Open Letter of Criminal Charges Against the FAA. An Agency Predicated to the Dereliction of duty. Has The FAA Become A Criminal Organization?
- rmriter
- Oct 30
- 56 min read
Open Letter of Criminal Charges Against the FAA. An Agency Predicated to the Dereliction of duty. Has The FAA Become A Criminal Organization?
William "Liam" McKenna
Chief Counsel of FAA Legal
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Mr. McKenna,
May I start off to congratulate you on your appointment as Chief Counsel for the FAA Legal Department. I pray that you will oversee one of the most aggrieved violations made by the FAA against an airmen, aircraft mechanics, and the American people. We deserve the best from the FAA, and what we are getting is the worst.
As the new chief counsel for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) I would like to request your personal assistance. I have been the victim of various violations of my constitutional rights, federal and state laws, and a never ending malicious prosecution by the FAA. Over the last four years I have attempted to go through the FAA chain of command. Only to find yet another layer of corruption, malice, and illegal conduct.
Please take the time to review the following criminal complaints I am filing with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It is outside of the FAA to conduct criminal investigations, but I pray that your office will do whatever it can. I expect your office's full cooperation in obtaining and preserving records. I would also ask for your help in the referral of these matters to the FBI.
The Conspiracy
18 U.S.C. § 371-Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
The overall charges against the Riverside and Scottsdale FSDO's, FAA Privacy Act Shop, and the FAA FOIA office is that of title 18 U.S.C. § 371-Conspiracy to Defraud the United States by obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
When the NTSB decided to falsify the accident report, NTSB number WPR19MA177, they turned to the Riverside FSDO in order to help in the deception. To deceive the aviation community, and the American public.
All of the physical evidence of this accident showed a left engine failure. A engine failure at the very basic level of multi-engine aerodynamics. These signs were the fact that the aircraft went inverted. This is a hallmark of a Vmc event. Also, that the left propeller was feathered. This feathering of the propeller can ONLY be done by the pilot, and is the standard multi-engine emergency procedures during an engine failure. This level of understanding is at the private pilot level. There is no excuse for the Riverside FSDO personnel not to have realized this, and combined with their other actions shows their criminal intent to deceive the public.
Instead of doing their duty and stopping this false narrative. The Riverside FSDO personnel decided to go along with the conspiracy. The Riverside FSDO took extraordinary steps while engaging in this deception. Slowly the deception spread to the Scottsdale FSDO. Then to the FAA Privacy Act Shop. Followed by the FAA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office. All working together to protect the FAA and it's employees. They plotted to individually target an airman knowing he had not violated any laws, or even a single FAR's.
Not only to defame him, but in the process engaging in several criminal federal felonies, criminal misdemeanors, and displaying a total disregard for FAA Policies and Procedures. It is my belief that the Riverside FSDO has become the "Rampart Division" for the FAA. Just as the Rampart Division defined the corruption of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the 1990's.
The Reason For The Conspiracy
The driving purpose of this conspiracy was to begin a new policy to harm our flight instructors. This new policy would give FAA employees the power to destroy a flight instructor's future at their discretion. All that a flight instructor would have to do is have less than an 80% initial pass rate on his students check rides. This was narrowly framed to be a failure on the first attempt on a check ride. The national pass rate for passing on the first attempt at the time was 75%. As such almost each and every flight instructor would be at the mercy of FSDO employees. The FAA FSDO personnel knew that the NTSB report WPR19MA177 was falsified. However, they believed in the purpose behind supporting the falsified report.
In order to make this new policy viable the Riverside FSDO was tasked with proving that I was a "Bad" flight instructor. To do this they provided misleading data about the initial pass rates. The Riverside FSDO provided the national initial pass rate of 75% to the NTSB, rather than the 62% pass rate at the Riverside FSDO during this period. This information was not made public, but had to be acquired through a (FOIA) request. Every Riverside FSDO employee knew of this low pass rate. In fact, FAA Headquarters made them give an "all hands" meeting with the flight instructors months before engaging in this deception. A Doctor Paul Foster of the Riverside FSDO conducted the training.
To make this plot work they needed a scapegoat. That's when they decided that a flight instructor, someone that gave flight lessons years ago, was the fault of this accident. To claim someone involved years prior was at fault for the accident has no legal precedence. Nor does it even makes any sense. The Riverside FSDO only had the the fact that the accident pilot failed on his first attempt on his three check rides. During this period the my initial pass rate on check rides for initial pass rates was only 59%. No other information was released to the public.
However, these two facts were actually misleading information. It was a direct known falsification of a official government report. These hidden facts are as follows:
When the initial check ride pass rate is added to the initial written test rate my pass rate was 74%. The Riverside FSDO investigator, a Mr. Roy Peters, was made aware of this fact. Mr. Peters purposely disregarded this information and actively concealed this favorable information in his reports.
The retests for the accident pilot consisted of a 6 minute flight for his Private Pilot certificate; 12 minutes for his Instrument Airplane certificate; and 30 minutes for his Multi-engine Commercial certificate. Each failure was for a petty error. Each retest costing $700 for less than a hour's work! This does not show a faulty trained pilot. It shows a corrupt check ride process under the supervision of the FAA.
The Riverside FSDO personnel had set a limit of at least a 35% failure rate on the Designated Pilot Examiners (DPE's) for initial check rides. If a OPE did not have this failure rate they were told they would be fired. Overnight the failure rate went to 38% in the Riverside FSDO. Since I have started discussing this situation the new initial pass rate has jumped to 95%! A 5% failure rate on check rides is a more accurate number. A number when the FAA employees are not meddling with the check rides.
All of these things being done while the FAA personnel let the accident pilot's family, to include his young daughter, being told that the pilot killed himself by being "reckless." That he had killed himself and ten passengers due to his wrongful behavior. Also, the ten families of the skydivers were told their loved ones were killed by a reckless pilot. The truth of the matter is that the pilot was actually killed in the line of duty. Performing the emergency procedures for engine failure. Feathering the left propeller. Fighting for control of that aircraft until the last moment. The NTSB and FAA actions are well outside of civil conduct. No person could do this to these grieving families. This was the actions of monsters.
The Conspiracy Meeting To Frame An Airman On False Pretenses.
On March 2, 2020 the Director, Accident Investigation Division, AVP-100 received notice from Lorelei Peter, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200. In this notice Peters advised AVP-100 that all of my flight training of the accident pilot was in accordance with FAR's, and FAA Policies and Procedures (See Figure 1). That no violations of the FAR's had taken place, nor did any of my actions constitute any criminal behavior.
Figure 1
This did not stop the FAA from pursuing an investigation under false pretenses. In fact, on 6/15/2020 we see in Mr. Roy Peters's National Program Tracking and Reporting System (NPTRS) report that there was a Zoom meeting (See Figure 2). In this meeting was AVP 100 Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Eric West, FAA HQ, WP legal counsel, and the OPS FLM RAL FSDO which means the entire Riverside FSDO office. So we see FAA Legal saying the correct thing in public. That I did everything correctly. Then less than three months later, behind closed doors, plotting a plan to come after me! This demonstrates that the FAA has lost ALL creditability to tell the truth.
Figure 2
Furthermore, the FAA FOIA office redacts and blacks out the reason for the meeting. This meeting was to conspire against an airman, under false pretenses, to defame him. To knowingly falsify an official government investigation. The FAA FOIA office then uses exemption (b)(5) to conceal this criminal behavior. Exemption (b)(5) is not to be used to conceal criminal conduct. Illegally targeting an American citizen in order to "find" a crime is against the law.
The FAA will probably claim that this investigation was warranted due to my low initial pass rates on check rides. This is not true. The average pass rate for initial check rides was 62% during this period at the Riverside FSDO. My initial pass rate was 59%. That means almost half of the flight instructors in the Riverside FSDO were performing worst then me. And yet, no other flight instructor was singled out for an investigation. The FAA FOIA office cannot conceal information, and engage in this deceit with the FBI. As the FBI investigates this matter the illegal conduct of the FAA will be exposed.
With this meeting of the various levels of the FAA an airman was selected for illegal and malicious prosecution. Thus began an endless illegal campaign to ''get the bad CF/." To prove the false narrative through whatever means. In fact, the criminal actions by the FAA employees continue to this day. With FAA FSDO personnel threatening employers if they hire me. Even to the point of threatening to revoke a college of their FAA certifications. The FAA employees have become nothing more than well dressed criminal thugs in coat and ties.
This conspiracy was well coordinated, and involved extensive falsification of reports, witness tampering, threatening employers, and even threatening our aircraft manufacturers such as Hartzell Propellers. There does not seem to be any moral boundaries holding the FAA in check.
"Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Colluding with the NTSB to Falsify a Government Report.
A felony.
The NTSB and the Riverside Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) worked
together to falsify the 2019 Hawaii accident report, case number WPR19MA177. The Riverside FSDO engaged in the following illegal activity:
The NTSB report made the following false statements in report. That the accident was caused by a reckless pilot who "stalled" the aircraft on take off. That the accident pilot's flight instructor was a "Bad" flight instructor. And somehow this "Bad" instructor had caused the death of eleven people.
The accident report reflected that the aircraft flipped inverted, and that the left propeller had been feathered. These are the hallmarks of a engine loss and Vmc event. The feathering of the left propeller in this model aircraft can ONLY be done by the pilot. It is done in the event of engine failure in flight. The FAA FSDO employees knew this as it is basic multi engine operations. The Riverside FSDO employees intentionally let this falsified report prevail, and did not take right action to correct it.
Furthermore, the claim that the accident pilot's flight instructor was a "Bad Flight Instructor" has no meaning and/or legal definition. There are no Federal Aviation Regulation's (FAR's) defining this term, nor any legal precedence behind this concept. In fact, your office was contacted and determined that all training and documentation by me was done in accordance with the FAR's. That no FAA Policies and Procedures were violated. This finding was included in the NTSB. As such the FAA FSDO employees would have had full knowledge they were acting outside of the auspices of FAA authority. This claim was deliberately made in a malicious manner to slander, and defame me without cause or merit.
The Tricks and Schemes Of The Riverside FSDO
These FAA employees then knowingly provided misleading, and false information to the NTSB. These tricks included providing misleading data on the national pass rate on FAA Check Rides; the manipulation of my student pass rates; and not highlighting the retesting facts of the accident pilot.
The Riverside FSDO provided the NTSB the national pass rates on initial check rides as 75%. They did this while knowing that the initial pass rate at the Riverside FSDO was only 62%. Every FAA employee knew of this low pass rate as they were forced to provide a training meeting with ALL of the flight instructors. My initial pass rate was 59%, which is right at the average pass rate, for students in the Riverside FSDO area during this time frame. This FAA office deliberately withheld the actual initial pass rates in their district. This was done to defame me. To conceal this information from the aviation
community and to the American people. This data had to be obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Then the FAA employees deliberately withheld the pass rates of my students on the written tests. Flight instructors are held accountable for both the written tests, and the check ride performance of their students. When my written test results, and my check ride results are combined my initial pass rate was 74%. However, the Riverside FSDO would not include my written test results. Even after it was brought to the attention of Mr. Roy Peters. Mr. Peters stated that the written test results did count, but then he refused to apply these results to my investigation. Taking active steps to falsify his investigation.
The NTSB and FAA claimed that I was a "Bad CFI." This made up term was solely based upon the accident pilot failed three initial check rides. In the accident pilot's log books the retesting for the private pilot was just 6 minutes. For instrument airplane it was 12 minutes. For multi-engine commercial it was 30 minutes. Each of these failures were for petty and minor reasons. Done to appease the FAA FSDO employees. Employees that demanded to have a 35% initial failure rate on check rides. The retesting of this pilot does not show a poorly trained pilot. It shows a mismanaged, and unfair check ride process.
None of these retesting times were mentioned in the NTSB report. Even through it was clearly reflected in the accident pilot's log books. The Riverside FSDO deliberately did not take these facts into account when investigating me.
Violations of FAA Policies and Procedures
The Riverside FSDO opened a illegal investigation on me based upon known false information. An investigation not to discover any deficiencies on my part, but an investigation to fabricate evidence to prove I was a "Bad Flight Instructor." During the course of this investigation several violations of FAA Policies and Procedures took place. These violations included disregarding and mocking the FAA Compliance Program; Misrepresenting themselves as federal law enforcement peace officers; Secretly recording my ground lesson; Stating that my ground lesson was "not satisfactory" without any reasons being cited; Obtaining my FAA personal records under false pretenses; Obtaining my personal records in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974; And actively abusing an airman at the FSDO.
During the schedule observation of a ground lesson FAA policies and procedures were violated. Mr. Roy Peters was the training officer teaching a new hire by the name of Nelson L. Sanches. Mr. Peters was observed, and heard teaching the new hire to disregard the FAA Compliance Program. Mr. Peters was mocking this FAA policy, and was heard saying, "We just do whatever we want too." This new hire was thrilled to hear about the powers he now had as a FAA employee.
Mr. Sanches arrived 15 minutes late to the appointed lesson. Upon arrival Mr. Peters and Mr. Sanches stood speaking to each other in the parking lot for 30 minutes. This left me and the student waiting for them a total of 45 minutes. My ground lesson was cut short to just 20 minutes due to their unprofessional behavior. When Mr. Peters and Mr. Sanches finally introduced themselves they presented federal law enforcement badges.
My student asked them if they were police officers, and if we were being detained. Mr. Peters ONLY said that we were not being detained, but would not clarify that he was not a peace officer. Mr. Sanches did not say anything. This left the impression with my student that they were federal law enforcement officers.
This is a violation of California State Law, Impersonating a Police Officer Penal Code§ 538d PC; and may be a federal offense under title 18 USC 43 False Personation Code§ 912. What is the FAA's Policy and Procedures for it's employees impersonating federal law enforcement officers? Why are FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors given a federal law enforcement badge? What if any oversight is given to protect airmen and mechanics from abuses?
Mr. Peters and Mr. Sanches displayed a Lack of Candor in presenting themselves as federal law enforcement personnel. I would humbly request that the charges of 18 USC 43 False Personation Code§ 912; and Lack of Candor be filed against Mr. Peters and Mr. Sanches.
It was observed that Mr. Peters had placed a recording device to secretly tape my ground lesson. This is specifically not allowed in the FAA Human
Resources Manual. Does this not also apply to airman and aircraft mechanics?
After the ground lesson Mr. Peters stated that I had done a good job. He then launched into several questions to find something I did not know. He finally came across a question I was unsure of. This was when does a VFR Sectional Charts expire? My ground lesson was on airspace and weight and balance. I said,"/ do not recall," and immediately followed up with, "When do VFR sectional charts expire?" Mr. Peters and the new hire did not know the answer. This led to both of them fishing around in their pockets for their cell phones to google it. It took them about 5 minutes to find the answer. Between purposely being late to the lesson, then showing a lack of honesty about being peace officers, and now this stupid display of trying to make me look stupid made my student disgusted. This lack of professionalism, and knowledge of these two provided a very bad look for the FAA. I do not blame the new hire in training, but I do hold Mr. Peters fully accountable for presenting the FAA in such a poor manner.
At a later date Mr. Peters stated in a letter that the observation of my ground lesson was "unsatisfactory." No reasons cited. No attempts to correct any areas of deficiency. It was only later that I learned the truth. It was when I received the actual reports from Mr. Peters and Mr. Sanches. Turns out they both falsified their reports of investigations. Claiming the ground lesson was only on weight and balance. Stating that I had provided false information during my ground lesson.
This leads to a very important question. What do we do when we can not even trust the FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors? Who is checking to make sure they are not able to falsify reports? Making false reports on us with apparently no one in charge to correct such actions. Apparently, no one even cares that this is going on. More about this when we cover the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Mr. Peters had me come into the Riverside FSDO in order to provide my personal records. The reason given was for having a 59% failure rate on my initial check rides. More than half of the flight instructors had less than a 59% failure rate of initial check rides during this period. And yet, no other flight instructors were singled out. This was solely done to support the false narrative of the NTSB report. As such, this entire investigation was conducted under false pretenses.
Mr. Peters obtained my personal records without providing a Privacy Act of
1974 advisement in writing or verbally. Mr. Peters actions constituted three criminal misdemeanor violations under the Privacy Act.
Mr. Peters then engaged in deceit claiming that I needed to provide 30 years of log books. That I needed to show all dual instruction given. Mr. Peters was challenged on this. Only currency is needed to be shown in pilot log books. And that there is no requirement to show dual instruction. Mr. Peters was requested to provide the FAR's under which he was making such requests. Mr. Peters refused to provide any FAR's stating he would send me a letter. A letter that I am still waiting to receive.
Mr. Peters then yelled in the lobby of the Riverside FSDO that, "We are the federal government and we can do whatever we want too!" This was done in front of yet another new hire employee who was visibly scared. No employees interrupted Mr. Peters after yelling this in the front lobby, nor did any supervisors come forth. Despite everyone in the office hearing such a claim. Apparently this claim of "doing whatever we want too" is repeated often, and is supported by the leadership of this FSDO. With Mr. Peters being a training officer the future of the FAA is in doubt. How many new hires will abuse airmen and mechanics at will due to his training? Are there any checks and balances in place? Is anybody in charge at these FAA FSDO offices? The answers to these questions are may be truly terrifying.
Biased and unfair 709 ride to be conducted outside of FAA Poties and Procedures.
Under the supervision of Mr. Anthony Wood, and the Riverside FSDO Manager, I was ordered to submit to a 709 check ride. This 709 ride was initiated by Mr. Roy Peters under false pretenses. However, Mr. Peters took additional steps beyond FAA policies and procedures. Displaying pure malicious to harm me.
For a 709 ride it is only required that the pilot provide one aircraft to conduct the examination. However, Mr. Peters stated in writing, with the approval of his supervisors, that I was to show up for my 709 ride with each and every make and model of aircraft that I have instructed in. Over a thirty year career this meant I was ordered to show up with Cessna 150, Cessna 152, Cessna 172, Cessna 182, Piper PA-28-140, Piper PA-28-160,
PA-28 -181: most of the Beechcraft models to include Barons, Duchesses, Bonanza, and King Air C90. Not to mention various gliders such as the HB23, and then the seaplanes such as the Lake Amphibian and Piper Cub on floats. Not only was this demand impossible for an airman to comply to, but it was completely outside of the scope of FAA polices and procedures for a 709 ride.
Mr. Peters was engaging in behavior outside of his duties as a FAA Safety Inspector. It is not very often that we get wrongdoers to put it in writing, but in this case we did! When Mr. Peters was advised that I had moved to the Scottsdale FSDO his immediate response was to write, "I am going to get you!" This was not an idle threat. This was illegal and malicious prosecution. It continues with the full support, and protection of the FAA FSDO management.
The Charges Against the FAA Privacy Act Shop
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. §1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
18 U.S. Code§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties. 18 U.S.C. §1001 - Lying to a Federal Officer In an official investigation.
18 U.S.C. § 3 - An Accessory After the Fact
The Riverside FSDO engaged in three separate criminal misdemeanor violations of the Privacy Act of 1974. When Mr. Roy Peters obtained my personal FAA records he had failed to give me the required Privacy Act advisement in writing or verbally. Peters then maintained my personal records on his computer in violation of the Privacy Act. Mr. Peters then released my personal records to another federal agency, the NTSB, in direct violation of the Privacy Act. Each of these three actions constitutes a criminal misdemeanor.
Efforts to obtain assistance in these criminal actions were reported to the Scottsdale FSDO. Not only did the Scottsdale FSDO refuse to help me contact the FAA Privacy Act Shop, but they did everything possible to cover up the criminal behavior of fellow FAA employees. Thus, engaging in 18 U.S.C. § 3 an accessory after the fact.
The Investigation That Was Never Meant To Be Seen.
The Privacy Act Shop then engaged in falsification of an official investigation to protect the Riverside FSDO. Specifically, to protect a Mr. Roy Peters.
The FAA Privacy Act shop was contacted, and they took no actions pertaining to these criminal misdemeanors. The FAA Privacy Act Shop was sent several emails. On October 11, 2022 a Ms. Karyn Gorman, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, stated that she would "look into it further." No further responses were even received.
Then I discovered several emails from a Mr. Abraham Evans from the Privacy Act Shop that were hidden in my email archives. These emails were placed in my personal email account without my knowledge or consent. This was a clear violation of 18 U.S. Code§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations, and 25 CFR § 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
I was never meant to see these emails from Mr. Evans, nor the completed falsified investigation he completed. Let's take a closer look at the investigation that Mr. Evans conducted. These emails from Mr. Evans are not credible, and appear to be falsified. The reasons why I find Mr. Evans investigation to be falsified are as follows:
I submitted a request on how to file a complaint on 24 June, 2022. Two hours later Mr. Evans is responding to the email. This is on a Friday afternoon in Washington, D.C. The normal response time is well over a month, and not two hours! Furthermore, I do not know of many federal workers that work on
Fridays. Much less on Friday afternoons. I would request your office to check Mr. Evans time sheets to see if he was even working that day, and his email server to see if responded to me on Friday June 24, 2022 at 2:27 pm.
Mr. Evans emails reflected that he attempted to contact me on July 5 and 6, 2022 to conduct his investigation. I had received none of these emails on these dates. None of these emails appear in my email account. Mr. Evans did not make contact with me via emails, telephone, nor by letter. He was in contact with Mr. Roy Peters, the subject of the criminal complaints, who was in constant contact with me. Furthermore, my full contact information is listed with the FAA as I am an aircraft mechanic, airman, and certified flight instructor. Mr.
Evans has no excuse for not contacting me. He conducted his investigation with the deliberate intent of excluding my testimony.
Mr. Evans investigation is deliberately falsified and misleading. Mr. Evans claims that no violation of the Privacy Act occurred. That when Mr. Peters obtained my records he had a right to obtain the records. Mr. Evans then gives a bunch of FAR's stating the authority upon which these records were obtained (See Figure 3). However, the Privacy Act is not about the authority of the US Government to obtain records, rather it is the individual's rights and protections of such records and their uses. This was deliberate misdirection and falsification on the part of Mr. Evans. For the first statue of the Privacy Act states:
"Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system of records without
meeting the notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) of this section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(2).
Figure 3
No Privacy Act advisement was given for obtaining these records verbally or in writing. Under paragraph one of Mr. Evans report we can see no mention of any Privacy Act advisement that was given. This shows that title 5 U.S.C 552ai)(2) was violated, and as such constitutes a criminal misdemeanor by Mr. Roy Peters, his supervisor Anthony Wood, and the FSDO Manager.
The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of a record about an individual from a system of records absent the written consent of the individual. Unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions which do not apply in this case. The Riverside FSDO did not obtain my written consent to release my pilot records to the NTSB. Nor did their reasons for disclosing this information fall within the guidelines of the 12 exceptions. Mr. Evans then falsifies the official government investigation by stating,
"no evidence that the information collected as part of the Aviation Safety Inspectors investigation was disclosed to the NTSB. Therefore, the FAA CPO finds that no violation of the Privacy Act occurred."
Figure 4
As we can see in Figure 5 the records that Mr. Roy Peters obtained from me were provided to the NTSB. Then the NTSB published these records in violation of the Privacy Act to the public. These records are found in NTSB report WPR19MA177, docket 28, Instructors Records.
The FAA Privacy Act Office knew that these records were provided to the NTSB. After all, Mr. Peters was working with the NTSB as the case number of his investigation was WPR19MA177. Mr. Evans and Mr. Peters both colluded together to conceal this criminal behavior. The two other statues of the Privacy Act are as follows:
"Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1). Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(2).
As we can see these two statues were violated by the FAA when they provided my personal records to the NTSB. This demonstrates corruption by the Riverside FSDO, and the FAA Privacy Act Office. This is a clear violation of making federal false statements under title 18 U.S.C. § 1001for both Mr. Peters and Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans could not have done this investigation without the approval of his supervisors. Therefore, I am asking the FBI to determine the extent of the criminal actions of the FAA Privacy Act Office.
On February 11, 2025 these emails and completed investigation were located in my email archives. Mr. Evans was then immediately contacted by email, but no response was given. I believe this shows criminal intent as Mr. Evans had no intentions to contact me, and that he desired his report be hidden.
Does the FAA hack into Personal Emails without a warrant?
Furthermore, Karyn Gorman was also emailed on November 27, 2023 to follow up on my criminal complaints. Gorman also refused to respond. If Mr. Evans investigation was done in honesty Ms. Gorman would have just forwarded the results of the investigation to me. If Mr. Evans did a honest report of investigation he would have responded as well. This leads me to believe that this investigation by the FAA Privacy Act shop was completed at a later date.
Then placed into my email archive without my knowledge and/or permission.
Throughout this timeframe my personal email account has been hacked by the FAA and NTSB. Emails that showed their criminal actions have been deleted without my knowledge or consent. For this reason I would like to file and press the following charges:
18 U.S. Code§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations.
18 U.S. Code§ 2516 (CJ section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) -
Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
These actions by the FAA Privacy Act Shop show a clear criminal intent to engage in the conspiracy. A conspiracy to support the falsified accident report WPR19MA177, and by doing so to defraud the American people. Furthermore, it shows the extent the FAA will go to in order to cover up criminal behavior. To circumvent federal law. Mr. Evans did not act on his own. This falsified investigation had to be approved. Therefore I am including Ms. Claire Barnett, and Ms. Karyn Gorman to be included in these charges of falsifying an official government report.
I humbly request to file and press charges against the following individuals for the following criminal violations:
Ms. Claire Barrett, Chief Privacy Officer, FAA Privacy Act Shop
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. §1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties.
18 U.S. Code§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations.
18 U.S. Code§ 2516 (C) section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) -
Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications 25 CFR §11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Ms. Karyn Gorman, DIPP/G, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Transportation (DOT).
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. §1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
18 U.S. Code§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties.
18 U.S. Code§ 2516 (C) section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) -
Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications 25 CFR §11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Abraham Evans, FAA Chief Privacy Office, Washington D.C. 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211- Falsification of an Official Government Report.
18 U.S. Code§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties.
18 U.S. Code§ 2516 (C) section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) - Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
25 CFR § 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
The manager of the Scottsdale FSDO (FAA personnel refused to provide his/her name).
18 U.S.C. § 371- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371- Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211- Falsification of an Official Government Report.
18 U.S. Code§ 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties. 25 CFR § 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Jeffery Larson of the Scottsdale FSDO.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties. 25 CFR § 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Ryan Armenta, Aviation Safety Inspector, General Operations, Scottsdale FSDO
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties. 25 CFR § 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
The Manager of the Riverside FSDO (FAA personnel refused to provide his/her name).
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties. 25 CFR § 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Anthony Wood, Aviation Safety Inspector, General Operations, Riverside FSDO.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties. 25 CFR § 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Roy Peters, Aviation Safety Inspector, General Operations, Riverside FSDO.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(ii)(iii) Violations of Privacy Act of 1974.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 - Lying to a Federal Officer In an official investigation. 13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties. 25 CFR § 11.440 Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
Aircraft Maintenance An Industry in Crisis
Perhaps the most disturbing abuses by the FAA is the direct disregard for the FAR's, and the complete lack of concern for the safety of the American people. These are supposed to be the two hallmarks of what the FAA was supposed to stand for. However, the FAA ONLY cares about protecting itself, its arbitrary made up rules, and protecting its corrupt personnel. I have spent over three decades watching the FAA destroying my fellow mechanics. Destroying them for such minor issues as typing errors on endorsements, missing tags on seat belts, and just doing harm based upon "in my opinion" by the FAA inspector when there is nothing to cite.
Figure 6 The Broken Crankshaft
The phase heard from our FAA maintenance inspectors has been "I don't care if it's safe. I want it legal!" This phase is heard throughout our maintenance hangers across the country. It reflects the toxic mindset of a FAA that has lost it's way. The toxic mindset of individuals that don't even know what they are looking at most of the time, and yet are in charge of overseeing it's compliance. For pilot's and aircraft mechanic's it has always been the end goal for us. The safety of our flight crews. The safeguarding of our beloved passengers. The well being of members of the community. A community that just might be below a malfunctioning aircraft. This divide between the FAA and the aircraft mechanics could not be greater. With this in mind, let's discuss the actions of the Scottsdale FSDO and Riverside FSDO.
On April 3, 2018 I experienced a catastrophic engine failure over a densely populated area in Riverside, CA. The crankshaft in the engine broke into two pieces (see figure 6). When it broke it filled the engine with metal debris, and caused the engine to slowly lose power. By the grace of God, I made it safely to an airport. Myself, two other pilots on board, and the community of Riverside, CA were placed in harms way. This type of emergency is almost always fatal.
How did this happen? I had used an approved FAA Part 145 shop to replace the cylinders on the engine. This is commonly called a "Top Overhaul." This FAA approved, and FAA supervised Part 145 maintenance shop, violated over twenty five Part 145 FAR's during this repair. Everything from having an unlicensed mechanic with no experience doing the work. To having this same employee working without any supervision, without calibrated tools, and a FAA approved shop owner accountable to no one. This unlicensed mechanic just over tightened the through bolts holding the cylinders onto the engine. A novice mistake made with complete good intentions. This crushed the bearings on the crankshaft, and these crushed bearings heated up the crankshaft until it broke into two pieces.
The maintenance shop refused to repair the engine, and under the guidance of the insurance company fought the claim. This led to a four year civil lawsuit at the Riverside
Superior Court, case number RIC1902064. The twenty five FAR's violations were proven in sworn depositions, and open court testimony. Once all the court proceedings were completed an Aviation Safety Report System (ASRS), also called a NASA report, was submitted. A copy of this report was also sent to the Scottsdale FSDO. Specifically, a Frank Waterhouse, who was my personal maintenance inspector.
Once again the unimaginable happened. The Scottsdale FSDO took no actions on the twenty five FAR's violations. Instead, they took deliberate actions to cover up the mismanagement of the Part 145 shop by the Riverside FSDO. No corrective actions were taken against the FAA approved maintenance shop. None at all! The maintenance shop continued doing business as usual.
The lives of those in the Inland Empire continued to be placed in harms way. Even to this very day! Placed in grave danger just to protect the reputation of the FAA. A FAA that never admits to its faults even when lives are at risk.
Then another unexpected thing happened. The judge on the civil trial was adding up the damages that I was seeking. He even called the attorney's into court to go over the numbers. The court case was a complete disaster for the defense. But against all odds, the judge unexpectedly changed his mind, and ruled that the defense had won the case! Citing facts like "propeller strikes" that were proven not to have happened on that engine. Most chillingly taking the side of the defense's expert witness. An expert witness that testified that the defense had refused to let him even examine the crankshaft. An expert witness showing up to court with college textbooks on corrosion, and almost no actual experience working on aircraft engines.
The timing of this decision raised many doubts. The FAA had received the copy of the ASRS report after the judge asked for the hearing to calculate damages. Then the judge took another two months to make a final decision. It appears that the FAA had contacted the judge. That they had influenced him to rule against me. Nothing else seems to make any sense.
I have submitted a FOIA request to the FAA citing the name of the judge, my personal information, and the court case number. The FAA FOIA office then advised me that the Riverside FSDO had intentionally destroyed all of this information. They did send me a copy of the ASRS report sent to the Scottsdale FSDO. Only trouble is that they redacted, and blacked out the entire report. It seems that engaging in a conspiracy, to hide critical safety information, is standard practice within the FAA.
Why is it that myself, the two other pilots on this aircraft, and the community of Riverside, CA do not deserve the protections given by the FAR's? Why is it that the FAA will send out several inspectors to a FBO. Spending days and even weeks over petty violations? Violations like a plane missing a seat belt tag, the word "rebuilt" instead of "repaired" in a log book? Worst yet a training plane that went over a hundred hour inspection? Handing out violations in the ten of thousands of dollars. Grounding planes for minor concerns costing our flight schools even more thousands of dollars. Then bad mouthing these businesses with complete immunity. Most times causing irreparable damage to our aviation businesses.
However, when confronted with real life threatening FAR's violations, we see the men and women of our FAA disappear into the shadows? Why is this allowed to happen? OUR LIVES MATTER! Whether we are aviators, passengers, or just people in the community living their lives below our aircraft. Yes, OUR LIVES MATTER!
I would like to humbly request that your office investigate this matter. To provide transparency. To release ALL documents relating to this cover up. The lives of aviators, and the American people are at stake. Once again, OUR LIVES MATTER! This is not the FAA that the American people want, nor deserve.
FAA Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Office. Exemption Clause.
Covering the truth with darkness! Happy Holidays From Your FAA!
The FAA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office is engaging in deceit, and using the exemption clause (b)5 and (b)(6) to conceal criminal conduct. The FAA FOIA has taken extraordinary efforts to protect the criminal activities of FAA employees. It misuses these two exemptions to hide the truth. If these two exemptions cannot be used for any reason. Then the FAA FOIA office just pretends the records do not exist. I humbly request that your office begin by looking at these three examples.
The first is my request for records pertaining to me by the Scottsdale FSDO. After a four year court case, Superior Court of Riverside, CA, case number RIC1902064, I submitted an Aviation Safety Report System (ASRS) report. In this report I submitted twenty five Part 145 violations. These violations were proven in sworn depositions, and proven in open court testimony.
I sent a copy of the ASRS report to my primary maintenance inspector, a Frank Waterhouse, at the Scottsdale FSDO. I never received a response from Mr. Waterhouse, nor anything from the Scottsdale FSDO. Through a FOIA request I received Mr. Waterhouse's three page report. The entire report was redacted, except for my name, under the exemption (b)(6). (See figure 7).
Figure 7
The first page contains my email listing the twenty five FAR's violations. Then the second
and third page reflects a redacted investigation on me! No mention of the Part 145 maintenance shop, nor anything about the people that engaged in the violations
It is well known in the aviation community that if you report something to the FAA, even if you have nothing to do with it, they will turn it around and get you! This is exactly what the Scottsdale FSDO did!
A Major Safety Issue Proven.
For all of my career I have heard others say, "Never tell the FAA anything!
They will turn it around and get you!" Over the years I slowly saw that this was true. Never saw it in black and white, but now I have. The second and third page of Mr. Waterhouse's report does not show the part 145 shop that committed the violations. No sir. It does not (See Figure 8). It only shows my name and my maintenance identification.
It should be noted that I was never contacted, interviewed, or provided any other information. However, in the report it has a full page about me and this case. The FAA redacted the twenty five FAR's violations that they did nothing about, and concealed their criminal behavior of doing nothing about a known safety risk.
This is a major safety concern in aviation! The FAA personnel are not on the flight lines, nor in the maintenance hangers. They are in air conditioned offices. They are on four hour lunch breaks. Only the pilots and aircraft mechanics know what is going on, and especially if it is dangerous.
This is a major safety concern in aviation! The FAA personnel are not on the flight lines,
nor in the maintenance hangers. They are in air conditioned offices. They are on four hour
lunch breaks. Only the pilots and aircraft mechanics know what is going on, and especially if it is dangerous.
Figure 8
If any airman or aircraft mechanic dares to say a word their careers can be destroyed. Their lives ruined. The FAA touts a big game of having a "culture of safety." In reality the FAA maintains "a culture of fear." One of silent One of silent submission. As many of the FAA FSDO employees have been heard saying,"/ don't care if it's safe! I want it legal!" Legal meaning that boxes on forms nobody reads are checked off. The right words are used in a log book endorsements, and so on, and so on. Meanwhile, my friends are getting killed! We are losing flight crews perishing in the line of duty. Faced with malfunctions that should have never been aloud to happen. We are losing our beloved passengers. We are letting harm come to those that just happen to be under our malfunctioning aircraft. The FAA and it's culture of fear. It's culture of intimidation. It's unrelenting demand for silence from the aviation community. This is perhaps the greatest safety risk to aviation we have ever seen.
When the FBI obtains the records of Mr. Waterhouse I believe it will contain illegal conduct. Illegal conduct as contacting the judge in the trial to influence
the outcome of the case. Maybe falsifying more records to defame me? It is clear from the redaction that it is nothing favorable on the part of the FAA.
The use of exemption (b)(6) is misused in this case. The (b)(6) exemption is to be used to protect medical and/or personnel records. This report does not contain any medical and/or personnel records. The FAA FOIA office illegally used a false reason to redact this report.
Secondly, the FOIA office just flat out ignored several emails and/or reports made by a Mr. Ryan Armenta, Aviation Safety Inspector, Scottsdale FSDO. Mr. Armenta was tasked with conducting a title 44709 retesting of my flight instructor ratings. Over the course of several emails Mr. Armenta, his immediate supervisor Jeffrey Larson, and the Scottsdale FSDO manager were advised of the criminal conduct of the Riverside FSDO. They were advised of the falsified NTSB accident report, case number WPR19MA77. The three criminal misdemeanors of the Privacy Act of 1974 made against me. A specific request was made in writing to Mr. Armenta for the releasable portions of the investigation for my title 44709 retest. This is a legal request under the Pilot's Bill of Rights.
Mr. Armenta and the management of the Scottsdale FSDO just ignored my legal requests. Legal requests for records under the Pilot's Bill of Rights. They ignored the criminal allegations of the falsified NTSB report. They ignored the criminal allegations made under the Privacy Act of 1974. Not only did the Scottsdale FSDO refused to assist an airman, but they took active steps to conceal the criminal actions of the NTSB and Riverside FSDO. Making them an assessory to the crime after the fact, title 18 U.S. Code§ 3 - Accessory after the fact. All of these records were just "overlooked," and ignored by the FAA FOIA office. This is in direct violation of the FOIA law by FAA employees.
Thirdly, is the records provided regarding the Riverside FSDO. The Riverside FSDO had sent out numerous letters that were in violation of FAA Policies and Procedures. Mr. Roy Peters had also sent out an email threatening me by stating,"/ am going to get you!" Also, there was a complete investigation by the FAA Privacy Act shop. An investigation into the criminal misdemeanors that the Riverside FSDO had engaged in. The FOIA office refused to provide ANY of these documents, and actually cited that the Riverside FSDO had "destroyed" all of these records. This is the destruction of evidence. It shows collusion between the FAA FOIA office and the Riverside FSDO to conceal illegal conduct.
Falsification of Reports by FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors.
The Collapse of Trust.
Then we have the records that were actually released by the FAA FOIA office. We have the falsified National Program Tracking and Reporting System (NPTRS) reports by Mr. Roy Peters and Mr. Nelson L. Sanches. In these two reports we can see Mr. Peters, the FAA Training Officer, influence Mr. Sanches who is a new FAA employee to falsify a report. A report to defame and harm an airman. A report to further the conspiracy of me being a "bad instructor."
I would like to point out that the accident number referred to on this NPRRS report is WPR19MA177. This is the falsified NTSB accident report from Hawaii. In the FAA Privacy Act Shop investigation Mr. Peters stated to a federal investigator that NO information was released to the NTSB. Here we see that Mr. Peters was actually working on this very NTSB accident. Mr. Peters was working with a Mr. Erick West, Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention.
Mr. Peters directly lied about his participation with this NTSB report which is a felony offense. With this proven criminal intent I request that the exemption (b)(5) be removed from both of these NPTRS reports. Please see the attached FAA Privacy Act Shop investigation which is appended in the attachments.
The Two Faced Nature of FAA Legal Department.
In Mr. Peters NPTRS report we see the following Zoom call being conducted:
"On 6/15/20: meeting via ZOOM with AVP 100 AS/ West, FAA HQ and WP legal counsel as well as OPS FLM RAL FSDO."
The details of the meeting are then redacted under exemption (b)(5). This redacted portion of the report is concealing the illegal behavior of the FAA. Of the FAA conspiring to conduct an illegal investigation to frame me, and to support the falsified NTSB report WPR19MA177. Coordinating at all levels of the FAA to individually target an airman under false pretenses. To take illegal actions to defame such airman. These actions are taken without ANY claims of misconduct on the part of the airman. Not even so much as a FAR's violation.
This is illegal behavior. It constitutes a lack of civil and moral ethics. As such, the exemption (b)(5) does not apply. Furthermore, I am requesting your office to assist my Privacy Act request to obtain ALL documents pertaining to me, and
a video copy of the Zoom call of this meeting. In accordance with the Privacy Act under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(l). I have the right to obtain personal records pertaining to me, and to have correction of all derogatory information which is false.
Throughout the NPTRS reports we see falsified statements. Here are the following false information provided in these NPTRS reports:
Mr. Peters stated that the ground lesson was only on weight and balance. This is false. The lesson was an introduction on airspace and weight and balance. Mr. Peters left out that he and Mr. Sanches arrived late to the lesson, and then spent half an hour talking in the parking lot. Talking while me and the student waited for them. I was only given roughly about 10 minutes for teaching airspace, and then another 10 minutes to teach weight and balance.
Then Mr. Peters puts in the report that I "rushed to complete the lesson." Following up with "CF/ Riter addressed rote knowledge information without progressing to understanding, application, or collation levels of knowledge. Review questions were not asked of the student." This is a deliberate mischaracterization. It is a cheap smear. Mr. Peters did not provide the limited time he allowed me to conduct the lesson, nor that it was an introduction to these topics. This was done in bad faith by Mr. Peters. It was a deliberate attempt on his part to sabotage me, and to find fault with me.
Mr. Peters mentions having to interrupt the lesson due to "misinformation" that I had provided to the student. No interruptions by Mr. Peters and/or Mr. Sanches occurred during the lesson. After the lesson Mr. Peters even complimented me on having given a good ground lesson. Truly, Mr. Peters would be known as a "forked tongued devil" among our native Americans! This demonstrates that a FAA employee cannot be trusted. Whether it be in person speaking with you, or when they write up their reports of investigation behind closed doors.
Then we have Mr. Sanches NPTRS report. Mr. Sanches falsely states that the ground lesson was only on weight and balance, and that "misinformation was offered as instruction." Once again, the FAA FOIA office redacted the supposed "misinformation" that I provided. Then Mr. Sanches engages in more deceit when he states that, "The CF/ was de-briefed away from the student and spot corrected on the misinformation." That NEVER happened. In fact, after the ground lesson Mr. Peters complimented me on a good ground lesson.
They both stood in front of me with my student asking questions to make me look stupid. These two individuals are unprofessional and just liars.
Here we see that the FAA employees will back each other up. Falsifying reports. Making false statements. This is why the FAA has lost ALL creditability in the aviation community. In fact, the FAA FOIA office redacted the supposed "misinformation" from the report. I am interested to see what they put down for the misinformation. The FAA will not be able to hide such information from the FBI.
At the end of the lesson Mr. Peters launched into several questions. This is standard FAA procedure to find fault with a person. It seems that they are not allowed to return to the office without finding someone at fault. Mr. Peters was determined to find a question I did not know the answer to. This was done in front of my student, and was done to intentionally make me look stupid.
Finally Mr. Peters asked, "When does a VFR sectional expire?" I replied,"/ do not know. When does a VFR sectional expire?" Both Mr. Peters and Mr. Sanches did not know the answer to this question. After giving a blank stare to us and to each other, they both began fishing around in their pockets for their cell phones. Then spent five minutes on Google to find the answer. This was done in front of my student who was becoming fed up with these inspectors. After giving the answer they both left. This was deliberately left out of their reports! On the debrief with my student it was clear that these two had left a very poor impression of the FAA.
These two NPTRS reports contain several falsified statements. They also show Mr. Peters deceit during the Privacy Act Shop investigation. The reports reflect that Mr. Peters and the Riverside FSDO were working with the NTSB on case number WPR19MA177. The redacted portions of these two reports will show collusion between the FAA and the NTSB. Due to these unlawful acts I humbly request that your office remove the (b)(5) exemption, and release a complete version of these reports.
I am requesting the following charges be filed against these individuals. As I wish to press charges for violations of federal law, and FAA Policies and Procedures that were violated against me.
The personnel at the FAA FOIA office responsible for the misuse, and redaction of criminal behavior from reports. For those who deliberately withheld records that were requested under the FOIA law, and chose to
conceal records in violation of the FOIA act.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties.
Mr. Roy Peters, Aviation Safety Inspector, Riverside FSDO, FAA
18 U.S.C. § 371- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371- Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211- Falsification of an Official Government Report.
18 U.S.C. § 1001- Lying to a Federal Officer In an official investigation. This is the proof that he lied to Mr. Evans in the FAA Privacy Act shop.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties.
Mr. Nelson L. Sanches, Aviation Safety Inspector, Riverside FSDO, FAA
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties.
Mr. Erick West, Aviation Safety Inspector, FAA Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties.
The personnel at FAA HQ, the WP legal counsel, and the members of OPS FLM RAL FSDO whom participated in this illegal conduct.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 1510 (C)(E) - Obstruction of Criminal Investigations.
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
31 CFR § 0.211 - Falsification of an Official Government Report.
13 U.S.C. § 212 - Refusal or Neglect of Employees to Perform Duties.
A Law That The FAA Disregards.
A FAA Policy and Procedure Not Followed.
A False Promise to Airmen and Mechanics.
The Pilot's Bill of Rights is federal law, and is part of the FAA Policies and Procedures. It provides us with NOTAMS, Air Traffic Records, and the right to obtain records pertaining to "709" rides requested of us by the FAA.
The Scottsdale FSDO and the Riverside FSDO have violated this federal law. However, the Pilot's Bill of Rights has no penalties for violations. It seems to have been created with no intentions of enforcement, nor even an intent of anyone following it. Let's take a look at the actions of these two FSDO's regarding this law.
On 6/29/2022 a written request was made to Mr. Ryan Armenta, Aviation Safety Inspector, Scottsdale FSDO; and to a Mr. Jeffrey Larson who is the supervisor of Mr. Armenta for the releasable portions of my "709" reexamination. Despite receiving a legal request in writing for this information these two FAA employees just ignored the request. The manager of the Scottsdale FSDO would have been made aware of this request, and he also just ignored it. Repeated attempts to obtain even the name of the Scottsdale FSDO manager were unsuccessful. The FAA employees at this FSDO just refused to provide his identity.
Shortly after that I attempted to contact the Riverside FSDO for the releasable portions of the "709" reexamination. No one at the Riverside FSDO would answer the telephone, nor would they reply to several voice
messages. I then sent a email request to the listed email address on the FAA web site. No responses were received.
After repeated telephone calls I finally got someone to answer the phone!
He would not provide his name, and he let me know that my call was extremely unwanted. He then explained that the email address listed on the Riverside FSDO web site was not functional, and that there were no efforts being made to fix it. He then gave me another long, and cumbersome email address for sending my request. I then asked for the name of the Riverside FSDO office manager. He refused to provide his identity, and just said request that information in your email.
A new email was sent out to the provided email address with no response. then sent a certified letter to the Riverside FSDO. In this letter I requested the releasable portions of my "709" reexamination, and the identity of the Riverside FSDO office manager.
To my surprise, the personnel at the Riverside FSDO refused to accept the certified mail (see Figure 9). What does a airman or mechanic have to do to just receive basic service from a FAA FSDO? The FAA FSDO's are not a place to expect any type of service. They make a trip to the OMV look pleasant!
Figure 9
The certified letter sent to the Riverside FSDO. I guess Peggy the secretary there is able
to not answer the phone, respond to emails, but is also able to refuse official mail.
Unless you own a aviation business you just don't have any contact with FAA employees. About 95% of aviators have no contact with the FSDO's. Those of us running aviation businesses get ALL of the abuses from these offices. The experiences with these two FSDO's is pretty much standard practice. This is what it is like to run an aviation business. If a aviator or mechanic complains, or even questions a FSDO employee, they are targeted and destroyed. Having a FAA FSDO employee tell someone in the aviation community that,"/ will destroy you" is common aviation phraseology. It is like saying, "right rudder" when your a flight instructor. We pilots and mechanics are perhaps one of the most abused groups in America.
In accordance with the Pilot's Bill of Rights I request A Motion for Dismissal.
Under S.571 Section (2) I am requesting that your office dismiss the Title 44709 reexamination of my flight instructor certificates. The Riverside and Scottsdale FSDO's have repeatedly denied my rights under this federal law. Those rights being that of obtaining the releasable portions of the investigation as prescribed in S.571 section 3 (d)(b).
Furthermore, I am still requesting that your office obtain, and provide to me the releasable portions of the the investigation. It is believed that this Title 44709 reexamination was began under false pretenses, falsified reports, and false statements made against me. Multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors have been committed by FAA personnel. As such, I humbly expect your full cooperation in providing all of the documents, and letting the truth come out.
A Law That Can Be Broken Without Consequences.
There seems to be no fines or consequences for violations of the Pilot's Bill of Rights. This seems to be a law no one intends to enforce. However, this federal law is part of the FAA Policies and Procedures. The consequences for a FAA employee failing to follow FAA Policies and Procedures is as follows:
Consequences for Noncompliance
Legat Enforcement:
The FAA can take legal action, which may include certificate suspensions or civil 9.enalties against individuals or entities that fail to comply.
Comaliance Actions:
For less severe cases, the FAA may initiate a Com9.liance Action to achieve rapid compliance, eliminate a risk, and implement positive changes, according to Federal Aviation Administration.
Disciplinary Action:
For FAA employees, failure to follow instructions can result in disciplinary actions, such as a re9.rimand. suspension, or even removal, depending on the offense.
My rights under this law were violated. I would humbly request that your office treat the FAA employees the same as any other airman violating FAA Policies and Procedures. For too long there has been one system of justice for aviators and mechanics. One that is very harsh. Giving out violations, suspensions, and even revoking licenses over petty mistakes. Then there is the system for FAA employees. One of just ignoring, or giving a meaningless warning. Even if these employees are engaging in deliberate deceit, violating FAR's, and breaking federal laws.
This two tier system of justice is destroying aviation. It has broken down the trust, and respect needed for aviation to be safe. This is putting the lives of the American people in harms way. We can no longer conduct business in this manner. We need transparency. We need an honest FAA. We need change.
Malicious Prosecution & Retaliation
18 U.S.C. § 371 - Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency.
18 U.S. Code§ 1513 (e) (f)- Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant.
Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person,
including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Influencing the outcome of civil court proceedings.
While malicious prosecution may not be a federal legal claim, is it an allowable practice for FAA personnel? Is it condoned by the FAA? To this day I have not even had a single allegation made against me. No criminal felonies, misdemeanors, and not even a single FAR's violation. In fact, the FAA Legal Department issued a letter stating that all of my training was in accordance with the FAR's. My training followed FAA Policies and Procedures. This letter is in the NTSB report WPR19MA177. I was so proud to see the FAA Legal Department taking right action. Telling the truth. Not engaged in this conspiracy.
Then I saw the meeting behind closed doors. The Zoom meeting where FAA Legal conspired against me, and authorized a illegal investigation in order to frame me. I was hoping to find at least one FAA office on the up and up. I now believe we will not have an honest FAA unless we fight for it!
I have been subjected to false allegations, and the victim of several criminal actions by the FAA. I humbly request that your office investigates the following circumstances. Circumstances pointing to FAA employees engaging in malicious actions outside of the auspicious of FAA Policies and Procedures. It is my belief that the FAA personnel are in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371- Obstructing the lawful functions of a government agency; and 18 U.S. Code§ 1513 (e) (f)-Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant. The reasons for these beliefs are as follows:
On May 22, 2022 I had submitted a Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) report highlighting twenty five violations of FAR's 145. This shop was Gryphon Aircraft Services. This is a Part 145 shop overseen by the Riverside FSDO. These violations were proven in sworn depositions, and open court proceedings. Mr. Frank Waterhouse at the Scottsdale FSDO was provided a list of the FAR's violations. No response was ever received by either the Scottsdale FSDO, nor the Riverside FSDO. Also, it appears that no actions were taken against Gryphon Aircraft Services.
These violations directly caused a catastrophic engine failure over a densely populated area. Putting the lives of three pilots, and the lives of the community at risk. Instead of investigating these twenty five FAR's violations, it appears that the Scottsdale FSDO, started an investigation on me! Furthermore, a FOIA request of this report was redacted under the exemption clause (b)(6).
The redaction of these twenty five FAR's violations which were ignored by the FAA is in violation of the law. Exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA is for "personnel
and medical files and similar files." This report contained NO personnel or medical files. The FAA FOIA office redacted these violations in order to conceal the misconduct of the Scottsdale and Riverside FSDO's. This is illegal conduct by the FAA FOIA office, and shows criminal intent to engage in this conspiracy to defraud the US Government.
The civil court case against Gryphon Aircraft Services, Riverside Superior Court, case number: RIC1902964, was coming to a conclusion. Judge Harold W. Hopp had heard the case. Shortly before his ruling had both sides attended a hearing. This hearing was to clarify the damages to be awarded to me. Two months later, on March 9, 2023, Judge Hopp ruled in favor of the defendant. He cited the several FAR's violations proven in court, and acknowledged the gross negligence of the Part 145 shop.
However, he then cited propeller strikes which were proven not to have taken place on this engine. His findings seemed rushed, out of order, and made up at the last moment. Judge Hopp claimed that the defense expert witness testimony was "more persuasive." In court this expert witness stated he was prevented by the defense to even examine the crankshaft.
These findings by the court does not make any sense. I would ask your office to investigate if the FAA FSDO employees had any contact with the court. Had FAA employees influenced the outcome of the verdict? If so, would this practice not be criminal conduct? Is influencing a witness and/or court allowed by FAA policies and procedures?
The Threatening of Employers and Aviation Educational Facilities.
In August, 20241 was laid off from my corporate position as chief pilot at Giumarra Brothers Fruit Company. Overnight I went from the company pilot that was liked to someone that was hated. This does happen sometimes when the company wants to dispose of it's flight department. At the time I just thought it was the company downloading an expensive flight department, and nothing more. However, in light of the following other circumstances I request your office to investigate if the FAA personnel had contacted this employer.
Did the FAA pressure this business to terminate my employment?
In about December, 2023 I was offered a position as chief flight instructor at Flight Ventures Aviation Academy. They offered to start me out at $50 per hour
rather than the $30 per hour due to my experience. This flight school also had no twin engine aircraft for flight training, and they were excited about my offer to use my Seneca 11. Then without any notice they blocked me, refused to respond to any emails, texts, or messages. Did the FAA employees contact this company, and influence them not to hire me?
I was then hired by California Baptist College (CBU) which has a Part 141 flight department. I was given a schedule of classes to start teaching, but then I was dropped once again without any notice. All communication from CBU stopped.
I was then hired by San Bernardino Valley College (SBVC) to teach as an aviation professor. I was told that I had the position as a Aviation Professor which the college desperately needs. Once again, I was dropped with no communication and/or explanation. I was then told that the Riverside FSDO personnel heard that I was being hired at SBVC. Upon hearing this they told SBVC that they would suspend, and/or revoke the colleges FAA certifications if they hired me. Telling SBVC aviation staff that I was, "ramble rouser." The Riverside FSDO manager has allowed his FAA Safety Inspectors to act unlawfully threatening businesses, even educational institutions, to maliciously harm an airman.
Due to this knowledge of the FAA employees threating SBVC makes me question all the other employers. How many times have I been unlawfully denied employment? Denied the ability to have a livelihood? Is this the acceptable behavior of any federal employees? Is this the FAA that we will go into the future with?
Violation of Non-Discrimination Policy
After observing the ground lesson Mr. Roy Peters called me. The purpose of the call was to schedule a meeting to obtain my flight instructor records. I had missed his call, and quickly called him back. When Roy answered the telephone he heard my voice, and immediately started laughing!
If you have watched any of my videos you will notice that I have the voice of a 12 year old girl entering puberty! I have to admit. God does have a good sense of humor! After a moment of listening to Roy laughing I interrupted him to find out what he wanted. He was not going to stop laughing! He continued on mocking and ridiculing me for my voice. Laughing hysterically and continuing to do so to the point of it being very inappropriate.
I stayed on the phone being ridiculed and laughed at. I thought of the FAA Policy Letter stating that the FAA personnel were to be inclusive. To treat ALL individuals with respect and kindness. Regardless of any differences. Then I realized that I was not dealing with a aviation professional. I was dealing with a monster.
In my flight school I have had many students of different nationalities, skin colors, and sexual orientations. Never once did I ever think of treating someone different.
When I heard Mr. Peters mocking me because of my voice I was horrified. Mr. Peters did not know anything about me. If I was gay, transgendered, or was dealing with anything else that might make me different. How many other people who are different did this man attack? How many others were subjected to this humiliating behavior? If it was just one other person I would argue that it was too many. This is truly ugly. A ugliness that could only belong to a monster.
The FAA Administrator put forth a policy of non-discrimination. No pre-judice against skin
color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. I believe very strongly in this policy. I believe it to be right action.
The FAA Administrator's Non-Discrimination Policy Statement stated the following:
"Any discriminatory or retaliatory conduct is unlawful and violates FAA policy. I expect any executive or manager who becomes aware of inappropriate or unlawful behavior or conduct to take immediate and appropriate action to stop the con-duct and to prevent it from recurring."
"Any employee who has engaged in or condoned unacceptable or unlawful EEO conduct will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal under the agency's Conduct and Discipline policy."
Does this policy of non-discrimination apply to us pilots and mechanics?
Clearly not! This will be at the top of my list to ask FAA Legal, and the Accountability Board! Even asking for a congressional inquiry into this would be appropriate. Why is an government agency such as the FAA so focused upon minor civil violations, but has completely become blind to federal law and appropriate civil behavior? I am beginning to believe that monsters do not have to follow any policies, procedures, or even laws. They are monsters after all.
American Aviators and Aircraft Mechanics.
An Abused And Threatened Group Kept In Silence.
Truly, the most horrifying aspect about Mr. Peters discrimination is that he is a FAA Training Officer. He is the best and brightest the FAA has to offer. He is
actively training the next generation of FAA inspectors. We have already seen Mr. Peters teach Mr. Sanches to disregard FAA Policy and Procedures regarding the Compliance Program. He even taught Mr. Sanches how to falsify his reports of investigation. Making up reports to wrongly harm and defame an airman. He has also taught another new employee how to abuse an airmen in the front lobby of the FSDO screaming, "We are the federal government and we can do whatever we want too!"
I wonder if that new FAA employee has come to see airmen and mechanics as sub-human yet? This new FAA hire knew that the abuses Mr. Peters was engaging in were wrong, but took no action. Then we have the office secretary Peggy.
Peggy sitting at her computer seeing and hearing Mr. Peters abuse others. Not even brothering to look up. Having probably witnessed Mr. Peters inappropriate behavior thousands of times before. The supervisors and other FAA employees heard Mr. Peters yelling at me. Engaging in deceit asking for records that were not required. All the while citing FAR's that did not exist. The culture of the FAA FSDO's is vile. The FSDO's have become a den of monsters.
How hard is it to believe that Mr. Peters has also spread the seed of lawlessness, hatred, slander, and discrimination among his new trainees? How many other pilots who are different have been abused? Abused for something so simple as having a strange voice, a different skin color, age, or appearance? The FAA has two faces. The one presented to the public, and then the one for us airman and mechanics.
Mr. Peters and the actions of the Riverside and Scottsdale FSDO are not isolated. They are the standard operating procedures of the FAA. We have a FAA Headquarters putting forth policy and procedures that are fair and balanced.
Only to be ignored and mocked by the rank and file employees. Mr. Peters email that he was ''going to get me!" is not uncommon at all. In fact, I have heard my fellow pilots and mechanics recall being told, "as far as your concerned I am god!" Another standard phase is, "I will destroy you!"
Contact with the FAA is not a pleasant experience. No it is not! It is often an experience marked by anger, frustration, and the knowledge that there is no one that cares. What to know if the FAA is on the field at your airport? It is easy to tell. You will see hanger doors closing. People leaving the airport in mass, and a line of cars at the airport gate leaving.
When I was a Special Agent, had I said any of these things to the criminals I was investigating, I would have been fired. And yet, this practice is not only
condoned within the FAA, but it is taught and encouraged.
Our aviation community does not have criminals. It is made up of the best our country has to offer. It has the best and brightest people of our community. It has the flight schools teaching our new pilots how to fly. How to protect our passengers. How to handle emergencies. How to safeguard life. It has our maintenance hanger operators. The ones keeping our aircraft safe. Reading and understanding complex manuals, rules, and regulations.
Then we have the average pilot. A person that most likely has a university degree. Usually a doctor, lawyer, engineer, businessman, firemen, or police officers. Truly, the best and brightest of Americans. Law abiding citizens. The citizens we all turn to for help in time of need. Why is it that these same individuals are viewed with distrust just for entering an airport? Why is it that we tolerate the FAA abusing such people? Why is it that we have let the most lawful group of people be targeted by those that engage in deceit, falsify documents, engaging in discrimination, and break our laws? This is a conversation we need to have.
I would humbly ask your office to explore what federal laws, and FAA Policies and Procedures have been violated. To investigate to determine how many other pilots have been discriminated against by the Riverside FSDO. That Mr.
Peters, the other Riverside FSDO employees found engaging in discrimination, face the same consequences that any other airman would face for violating FAA Policies and Procedures.
The Request for Rightful actions.
Adherence to the Rule of Law and Our Constitution.
We Can Fix This!
It is not too late for us to change course. We are on the brink of the next jump forward in American aviation. Perhaps one that will change the course of history, and the well being of humanity. There is no place for the current FAA in this bright future as things stand today. I pray that we can work together to make the FAA something that the American can be proud of. A FAA dedicated to the advancement of aviation. An agency that safeguards the American people. An FAA predicated to the rule of law, adherence to the US Constitution, and justice for our aviators and aircraft mechanics.
Right now aviation is at it's darkest hour. Our pilots are being targeted for illegal investigations. Our mechanics are being fined. Their reputations ruined
over typing errors. The aircraft manufacturers are having their names put on falsified reports. Left without any means to even speak up. Truly, the ones making aviation work are silenced, and those at the FAA are unchecked in decades of abuses. How many more lives have to be lost? How many livelihoods of our aviators, and mechanics must we watched being destroyed?
With this in mind, it is my humble request that your office conduct the following rightful actions:
Take all necessary steps to ensure the preservation of evidence in this matter. All records, internal emails and memos, day logs, and video recordings. The FAA Privacy Act Shop has already advised that the Riverside FSDO personnel are in the process of destroying this evidence. I ask that your office steps in and preserves all the evidence.
Refer these criminal matters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Please do not refer these matters to the Department of Transportation Inspectors General Office (DoTIG). I have already filed a complaint with the DoTIG regarding the criminal acts taken by the NTSB personnel. The DoTIG has expressed no interest in pursuing criminal behavior of DoT personnel. I will be listing this department as one of the criminal conspirators to defraud the U.S. Government.
I pray that your office, in connection with the new FAA Administrator, grant me relief from the ongoing criminal behavior of the Riverside FSDO. May your office issue an official cease and desist order to all employees of the Riverside FSDO. To place them on administrative leave pending the outcome of the preliminary investigation by the FBI. Right now FAA Policies and Procedures are being mocked. They are actively engaging in illegal conduct. Their actions and/or lack of actions regarding FAR's violations show a disregard for public safety.
May your office investigate the many FAR's violations, and violations to the FAA Policy and Procedures that were committed by FAA employees. I ask that these FAA employees found in violation be treated like any other airman or mechanic. We have seen our fellow aviators and mechanics suffer fines, suspensions, and even certificate being revoked for far less offensives. Only to see FAA employees protected, and given "warnings." I pray that this two tier justice system ends with your appointment.
I would ask your office assist my efforts in obtaining the records pertaining to me. I have filed several Privacy Act and FOIA requests. Most of which have come back with redacted blacked out reports. These FAA offices citing exemption (b)5 and (b)6 of the FOIA. Then there is the fact that both of these departments in the FAA just ignore several records. Just pretending they don't exist. Violating the very nature of the laws their departments were created to promote and defend.
Please make yourself available for us to have video meetings. The issues raised in this criminal complaint are exhausting. It is 45 pages in length. Any yet, it is just the tip of the iceberg of the issues that need to be addressed. For too long the aviation community has never heard of those in FAA leadership.
You are just photographs on the walls in FSDO offices. Those times we see your photographs is usually marred by terrible experiences.
I pray that we can start an open discussion. That you are dedicated to the rule of law, right action, and support FAA Policies and Procedures. The aviation community has the best and brightness individuals this country has to offer.
These issues should not be hard to navigate and correct. It just takes the courage to deviate. To change course.
God Bless! Keep Flying Speed!
Captain Robert "That Guy" Riter
Email: Rmriter@aol.com
YouTube: Capt. Robert"ThatGuy"Riter
Attachment 1
The Falsified Privacy Act Office Investigation
The NTSB Report WPR19MA177 Containing my personal records
which Mr. Peters obtaining without a Privacy Act Advisement.
Comments