November 8, 2016
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
The Honorable Channing D. Phillips
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Circumstantial Evidence of State Court Perjury – Infringement on the Federal Interest
Dear Mr. Phillips:
On July 14, 2016 xxxxx obtained a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against me alleging that I had been stalking him. D.C. Superior Court xxxxx.
Circumstantial evidence within the four corners of xxxxx’s supporting affidavit suggest that the allegations in said affidavit were not made in good faith, that said affidavit was in fact perjured.
The affidavit alleges that it was on June 16, 2016 that xxxxx first learned of my Twitter page that contained numerous references to him and that xxxxx became immediately concerned for his personal safety and that of his family.
Typically, a person who forms fears for his personal safety does not wait an entire month – here, from June 16 to July 14 – to take protective measures. One would think that if xxxxx had good faith fears for his safety he would have taken out a protective order within days of his learning of a threat to his personal safety.
I would argue that in fact xxxxx did not form a good faith fear for his personal safety and that the allegations in the affidavit are false or perjured.
When you consider the above suspicious timeline combined with the fact that the affidavit itself contains nothing but frivolous allegations of threat – xxxxx does not allege that I actually threatened him or initiated inappropriate contact with him – is persuasive circumstantial evidence that the affidavit is false or perjured.
I continue to suspect that there is a back story to xxxxx’s motivation in taking out a TPO against me. What were the real reasons for his taking out a TPO?
This is a serious matter. Swearing out a false affidavit in the District of Columbia carries a maximum prison sentence of ten years. See D.C. Code 22-2402.
cc: Paul Abbate FBI WFO