March 201 11 resulting in NOC Charles' having been totally separated from his fiancee, with no contact from her or information concerning her wellbeing, for almost four years, up to and including the day of the ?ling of this Complaint. I i 1. NOC Charles thinks about his ?anc?e every day and misses her as much today as on the ?rst day of his forced separation from her. 12. The retaliation against NOC Charles has included wrongful interference in the 2014 deliberations of Publications Review Board, which, at lmelda?s direction, has 4 A redacted, declassi?ed copy of that false memorandum from the ROI key evidence in support of NOC Charles? claim of retaliation - is attached hereto as Attachment 1. The false statements in Attachment 1 are described in detail in paragraphs 79 through 85 below. 3 13. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 25 illegally and unconstitutionall}r denied NOC Charles the right to publish even one word of his satirical novel about for the purpose of this Complaint, NOC Charles is referring to his book as Madhouse: A Forbidden Novel ofthe CIA. Madhouse: A Forbidden Nave! aftlre CIA is a work of fiction that explores and elucidates. through satire. the myriad ways CIA has devolved into a corrupt bureaucratic basket case that is no longer focused on its original mission of protecting America and is desperately in need of overhaul. As a result of his illegal firing. NOC Charles has suffered well over $600,000 in lost income from his CIA employment. To try to cover this income shortfall. supporters of NOC Charles are creating a GoFundMe.com crowdinnding account called ?Support NOC Charles." NOC Charles is entitled to damages including. but not'limited to. compensation for the above-described multiple and ongoing acts of retaliation, compensation for the severe pain and suffering caused by De fondant Brennan?s subordinates and in particular Imelda compensation for severe damage to NOC Charles' reputation, compensation for severe economic losses. punitive damages in the amount of at leasr $25,000,000. and all such other relief as the Court ma}r deem appropriate. .LURISDICTION AND VENUE This employment discrimination lawsuit alleging retaliation is based on 42-U.S.C. 2000c. et seq. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), as amended by the Civil Rights Act of [991. The Court has subject matterjurisdietion over this action alleging employment discrimination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. l9- 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 25 The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over NOC Charles? related state law claims purstiant to 23 use. 136m), in that non Charles? state law claims form part one: same case or controversy under Article I of the United States Constitution. NOC Charles? state law claims share all common operative facts with his federal law claim, and the parties are identical. Resolving all state and federal claims in a single action serves the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 13910)). Defendant Brennan pursues CIA objectives and maintains his main mailing address in this District. PARTIES NOC Charles is a citizen of the United States of America. NOC Charles? contact infonnatinn is as follows: Mailing address: c/o V. Toensing 17% Street. #737 Washington, D.C. 20006 Defendant Brennan is a citizen of the United States of America. Defendant Brennan?s contact information is as follows: Mailing address: Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC. 20505 Telephone: (703) 482-0623 Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant Brennan? 5 known, unnamed agents cited in the caption to this Complaint are citizens of the United States of America who share Defendant Brennan's address and telenhone number. 26. 28. ?29, 30. 3L 32. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 6 of 25 NOC Charles' CIA Employment In 1996 NOC Charles accepted a position with CIA as a NOC Operations Of?cer in Directorate of Operations (ROI (100003) NOC Charles? mission was to go overseas without diplomatic immunity, Spy on America's achrersaries - at the risk of his ?'cedorn and potentially his life and send secret foreign intelligence back home. NOC Charles underwent tradecraft training, during which he was awarded the ?rst of four Exceptional Performance Awards. (1:00400) Following completion of his tradecra? studies, NBC Charles was certi?ed as a NOC Operations Of?cer, completed an ?on-the-job training? assignment, and was deployed overseas to collect foreign intelligence. (1101000400) In carrying out his intelligence collection mission, NOC Charles never worked inside a U.S. Embassy. On November 3. 2002, based on his successful performance overseas and the strongly- positive evaluations accorded to him by of his supervisors. NOC Charles was promoted to (33-14 (equivalent to a Lieutenant Colonel in the US. military). (ROI 000401) - On December 17, 2002, NOC Charles? then-Division Chief Af?ant in the ROI, referred to hereinafter by the alias ?Chester?fl scenified NOC Charles out of his three- year trial period, according him all the rights ofa CIA staff of?cer. (ROI (1200401) 5 Although Chester has retired from the Agency and freer acknowledged his prior CIA employment in his Linkedincom pro?le and elsewhere, NOC Charles chooses to refer to him here in alias. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 33. 39. 40. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 7 of 25 in spring 2003. NOC Charles? then-supenrisors - Chester and Imelda personally selected him to be one of only a very small number of officers to serve in an elite DO Group composed of Operations Of?cers in the same category. as NOC Charles (while many other of?cers were rejected). (ROI C10040l] Also during this time, NOC Charles received a ?non-monetary? award (effectively, his second Exceptional Performance Award) from CIA managers in a Latin American country for his integral role in the recruitment there of a key new human source of foreign intelligence. (ROI C1101 In summer 2003, NOC Charles volunteered for service as an intelligence collector in a war zone, the ?rst indeed, the only A of?cer from his Group to step forward for this extremely hazardous service at that time. (100401-402) NOC Charles carried out his war-zone service in 2003-2004, receiving written accolades in two of?cial Agency cables (one of which lauded his role in the recruitmentot" an important new human-source of foreign intelligence, and the other of which ended by stating ?This is an excellent of?ces?). (ROI (200158-159) NOC Charles was presented an Exceptional Performance Award in recognition of his warizone service. (ROI I NOC Charles then returned to his country of assignment and continued serving overseas until mid-2005. (ROI 000403) At that time, NOC Charles? tested foreign language scores, on the US. State Department test scale of to 5, were just under native-level ability. From mid~2005 through 2006, NBC Charles served as a tradecra? instructor at the Agency's main training center. (R01 000004} 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 8 of 25 During this period, the head of the training center again Chester personally awarded NOC Charles two Exceptional Performance Awards fer his exemplary service as an instructor. (1100159) In November 2006, NOC Charles' GDC managers selected him to become Deputy Chief of the Group to which he belonged within GDC, a de facto promotion. (ROI 000004) In this position, NOC Charles exercised supervisory authority over more than 30 subordinates, including other NOC Operations Officers in his Group. (ROI {3100122- 12?) Prior to this assignment, NOC Charles had supervised a maxirnum of just 8 subordinates while at CIA. NOC Charles? performance evaluation fer the six months during which he served as Deputy Chief of his Group accorded him the highest overall rating, ?Exceeds Expectations-" Based on this strong performance, NOC Charles? managers elevated him to the position of Chief of the Group traditionally a Senior Intelligence Service ?feeder? position in August 2007. (R01 C200128) Subsequently NOC Charles' management selected him for a prestigious week~long Agency seminar on leadership reserved for of?cers identi?ed as candidates to enter the Senior Intelligence Service ranks. (ROI (300137-144) In late 2001?, NOC Charles? managers formally recommended him for promotion to 05- 5. (R01 NOC Charles? Performance Appraisal Report rating for the period of his service as 50. 52. 53. 54. 55. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 9 of 25 Group Chief was ?Successful Positive and Valued Performance." (ROI (3:005 99) In summer 2003 Personnel Management Committee approved NOC Charles for a new overseas assignment as a NOC collector of intelligence, focused on, among other targets, the ?nancing of terrorism. (ROI 000069) From then until summer 2009, NBC Charles prepared for this onWard assignment, worliing with various CIA. of?ces to validate intelligence targets for the mission, nailing down administrative details, and undertaking numerous trips overseas in anticipation of eventual overseas deployment. (R01 Daring the entire period from his arrival at CIA until fall 2003, every one of NBC Charles? annual performance ratings was the equivalent of either ?Meets Expectations? or ?Exceeds Expectations." Moreover, as detailed above, NOC Charles received Exceptional Performance Awards on four separate occasions during this period. Beginning in earl-y 2009, NOC Charles observed a series of actions which led him to conclude that several of his managers were attempting to undermine his relationship with his fiancee, vvho is 21 years his junior, and improperly interfere with his and her ?lture service as a tandem NOC couple. Believing these actions were motivated by unlawful discrimination on the basis of his age (over 40), NOC Charles sent his managers an email on Friday, May 8, 2009, warning them that he believed they were violating his EEO rights and demanding that they cease all such efforts. 000156) The Retaliation Visited on NBC Charles 0n the next business day, Monday. May ll, 2009, unbeknownst to NOC Charles, his 56w 53. 59. 60. 61. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 10 of 25 managers initiated a ?security scrub" of his security 1e so that they could look for any derogatory information that mi be there. (ROI I) This was the start of a long series of conspiratorial actions constituting on: continuing violation taken in retaliation for NBC Charles? expression of ms intention to defend his rights under the Equal Employment Opportunity laws and regulations. On June 9. 2009, NBC Charles approached the Agency's O?ice of Equal Employment Opportunity, and the next day he ?led a formal EEO complaint of age discrimination. (ROI 000004) During the second half of June and on into July 2009, unbeknownst to NOC Charles. his managers orchestrated a line-by-line search of NOC Charles' entire [2-year record of employment in furtherance of unlawful retaliation against NOC Charles for his resort to the EEO system. (ROI (3:00237-283) NOC Charles? GDC managers stated in their sworn EEO af?davits that they pulled together two linear feet of material in carrying cut this search. On July 13, 2009, Imelda called NOC Charles to a meeting in her of?ce. (R01 (1:00140-142) There, in further retaliation, lmelda ordered NOC Charles to cease all activity relating to his onward overseas assignment, citing spurious reasons for this action. (ROI (3100140) On July 23. 2009, a manager whom NOC Charles had identi?ed as a discriminator in i his June 2009 EEO complaint emailed to Imelda the following language to be included in request to convene a Personnel Evaluation Board (FEB): ?He has 10 63. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. N1. 71. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 11 of 25 alreadyr ?led an EEO grievance against members of his management chain . . . (ROI 000444) (Emphasis added). This reference constitutes direct evidence of retaliation. on August 5. 2009, one management submitted its FEB request to the Agency of?ce charged with determining whether or not 3. FEB was warranted. (ROI An attachment to GDC's PEB request contained language identical to the July 23, 2009, email described just above, rte. language that directly referred to NOC Charles? prior protected EEO activity. (ROI (100603-609) This reference constitutes direct evidence of retaliation. in addition to this direct referentie to NOC Charles' prior protected EEG activity, GDC's FEB request contained numerous demonstrably false and misleading statements about NOC Charles? conduct and performance on the job, including false statements violative of the Federal False Statements Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001. Upon being shown GDC management?s false and misleading allegations on September 16, 2009, NOC Charles realized he was being subjected to retaliation. NOC Charles then filed the EEOC retaliation case that led to the ?ling ofthe instant Complaint. In a written response to [melda?s false allegations against him. NOC Charles provided deemnentary evidence answering and disproving the allegations. (R01 (100073-38) For example, lmelda and her team falser accused Charles of several minor time and attendanCe violations, which NBC Charles rebutted with documentary evidence. [melda further faulted NOC Charles for1 2.3., late accounting submissions, when she knew full well, as NBC Charles showed, that many other NOC of?cers also had late 1] 7'3. 74. 75. 76. '73. 79. 80. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 12 of 25 accountings due to byzantine NOC accounting requirements. 011 October 28, 2069, the PEB met to consider Imelda?s allegations against Nor: Charles, along with his reaponses to those allegations. A?er deliberation, the P133 decided to take no action. This re?ected that the PEB, after reviewing NOC Charles? written response and service record, concluded there was no ?ling offense among the many false and misleading allegations put forward by Imelda and her team. Sometime in late December 2009, NBC Charles? managers contacted Chester then serving as Chief of ClA?s Special Activities Division and solicited from him a false of?cial memorandum to bolster GDC management's FEB case against NOC Charles. (R01 000243) Chester signed and dated that false memorandum on January 5, 2010 (date corrected by Chester in ink from original, incorrect dateiof 2009 to 2010}. (ROI 000648-652} A redacted, declassi?ed copy of Chester?s false memorandum from the ROI is attached to this Complaint as Attachment 1. I Chester's memorandum falsely claimed citing no corroborating evidence whatsoever - that NOC Charles had ?failed? in 2002-2003. {3110649} As recorded in NOC Charles?r annual Performance Appraisal Report, 2002-2003 was the period when NOC Charles was promoted to 05?14010} (3200401), when Chester personally certi?ed NOC Charles out of his Agency probationary period and made NDC Charles a ?dl-iledged CIA of?cer (ROI 000401), and when Chester and Imelda personally selected NOC Charles to be a member of the elite Group of N00 Operations Officers to which he belonged for the rest of his time at the Agency. 12 31. 32. 33. 84. 85. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 13 of 25 (R01 000401} Chester?s memorandum falsely claimed citing no corroborating evidence whatsoever - that NOC Charles? of?cial accountings had been ?a nightmare" in 2002-2003, a period when the Budget Finance of?ce praised NOC Charles? accountings in his annual Performance Appraisal Report. (ROI 000158) Chester?s memorandum further falsely claimed citing no corroborating evidence whatsoever that Chester and two other unnamed senior CIA of?cers had suspected NOC Charles of serious ?nancial improprier (criminal conduct) during 2002-2003. but did nothing about it and never mentioned it to anyone. (ROI 000649) The memorandum falsely claimed citing no corroborating evidence whatsoever that NOC Charles? voluntary 2003-2004 war-zone service had been ?Lmremarkable,? (ROI 000650) deSpite the numerous Written accolades NOC Charles had received for that service. Chester?s memorandum falsely claimed citing no corroborating evidence whatsoever that NOC Charles had been ?counseled directly" while serving at the Agency?s training center during 2005-2006 (a period when Chester personally awarded NOC Charles two Exceptional Performance Awards) about alleged ?inappropriate personal contact with a female student? as well as alleged ?potentially arbitrary and capricious" evaluations of students. (ROI 000650) The memorandum ?nther falsely claimed citing no corroborating evidence whatsoever that Chester and two other unnamed senior of?cers had suspected NOC Charles of serious ?nancial impropriety (criminal conduct) during 2005-2006, but did nothing about it and never mentioned it to anyone. (ROI 13 36. 87. 88. 89. 90. 92. 93. 94. 95. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 14 of 25 Chester?s memorandum recommended that NOC Charles be relieved of his job. (ROI (200651 Not one of these allegations had appeared in GDC management?s August 5, 2009. FEB request, even though that request was based on a searching review of the lwo linear feet of material constituting NDC Charles? entire record of service. Indeed, all of Chester's false allegations were contradicted by the extant record, as Well as by the contemporaneous actions of NOC Charles' managers, including Chester and Imelda themselves. Chester admitted in a Januaryr 2011 EEO sworn statement that he was aware of no documents related to his January 5, 2010, memorandum. (ROI (100493) Chester also admitted in his EEO sworn statement that he was aware of no persons who could corroborate his January 5, 2010, memorandum. 000492-493) On May 5, 2010, the PEB reconvened at Jmelds?s request. At the end of that May 2010 FEB meeting, Imelda presented Chester?s false January 5, 2010. memorandum knowing it to be false and with the intention of misleading the PEB and used it as evidence against NDC Charles, in violation of the Federal False Statements Act, 18 U.S.C. l001. The ?ve-year statute ul' limitations on this False Statements Act violation will not run until May 2015. NOC Charles was never provided any opporttmit'y to address the PEB in order to respond to Chester?s false memorandum and, indeed, found out only much later that Imelda had presented this false memorandum. Imelda?s resorting to the use of Chester?s false memorandum shows that the earlier false l4 96. 97. 98. 99. IUD. 101. 102. 103. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 15 of 25 and misleading claims she made were merely pretexts for retaliation. After Imelda presented Chester's false memorandum. the FEB voted to recommend that NOC Charles be tired. NOC Charles appealed the recommendation, but was ?red nonetheless, in December 2010. In January 2011 Imelda and Chester provided signed, sworn statements to the Agency?s OEEO which included knowi ugly-false statements and in particular knowingly?false statements concerning the genesis of Chester?s false annary 5, 2010, memorandum constituting new overt acts in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy of retaliation. Consequently, the statute of limitations on that criminal conspiracy will not run until at least January 2016. As NOC Charles latet learned from other NOC of?cers, in March 201 Imelda ordered NOC Charles? ?ancee, herself a NOC, to cease all contact with him. As NOC Charles further learned from other NOC of?cers, lmelda threatened NOC Charles? ?anc?e in an of?cial Agency email that, if she had any further contact with NOC Charles, Imelda would recall her to CIA Headquarters and never allow her to work overseas in pursuit of" her chosen career path of collecting foreign intelligence as a NOC Operations Of?cer. Because of this illegal and retaliatory order, NOC Charles has had no contact with his ?ancee for nearly four years, up to and including the {la},r of the ?ling of this Complaint. In January 2014, NBC Charles sent the manuscript of his novel Madhouse: A Forbidden Novel ofthe to ClA's Publications Review Board (PRB) for pre- 15 I 04. 105. 106. 107-, 103. 109. 110. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 16 of 25 publication review. According to the PRB's we bsite, the central mandate of this board is ?determining the absolute minimum of deletions. if any, that would uphold both the DCl?s authority [to protect intelligence sources and methods] and [the] constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment, a right the courts take especially seriously."IE In May 2014 the PRB informed uoc Charles that, at the direction of one of which Imelda Was new Chief NOC Charles would not be permitted, even using a pen name, to publish even one word of Madhouse. In doing so, the identi?ed not a single requested deletion. In June 2014, NOC Charles met with representatives of the PRB and GDC to discuss this refusal to permit NOC Charles to publish his book. It was clear to NOC Charles at that meeting that it was GDC, led by Imelda, that had ordered the PRB to disallow publication of any portion Charles? novel, in violation of NOC Charles' right to free speech under the First Arnendment to the United States Constitution. - lrnelda?s GDC representatives present at the June 2014 meeting, rather than the PRB representatives, led the discussion and offered specious reasoning for disallowing publication. The GDC representatives asserted that NOC Charles could not publish his novel even under a pen name because the act of doing so might reveal his former true-name affiliation with CIA, even though no part of the content of Madhouse reveals NOC Charles? true-name identity. 5 ?Reviewing the Work of CIA'Authors Secrets, Free Speech, and Fig Leaves,? John Hollister Hadley, available at 16 112. ll3. [14. HS. 116. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 17 of 25 One- of the GDC representatives preseat, GDC lawyer Kathleen McGinn, defended this assertion by claiming that NOC Charles? former CIA af?liation might be exposed were he to undertake a book tour, something NOC Charles has no intention oft-10mg. Both GDC and the PRB asserted that the use of a pen-name or alias such as the lone CIA itself has reqoired NOC Charles to use in the instant retaliation case expressly for cover-protection purposes - would not protect the fact of his former true-name af?liation with CIA. The PRB has, however, previously authorized publications in pen name by another CLA of?cer who served in antacthr the same position as NOC Charla-5.7 As CDC and the PRB are aware. that fellow NOC of?cer, who published an unauthorized book as well as numerous PRB-authorized articles under the pen name ?Ishmael Jones," has not had his former true-name af?liation with CIA exposed due to either his unauthorized or his authorized publications. Indeed, when CIA sued Ishmael Jones following the publication of his unauthorized book, the Agency argued strenuoule and successfully for the use of his pen name in the lawsuit in order to protect the fact of his former true-name af?liation with CIA. NOC Charles requested in writing that the PRB reconsider its decision not to allow him to publish under a pen narne, but that request was denied in an undated letter mailed to NBC Charles in late August 2014. The unconstitutional and illegal ruling by the PRB to disallow NOC Charles? For two examples ol'sueh publications approved by the PRB, see: ineblogxonuarehivesfzi) 1 oil which was approved far publication a?ar NOC Charles? novel was rejected and: 17' Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 18 of 25 publication of even one word of his book founded on GDC's retaliatory interference constitutes ?urther and continued retaliation by Imelda. The retaliation visited on NOC Charles and detailed above constitutes one continuous violation that has continued through the day of the ?ling of this Complaint. I 19. The retaliation visited upon NOC Charles and detailed above has caused severe economic harm, severe harm to NOC Charles' reputation, and severe emotional distress. 120. in carrying cut their retaliatory criminal conspiracy to achieve NUC Charles' firing, as detailed above, Imelda and Chester held NBC Charles to a far higher standard than they held themselves. 121- First, upon information and belief, and as NOC Charles intends to prove at trial, [melda was an abject failure during her very short operational life overseas, following which she was permanently ordered back to CIA Headquarters to become the boss of of?cers more capable than she. 122. Second, upon information and belief, and as NOC Charles intends to prove at trial, Imelda has exhibited major alcohol abuse behavior that has substantially interfered with her ability to Carry out her work and required her to undergo rehabilitation. 123. Third, upon infOrmation and belief, and as NOC Charles intends to prove at trial, most recently, as Chiefof GDC, Imelda has overseen a failed multi-billion dollar CIA intelligence collection program shot through with waste, fraud, and abuse, :1 program described by the Los Angeles Times in December 2013 as a ?colossal [24. Upon infonnation and belief, and as NOC Charles intends to prove at trial, Chester, equally, had an extremely checkered career at the Agency marked by major alcohol 13 Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 19 of 25 abuse behavior. 125. Upon information and belief, and as NOC Charles intends to prove at trial, Chester?s career culminated in his hoing ordered back from his ?nal overseas posting short of tour due to the last in along series of sexual harassment complaints lodged against him. 126. Upon information and belief, and as NOC Charles intends to prove at trial, Chester was forced into retirement shortly therea?er. 127. In addition, upon information and belief, and as NOC Charles intends to prove at trial, both Chester and Imelda are feltms, having violated the Federal False Statements Act, [3 U.S.C. 1001, in making and using Chester's false January 5, 2010, memorandum. 123. Also, upOn information and belief, and as NOC Charles intends to prove at trial, these two managers committed additional overt acts in furtherance of their conspiratorial retaliation when they both made false statements, including false statements concerning the genesis of Chester?s January 5, 2010, memorandum, and thus committed the federal felony of perjury, in their January 201 1 BED sworn statements. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 129. NOC Charles has exhausted his administrative remedies. He timely ?led administrative charges of retaliation with CLA's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and with the US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In ruling against NOC Charles, neither of these bodies addressed either the EEOC's ?continuing violation" doctrine or Chester?s false anuary 5, 2010, memorandum. even though NOC Charles clearly identi?ed and fully briefed the facts and the law concerning these matters. 19 130. 13!. 132. 133. I34. 135. 137. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 20 of 25 A copy Chartes' Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC is attached hereto as Attachment 2. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RETALIATION) NOC Charles realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein- I As detailed above, Defendant Brennan's agents have retaliated against NOC Charles, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 er sit-243.. as amended, for his having participated in the EEO process by ?ling a complaint alleging discrimination. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Brennan?s agents, NOC Charles has suffered severe emotional injury, severe reputational injury, and severe economic losses. NOC Charles claims damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including all relief the Court may deem proper. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (CIVIL CONSPIRACY) NOC Charles realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. - As detailed above, Defendant Brennan's agents had an agreement to act in concert to retaliate against NOC Charles and committed numerous overt acts in furtherance of that agreement, including federal felonies. The criminal acts of Defendant Brennan's agents deprive them of sovereign immunity. 20 133. 139. I40. MI. 142. 143. 144. [46. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 21 of 25 As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Brennan?s agents, NOC Charles has suffered severe emotional injury, severe reputational inj ury, and severe economic less-es. NOC Charles claims damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including all relief the Court mayr deem proper. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (INT ENTIONAL 0F EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) NOC Charles realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Defendant Brennan?s agents acted with theintent to cause, and did cause, NOE Charles severe emotional distress by, among other things, terminating his employment through the use of false evidence created during the pendencj.r of a CIA PEB proceeding, unjustly and illegally ordering NOC Charles' ?ancee to break off all contact with him, and interfering illegally and in violation of his rights under the First Antendment to the United States Constitution with his efforts to publish his novel. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant Brennan?s agents, NOC Charles has suffered severe emotional distress. Defendant Brennan?s agents acted intentionally or with reckless disregard for the high probability that severe emotional distress would occur. Defendant Brennan's agents committed these acts malicioust and oppressively, in wanton and willful disregard Charles' rights. The criminal acts of Defendant Brennan?s agents deprive them of sovereign imInunity. NOC Charles claims damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including all relief 21 147. 148. I 149. [50. ISI. ISZ. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 22 of 25 the Court ma)r deem proper. FOURTH CIAIM FOR RELIEF DAMAGESISPECIAL DAMAGES) NOC Charles realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. The tonious conduct of Defendant Brennan?s agents as alleged herein was undertaken deliberately and with actual malice, that is, with a sense of consciousness and deliberate wrongdoing, evil or wrong?il motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud. The criminal conduct of Defendant Brennan?s agents in carrying out these tortious acts deprives them of sovereign immunity. The conduct of Defendant Brennan's agents involved reckless or callous indifference to the federali and state-protected rights of NBC Charles. This conduct calmed NOC Charles to suffer severe reputations], ?nancial, and emotional harm, including through the loss of the companionship of his ?ancee. NOE Charles is entitled to an award of punitive damages, based upon the malicious conduct ofDefendant Brennan's agents, in the amount of at least 325.000.0110. or such other amount as may be determined at trial. I EQUITAHLE PERIOD On August 23, 2014, the EEOC mailed?NBC Charles a letter stating that his request liar reconsideration of the EEOC's ruling against him on his retaliation claim had been denied. 0n the same day' that he received that letter. NOC Charles received notice from Publications Review Board that the PRB would not permit him to publish even one word of his novel. 22 153. 154. 155. I 56. lS'l. l58. [59. 160. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 23 of 25 These simultaneous negative events, and the realization that, as a result, he might never be able to reconnect with his fiancee, caused NOC Charles to fall into a deep depression. NOC Charles? depression rendered him incapable of handling his affairs in such a way as to be able to prepare the instant Complaint within the 90?day period speci?ed in the Notice of Right to Sue letter. When NOC Charles attempted, in early November 20 14, to obtain the assistance of counsel namely Washington, DC, attorney Mark Zaid, Esq- and have attorney Zaid cleared to represent him, Office of the General Ocunsel (00C) told NOC Charles that he, NOC Charles, had to sign a new secrecy agreement before attorney Zaid could be cleared. OGC repeated this demand that NOC Charles sign a new secrecy agreement to attorney Zaid. This requirement was unprecedented both to NOC Charles, who had gotten Washington, D.C., attorney Victoria Toensing, Esq., cleared to represent him before ClA?s DEED without any such requirement, and to attorney Zaid, who had never heard of such a requirement in his many years of representing CIA of?cers. OGC's conditioning NOC Charles? access to legal assistance on his signing a new secrecy agreement years after NOC Charles? employment had been illegally terminated by his managers was improper, illegal, and unconstitutional. NOC Charles belietres this new, unprecedented requirement was interposed in order to throw yet another retaliatOry obstacle in his path. Without the assistance of counsel, NOC Charles was unable to go forward with his 23 [62. l63. [65, 166. l67. l68. Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 24 of 25 Complaint on his own due to the depression brought on through the malevolent actions of Defendants? subordinates. I In late November 2014, under the care of a physician, NOC Charles began taking a prescribed antidepressant medication. Subsequently, NOC Charles has experienced a recovery from his depression suf?cient to enable him to prepare and file the instant Complaint pro se. NOC Charles respectfully requests that, under the circumstances detailed above, the Court exercise its equitable powers to tell the limitations period for his retaliation claim and deem the Complaint timely as to that claim, as well as to his other claims. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL NOC Charles is entitled to and hereby demands a jury trial in this matter. new NOC Charles respectfully requests thatjudgment be entered in his favor as follows: Require that NOC Charles be reinstated with retroactive promotions, salary, and benefits; I Award NDC Charles compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be calculated at trial for violations of federal and state law; Award NOC Charles prejudgment and post-judgment interest; 24 Case Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 25 of 25 169. Award NOC Chmies reasonable costs and. as applicable, attomeys' fees; and 170. Grant such other and timber relief asthe Court deems just and proper. Dated: January 23, 2015 25 Respectfully submitted, Mack L. Charles Plainti?pro 32 do V. Toensing 1776 Street, N.W., #73? Washington. 11C. 2000f