USAR. IG. 20120605. 2000. Email. CPT Lewis

Document Sample
USAR. IG. 20120605. 2000. Email. CPT Lewis Powered By Docstoc
					2120 Wagon Trail Place
Silver Spring, MD 20906

June 5, 2012

Sent via email:
Attention: Captain Lewis
United States Army Reserve Command
Office of the Inspector General
Fort Bragg, NC 28310

Dear Captian Lewis:
Re: Inspector General Action Request (Alade I 7HQ120595)

I appreciate and thank you for revising your Letter of Acknowledgment to reflect my true concerns,
which prompted my submission of an IGAR; I am grateful.

However, concerning the other issue about the legality of some of the materials I had submitted to the
IG, in accompaniment with my IGAR, I still disagree with your stated position and conclusions.

Going over the written statement you forwarded to me, which you assert informed your decision on the
legality question, it appears to me that you are making a series of assumptions. All the more perplexing
is that your assumptions are unstated, unclear, and appear unfounded. Also, you seem to be taking
these assumptions as irrefutable facts, and they appear to have led your reasoning on the issue down a
faulty path.

For example, in your assertion:

“You are a resident of Maryland and under Maryland's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, it is
unlawful to tape record a conversation without the permission of all the parties.”

It appears you made an implicit assumption as to having knowledge of my actual physical presence,
when the phone conversation was recorded. However, we never fully discussed the circumstances
surrounding my recording the conversation.

Also, please note that in the full elaboration of “circumstances,” one has to factor in the question of the
“intent” as it relates to, and cofounds, one’s circumstance. For example, before one can be convicted of
a crime in a criminal court, two requirements must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: a criminal act
and a criminal intent. Therefore, a “criminal act” does not necessarily define a crime, just as recording a
conversation does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed or that the act is illegal. This is why
I feel your unilateral decision to determine the illegality of the material I submitted to you, is beyond
your authority and jurisdictional limits.

Should you continue to maintain your current predisposition and stance about the legality of the
materials I have submitted, I think it will be prudent to have JAG formally consulted, with their opinion
fully on record. This is all the more sensible, given the highly technical nature of the subject matter itself
(“Law” and its definition of “Legal”), and the other areas of my compliant (and future IG cases) your
unilateral decision might adversely impact. Please follow-up on this and let me know how you are
proceeding on this issue.

Thank you again for your help and assistance.


Alade, Oladimeji, MSc, D.O.

Shared By: