TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
§ 4 Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I have been pursuing several complaints against the U.S. Marshals Service. The former Chief of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection Yvonne Bonner stated to me in writing that they would conduct an official investigation but “Due to privacy issues you are not entitled to know the outcome of the investigation” which is "obstruction" & violates U.S. Department of Justice polices.

(Yvonne Bonner is currently under an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General for possible ethics violations involving an unrelated incident).

I contacted the Hon. Senator Charles E. Schumer & the Hon. Congressman Charles B. Rangel requesting their assistance. The former Chief of U.S. Marshals Service Congressional Affairs division John J. McNulty, III responded in writing twice to the Hon. Senator Charles E. Schumer & once to the Hon. Congressman Charles B. Rangel "denying in writing" the very existence of the investigation which contradicts the document from the former Chief of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection Yvonne Bonner. This facilitates the appearance of an ongoing cover-up & is "obstruction of justice" at the highest level & is also in violation of:

TITLE 18 > Part I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001 false statements

Thus making his statements absent of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. A clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law 5 USC 706(2)(A).

I submitted my documented proof of these allegations to the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation & the Office of the Inspector General & they all refuse in writing to take any action under federal statute of law. I feel that my only recourse may be found under federal statute:

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1361
§ 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

USDOJ AG Order No. 2835-2006

The Attorney General shall ensure by regulation that any component of the Department of Justice receiving a non frivolous allegation of criminal wrongdoing or administrative misconduct by an employee of the Department of Justice, except with respect to allegations described in subsection (b)(3) [matters within the investigative jurisdiction of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility], shall report that information to the Inspector General.

All of my supporting documents with detailed information can be downloaded as a pdf from my website located at http://daprocess.com. Thank you. 

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.”

Then you contact a U.S. Senator & Congressman requesting their assistance & they both receive a contradictory response which constitutes obstruction of justice by denying the very existence of the secret investigation from the federal agencies Chief of Congressional Affairs which states the exact opposite:

"The USMS has requested evidence to substantiate his allegations, but Mr. Reynolds has not provided any. Because he has not submitted any plausible information, the USMS is not investigating his allegations."

Feel free to review my documents from the USDOJ:

http://daprocess.com

http://daprocess.com/verified.html

I submitted legitimate allegations of illegal electronic surveillance of myself possibly being conducted by members of the U.S. Marshals Service to the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection. I received a document from the former Chief Inspector of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection stating that they would conduct an official investigation but "I would not be entitled to know the outcome due to privacy issues" not reflected by statute of law in violation of federal statute Title 50 > Chapter 36 > Subchapter I > § 1810 Civil liability.

After waiting over a period of thirty days I received no further communication from the U.S. Marshals Service at which time I contacted the office of the Hon. Senator Charles E. Schumer. His New York office submitted a request to the former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs U.S. Department of Justice requesting their direct response. Hon. Senator Charles E. Schumer later received a response from the Chief of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Congressional Affairs which contained false statements in violation of Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 47 > § 1001 Statements or entries generally & Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 73 > §§§ 1510, 1515, 1519 Obstruction of Justice. At which time he stated that the U.S. Marshals Service had not and would not investigate my allegations contradicting the previous letter from the U.S. Marshals Service internal affairs division. This was and is in violation of federal statute of law as well as U.S. Department of Justice policies & procedures. Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 19 > § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.

Thus making his statements absent of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. A clear error of judgment; an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors and so is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law or if it was taken without observance of procedure required by law 5 USC 706(2)(A). This was and is in violation of federal law as well as U.S. Department of Justice policies & procedures.

How is it legally possible that the Chief of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Congressional Affairs contradicted the former Chief Inspector of the U.S. Marshals Service Office of Inspection in writing three times. Twice to a U.S. Senator who sits on the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime & Drugs which has oversight of the U.S. Marshals Service & once to a U.S. Congressman & no corrective action has been taken whatsoever?

I have requested official federal oversight by the Senate and/or House of all parties concerned including myself. I am willing to testify in any U.S. federal court of law that my allegations are true to the best of my knowledge.

The physical documentation can be downloaded from http://daprocess.com & you can review further information at http://daprocess.com/verified.html. Thank you.

As a point of reference my site was created to allow you to review the mishandling of a federal investigation by several major federal law enforcement agencies and the legality of the responses which I received. This in response to my complaint of illegal electronic surveillance of myself where it was established that my information was credible by former Chief Inspector Yvonne Bonner of the US Marshals Service, Office of Inspection (Internal Affairs) division. Please review my site below. Thank you

<a href="http://daprocess.com" target="_blank"><b>1: Da Process</b></a>

<a href="http://daprocess.com/verified/html" target="_blank"><b>2: Da Process Verified</b></a>