What do you do when you file a complaint with the internal affairs division of a major federal law enforcement agency. Then receive a response from the section Chief of internal affairs which states that my information was substantive enough to initiate an investigation:

“Our office has received all of the necessary information from you to proceed with this matter. Due to privacy issues you are not entitled to know the outcome of the investigation.”

It may not rise to obstruction of justice. But what you do is send copy of the communication from which you quote to those Senators so they can see for themelves that either you or they are being lied to.

Actually, in context, in view of the "fact" that you are "not" entitled to know the outcome of the investigation, their is no investigation. They are telling you, in essence, "go away," while hoping you'll actually believe you wouldn't have the right to know the outcome of an investigation that affected you, and was initiated by you as the complainant.

At very minimum, they want to get you bogged down in process and procedure in hopes they can either frustrate you into giving up, or run out the clock, whichever is first being most convenient to them.

Stay on it with your Senators, and do all you can to avoid putting the liars on the defensive, as then they will only both dig in their heels, and further compound the matter, and proliferate the number of complaints you have in order to overwhelm. Reminds of a bookstore chain that never deals with a first complaint; they wait until there are 5 or so complaints, all of those generated by their having avoided and ignored the first, then in order to avoid and ignore that 5th or so complaint, they ask you about your first, original complaint.

They can run that sort of thing around in circles forever. The key is to find a direct way through all the BS, most effective being to catch one in a verbal lie during a telephone conversation, then work your way up the chain naming that person, and reporting the lie. If the liar is in some administrative capacity, s/he will be adversely affected, and/or the complaint will be addressed to some degree in effort to "dextoxify" the situation -- in effort, that is, to protet the ass of the administrator who told the lie.

It is useful, though not essential, if one has the lie in writing: they would rather it not be in writing, though, as then it is easier to mollify and silence you -- buy you off -- without any record of any of it, including the mollifying. Thus when a bank manager lied to me, and I got his name, I had them: they had a choice: fire a manager in whom they'd invested cash-money, or deal with the complaint in effort to prevent it growing, and -- more important -- to stop the spread of the word about the named person being a liar, and who unfortunately for the bank gave away the game. The cost for the bank: rebate of a half-dozen overdraft fees of $39.00 each.

Bottom line 1: stick with it; keep in mind that you're dealing in part with bureaucratic inertia, and a barrel of snakes who as a rule ignore the rules, and don't be like them. Be ethical and emphasize ethical dealing: that serves as a reminder that not everyone is an asshole. But be very careful about trusting any of them to be what they claim or do what they promise.

Bottom line 2: it's exactly like everyday life.

Now why is it 10 people will review all of my documentation but only one such as yourself with your level of depth perception will reiterate my exact view of the issue? Thank you.